Paul and Seneca
Paul and Seneca
Paul and Seneca
of CblcaQO
KIibrari.cs
PAPERS
AND MONOGRAPHS
OF THE
.
"6?
VOLUME X
AMERICAN ACADEMY
1938
IN
ROME
PRINTED IN AUSTRIA
Academy
in
Rome
1244113
<QUAE VOCANTUR>
EDBDIT
CLAUDE W. BARLOW
PRINTED IN AUSTRIA
PREFACE
For several years I have been interested in textual problems concerning the numerous works falsely ascribed to Seneca during the Middle Ages, but it was as a student of Prof. G. L. Hendrickson of Yale University that
my
and St. Paul. While preparing a report ,on this Correspondence, I became aware that the existing printed texts were very inadequate and I determined to search for better manuscript evidence.
This search has been conducted in several European libraries during the last three years, simultaneously with other research
which had previously been begun. The latter, however, was unexpectedly interrupted by the conditions now prevailing in Spain. The necessary time was thus at. my disposal to carry
out the work which
is
presented herewith.
to be of con-
the copies which had never been studied before are no less than six of the ninth century and four of the tenth. The total number of manuscripts in existence
Among
proved far too great to allow a complete survey to be made. The changes which have been introduced into the text may
be seen at a glance in the Index on. p. 153. In addition to these, two very important matters have developed from the study of this Correspondence. The first is the demonstration of the existence of an ancient system of abbreviations in the archetype; the second is the evidence for an edition of the
VI
PREFACE
The apparatus
manuscripts used for this edition. Many of these variants are doubtless of little value, but the brevity of the text has kept
their total
ae,
and
oe,
make known my
interpretation of
many
difficult
passages which have not been discussed elsewhere. For the sake of clarity it has been kept fairly literal throughout. In spite of
the best efforts, however, there still remain a number of places which are of doubtful meaning or even completely lacking in
sense.
It would never have been possible to carry on this research so extensively without the courteous cooperation of the librarians and staff of the fourteen libraries whose manuscripts
have been studied. Permission for reproducing the photographs which appear in the Plates was generously granted by the
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris; the Bibliotheque Royale, Brussels; and the Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. From these three, from the Staatsbibliothek, Munich, from the Zentralbibliothek,
Zurich, and in particular from the Biblioteca Vaticana in Rome I have received many facilities and privileges for study of the
original manuscripts. All of the above-mentioned libraries have also helped me to obtain photographs. Photographs have
have not personally visited: Bibliotheque Publique, Angers; Stadt- und Hochschulbibliothek, Berne; Stiftsbibliothek, Einsiedeln; Bibliotheque Municipale,
Milan;
Bibliotheque Municipale,
Reims; Stiftsbibliothek,
St.
VII
PREFACE
was used
for the purchase of the photographs necessary for the preparation of this edition. Throughout the study of the Latin text and of the inter-
freely at all
times upon the knowledge and experience of Prof. R. P. Robinson of the University of Cincinnati, formerly Professor in
of Classical Studies of the American Rome. In addition to many other important suggestions which he made, I owe to him the clue to the discovery of the real nature of codex P. Both the manuscript and the proofs of the present volume have been read by Prof.
Academy
by
Prof. A.
examinations
have
done
much
to
improve the
style
and
The drawing of the Stemma Codicum and of the figure on p. 55 is the work of the skilled hand of Mr. Chester Aldrich, Director of the American Academy in Rome.
consistency of the book.
wish to express my appreciation for the and patience, sympathy, encouragement of all my colleagues in
In conclusion
I
Rome.
CLAUDE W. BARLOW
American Academy in
Mar. 19, 1938.
Rome
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prolegomena
pp.
Chapter
The Tradition
of Seneca's
Adherence to Christianity
of the
Chapter
II
Correspondence
Description;
II.
Classification.
. .
Chapter
III
The Latinity
.70
80 94
Chapter IV Chapter
....
of
;
Authorship
Chapter VI
Testimonia
110
of
Appendix
On
the
Relation
to
of
the Archetype
the
Extant Manuscripts
Text and Apparatus Criticus
Translation and Notes
Seneca's Epistles 1
88
.
Bibliography
Index locorum qui ab Haasii editione altera differunt Index locorum in prolegomenis adlatorum
....
.
153
155 157
Index Verborum
Stemma Codicum
preceding Plate
LIST
Plate
Plate
I
II
OF PLATES
50v.
52r.
f.
Paris Paris
lat. lat.
2772
2772
f.
f.
Bruxelles
28392843
f.
66v.
Vienna 969
71r.
CHAPTER
A knowledge of the differences between classical and late Latin makes it impossible to believe that the eight letters "of
Seneca to Paul" and the six letters "of Paul to Seneca", forming a Correspondence handed down in numerous Latin manuscripts,
were written by anyone living in the first century after Christ. It is difficult, however, to refute the arguments of those who are persuaded on other grounds that Seneca did know St. Paul,
for the facts
which have been used as evidence, although they be mere coincidents, are of an unusually striking nature. may Two authenticated incidents in ancient history may possibly have caused Seneca to be acquainted with Paul or at least
informed him of Paul's existence.
Would Seneca
about Paul's new teaching and would he have wished to know more about it for himself? Just how important did Paul appear to the Romans, even when they caused him to be put to death?
It appears desirable to
examine these
turning to the Correspondence which is the subject of this book, since such an examination will present the setting in which
these
furnish a clue to the true purpose of the author. It was during the reign of Claudius, perhaps in the year 51, that Seneca's brother Novatus, who had been adopted by
L. Junius Gallic and hence
Gallic, served
During one of Paul's visits to Corinth the two were brought together in a manner described in Acts 18, 12 17: "But when Gallio was proconsul
as proconsul of the province of Achaea.
CHAPTER
of Achaia, the
Jews with one accord rose up against Paul, and him before the judgement-seat, saying, This man brought men to persuadeth worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villany, ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters. And he drave them from the judgement-seat. And they all laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him
before the judgement-seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things." It is known definitely, therefore, that Paul was once
brought into the presence of Gallio; but was the proconsul sufficiently impressed by Paul to have reported the incident to
his brother? Certainly there
itself to
is nothing in the Biblical narrative support such a suggestion *.
Rome
.
he was kept for two years in free custody in charge of "the prefect 2 The exact years are of the pretorian guard", i. e. Burrus the in have uncertain; sojourn may begun 57, the year after
Seneca's consulship, or even as late as 61.
1
Now
it is
well
known
This incident has been adapted for fiction by Anatole France as one Ms Sur la Pierre Blanche. It was also used by Rudyard
Song.
necessary to add a word of caution concerning this widely diffused theory of direct contact between Paul and Burrus. Actually the available information is very meager. The whole question hinges upon the reading of the Greek text of Acts 28, 16. The following information is derived from notes on this verse in P. Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I (London, 1920 33) III 2523; IV 345; V 444 5. An expansion in the Greek text, found only in the so-called "Western" version, states that Paul, upon arrival at the gates of Rome, was entrusted to the care of the mqaxon^daQ^o^. This word has been interpreted as princeps peregrinorum in the Latin version repr'esented by the Codex Gigas (cf. the discussion of this little known officer by Th. Mommfien and A. Harnack in Sitzungsberichte d. k. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin [1895] 491 503.) An equally reasonable interpretation, found in a few other Latin versions, is praefectus (praetorii), and this is the only support for the supposed connection between Burrus and Paul.
It
is
that Seneca and Burrus were the chief advisers of Nero during this period. Why should not Seneca, therefore, have had
abundant
opportunity during those two years to become acquainted with Paul and to be influenced by his teachings or even, as was later believed, to be converted to Christianity?
The end of Acts (28, 30 31) testifies to the activities carried on by Paul during his partial confinement. It must be admitted,
however, that this is a matter for pure speculation; easier to assert the tradition than it is to refute it.
it is
no
Two forms of negative evidence indicate that Seneca was not either directly or indirectly influenced by St. Paul. The
first is
is nothing in the extant writings of Seneca works which himself, represent all periods of his life and all of his activities, to indicate that he was at any time under the influence of Christian doctrines. Many volumes have been
that there
written to demonstrate the affinities of Seneca's philosophy with Christianity. Most of the resemblances brought forward, such as belief in the one true God, the relations of God and
man, and the proper way of worshiping Him, do indeed exist, but they are to be attributed to influence upon Paul and upon Seneca from some common Greek source, rather than to any 1 possible dependence of one upon the other
.
tells
tion of Seneca's conversion lies in the fact that not one of the
Latin writers who mentioned him during the second and third centuries was aware of any possibility of his having been a Christian, and that Jerome and Augustine merely allude to this tradition, without putting any emphasis upon it. In fact,
if.
been converted to Christianity, this would surely have been apparent in their numerous references to him.
1 This matter has been most recently treated by Th. Schreiner, Seneca im Gegensatz zu Paulus. Ein Vergleich ihrer Welt- und Lebens-
anschauung (Tubingen,
1936).
1*
4
CHAPTER
I
The Octavius
not mentioned by name. Many of Seneca's ideas and many Stoic doctrines were used by Minucius as arguments for Christianity,
for example the belief that
people suffer in
Seneca, not in order to adopt his philosophy, but rather in order to find material for argument. Meanwhile St. Cyprian
battling his idols and Arnobius immersed in scepticism and pessimism were too engrossed to mention Seneca. To all the
Christian writers of the third century Seneca was only a profane philosopher, and this remained true of Lactantius, who tried to establish a new doctrine with which Stoicism was not wholly
compatible. It was impossible for him to hold that Nature is good or that knowledge is the Summum Bonum. In spite of
this,
Lactantius
3
regarded
Cicero
as
Romanae
philosophiae
he said: qui volet scire omnia, Senecae princeps libros in manum sumat, qui morum vitiorumque publicorum et descriptor verissimus et insectator acerrimus fuit*. Finally he
of Seneca
and
if Seneca had received Christian training he would have become a true worshiper of G-od. Quid verius did potuit db eo qui Deum nosset quam dictum est ab homine Potuit esse verus Dei cultor, si verae religionis ignaro?
. . .
quis
esset
illi
monstrasset,
et
This statement may serve as absolute proof that in 325, the date of the publication of the Institutiones Divinae, the
1 2
De Anima
20.
85.
3
4
Inst, Div.
VI
24, 13/14.
was entirely unknown, the supposed Correspondence between the two had not become familiar to the public, and Seneca himself was considered a pagan whose philosophy was, to be sure, quite close to that of the Christians, but by no means truly Christian. Barring the discovery of new evidence, the question of when and how this tradition actually arose can be answered only hypothetically. One cannot even say with confidence whether the Correspondence caused the tradition, or whether the opposite is true. Did the author of these letters hear of the possibility of a meeting between Seneca and St. Paul and thus become inspired to compose an exchange of letters between them, or did the publication of such letters, written for some other purpose, give rise to a legend which beoame so widespread? It is much more probable that the latter is the case, for in 392, when Jerome published his De Viris Illustribus *, he declared that his only reason for including Seneca in his catalogue was the
existence of his Correspondence with Paul. This implies that he knew of no other source of a rumor concerning Seneca's
In fact, the word sanctorum 2 does not even mean that Jerome considered Seneca a Christian, for he also
change of
faith.
words give assurance that he had seen the supposed Correspondence himself,. much less that he believed it to be genuine. He was in Bethlehem at the time and may have heard of it only
through reports from his
friends.
Augustine is confusing. In one passage he borrows from Jerome: merito ait Seneca, gui temporibus apostolorum fuit, cuius etiam quaedam ad Paulum apostolum Uguntur 3 Elsewhere he says that Seneca never mentioned the epistolae
of
.
The testimony
2 3
p. 122.
CHAPTER
in neutram partem
commemorare ausus
.
est,
ne vel laudaret
contra suae patriae veterem consuetudinem vel reprehenderet 1 contra propriam forsitan voluntatem The two possible reasons
for the silence, as here suggested
Sidonius Apollinaris, shows acquaintance with some of the works of Seneca and even mentions his relations with Nero,
but never
St.
alludes
to
Paul.
Faider cites
any possible influence upon him by only one work from the following
.
century which was concerned with Seneca. This is the poem 3 The Rescriptum Honorii scholastici contra epistolas Senecae
author exalts Christianity by condemning the philosophy of Seneca in his writings to Lucilius. As we have seen, however, this hostility was not generally expressed by Church writers.
much more important person in the history of the Western Church in the sixth century, St. Martin of Braga, made an epitome of the De Ira of Seneca for his work of the same
Formula Vitae Honestae 5 also is probably an epitome of some lost treatise by Seneca, perhaps the De Officiis. Since these two works were transmitted together with the more strictly theological writings of St. Martin, he un,
name 4 while
his
doubtedly regarded Seneca as a suitable source for Christian ethics, just as the fourth-century fathers drew largely on
Cicero
6
,
In fact, the
De
Bishop Wittimer, who was addressed to no less a person than Miro, king of the
Sueves.
Ira was especially dedicated to a had requested it, while the Formula
1 2 3 4 5
De
Civ. Dei VI 11. Etudes sur S6ndque 106 7. Anth. Lot. ed. Riese I 2, No. 666.
Pat. Lat. 72, 41. Pat. Lai. 72, 21. Of. Ambrose's use of Cicero's
De
own De
Off.
In the same period Seneca is quoted in the minutes of the second Council of Tours, which convened in 567. Whatever this unusual mention of his name in actual Church records
signifies, it
among The
at least demonstrates the importance of his position the philosophers accepted in that day.
tradition of Seneca's contacts with Paul and of his
conversion to Christianity does not appear in a definite form until the Pseudo-Linus, whose work should probably be dated 1 in the seventh century Here the influence of Paul upon the
.
imperial household and even upon the Roman senate is forcefully described in a way that seems to point to a twofold
origin,
Thenceforth, especially from the ninth century until the Renaissance, the friendship of the philosopher Seneca and the Apostle Paul was accepted as a
historical fact, doubted
by no one.
The
Italian
Humanists
were the
that the Correspondence is false, and therefore probably the whole tradition as well. Belief in the tradition was, however, revived a century ago. It was advocated
first to realize
most strongly by Pleury in his two-volume book, St. Paul et SMque (Paris, 1853). Doubt and incredulity, however, have
again gained the upper hand, although there are still many who fondly hope that it may one day be possible to prove conclusively that Paul, during his stay in Rome, came
persons
into close,
though
2
Nero's household
secret, contact with important members of and made among them some of the earliest
3
.
Quotation on
p. 110.
Salutant vos omnes sancti, maxime autem qtci where reference is probably made only to slaves. There has recently been brought to my attention the existence of a tradition regarding the exact location in Rome in which St. Paul 'lodged and where he is supposed to have met Seneca. This place is the site of the present church of S. Paolo alia Regola (also called S. Paolino alia Regola) not far from the Ponte Garibaldi. The tradition is fully treated in G. Parisi, La prima dimora di S. Paolo in Roma (Alba, 1927). For an up-to-date bibliography of books and articles on this subject, see A. Proia and P. Romano, Arenula (Rione Regula) (Rome, 1935) 170172 and 183193.
Of. Philip. 4, 22:
de
sunt,
CHAPTER n
THE EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS
I.
Description
251, parchment, Vattasso and De'
f.
A
XI
mm. 306X216,
S.
ff.
+ 226..
Cavalieri, Codices
Ff. 1
Vaticani Latini I
lv
Hilarius,
lerichte
Leo Magnus, a fragment of Ep. 16; 2 223v Tractatus super Psalmos (A. Zingerle in Sitzungsd. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien 108 [1884]
223v
957
f.);
Paulum
of
et
225v Epistolae Senecae ad apostolum Pauli ad eundem. A note on 226^ shows that
of the books acquired for the monastery
this codex
was one
Avellana by
Petrus
(10411058).
The entire manuscript was copied by a single scribe two columns of thirty lines to the page. In the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul the title and salutations are in red. The few corrections may all have been made
in
by
Only the marginal note beside 14, 15 is The notice from Jerome (De viris illustribus 12) is not found. The last letter is the only one which has a date; this was added by the rubricator. I collated this manuscript in 1936, and also have photostats.
currente calamo.
another
hand.
B
IX
Brussels,
cent.,
f.
Bibliotheque Royale,
2839
43,
parchment,
after
mm. 200 X 135, ff. 108 (plus an unnumbered leaf 12). J. Van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits
135.
26Y
MANUSCRIPTS
Sermon
of
of Eraclius;
Constantinople, catory poem of Alcuin (Gens Bragmanna. .)*; 42 66 Alexandra Regis Macedonum et Dindimi Regis Bragmannorum de philosophic/, per litteras facta conlatio; 66v 74
.
Epistolae Senecae ad apostolum Paulum et Pauli ad eundem; 74 Adbreviatio chronicae; 75 108v Gregory the Great, De concordia testimoniorum.
entire manuscript was copied by a single scribe column of twenty lines to the page. The titles, subscriptions, and dates of the Correspondence are in mixed
The
in one
uncials; the titles are usually in red. The few corrections are by a contemporary hand. The notice from Jerome is
11, 13,
I collated this
131
XII
.
cent.,
3287
XI
cent.,
88-103 IX
cent.,
in-quarto.
H. Hagen, Catalogus Codd. Bernensium (Berne, Tractatus theologici; 2v 15 Cassio1875) 275 f Ff 16 Epistulae beati Pauli ad dorus, Liber de anima; 15 Senecam et Senecam (sic) ad Paulum; 1622 Seneca ad
.
12
Lucilium, Ep. 1; 22 25v Epistula fratris P. ad magistrum N.; 25v 31 Letters of Ivo Carnotensis; 32 50 Jerome,
Liber de illustribus viris; 50^ Vita Hieronymi; 50v 62 Gennadius, Liber de illustribus viris; 62v 84v Cassiodorus,
De institutione divinarum scripturarum; 85 85v Jerome, De duodecim scriptoribus; 85v 87 Epistulae Pauli ad Sencam (corr. in Senecam) et Senece ad Pulum (sic) 87 87v
;
Jerome, Ep. 53; 88 97 Catalogus episcoporum Romanorum; 97 103^ Jerome, Liber de illustribus viris.
Of the two
copies
of
the
(ff.
85v
Cf. p. 96.
10
CHAPTER
I
II
column and notice the Ep. from Jerome are missing. Epp. 1013 have dates. The first
letter C.
It is written in one 14
copy
of
the
Correspondence
is
not represented
in
my
1.
apparatus.
My D
my
possession
Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana, Reg. Lat. 1637, parchment, XII cent., mm. 227 160, ff. 96. The manuscript is now bound in two volumes. The first consists of ff. 1 19, containing Hugo Rothomagensis, De memoria (published
from this manuscript in Martene, Amplissima Cottectio IX, 1185 Migne, P. L. 192, 1299), and was removed from the original single volume by the French in 1798. It bears the
The other
69v Seneca, Declamationes; 69^72 Epistulae senatoris Senece ad Paulum apostolum et Pauli ad Senecam; 72 77 Seneca, De dementia; Part II, 78 96 Naturalia aliquorum per ordinem alphabets. Part II is from another manuscript, in -which its folios were numbered 230 [248]. On f. 20 is
I,
ff.
20
..
Mureti(?).
column of twentyThe from Jerome is added after six lines to the page. The notice the letters. Epp. 11 14 have dates. I collated this manuscript in the autumn of 1936, and also have photostats.
Correspondence is written in one
50
cent.,
5166
XI
cent.,
67165 X
cent.,
mm. 191
X 150.
G. Meier, Catalogus Codd. MSS. qui in BibL Monasterii Einsiedlensis 0. 8. B. servantur (Einsiedeln, 1899) 236 f.
x ln the case of manuscripts which I have not personally examined I the contents according to the catalogues or other published descriptions
list
which
I cite.
11
MANUSCRIPTS
50 Vita S. Antigoni et Euphraxiae uxoris; 5158 Correspondence of Alexander and Dindimus, beginning with the words nee ita in orbem terrarum of Ep. 4; 58 65 Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum apostolum Pauligue similiter
Pp. 1
ad eundem; 65 66 A fragment of an unidentified letter, a more complete copy of which is found in codex W, f. 63v x 67 165 Augustine, Liber enchiridion; 166 Concordaium Wormatiense anno 1122. Part II (pp. 51 66) constitutes
;
is
The
titles
and some
respondence of Seneca and St. Paul are in red. Epp, 11, 13, and 14 have dates. The notice from Jerome is not found.
There was
collation is
My
by
parchment, in-quarto, destroyed 4 Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul; ? 8 Epistles of Seneca to Lucilius, I 1 3 (as 2 far as 3, 5 sic utrosgue) 9 ? Epistles of Seneca to Lucifire
;
lius
124 (commencing 90, 18 -renda artibus fecimus). This manuscript had been sent to Freiburg for F. Bucheler in 1863. His study of the manuscript was reported in a communication to the Philologen-Versammlung of Trier and
90
published as: Senecae epistulae aliquot ex Bambergensi et Argentoratensi codd. (Bonn, 1879) From this is copied the
.
description in E. Westerburg,
Seneca Christ gewesen sei (Berlin, 1881) 39. According to Bucheler the manuscript had originally contained Seneca, Epp. 89 124 complete. The first quaternion had been
removed and
was taken by another quaternion containing the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul, followed by the beginning of the letters to Lucilius. The
its
place
Of. p. 23.
The
total
number
of folios in the
manuscript
is
not known.
12
CHAPTER
II
main part
in the
was written
IX/X
He
St.
While the manuscript was in the hands of Biicheler, the Paul correspondence was collated by P. X. Kraus, who
published a text with introduction and apparatus criticus in an article, 'Der Briefwechsel Pauli mit Seneca', Theologische Quartalschrift 49 (1867) that these letters stood on ff. 1
ing to the
IX
cent.
The text
of the letters
many
for a rubricator,
who
failed to
My
knowledge of
derived entirely from Kraus, who called it Arg. 1. the apparatus of Westerburg it has the letter A.
readings In
Angers, Bibliotheque Publique, 284, parchment, XI cent., ff 112. Cat. gen. des mss. des bibl. publ. de France 31 (1898) 281 f. Ff. 1 Orosius and Augustine;
Super parabolas Salomonis; 39 Gennadius, Capitula diffinitionum; 41 v Augustine, Sollloauium; 51v Isidore, Liber soliloguiorum; 61 Bede, Exposicio in libra Tobiae; 65 65^
Epistulae Senece ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam; 65^ Augustine, De inmortalitate animae; 69v Augustine, De
disciplina Christiana; 73
Effrem
De
of Saint-Serge.
This copy of the Correspondence contains only 1 9, without the notice from Jerome. It is written in three
columns (two on the recto and one on the verso of f. 65) of fifty lines each. Two lines of the last column are blank.
My
my
possession.
13
MANUSCRIPTS
H
XII
Ff.
mm. 330X235,
I
ff.
136.
Reginenses Latini
(Vatican Library,
1937)
260262.
86
St. Laurentius, De claustro animae; Hugo 88 Epistolae Paulo a Seneca transmissae; 90135 Passions of martyrs (Dom Wilmart, 'Analecta Reginensia' in Studi e Testi 59 [Vatican City, 1933] 323362). On a
186
of
back flyleaf
is
the date
m.cc.xl.iiii.
The Correspondence is in two columns of thirty-three lines to the page. The notice from Jerome precedes. The titles are in red and 10 14 have dates. The corrections
are all
by the
first
hand.
Strasbourg, C. VI. 17, parchment, end of the XI cent., in-quarto, destroyed by fire in 1870. I know this manuscript
only from the collation of Kraus (cf. MS. F), who reports it QJ& Arg. 2. It was apparently sent to Freiburg with F for
from which fact I judge that it also contained the 88 Epistles of Seneca to Lucilius. It had formerly been MS. 3 at St. Mary's in Ottenburg. The Correspondence was preceded by the notice from Jerome.
Bticheler,
first
in four parts,
cent.,
Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana, Reg. Lat. 147, parchment, ff. 160, 7077 XII cent., 61 69 XII/XIII
7897 XV cent., ff. 177 mm. 275 X 180, 7897 mm. 260X170. A. Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini I (Vatican Library, 1937) 352355. Ff 126 Letters of Ivo
.
Carnotensis; 27 29v Letters of Alexander and Dindimus; 29 v 30v Letters of Seneca and St. Paul; 30v 32v Seneca,
De dementia and
54
59 Glosses on Latin words; 60 Grammatical selections; 6169 Incipiunt anni ab incarnacione domini; 70 77 Passio S. Georgii; 78 97 Fragments of Justinus. The chronicle on ff. 61 69 is for the
14
CHAPTER H
years 11364, the part from 1085 having entries in numerous hands. It is difficult to tell where the original list ended,
it may have been in 1087. The latter part has been by F. Liebermann, 'The Annals of Lewes Priory', The English Historical Review XVII (1902) 8389. Many entries show that the manuscript was in Lewes; cf. on the year 1085 (not by the original hand): OMit domina Gundrada, huius loci eometissa. This Gundrada was the wife of William of Warren, Earl of Surrey. The manuscript was put together
though
edited
by the Petaus.
The letters of Seneca and St. Paul are written in two columns of forty-two lines to the page. The notice from Jerome precedes and none of the letters bears a date. All
corrections
are
manuscript in 1935,
this
L
late
parchment,
XI
cent.,
mm. 305
X 182,
.
ff .
The best
is in M. 0. Gertz, L. Annaei Senecae XII Libri Dialogorum (Copenhagen, 1886) pp. Ill XXIX, which I follow in part. Ff 1 2 Contents, etc. in a late
description
hand; 3 87^ Seneca, Dialogi XII; 88 90 Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul; 90 Epitaph of Seneca; 90v Additions in a late hand. I judge that the pagination was entered in
the manuscript after Gertz studied it, since what is now The contents of the f. 88 is reported by him as f. 86, etc.
1
more in detail. Dialogue XII without ended at the bottom of 8?v subscription. F. 88?, from Jerome, the notice should contained the which have second of the letter of the and salutation the first letter,
Correspondence, was left blank and the same scribe recommenced on 88v with the Litteras tuas of 2, 2. This
omitted material
added by a hand
actually found on 88r, having been that is not earlier than the XIV cent. The
is
now
15
MANUSCRIPTS
pages of the Correspondence are written in one column of thirty-four lines to the page. In the part containing the
Dialogues, Gertz distinguishes five correctors (A2 A6 ) from the XII cent. on. More than one of these have been busy in
the last few pages also. Throughout the text, corrections are made by erasure of the original writing and by inter-
and marginal variants. The latter are, for the most I have reported in the apparatus and have ascribed to L,2 all cases of corrections which are made by changing the original writing, at the same time reconstructing the hand of L wherever possible. Of the interlinear and marginal variants I give only a few \ They are mostly by the hand which Gertz calls A6 Ep. 11 (12 in previous editions) was not omitted by the original scribe, as stated by Gertz. On the other hand, a second copy of it was added by the corrector, who found it necessary to
linear
make
or to suggest so many changes in the original copy that he wrote it out in full to suit himself in the first
available space, namely after the epitaph on 90 r Ff. were first described by C. Wachsmuth in
.
8890
Rhein. Mus.
script, to the
XVI
IX
(1861)
3013. He
number
cent.
of readings
were published from the manuscript with a few suggested emendations. There are several errors in his short note, which was used by Kraus (op. cit. for MS. F). In the
editions of
letter
1
Kraus and Westerburg the Milan MS. has the M. Westerburg used a complete collation, made for
There are two quotations from the Lexicon of Papias, both wrongly Wachsmuth (Rh. Mus. XVI 303). The story of Vatienus at the is told in the style of medieval commentaries and contains amusing errors and anachronisms. It reads as follows: Paulus consul iuit in persiam pugnaturus cum rege persarum. Et die quo pugnauit et uictoriam habuit, in agro reatino uatieno cuidam rustico relatum fuit per duos transeuntes, qui postea dicti sunt castor et pollux, quod paulus pugnauerat et uicerat. Iste rusticus illis abeuntibus iuit romam et retulit hoc in palatio. Qui captus et detentus fuit, donee uenerunt litterae pauli de uictoria. Et sic
read by end of 7.
ille
tamquam
propheta.
16
CHAPTER
II
him by Wachsmuth.
The
description
of
this
valuable
manuscript is repeated in all editions of the Dialogues of Seneca, which I need not mention individually. Ff. 52v 53
are reproduced in Ghatelain, PaUographie des Classiques Latins II Plate 167. F. 88v is reproduced, with a description
of the manuscript, in E.
e
latina, tr.
187
M. Thompson, Paleografia greca by G. Fumagalli, 3rd edition (Milan, 1911) 9 and Plate III. For the date, which has been very
A. Loew, The Beneventan Script (Oxford, 1914) 71 and 341. The manuscript was written at Monte Cassino, according to Loew. In 1583 it belonged to Antonio Francesco Caracciolo at Messina. It was in Milan in 1603. My collation is from
photostats in
my
possession.
M
XI
and Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Lat. 14436, parchment, ii H9> wrongly bound. Gatalogus
Codd. Lat. BibL Regiae Monaeensis II 2 (Munich, 1876) 172. Ff. 19, 83108 Rhetorica ad Hennnium; 1032,
35
32v
58 Somnium Scipionis and commentary of Macrobius; 33v Epistolae illustris mri Senecae magistri Neronis
ad Paulum apostolum et ad Senecam Pauli; 58 61 Excerpts from Pliny, Nat. Hist.; 67 82 Boethius, In ysagogas Por113 Severianus, Praecepta artis rhetoricae; phyrii, I; 108 113v 118 Arithmetical and rhetorical fragments. The manuscript came from St. Emmeran. The Correspondence is written in one column of thirty
lines to the page.
all
There are numerous corrections, possibly the The notice from Jerome precedes and first hand. by l I collated there are no dates. The title is in the margin
.
) ofaz*) nunc tar sis nunc dbriza; 2) Zaba momentum (munimentum in praelio uirorum fortium. These notes seem to have no connection with the text.
m1
17
MANUSCRIPTS
Munich,
Staatsbibliothek,
ff.
Lat.
cent.,
mm. 280X180,
12
18467,
parchment,
cent.,
XII
3-69 XI/XIII
70119 XIII
Catalogus Codd. Lat. Bibl. Regiae Mono,censis II 3 (Munich, 1878) 167. Ff. lv 2 Clerical rules; 2 2v Letters of Seneca and St. Paul, without title; 3 69v
cent.
Decretum abbreviatum;
decreto.
70119
Paucapaleae
Summa
de
ex-libris of Tegernsee.
abruptly on the top of 2v with the words non legitime (7, 11). The rest of the page is blank. On 2r is a note:
Quere
same library (Tegernsee?), which was not incomplete. The notice from Jerome and the epitaph of Seneca precede the
letters in this manuscript,
which
I collated in 1935.
O
XI
mm. 200X160,
ff.
95.
Bibl.
Regiae IV (Paris, 1744) 468. Ff. 1 2v Epistolae ad Paulum apostolum; 2v 95v Letters of Seneca to Lucilius, 1 88
Hense [Leipzig, 1914] p. VIII). The manuwas formerly Colbert 5336. There is a reproduction of f. 22v in Chatelain, PaUographie des Classiques Latins II Plate 171 No. 2. The pages are written in one column. The notice from Jerome precedes and the epitaph of Seneca follows the Correspondence. The titles of 10 14 are omitted, as are all the dates. I collated this manuscript in the summer of 1936 and
(cf.
edition of
script
again in 1937.
X cent., mm.
183 140, ff. 108. Catalogus Codd. MSS. Bibl. Dates, grammatical Regiae III (Paris, 1744) 329 f. Ff. notes, and a prayer (the works of Prosper now on f. 4 were originally started on 2v, but abandoned); 4 27v Epigrams
13
18
CHAPTER
of Prosper;
II
2850
poem now
in the
Medical poems of Serenus; 50 5Qv A Anthologia Latino, (cf. ed. Riese [Leipzig,
I,
p.
397)
50v
Paulo (sic) apostolum 55 Anth. Lat.; 55v 56 Selection from Augustine; 5658 Anth. Lat.; 58v 62v
Pauli apostoli ad eundem; 53v
of Vergil's Georgics and Aeneid, Octavian's De and a poem De comunibus syllabis; 63 70 Hilarius, Virgilio, De martirio Macchabeorum; 70v 75v Tertullian on Sodom and Nineveh; 7689 Poems of Ausonius and Paulinus of Nola; 89v 98 Disticha Catonis; 98v 102v Martinus Bracarensis, De formula honest ae vitae, without the preface; 103107 Sententiae philosophorum; 107v 108 Anth. Lat.; 108^ Selection from Boethius, Consolatio philosophiae. The following note of ownership is found more than once:
Resumes
The manuscript
later
was
Colbert 3898.
of the manuscript is the work of two scribes, the having copied ff. 476, the other 79 108. The Seneca and St. Paul letters are written in one column of twenty-six
lines to the page.
Most
first
The
titles are in
much
There are corrections by one later hand. Epp. 10 12 have partial dates. The letters themselves are in the following confused order: 1, 7, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 10, 12, 3, 4, 9; but they are
numbered consecutively
112
I collated this
manuscript in the summer of 1936 and again in 1937, and also have photostats.
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Lat. 12295, parchment,
XII
1
cent.,
mm. 314X224,
of
ff.
+ 168. L.
Delisle, Inventaire
and by another hand is the sentence: Notum dare. This is from Psalm, 38, 5 with the abbreviation for domine corrupted to dare, in the same ignorant manner that is shown throughout by the first scribe. It may be added that this same quotation is found in the prayer at the beginning of the manuscript.
At the top
51 V
meum
MANUSCRIPTS
des mss.
Ff. 1
1150414231 du
46.
151
153
150 Paschasius Radbertus, Exposition of Jeremiah; 153 Epistulae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam; 161 V Seneca, De copia verborum; 161^168 Corre-
spondence of Alexander and Dindimns. The entire manuscript was copied by a single scribe in two columns of thirty
lines to the page.
The
scribe's
putting together a series of letters found at the top of the last page of each gathering: HVGO DE CASTRIS ARMA-
RIVS
ME FECIT. This manuscript was formerly St. Germain des Pres 308 (olim 586). The titles of the letters of Seneca and St. Paul are in red* The notice from Jerome precedes and 10 14 have dates. I collated this manuscript in the summer of 1936, and also
have photostats.
Reims, Bibliotheque Munieipale, 434, parchment, IX mm. 305 220, ff 132 13bis. Cat. gen. des mss. des
R
UU.
(cf.
cent.,
publ. de France 38 (Paris, 1904) 587 stolae Pauli et Senecae; 3 The dedicatory
f.
Ff.
12 Epiof Alcuin
poem
41v) 4 Bede, De gratia Dei; 12 Bede, In Gantica Canticorum; 122v Selections from Gregory. This manuscript was among the books given to the chapter-library of Reims by Archbishop Hincmar.
MS. B,
f.
The Correspondence is written in two columns of thirtyone lines to the page. The corrections all appear to be contemporary. The notice from Jerome is not found, nor is
any of the letters dated. The order of the letters, which are unnumbered, is unusual. They are arranged thus: 1 2, 7 14, 36, yet without any indication that some of them are misplaced. Possibly 3 6 occupied one page or column of the manuscript from which R was copied and the scribe
omitted them, not noticing
it until later.
My
collation is
from photostats in
my
possession.
2*
20
CHAPTER
II
parchment, IX/X
ff.
cent.,
mm. 255X185,
codex
part
is
This
first
made up
on
The
Dictys Gretensis, Bellum Troianum; 8791 Epistolae Senecae ad apostolum Panlum et Pauli ad eundem; 92 (XIII cent.) Two poems from the
pp. 1
contains
87
Anth. Lat.
This part of the manuscript
of thirty-two lines.
is
may
all
he by
corrections in the Correspondence the first hand. The notice from Jerome is not
The
found. Epp.
11, 13,
My
collation
is
from
photostats in
my
possession.
T
the
Metz, Bibliotheque Municipale, 500, parchment, end of cent., in-octavo. Cat. gen. des mss. des bibl. publ. des
departements V (Paris, 1879) 187 ff. The manuscript is wrongly bound. Ff. 1 5v Eulogium Hubaldi de calms; 6 8v and 2527 Letters of Seneca and St. Paul; 9 24v
and 136
160v Glosses of Aynard (Loewe and Goetz, Glossariorum Latinorum [Leipzig, 1888 1923] I Corpus XXXIV and 615625). Other works are: Versus de 148; V,
quattuor temporibus anni; Poems of Alcuin and Sedulius; Symmachus, Relationes; Res Gestae of Alexander and his
letter
Without seeing the more precise about the manuscript no folio since the numbers. The contents, catalogue gives came from Saint-Arnoul. manuscript
to
Aristotle,
it is
De
situ Indiae.
impossible to be
The
letters
of
column of twenty-one lines to the page, in a hand different from that of ff. 1 5. The notice from Jerome precedes. Epp. 10 13 have dates, but the text of 14 stops abruptly with the word parit, one line short of the bottom of f. 27. My collation is from photostats in my possession.
21
MANUSCRIPTS
Zurich, Zentralbibliothek
C 129
Zurich
(453), parchment,
IX
cent.,
Cunibert Mohlberg, Katalog der Hss. der Zentralbibliothek I (Ziirich, 1932) 62. Ff. Liber hermeneumatum; 95 v 96v Gommemoratio genealogiae Karoli impera-
294
without
Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul, 99v Epitaph of Seneca; 100 lOOv Haec nomina fortium 102 Fragment of Notker Bal.; 101^ bulus; 103v Letter of Hippocrates; 104v 105 Fragment of
toris;
97
99v
title;
Isidore, Etymologiae.
blank, or bear
only pentrials and odd notes. stamp and two inscriptions on f. 1 show that the manuscript was once at St. Gall.
The miscellaneous contents of ff. 95106 are written by several hands and are unrelated to the main part of the manuscript, but nearly contemporary in date. The Correspondence is written in one column of twenty-one lines to the page and is preceded by the notice from Jerome. Only 13 and 14 have dates. There was one contemporary corrector. By the XIII cent, the ink had chipped off from the page in several places, especially on the lower half of f. 99 (12, 1 13, 7 virtutes), for at that time the more illegible passages were retraced by a scribe who either could not decipher or did not know how to read the original text. It is often
impossible to tell whether the readings in these rewritten sections represent errors of the original scribe whenever
they differ from all other known manuscript readings. It is fairly certain, however, that grammatically impossible
(13, 5)
My
collation
made
in July 1937.
22
CHAPTER
II
X
4v
cent.,
mm. 148X112
(irregular),
ff.
98.
Ff.
lv
Senecae et Pauli epistidaris collocucio; 2 3 Various grammatical and musical notes; 3v 4 Sententiae Senecae;
ponderibus;
19v Disticha Catonis; 20 34v Audradus, Carmen de 3557 Fables of Avianus; 57 59v Maximianus, Eleg. I 1120 (59v Hactenus Cornelius Gallus) 6Qv 81 v
;
Satires of Persius, with extensive commentary on part of Sat. I; 82 90 Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae, Lib. I;
9194
Remefanii Tractatus de ponderibus; 94v Formata episcoporum; 95 98v Boethius, In arithmetica, incomplete.
consists of several different parts
The manuscript
than one
scribe.
by more
Perhaps they were put together by M. Daniel, whose ex-libris is on f. 90v. The manuscript is also mentioned in the following works: L. Traube, Poetae Latini
Aem Carolini III 70 (X or X/XI cent.); H. Usener, Anecdoton Holderi 56 (XI cent.); Baehrens, Poetae Latini Minores V 315 (XI cent.) D. M. Robathan, 'Two Unreported
;
Persius Manuscripts',
Class.
Philol.
26
(1931)
284301
(XII cent)
1
.
The first quaternion is in one column of fifteen lines to the page. F. 1 contains only 13, 3, as far as statum eis de-, preceded by the notice from Jerome. Since the last line of
lv
is
blank and since other parts of the manuscript are in me unlikely that this copy ever
went further. I collated this manuscript in 1935, and also have photostats.
Wolfenbuttel, Herzogliche Bibliothek, 4642 (335 Gud. Lat.), parchment, XI cent., mm. 140X115, ff. 87. Die Hss.
der Herz. Bibl. zu Wolfenbftttel:
ff .
Ff
130^
De
amicitia;
For some of this bibliography I am indebted to Prof. E. T. Silk of Tale University, who believes that the parts containing Boethius were
written in the
IX
cent.
23
MANUSCRIPTS
30v
37v
Cicero,
poems;
4354
Pro rege Deiotaro; 38v 42 Various Controversies of Cicero and Sallust; 54 56V
Fulgentius, Glossae-, 56v 57v Excerpts from the commentary of Remigius on Martianus Capella; 59 63v Epistulae ad 8. Paulum transmissae a Seneca; 63v 64v An unidentified
and unpublished
E,
ff.
letter,
65
66
1
;
65
more complete than the copy in MS. 86 Twelve selected letters of Seneca to
;
Lucilius
(cf. ed.
86
in Oct. Epiphan.
The Correspondence
(and Epp.
11,
13,
and
14
have dates.
My
collation is
from
photostats in
my
possession.
mm. 270X191,
168.
Ff. 1
Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, 969, parchment, IX cent., ff. 73. Tabulae Godd. MSS. praeter Gr. et
(Vienna, 1864)
46v Aldhelm, De
55 Aldhelm,
virginitate,
with German
glosses; 46 V
De
Disticha
Epitaph of Charlemagne 62v 70 Seneca, ProverUa; 70 72v Catonis 2 Letters of Seneca and St. Paul, without title; 73 73V Sen-,
The manuscript is described filii Sirahc (sic) von H. Verzeichniss der Altdeutschen Ess. Pallersleben, by der k. k. Hofbibl zu Wien (Leipzig, 1841) No. 385. There were three scribes, the first having written ff. 155, the second ff. 56 72, and the third f. 73. There is a distinct
tentiae Jesu
.
division after
f.
55,
column
1
The
letter is addressed to
Erdemi.
It is
made up
with Ep. 17) and 2 This manuscript has never been used by editors and text-critics of the Disticha Catonis.
24
CHAPTER
II
mately the same time. For a very complete description cf. H. J. Hermann, Die Fruhmittelalterlichen Hss. des Abendlandes
= Verzeichnis der
III.
Hss. in Osterreich
NF
I (1923)
No.
ff.
,32, pp. 120 ff., with reproductions of the initials on To judge from the illumination of the 1, 2v, and 3v.
first part,
the manuscript was written in South Germany under Irish influence in the middle of the IX cent. (Mainz?) The script resembles that of St. Gall and Reichenau. The
on 8r
CODEX
SCI ALBANI.
and St. Paul are without title. The Proverbia ending on 8?r has a double signature, the second part of which does not refer to any work now found
letters of Seneca
The
in the manuscript:
VERBIA
from
are found.
Jerome
precedes Correspondence. Only 1 12 have 10 and 11 dates. I assume that the Epp.
72
is
a single
leaf,
folded sheet.
rubricator.
The
titles of
912
were not
by the and
mm. 290X196,
126. Ff.
Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, 751, parchment, IX cent., ff. 188. Tabulae Codd. MSS. praeter Gr.
177
Acts of the Apostles, Epistle of James, I Peter; 129 162 Old German glosses; 162 Fragment of the letters of Seneca and St. Paul, followed by a brief selection beginning: Haec
nomina forcium...
1
163
164v Augustine,
De
ebrietate
2
;
Cf.
MS. U,
f.
100.
At the end of 163 V is a poor distich: Guiusque operis finem uenit, Premium finem non habet.
25
MANUSCRIPTS
165 166v Sermons and notices; 167 172v Theodulfus Aurelianensis, Capitula ad presbyteros; 173 187v Councils;
188 Fragment of Bede; 188v Latin and German incantations. The manuscript is described by H. von Fallersleben (op. eit. p. 23) No. 379. It is made up of many unrelated parts. There is a full description in Hermann (op. cit. p. 24)
No. 33, pp. 122 ft, with reproductions of the initials on ff. 119 and 173v. To judge from the illumination it was
written in
West Germany
IX
cent.
A X
It
may
was
XV
cent,
(Lehmann
in Traube's Quellen
[1908] 92). F. 162, although in the same hand as the preceding quaternion, is a single fragmentary leaf in two columns of
thirty-five lines each, containing 12, 9 quippe
cum
scias to
the end of the letters. Epp. 13 and 14 have dates. The upper corner of the page is torn and some words of 14 are damaged
or gone entirely.
I collated this
in-quarto,
Metz, Bibliotheque Municipale, 300, parchment, XI cent., ff. 124. Cat. gen. des mss. des bibl. pull, des departements V (Paris, 1879) 131 f. Ff. 3 5v Epistulae
Seneeae ad Paulum apostolum et Pauli ad Senecam; 5v Seneca's epitaph; 5v 124 Seneca, Epistulae ad Lucilium, (cf. ed. Hense XIV ff.). On the last page is found
188
a poem
by
0. Rossbach, 'De Seneeae Philosophi Librorum Recensione et Emendatione', Bresl. Philol. Abh. II 3 (1888) 63, n. 59.
Four
lines are
quoted on
p. 112.
Saint-Amoul.
lines to the page.
The Correspondence is written in one column of thirty The notice from Jerome precedes. Epp.
26
CHAPTER
II
1014 have dates. There appear to be one nearly contemporary corrector and two or three of the XIII cent. My collation is from photostats in my possession.
II. Classification
The stemma
just before Plate
In
it
characters used in the following discussion. complete list of the manuscripts is given on the page preceding the text.
Illustribus in
The presence or absence of Ch. 12 of Jerome's De Viris a certain number of the manuscripts of the Seneca
St.
and
classification.
Paul correspondence bears no direct relation to their The fact that it is found in VZ and in all the complete manuscripts of /? (i. e. all except Y), but not in P, makes it probable that it was in 2, the archetype of all the extant manuscripts except P. It had been lost in the ancestor of CD (but reinstated after the Correspondence in D) and in 8. In it was restored, along with a certain amount of other material, from fi. The variants in this brief chapter are
WO
insignificant.
Fotini
(line 2)
manuscripts.
I suspect that
Jerome would show that it them. Aut and et (line 6) are in both a and /?, and are both attested by Jerome manuscripts, the oldest of which has aut.
B.
attested by nearly all the of the manuscripts of search a existed in one or more of already
is
The Correspondence
of
Seneca and
St.
Paul
this edition
Of the twenty-five manuscripts which I Jiave examined for twenty are derived from two lost copies (a and ft)
27
MANUSCRIPTS
of
of
a single lost MS. 2, four (HJKN) exhibit varying degrees contamination between these two groups and one (P)
represents an entirely separate tradition. I shall first try to establish the independence of P, then I shall show how the
other manuscripts are divided, and finally I shall indicate the importance of P in those readings where the other manuscripts are at variance.
The
errors of
such a short text, but one gradually realizes from studying them that they indicate several definite facts about the original
codex
from which
this
text
was
copied.
Letter-confusions,
in the cases of
words and phrases, changes nouns and the persons and moods of verbs, as
well
as a few examples of deliberate emendation all these phenomena are well represented in P. I shall attempt to prove that the scribe of P was copying directly from a manuscript with majuscule writing, numerous abbreviations, and very short
lines.
The
which
word
The omission
of neque-
proderit
(8, 11), consisting of twenty-one letters, is probably due to homoeoteleuton, since the preceding word also ends in
-erit.
The other
cases are:
13 letters 38 letters 25 letters
1,
13
rerum tantaque
in his-omnia
cui-est
1
PHILOSALVTEM
ante
LVCIVS
2/3
7,
13
This
may
also be
due to homoeoteleuton.
28
CHAPTER
1
II
The puzzling frontes missus after 3 also contains letters. Assuming that the omissions are of one
complete
lines,
thirteen
or
more
we have
the inversions represent words omitted in the original, added in the margin hy a corrector, and restored to the text in the
wrong place by
P. Such short lines are very rarely found in minuscule manuscripts, but are more common in majuscule ones with, presumably, more than one column to the page. A
well-known example, with lines of nearly this length, De Re Publica of Cicero, in uncials 2
.
is
the
and spacing
(cf.
especially in 1
is seen in the wordthroughout the manuscript, but Plate I). Twelve of the fourteen lines on
of
letters,
Once the capitalization occurs in the a word (aliQuam). The separation of words on this
line
into
groups, often of
\
g.
Deapocrifis
d&altisrebus
habuerimerant.
was
simefors
uoiireceperis (pro uenire ceperis) seces suanginrar
ci
4,
sari (Caesari)
Cf. also
dm
an erroneous expansion of an abbreviation for fratres This would fit into the salutation of 7. I find no place where frontes missus could belong. 2 The average length of a line in this manuscript is discussed by A. C. Clark in The Descent of Manuscripts (Oxford, 1918) 124138, together with a detailed analysis of the evidence for a similarly short line in the exemplar of this famous palimpsest.
Is it possibly
carissimi?
29
MANUSCRIPTS
Some of the errors of P arose because the scribe misunderstood errors in his original of a type which was unknown in the tenth century. This is immediately apparent in 11, 14, when we find quis where all the other manuscripts have quasi.
This confusion was caused by the presence in the original of an abbreviation for quasi, which consisted of the letters QS
The copyist who had to guess at was to choose likely meaning quis, or possibly quibus. The existence in majuscule manuscripts of a system of
.
abbreviations very different from those of minuscule manuscripts has long been recognized in the case of legal treatises. Lindsay
has pointed out that they were not confined to such works, by demonstrating the significance of Pal. Lat. 1753 in the Vatican
Library, a manuscript of the Grammatica of Marius Victorinus, written at Lorsch in the first half of the ninth century. More
recently
of Tours, Bibl.
Publ. 286, which he calls "Pre-Alcuinian", also can be proved to be a copy of a much older manuscript in scriptura continua, full of abbreviations unintelligible to the copyist. In this
was Augustine's De Musica. Both the Lorsch and the Tours scribes made valiant attempts to interpret and expand the ancient notae which they 2 saw, but all of them often had to admit failure, in which case they copied exactly what they found before them and transmitted
instance the text
to
uncials.
There are twelve certain or nearly certain instances, including that of quis for quasi already mentioned, of corruption in P
The following articles and books are referred to in this discussion abbreviations in P: Ludwig Traube, 'Nomina Sacra', Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters II (Munich, 1907); W. M. Lindsay, Notae Latinae (Cambridge, 1915); W. M. Lindsay, 'A New Clue to the Emendation of Latin Texts', Class. Philol XI (1916) 270277; E. K. Rand, 'A Nest of Ancient Notae', Speculum II (1927)
of the
1
160176.
2
Each
of these
manuscripts
is
30
CHAPTER
II
He
and,
must be
Consequently our knowledge of the exact nature of his original derived from the errors which he made.
There are twelve certain or nearly certain instances, including that of guis for quasi already mentioned, of corruption in P due to misinterpretation of abbreviations, and perhaps as many
as eight cases which are less sure.
1,
2
7/8
9,
co
11, 17
o>
concern the suspension of the final 2 syllable turn. Modern lists of ancient notae indicate that this suspension may take the form of T followed by a dot, T with
T with a slanting cross-stroke. These same forms were also used for testamentum and -testate. The T with
a stroke above, or
the stroke above was probably used for testis also since Lindsay found a survival in the Llandaff entries in the St. Chad
Gospels, but whether or not it was so used, P's guess is not surprising. More difficult to explain is the guess of eorum in the other two cases. Perhaps the T with the cross-stroke
resembled an E.
1,
habuerim P; habuerimus
o>
me
P; modo
co
1 preteri is at the end of a line; eorum, or possibly torum, in the 2 and the letters turn have been attached next line has been erased by
directly to preteri.
These must be assembled from the four works already cited and Th. Mommsen, 'luris Anteiustiniani Fragmenta quae dicuntur Vaticana', Abhandlungen d. Jc. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1859) 265408; Th. Mommsen, 'Notarum Laterculi', in H. Keil, Grammatici Latini IV (Leipzig, 1864) 265 fl; W. Studemund, Gai Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor (Leipzig, 1874) 253 ff. 3 A similar error occurs in other manuscripts in 8, 2.
from:
31
MANUSCRIPTS
An with suprascript or postscript small o is attested as an ancient nota for modo. The actual reading of P is simefors,
5,
made
a>
easier
This error, mistaking the abbreviation of est for -em is not confined to majuscule scripts. It is at least sufficient to
autem P; Augustum
co
No recorded nota for Augustum omits the 0; seem to lead most easily to this error, but AVG
probable abbreviation in this case.
7,
AVM
is
would
the only
15
castus P; Castor
ca
The Verona Gains shows T for -tor and something similar must have been before the scribe of P, whose stupid ignorance is here heightened by the proximity of Pollux.
8,
non P; nostrum
a>
The
above
later
it)
are those
most
likely to be
with suprascript
much
Agreement with the a group in this error may indicate that there was already a mistake in the archetype of all the existing manuscripts and that the proper correction was made by /?, unless P and a made the same mistake independently,
less probable.
which
8,
is
not at
all
10
dm
efficias
P; dominae facias
The reading indicated for P's exemplar is DMEFACIAS, with abbreviation stroke. With the words run together it was
natural for
remaining
dominus went out of use in the latter part of the fifth century, but is known later in Spain, chiefly in inscriptions, when referring to a "worldly lord", which is exactly its meaning
for
DMS
32
CHAPTER
II
word
(5,
3)
P
co
may not
11,
form of the
milia
original.
20
quemadmodum P; quattuor
Two
and
Q.MAM
with suprascript
are Q.A.M. not necessary to suppose saw anything which reminded him of one
o. It is
quemadmodum
was to interpret the abbreviation which he found. In this case M was most probably used for milia, perhaps QV or QVA for quattuor. To have obtained the right reading from such a capricious shortening would have
of these, since his real task
The following errors are possibly due to abbreviations, but the exact form of the abbreviation cannot be determined.
5, 8,
quo P; quae
quid P; quod
co
5 10, 5 11, 7
co
Zfi
These four
all
pronoun. Three are probably cases of Q with a hooked stroke across the tail of the letter, for quod, misinterpreted by the
copyist,
7, 7,
10 12
cuis
(com
in cuius) P; cui
co
co
ergo P; ego
EG
among the
recorded notae.
tantum P;
tarn
co
At first glance tantum appears to be an expansion of T or TM, but we must take into account the fact that the error may be due to the following word, which is tui. TAMTVI might
33
MANUSCRIPTS
suggest tantum, as it did to the scribe of A. P, however, did not fail to add tui after tantum.
10,
dne P; deuote
deuotissime
is
co
An
It is of the greatest significance that a system of ancient notae can be shown to have been used for a text which is by
nature so close to that of literary Latin, since previous instances of its use have been confined to legal texts, or to such
technical subjects as
grammar and music. Each new discovery sort of the present brings us nearer to the possibility of learning that a similar system of abbreviations was used for
literary texts.
Further evidence of the character of P's exemplar may be P itself. Lists of the letter-
majuscule manuscripts are to be found in Prolegomena Gritica ad P. Vergili Maronis Opera Maiora (Leipzig, 1866) 235 259 for manuscripts in capital scripts, and in F. W. Shipley, Certain Sources of Corruption in Latin Manuscripts (New York, 1904) 33 44, with the articles there mentioned, and A. W. Van Buren, 'The Palimpsest of Cicero's De Re Publica', Supplementary Papers of the Ameri94
is
can School of Classical Studies in Rome II (New York, 1908) 110 for manuscripts written in uncials, altis for aliis (1, 3)
an error which
1
is
majuscule script.
I)
,
To
recognized in the copying of either type of this may be added senoca for seneca (1,
slip of the pen,
unless
it is
merely an unintentional
and
also sensos for sensus (7, 6), furo for foro (11, 7),
for
and domos
for
domus
is
(11, 20),
The
error of
cum
eum
7) easily paralleled from uncial than from capital on the other hand the following errors are but manuscripts,
more
Of.
also
what looks
like
uoiireceperis
for uenire
ceperis
(4,4).
34
CHAPTER
II
found, some of them very frequently, in capital manuscripts, but are not known to result from copying uncial manuscripts:
(I, 2),
(I,
5)
and profer sussum for professus sum (10, 4), eorum for earum (1, 13) and quos for quas (7, 3), melles for velles (8, 7), pausum
for
pausam
(11, 21).
One
not recorded for either type of majuscule script. These confusions are possibly too few in number to allow conclusive
them are represented in even though some of them have only one example, while nearly two-thirds of them are not represented at all in errors caused by the copying of uncial characters, makes
deductions, but the fact that all of
Ribbeck's
list,
seem quite probable that P was copied from an original which was written in capitals. The spelling in P is very instructive and shows signs of antiquity in the frequent confusion 'of b and u, and in such forms as subplitio. It is impossible to say to what extent the scribe of P unconsciously adapted the spelling to the custom of his own day, but more than forty cases of unusual spellings seem to show that in general he followed his original.
it
1)
Omission or addition of h:
1, 5
10, 8
aruitrii
hortis
Mi, et
10 14 ominum eri 2, 2 2 harundine 6, chorintiis 7, 3 12 aut (= haud), et 12, 7 Habe (= Aue), et 12, 2 2 11, 15 macinator (h suppl.") 2) Confusion of b and u: 2 3, 5 ) preues (prebes pro preses praesens 8, 11 perseueraberit 12 indignauitur 9, 8 inrogauis
9 exortationem
6,
11,
4
15 18
subplicium
subplitio
obtimus
t:
4)
d and
1,
4,
6, 7,
12 3 5 12
aliquanto
aliut
aput, et 12, 10
aut
5) ci
and
U1
(=
haud), et 12, 7
TMs
pre-Carolingian period.
35
MANUSCRIPTS
10 6
1,
exortationem
7)
Other spellings:
1,
3,
3 6
2,5
9 3 4
apocrifis comitti
necglectum
sofista
11,
4 15 17
subplicium
subplitio
4,
6,
extimo
9,2
11, 5
pr&ipue eomonitum
putas (n suppl.)
quidquid,
uertix
et
6)
6
12, 5
11,
10;
11,
13
9
3, 5
6, 7,
temtare
13
tried to
script,
To sum up the arguments of the last few show that codex P was copied from an
which was written in short
lines
of not
more than
thirteen letters each, in majuscule characters, quite prohably capitals, and in scriptura continua. This original made con-
understood in later times, and which was full of unusual 2 Its date will necessaspellings, fashionable at an early date rily he the fifth century, or the sixth at the very latest, partly because of the use of the capital script, partly because of the
.
(p.
31)
3
.
Such an
more remarkable
100 or 150 years of the time when I believe this Correspondence to have been forged (cf. p. 87). This unique position is well justified by the readings of P against all the other manuscripts which I am about to discuss,
1
to indicate -xis-. The spelling extimo is, however, this instance need not be traced to a note.
2
common enough
so that
I have not perhaps demonstrated clearly that P is a direct copy ancient manuscript, without an intermediate apograph. I feel fairly certain that this was the case, for surely the misplacement of the twelve letters in the salutation of 7 and many of the other very numerous errors would not have been allowed to stand through two or more generations. Furthermore the evidence pointing to scriptura continua in the exemplar could hardly be expected to survive so fully in subsequent copies.
of this
175186
36
CHAPTER
II
and which prove that P has preserved correctly words that have been corrupted in the other tradition, i. e. in the descendants of 2.
1,
14
VDZU,
quibus
co
that
The presence of his in VDZ (haec C) is sufficient to show it was in a. It was omitted by 8 and apparently by /?,
though
it is found in U. Reading quibus the sentence is grammatically correct, but with his added not only is the double negative awkward, but we must consider aetates the antecedent
of quibus
of
possint,
possibile interpretations.
The
first is
by a graphical confusion,
been added to
not by
his
ft.
in which case the lost his would have a way that it was accepted by a, but The other possibility is that quaehis became quibus
in such
by assimilation, and that the his was deleted independently 8 by and /?, as making no sense. For another example of the same assimilation, see 6, 2 where quae following his became quibus,
In the present instance the reading of
correct
4,
*.
alone
is
certainly
extimo P; aestimo
co
and aestimo is so common that significance, but in this case aestimo is and impossible only P has preserved the form nearest to the
The confusion
seldom
of
of existimo
it
is
correct one.
7,
15
apparuerunt P; adparuissent
<w
is possible,
but
am
p.
Ill)
is
too
37
MANUSCRIPTS
the original account of the Vatienus episode in Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 2, 2, 6 and 3, 5, 11. Similar forms occur there, e. g.
dixissent. It is even
influenced the change to rustici of the nearby rusticuli (line 14) a change which occurs in P and 8 (cf p. 60)
,
8,3/4
permittit
. . .
se
P;
permittit
te
(praeter
W),
permittes
te
W/S of a is impossible
The reading
indi-
cate an intermediate stage in the progression of the corruption, whether from the reading of P to that of /?, or from /? to P.
Paul is reproving Seneca for having read to Nero some treatise with information about the Christian religion. He says: "I am
well tion for us,
aware that the Emperor has a certain amount of admirayet he (according to the interpretation of P)
allows himself to be informed, without being vexed." The next sentence then explains that the insult lies in informing him
about a religion so contrary to his own. The other interpreis: "I am well aware, etc.; you will, nevertheless, allow me to admonish you (Seneca) without offending you, when I
tation
say that you have committed a grave error." The former interpretation has the advantage of unifying the thought of the first sentence. Paleographically, the change of se to te is
probable. This would then call for
some sort
of correction,
which
3
J3
mearum P; tuarum
are forced to decide the question of whose works were read to the Emperor, Paul's or Seneca's? At first thought it may seem that it must have been Paul's, since three of his
letters
all
We
7,
but
let
us examine
the references to them. In the very first Epistle, Seneca claims to have received much valuable instruction from reading
some
3,
of the letters
cities.
is
In
soon
38
CHAPTER
to
II
show
to Nero.
If Paul's,
if it
he would not make the presentation until he had had a chance to look the writings over with Paul? If Seneca's, Paul might naturally have some suggestions to make ahout a work which he had never seen. Seneca, in 7, states first that he has just
read Paul's letters to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Achaeans. As for the subject-matter, he cannot praise it highly enough,
but the manner of expression leaves something to be desired. Then abruptly comes the information that Seneca has read to
Nero virtutis in te exordium, and that Nero, too, has been struck by Paul's philosophy. Who wrote the exordium? It is either a treatise by Seneca on the virtue of Paul and the Christians, or it is
of virtue.
Parts of
the
such as / Cor. 13 come to mind immediately. It is noteworthy, however, that nowhere is it ever stated in unmistakable terms that Paul's own works have been shown
to Nero. After the
New Testament
admonishment by Paul
is
.
in 8
and Seneca's
apology
in
9,
the matter
.
.
reasonable to conclude
supposed to have written an essay on Paul and the Christian religion, which he has finally read to
is
the Emperor, after waiting in vain for a chance to discuss it with Paul first. The mearum of P, therefore, is to be preferred
to the
11, 9
tuarum
cyros P; et post
It is immediately evident that the reading of P, adding as it does one more name to the list of tyrants, must be correct.
110) apparently takes the reference as meaning but he may have had a manuscript of the 2 tradition. Immediately afterwards Pseudo-Linus mentions the impression which Paul made upon the Roman, senate. Is it possible that he has misunderstood Paul's mention of the senate in 10 to Seneca? I know of no other source for this tradition.
(p.
1
The Pseudo-Linns
of
St.
the letters
Paul,
39
MANUSCRIPTS
Previous interpretations have always had to deal with a difficult preposition, because there is no point in having Darius and
Dionysius mentioned chronologically, especially since Alexander, the latest of all comes first in the list of tyrants of an earlier
age.
Ben. VII
Comparison should be made with the passage in De 3, 1 in which Seneca mentions Alexander, Cyrus, Cambyses and the whole of the Persian royal household as
is examples of tyrants. The exact cause of the error in difficult to determine, but the existence of the letters os in
it likely
pro subplitio
effect!;
Quod
&>
fieri solet
P;
solet (solent
8CD)
differs
from
these few words, effecti seems to be an error, but the other variants are worthy of attention, pro as a preposition has no use here. Therefore I have suggested that it was intended for
the interjection. I can see no reason why it should have been added accidentally in P; rather it would have been omitted
from
because
it
The other difference of P lies in the addition of quod. omits this word, so that solet becomes the main verb of the sentence, although Christiani et ludaei is the subject. The
change to solent in SCD is an easy emendation of this difficulty. It is possibly an emendation of a, accepted by 8 and CD, but
not by Z. Kraus, however, without knowing any manuscripts which read solent, conjectured ut fieri solet 2 This turns out to be quite close to the reading quod fieri solet, which now has
.
1 sentence from Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni IV 10 gives an example of this interjection used so late in a sentence: Propemodum saeculi res in unum ilium diem, pro! fortuna cumulavit 2 Kraus reports that F had a full stop before fieri.
16,
40
CHAPTER
II
is
correct
and that quod was accidentally omitted from 2. ad id electus P 2 ex ad? dilectus P; ad id electus 12, 3
,
a,
dilectus
(ad id om.)
/?
The exact reading of P cannot be determined. The second hand has erased one letter 1 following ad-, as well as the d of dilectus, and has changed the i to e. This is obviously contamination from an a source. My suggestion is that the missing
making the original text adodilectus. These words, however, I would not read adeo dilectus, another conjectural reading by Kraus in his text, but rather a Deo dilectus. There is a parallel for this phrase in the two occurrences of dilecti a Deo in the New Testament, / Thess. 1, 4 and // Thess. 2, 13. Since the reading of a is impossible, it must hold the clue to the error. As an explanation of the variation between a and fi we may suppose that 2 had written ad id electus, either because he copied wrongly from some form like ADODILECTVS with abbreviation stroke, or because he was trying to emend some mistake of his exemplar, possibly DIDILECTVS. Then in 2 the correction dilectus was added, between the lines or in the margin. /? would have accepted this
letter in
is
o,
it.
laudare P; ludere
w
of the letters leaves
possibility that Paul may be "making sport of" Seneca. On the other hand Paul's deference to Seneca and his insistence in 10 that he is not worthy of having his name directly after
is
may
have attempted to demonstrate that at least ten of the readings peculiar to P alone are better than those of all the
1
it.
41
MANUSCRIPTS
other manuscripts. There are other places in which it is more difficult to choose between P and 2, e.g. inueniam (3, 4), et
cetera mittas
while there
is
and
sis
sentiat,
and ergo (7, 12) are all fairly plausible, absolutely no method of determining whether sit which I have chosen in 7, 11, are superior to P's
(7,
7),
and
sentias.
justified its unique position
by giving us these opporthe text. Standing apart as it does, its emending testimony will be of the greatest importance whenever the other manuscripts are at variance with one another, but this phase
tunities for
will
P has
be more conveniently discussed after the grouping of the other manuscripts has been definitely established. There remain two further peculiarities of P, the order of the letters and the omission of 13 and 14. My remarks on these will be reserved
for
Chapter IV, in which I shall take up the origin of this Correspondence and the theories of those who have held that
the fourteen letters were not all written at the same time.
a versus
All the manuscripts except
.
fi
common
were made two apographs, a and /?, now lost. The manuscripts descended from a are BARSEWGQVCDZ; those coming from /? are XFOLYUMT. The manuscripts of the
archetype, 2.
From
commonly show a
certain degree
contamination between the two groups. Four other manuscripts, HJKN, show such an admixture of variants from each
of the
list of
in contrast
42
CHAPTER
II
P
i
ii
1, 6 2, 8/9
his
hii
diceres censor
diceres censor
B)
iii
9
3,
5,
et (om.
CD)
(aliorum
etiam
prospers
alios
etiam
iv
v
vi
vii
4 4
5
prospera aliorsum
ratione
rursum
prospere aliorsum
ratione exiui
BCD)
7,
exigerem
(exirem
5)
viii
supra
(exuperat
Z)
et super
ix
xx
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
43
MANUSCRIPTS
xxix
12, 11
mi
mihi
Non
ZB), michi
habet
(=
T,
MINE
m LM
xxx
xxxi
xxxii xxxiii
13, 2
0,
eo usquequaque
te
et
usquequaque
retineo
Deficit
8
14, 7
tenep
speciem
speciem
fore (P ex silentio)
fore debebit
xxxiv
ostendendo
rethoricis et
ostendo
rethoricis
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
9 13 15
flectuntur
flectantur
perpetuumque animal
perpetuam
animam
The testimony of P is available for the first twenty-eight these variants, with the exception of xxiii which is in a should find that P agrees group of words omitted by P.
of
We
quite consistently with a against /? or with /? against a only in good readings. If this proves to be so in. almost every case, then we are justified in accepting P's evidence for those readings
in
which there
is
determining which of the two variants is preferable. In these variants P agrees with a twelve times (i,
xii, xiv,
an error of /?, because alias cannot stand with the passive verb. Nos. i, xv, and xvi are other patent errors of /?, nor can legi meae (xii) be correct, for I do not believe that Nero would have been
xv, xvi, xx, xxi, xxv, xxviii).
No. v
is
represented as saying to Seneca: "I am surprised that one who has not been trained in your philosophy can express such sentiments." Rather the reference seems to be to the general
view of the ignorance, not to mention improper training, of the 1 Peter of Chmy's early Christians, Apostles and disciples alike
.
Videntes autem Petri constantiam et loannis, comperto quod homines essent sine litteris et idiotae, admirabantur ..; Minucius Felix, Octavius V 4: studiorum rudes, litterarum profanos, expertes artium; Oct. VIII 4: Qui de ultima faece collectis imperitioribus et mulieribus credulis sexus sui facilitate labentibus plebem profanae cf. also Origen, Contra Celsum I 27. coniurationis instituunt .;
Acts
IV
13:
44
CHAPTER
II
reference to this passage with the words homini , . indocto * could be taken to support either of these readings. I assume that legi meae is an attempted correction of some scribal
.
xxix)
scribe,
is
The variation between mi and mihi (xx, a matter of personal choice of the individual mostly
'riV
has not failed to support the correct reading in each case, but it must be granted that the agreement of P with a may give the reading of Q, without restoring the original reading of the text, whenever Q itself was in error. This state
So far
non is an error for nostrum (cf. the discussion on p. 31). The original error may have been made in Q and corrected in /?, or it may have been made independently in P and a. No. xxi shows omission by both P and a of a necessary negative. This is almost certainly an error of Q, corrected by f$. I have accepted the haut, although 2 it is not possible to know just what word has been lost No. xxv, I believe, is also an error which originated in Q. The meaning of the words actum esse without some qualifying
of affairs is found three times here. In xiv
.
adverb
is
reader
this,
correction was accepted by one group of descendants 3 while both the original reading and the correction appear in the other group. In Classical Latin aptum esse is a common phrase, combined with the dative or
with in and the accusative. Other prepositions are less common, and I have found no other example of this use of de, even in
Late
Latin.
The
change
from
aptum to
actum
is
easy
paleographically; it is not, therefore, possible to reject p's correction absolutely. I prefer, however, the emendation of
1
Cf. p. 111.
corrected by adding non. The original reading of L has been tampered with, but I am certain that it was aptum, not artum as reported by Westerburg from the collation of Wachsmuth.
45
MANUSCRIPTS
From
this suggestion
Westerburg adopted optnme scribe would have had before him OPTVMEACTVMERIT, and the omission was due to the repetition of the letters TVME
if the P looked like a C, as it very (or of did in capital scripts).
CTVME
An
commonly
xxviii.
by every descendant of fi. Its absence from P and a shows that it was not in O. It is impossible in its present position and not necessary anywhere in the text. I may suggest two explanations
of its presence.
It is true that
One
is
that
it
facie.
usual legal meaning, but I know no other example of ex prima facie, while the phrase without the preposition is exactly like a similar use
prima
of
of iniiiq
(cf.
Thes. Ling.
Lat.
VI
1,
1365, 38).
is
that
/?
was
thinking of exemplarium rather than ex epistolarum. Evidence of this may be seen in the form exeplarum, which stood in F
according to Kraus.
Finally
perlecto
(x)
ratione
is
(vi)
is
preferable
to
traditione,
.but
to
reason than
its
appearance in both
and
/?
a.
variants
agrees with
eleven times
(ii,
iii,
iv,
viii,
xi,
xiii,
xxvii).
these errors of a? Certainly ii is, for dicereris seems to be an attempt at correction after loss of the preceding
all
Are
hoc.
is
wrong
is
shown by
is
dicis at the
improbable, since praerogabis (xviii) cite no instance of the meaning "to grant" earlier than the twelfth century, while inrogo has the 1 There are use of "to bestow" from the time of Quintilian
.
Inst. Oral.
3,
26.
46
CHAPTER
in a:
II
iam
is
(iii),
in te
(xi),
(iv) probably a case of grammatical assimilation, ignoremus an easy mistake 1 tua persona (xix) might be a correcis (xiii) tion (even unconscious) to a more regular Latin construction, and latere ('xxvii) calls for no elaborate explanation. In viii the reading of ft is uncertain, but it was probably et super as
.
in P. There is
some indication
of
as in X.
alone. It
may
a phonetic confusion of x and ts, or it may be a clever emendation. In four instances P, a, and /S present three separate read2 ings. No. xxiv has already been discussed
.
and exhibes (more than a dozen variants are recorded in the critical apparatus) is one of the most difficult textual problems in the Correspondence. To take the important groups separately, P has exiui,
vii.
The problem
of exirem, exigerem,
ft
shows several variants for which a probable reconstruction and a has exigerem, with exirem
Since the shorter exirem
is
is
in
much more
likely
on paleograplt-
grounds to have come from EXIBES, we are forced to suppose that exigerem was a correction made in the margin
ical
of a, accepted
for
6,
and
so
Even
sentence whose meaning is very obscure. This third crux in the space of six lines easily wins for
Ep. 7 the distinction of being the most difficult of all, as far as concerns the text. In this case the readings accepted by previous editors have all been quite impossible. The cures
1 It is a mistake which might as easily have been made in the other direction independently by P and /?; in 1, 3 P has changed -raws to -m. Either ignoremus or ignorem gives a satisfactory reading and the latter is not to be excluded merely because of the proximity of nostrum.
P. 40.
47
MANUSCRIPTS
adopted by Haase is evidently a manuscript error for cum res, so that earum now has its proper feminine antecedent. The words eximias prof eras in a fit extremely well with the general
idea of this letter (and of 9 and 13) that Paul, since he has such worthy material, should take more care to express it in good Latin! The origin of et ceteras I cannot satisfactorily
explain, although I note that the beginning
and the ending (et two are ex-; -eras') phrases nearly identical. P's et cetera mittas must be some sort of emendation; far inferior to a, it is still not impossible. Its interpretation would be: "Take care and leave all other matters aside to, etc."
and
of the
xvii. P's guippe de uobis qui shows at least that some words were in the text between quippe and qui, from which we may restore ut his to 2". The loss of these words in a would be a correction, as would also the dropping of his by XF. I
propose the more simple correction of reading is for his, since addition or omission of h is a common phenomenon. This correction is not
L,
my
who put
it
Unfortunately we do not have P as a witness for 13 and 14. There the choice between a and fi variants must be made
entirely
on grounds
/?,
while xxxvi
probably accidental, but the other (xxxv) and the -que (xxxvii) are very uncertain, while the eo in a (xxx) is impossible.
xxxi.
retineo
The variants
are:
dixisse
te
CD,
dixisse retineo
YFO(U?),
te dixisse retineo
L2
(only
M,
explain retineo of CD as part of the /? contamination common to them and restore dixisse te teneo
is:
The meaning of a remember hearing you say frequently, people who pay too much attention to their words
to a.
dixisse retineo.
"Do not
48
CHAPTER
spoil their meaning".
II
words of
is
/?
only
if
very
difficult.
The normal
"Do not
fear that, as I
much
remember I have often said, people who pay too attention to their words spoil their meaning." At first sight it may appear very specious that Seneca should be represented as trying to deny something which he has preached
before.
Actually, though, the genuine works of Seneca do contain precepts contrary to those in the letters to Paul. Ep. 13 is dedicated entirely to the topic of improvement in
Paul's writing, to
make
This doctrine
flagrantly opposed to that of Ep. 115 of Seneca to Lucilius (especially sections 1 and 2). There Seneca strongly advises Lucilius not to think of words and composition,
is
but to consider what, rather than how, he writes, arid above all to distrust the insincerity of polished and trimmed sentences.
If
the person who forged this Correspondence with Paul was a student in a school of rhetoric, as I shall suggest elsewhere,
this genuine letter of Seneca
may
retineo
is
the interpretation of the passage. The change may be due to a simple confusion of and T, since these letters are often other in for each taken majuscule scripts.
xxxvii.
The
animam.
do not know
is
how
that animal preferable as the lectio difficilior *. The gender of properantem need not cause any difficulty, since it agrees
with hominem.
In thirty-seven readings all the manuscripts of a have shown themselves at variance with all the manuscripts of /5.
This
is
copies of 2.
1
Of.
49
MANUSCRIPTS
We
must
now
dispose
of
the
/?
remaining
cases,
in
readings, or a few of
heri de te a; heri
/?
an
recte
incertum)
of to J,
Kraus seems to have attributed a few readings to F instead due to confusion hetween his two symbols, Arg. 1 and
2.
Arg.
P,
may
he questioned. Because
although very corrupt itself at this {point, does not show de te and because another phrase with de later in the sentence makes these words very awkward, I have omitted them.
xxxix
1,
14
quibus
8/?;
quibus his
p. 36.
VCDZU;
quehis
I
xi
2,
etiam
/?
(praeter P?)
P
For this word all previous is without manuscript
Of, the
remarks on xxxviii.
et
editors
have written
iam,
which
authority.
xli
3,
praeterii a; praeteriri
riit
MT;
may be due to haplography a single writing of the double i or loss of final t. P's reading may be a spelling variant for praeterii, or it may show the error of u for r. I think it best to choose on grounds
or praeteriit in its exemplar, since it
of final ri or
of interpretation alone in this case, for
of the
variants
the other.
have taken
praeteriri,
finite
2
xlii
1 verb in an appositional clause may suppose that had praeterii with the missing r added above the line, thus
We
two
copies.
tuam 5ZP;
tui /?CD
1 The substantive clause in 7,11 has an infinitive, but that in 1,8 has a finite verb.
50
CHAPTER
I shall
II
show
later that
CD
are full of
/?
contaminations.
We
may, therefore, assume that tuam was the a reading. Since it is also in P, it would naturally appear to have been in Q, too, were it not for another instance of tui praesentiam in 1, 7, where
all
the manuscripts agree. It is barely possible, but most unlikely, that /? changed this second occurrence to make it agree with the first; it is far more probable that tui, coming this time
was unconsciously assimilated to it by P and a independently. Of. the same praesentia mei in Philip. 2; 12, but note that it is almost immediately followed by absentia
after praesentiam,
mea.
xliii
I think, therefore,
6,
that tui
is
MTP
neighboring
if
quae assimilated to quibus by a Here the variants are easily explained, we assume that the erroneous quibus had already appeared
his, cf .
1,
14.
in Q. In
margin, a
correction which
/?,
preserved in
and later
made above the line or in the was accepted by a. The doublets were in f, so that the correction was again
evidence of the
and
though
in different forms.
7/8
si
XFULP
et
W,
sapientiam
The only form which can stand here is si patientiam. It appears that in 2' this became corrupted to sapientiam, which
line or in the margin. As in xlii, the and appear in their doublets were copied by ft and by different descendants now in the one form, now in the other.
a,
who
accepted only
si
from the
*.
6,
sunt
aP
et
XOUL, om. MT
a remarkably similar corruption in Suetonius, De Gramm. et Rhet. 11,3, where sit patientiam has been corrupted to sapientiam, if the emendation of Baehrens is accepted. See the note on the passage in the edition of R. P. Robinson (Paris, 1925) 20.
Cf.
51
MANUSCRIPTS
si modo is more common than the The confused subjunctive. testimony of ft manuscripts makes the a between and P the more forceful as an argument agreement
The
indicative with
for sunt.
xlvi
8,
3
is
permittit
P, permittee W/S
This
W
xlvii
(cf .
another instance of the frequent contamination in xliv) The error has been discussed on p. 37.
.
8,
perferri
(proferre
C);
perferre
/?
et
EWGQ;
ferre
The witness
but there
of
is sufficient
to show that a
is in error,
is little to influence a decision between ferre of P and perferre of 2, except a similar simplification of perlecto
in' 7,
10.
10, 2/3
''-.
xlviii
subsecundo
ctP;
tibi
subsecundo
ft
et
This
is
Since tibi is
xlix
11,
14
/?
1
.
;
11,
16
quisquis
FP; quisque
ft
(praeter F)
12, 10
Quam
a;
Nam
/?P et
Nam
to
is required.
Its appearance in
may be due
either
Agreement
of
Z with
/?
all
or
nearly all of the descendants of a disagree with all or nearly all of the descendants of /? there are thirty-one more readings
/?
Cf.
just below.
4*
52
CHAPTER
position of
II
Z as a descendant of a is made secure by the readings which we have just studied, in which Z agrees with the other a manuscripts both in errors and in correct readings. These new
cases, therefore,
must be studied
Z from the a
tradition.
list in
and
VCD
three columns as before with the readings of: 1) (i. e. a minus Z) 2) Z fi, and 3) P. The recon,
struction of the reading of a from the manuscripts in the first column is made uncertain at times by the fact that, in the
group VCD, V is a small fragment (1, 1 3, 2) and CD are contaminated (sometimes together, sometimes separately) by readings from the /? family. I indicate below all places where VCD depart individually from the a tradition.
lii
53
MANUSCRIPTS
5VCD
Ixviii 6,
3/4
Ixix
7
7, 5 8,
Ixx
Ixxi
Ixxii
Ixxiii
6 7 3
enim
ille
(= Z 2 ) (= UMT)
et
in-
designat captant
aliquid
et
enim
eum
scire
scire
eum
D)
eum
meae
et
(=
10,
sectae
meae
et
sectae
meae
sectae
congruentem 8,
tae
Ixxiv
sec-
meae incongru-
incongruentem (= Q)
aporia
incongruentem
7
11,
aporia
su-
Ixxv
Ixxvi
Ixxvii
Ixxviii
4
7 16
supplicia sumuntur
supplicium
quo
fieri
matur quod
solent est
fieri
supplieium sumatur
18/19 datum
(=
CD)
U)
solet
Ixxix
21
12, 7
(dabitur ualere te
alter
te ualere
(te alter!
(=
om.
XMT)
te
Ixxx
Ixxxi
10
(=
ciuem esse te
ciuem
esse
(= W)
esse
(te
Ixxxii
13,
uereare
uerere
(=
ciuem 0) Q) Deficit
(Iv, Ivi, lix, Ixi, Ixiii,
In eleven readings
We may continue
to assume
\
that the agreement of P with y? (in this case with Z/?) gives the better tradition, since we have already established the merit
of
/?
and because
in
no place does
its
Among these eleven readings are represented of 8VCD in omission (Ixi, Ixviii) and change
Ixiii,
In Ixxiv a gloss has been accepted in place of the original word, conuersus sis (Ixvii) is a deliberate change of the tense of the verb in order to remove the unusual present
Ixxii).
tense. Iviii represents
in
SVCD and independently in O. In the other instances no decision can be made on the basis of intrinsic merit. The reading of
PZ/?
is,
therefore, to be chosen.
54
CHAPTER
II
We
lii.
must next
Lucillo
is
does
SVCD.
Z and
regularly -show this form even in the parts which contain the genuine letters of Seneca. Lucullo seems to be an attempt to change Lucillo to a good Latin name.
Ixiv. The easiest explanation of these variants is to assume that prius was omitted in O, but added in the margin or above the line. P restored it. before tecum and placed it after.
and
is
8CD may be
sentence.
Ixx. If we accept Westerburg's emendation, sublimi ore, the sublimiores of /? (2 ?) is an exceptionally easy mistake (due to the s of satis and to scriptura continua) Another suggestion had an abbreviation will also explain P's error, namely that
1
SVBLIMIOR with a suprascript stroke. This abbreviation would then have been interpreted by P as and by
such as
as
RVM
and the reading of SCO have come from cumulative error or from attempted correction.
RES. The
Ixxvi.
et of
either
At
first glance
show two other cases in had which quod been misinterpreted by P. Furthermore, quod
SCD, but the errors listed on p. 32
preferable here.
is intrinsically
This has already been discussed on p. 39. Ixxix. Ixxxii. In these two cases it is impossible to deterIxxvii.
mine whether the reading of Z/S is to be preferred to that of CD. These two passages may accordingly be eliminated from
consideration.
have, therefore, eleven readings in which PZ/? are correct, and five in which Z/? are correct without support from P to either side. To state the facts in another way, we have
sixteen cases in which Z,
We
a descendant
of a, agrees
with
/?
in
55
MANUSCRIPTS
the other descendants of
all
a.
This state
most
satisfactorily explained
by supposing that Z
one copy of a, while another lost copy, which we may call y, served as an intermediate between a and SVCD, although further
adopt this scheme. According to this hypothesis, y made all the errors in these sixteen instances. The arrangement
required by this explanation is represented in the accompanying
Fig. 1.
There are left thirteen readings in which Z agrees with /?. against the other descendants of a (liii, liv, Ivii, Iviii, Ix, Ixii, Ixv, Ixvi, Ixxi, Ixxiii, Ixxviii, Ixxx, Ixxxi). In all of these P
gives its support to
liii. liv.
SVCD.
suppose that
We may
because of the preceding occasione. An i added as a correction was wrongly applied to loco instead of to nostra.
Ivii.
The
If
finite verb
Ixv.
conferrem
is
shows an attempt to correct the sequence of tenses, in spite of the fact that conferam may just as well be future and that,
if it is
56
CHAPTER
II
(cf.
miles
8,
and
Ixvi.
preferred to
remotum seems a more probable error. It is remoratum only if P's quo at the beginning
correct rather than the quae of all the other
to be
of the
sentence
scripts.
is
manu-
Ixxxi.
te
cimm
esse
Romanum
In the other readings one cannot tell which is more likely to have been the original, but the merit of P justifies our
SVCD.
choosing as correct all of these cases in which it agrees with If the arrangement of manuscripts in Fig. 1 were valid, it is obvious that Z should not go contrary to Py, and we
are forced to assume that in these thirteen readings
Z has
borrowed from /?. The immediate objection to this assumption is that Z has borrowed only bad readings.
If it
existence of a,
were not for the definite proof already given of the we might here be led to conjecture that y, Z,
are separate copies of 2", so that agreement of any one of these three with P should give the reading of Q. Under this supposition P still retains its importance when agreeing
ft
and
with y or with /?, but should also be expected to show some agreement with Z. I can find, however, only one ZP versus <t> reading (7, 12 ergo for ego) This is probably due to independent
.
error.
I have adopted an entirely different arrangement for my stemma. Abolishing the hypothetical y of Fig. 1, 1 have assumed
that
8,
V, the ancestor of
of a.
This requires first of all the assumption that a made all the errors in which Z/J have good readings; it requires in the second
place the assumption that Z borrowed all of these good readings from ft. Since the only other scheme which can be considered
1
P. 79.
57
MANUSCRIPTS
requires the assumption of borrowing from /? on the part of Z, and since this borrowing consisted only of bad readings, surely
it
is
preferable
to
adopt this
are bad,
Thirteen
uncertain.
of
these
sixteen
good,
taken in
The good readings and the bad readings were thus almost equal proportion. There is more probability in
this contamination of
Z from
/?
in that two. of
/S's
descendants,.
F and O, were,
ence of Seneca
and Lucilius.
Some
ancient reader
may have
compared two such manuscripts and jotted down occasional notes where they differed, so that Z's exemplar thus acquired a number of readings foreign to the a tradition. It is possible that the exact source of this contamination may have been /?
itself,
some descendant of
ft,
we
ing more significant than domini for dominae in arsere omitted by ZXFO (11, 21), and the addition of the title of 12 in
ZOMT
3),
ITEM
to
ZLT and
to
13 in
search
its
itself for
ancestors, there is nothing of merit except the alteri (Ixxx) a $ reading, which has been corrected by erasure to the alter
of other a manuscripts,
first
by the
and the offenditur of /? (xv) corrected hand to offendetur; also two corrections by a second hand, exigerem to exirem (7, 4) and sublimiores to
sublimior (Ixx)
1
.
and
CD
of its
(i-iii,
The exact position of V is quite uncertain because brevity. Of the sixteen a readings in the first two Epp.
xxxviii,
1
xxxix,
xl,
lii-lxi)
it
has
all
I shall
the position of
suggest in the Appendix the light that may be thrown on by a study of its text of the letters of Seneca to Lucilius.
58
CHAPTER
II
a,
8.
but
it is
not possible
has no errors in
common with CD
is
extant
CD
alone, whereas in the part where the text of share five errors and 8 has eleven errors.
The common errors of CD in the rest of the letters are numerous and need not be listed in full (ut non dicam perfici 1, 15 permotum 1, 9 notissimum iam 9, 6 etc.) There is plentiful evidence in both C and D of contamination from a /? source. In the following a readings C shows contamination: xlviii, Ivii, Ixxiv, Ixxix; D shows contamination in: Ivii, lix, Ix, Ixvii, Ixxii. There are few .clear instances of C and D being contaminated together. A possible one is xliv; more certain is Ixxviii, in which the dabitur comes directly from the passage in Vergil's Aeneid V 815. It is best to assume that C and D are copies of a single manuscript, in which were inserted numerous variant readings, and that the two scribes each exercised his own
; ; .
choice in accepting an occasional one of these variants, so that the actual agreement between C and D is not exceptionally
close.
5 versus
VCDZjS
was 8. In Chapter V I have discussed the evidence which shows that 8 was the manuscript used by Alcuin in making his edition. The variant readings which are peculiar to it include not only the errors and corrections made by its copyist, but also the emendations of Alcuin himself. The
The
last copy of a
eight descendants of 8 constitute nearly one-third of all the manuscripts which I have collated for this edition. In the
agrees with
8.
59
MANUSCRIPTS
60
CHAPTER
II
viii,
There are six cases of omissions of single words (vi, vii, xi, xii, xxxix), five of inverted word-order (x, xix, xxix,
xxxviii)
,
xxxi,
five
of
additions
of
single
words
(iii,
xiii,
xxxv,
xlii, xliii),
thirteen which
(i,
may
Of the remainder, four concern proper names (xvii, xxii, xxvii, xxxvi), four occur in the formula of farewell (xiv, xvi, xxi, xl), six are variations of
(ii,
iv, v, ix,
variations I have discussed in Chapter V, along with the external evidence that these manuscripts form a unit and are all
made by
Alcuin.
At
them They
agreements of
with a descendant of
if
we examine
,
we
include
two instances
find that they are not of great significance. of inverted word-order (xix, xxxi)
both in infinitive phrases, and three omissions of single words (vi, vii, xi), two of which occur in the formula of farewell.
These
five
cases
of
identical readings
left
in
P and
may
be
accidental.
.
only usquequaque (v) and rustici (xxviii) usque seems to have caused difficulty to many readers, although its use here is classical. It often appears in glossaries
Thus we have
with such definitions as ex toto or omni modo. The present case may be compared with Terence Ad. II 2, 5 usque defessi sumus. The use of rustici as I have already suggested * may have been
influenced
by
its
Vatienus
Actually, then, no particular significance can be attached to these few cases of chance agreement between P
is told.
and
2
.
1 2
P. 37.
et
(10,3)
To these agreements just mentioned should be added sectae meae and datum est (11,18/19) and the wording of the general title
not properly used.
61
MANUSCRIPTS
of their originals.
All eight descendants of 8 are unusually accurate copies There is, therefore, in such a short text all
too little evidence for establishing their interrelation. We must first show the existence of a certain amount of contamination
in
WGQ.
In the
list of 8
(i, ii, reading into the text of (i, iii, iv, vii, viii, xii, xx, xxiii, xxxiii, xxxiv), seven for Q ii, iii, xiv, xv, xx, xxx), and seven for (i, ii, iii, xx, xxx, also borrowed Jerome's notice from another xxxii, xxxix).
WO
manuscript source, while among other material foreign to 8 are the date of 10, which is found in WO, and the date of 12
in all three manuscripts came from In of its source may with all probability the /? group. the case of a to few be assigned f because agreements with the individual errors of U and because of several readings which it has in
in Q.
The contamination
Tituli epistolarum in
1, 3,
WMT
simillimi sunt.
ii
iii
2 9
quid
WUMT
W,
1
preterit
iv
6,
7,
8
5
ex
v
vi
vii
viii
12
14
13,
ix
7 10 7
praeterit U, preteriit
MT
WYUMT
F?)
T)
(uale
14,
hisrahelitarumque
WMT
I now give a list of all points which bear on the interrelation of the 8 manuscripts, omitting mere spelling variants:
i
1,
ii
2, 8/9
EWGQ
iii
4, 5
(e ante -or exp.) A, 2 dicere recenseor (diceres ), dicereris censor Q dicerereris censor ualere te BA, ualere ante te suppl. R, te ualere SEWQ,
RSEW G
om.
iv
5, 6,
G
BARGQ
ex
v
vi
vii
viii
2 8
7, 1
10 13
AW, et ex E ANNEO SENEO BAR (Seneca R2 ), Annaeus Cum BARSG, Turn EWQ
BRSGQ,
preuaricare
Seneca
SEWQ
BASGQ,
preuaricari
REW
62
CHAPTER
ix
7,
II
x
xi
xii
xiii 8,
14 14 14
5 5
Vatini
cui
uiri
ASEWGQ,
cui
uatim B, uatum
BARSGQ,
duo
cum
BW
in notitiam
perferri
uellis
BARS,
xiv
7
11,
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
4 5 16 19 13, 4
14, 9
siimuntur BARQ, sumantur SEW uos BAR2 SW, om. RE, nos Q
cuius
BR,
igne
ARSEW
BARS*Q
xx
Christ! lesu.
The
any
little
evidence which
definite proof of
we have is confusing, and for parentage we need more cases than these
In the first place,
is
the
and the only complete copy of Alcuin's manuscript. It is the only one in which both the dedicatory poem of Alcuiri to Charlemagne and the Correspondence of Alexander and Dindimus accompany the letters of Seneca and Paul. There is no serious objection to making A a copy of B, except that A omits all the dates but the last. We can remove this objection by supposing an intermediate copy in which space was left for the dates to be filled in by a rubricator. For some reason they never were filled in, and A has not even left room for them.
oldest,
R is the second oldest copy of Alcuin's manuscript. It cannot be a copy of B, because then there would be no reason for the unusual position of 3 6 in R and because the rest of the
evidence shows
B
iv,
S.
SEW
W)
,
xv, xix.
xi (contamination in
is
further strengthened
1
by an external
evidence, the
also has geographical ties, for S is now in St. Gall, E is in derived readings from U, which was formerly Einsiedeln, and
in St. Gall.
1
Of. p. 23.
63
MANUSCRIPTS
GO clearly belong together, but they are not descended from any of the other manuscripts of the 8 group.
I have, therefore, decided
that we
now
possess represent-
the
royal
which
,
comes
the
common
XF
and
versus
co
It must be remembered in dealing with XF that X is an incomplete manuscript, lacking 13 and 14, arid that we know F's readings only from the collation of Kraus. Except where Kraus
expressly mentions
safe to
assume that he used its readings in his he apparently has done so more than once.
manuscripts:
XFO
i
a>
3,
7,
ii
iii.
4
6
praeteriit f, praeterii a
eas
ille
8,
enim
ille
iv
11,
12,
21 4
diebus
(= ZL) (= Z)
enim
diebus arsere
aptum actum
It is
no easier to find
common
errors for
XF:
CO
XF
1,
10
5
mirae
exhortationis
(miram
11
5,
7,
iii
existimetur lectionem (= P)
esse
iv
4
9,
eas
ut
ut his
OLUMT,
de
uobis
P, om. a
These are probably sufficient to show that XF form a group separate from the other manuscripts and are descended
64
CHAPTER
II
of
/5,
particularly since
we do not have a
complete collation of F.
from the above evidence that O has enough errors in common with XF to require positing the descent of XFO from an intermediate copy of /J. It is best to represent e, the ancestor of XF, and O as two separate copies of /?.
t versus
o>
A third copy of ft was the manuscript f, now lost, from which are derived LYUMT. The readings of these five manuscripts comprise not only careless errors, but also the wording It is to of titles and some doublets arising from glosses in
.
all five
1
manuscripts
12
is
complete
only for the last two Epistles: for the first letter L also is missing.
is
lacking,
and
for
Tituli in sunt.
1,
LM
simillimi
ii
iii
iv
3,
8 7
quid pluribus
quod
priiis
tecum
L (=
m2
v
vi
vii
prius
)
P), add.
U1 )
MT
9
7,
praeteri
L,
praeterit
U,
praeteriri
desit
XFO,
L)
praeterii a
preteriit
MT
(=
preuaricare
8 13
desint
MT
viii
9,
tarn
iam
(=
L)
ix
10,
x
xi
xii
8 9 11, 2
12, 1
deuotissime consulibus
hau<t
XPO, om. a
ITEM SENECA LT
aptum
SENECA
aptum actum XFO, actum
xiii
4
13, 1
aP
xiv
ITEM SENECA LU
ornamenta
concesso
SENECA
ornamento
concessio
xv
xvi
xvii
4
9 14, 2
0) Perpendentibus
(=
(= L) (= Y)
Perpendenti (== Y)
65
MANUSCRIPTS
From
these readings
we can deduce
(vii)
breviated capriciously (x) so that it could not be distinguished from the singular form; the gloss aptum (xiii) was copied from
/?
in place of the
actum
It
(xv
first.
xvii)
be noted, however, that of the three errors fall within its brief text, Y has only the This is probably to be attributed to the fact that Y has
will
which
been corrected from its exemplar. The correction of one of these two errors in U makes it possible that such correction may
YU have the of, this ancestor, which I call 9?, is quite certain. following omissions in common: the farewell salutation of 12, the date of 12, the farewell of 13, the names of the consuls in
the date of 13, certus igitur (14, 3), del (14, 14).
The other
(13, 2),
of
YU
8), possit
1
5),
incaptabilis
(14,
12), in-
Finally the text of each is followed by the Individual errors of Y (ante and possis
.
9;
show that
is
is
common
therefore, the
common
errors listed
That
from
I
is
MT
shown
4
by a number
of
common
errors,
which
do not need to
after etiam 7,
etc.),
No
between
to
exist between
L and
E,
the ancestor of
MT.
We
suppose that L,
9?,
it
1 Cf. pp. 21 and 24. In view of the close relation of YU to M seems to me very probable that this little- selection arose as a sort of gloss on the quotation from Bapias in the margin of M (cf. p. 16, n. 1). 5
66
CHAPTER H
Contaminated Manuscripts
P and the twenty manuscripts descended from I have 2", given the readings of four others, HJKN, directly which show Varying amounts of confusion in adopting readings from each line of the a and /? tradition. There must have been a number of manuscripts in each family in which variants from
In addition to
the opposite group had been inserted in the text, between the lines, and in the margins. The only present witness to this
state of affairs
is L, an uneontaminated manuscript, in which a hand approximately 150 years later than that of the original scribe precisely fulfilled these conditions, adding variants between the lines and in the margins, and very frequently
rewriting the actual text and thus destroying the evidence as to what the first hand wrote. In the latter case the interpolator
has apparently, in a few instances, preserved the reading of the first scribe as an interlinear variant (cf 7, 4 horrore L, honore
.
L2 ). Assuming that a copy was made from L after the additions of L2 were inserted, the copyist would have been much puzzled over his choice of readings in many places. He could copy the original text
in the text
and
at
horrore above
without the glosses, or the original text with the glosses as in the manuscript, or he could insert some or all of the glosses
own text, according to his fancy. The latter process gives a result similar to that in the four manuscripts which
into his
I
am
that these two manuscripts were each copied from a codex which contained a large number of glosses. There is single some variation in the exact degree of contamination in each, which
I believe
could be explained by assuming that the scribes did not choose the variants before them, but we must always allow for the fact that the reports of Kraus are not sufficiently detailed
all of
67
MANUSCRIPTS
to give
xii,
us
all
the variants of
J.
a variants
in JH:
i,
vi, ix, x,
xliii, xlvi,
xlix,
but not known to be in J: ii, xiv, xxii, Ivii, Ix. a variants reported for J, but not in H: v, vii?, xxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, Ixv?,
in H,
Ixxi?.
8 errors
in
H: v; in
J: none.
is
Thus an a manuscript
without the
of these
Z contamination
readings in JH.
readings. 7, 14 uatis enim and 11, 10 quoque nostra point to agreement with O. 1, 14 institui ut and 5, 5 existimetur show a relation to X. There is no similar relation to C.
;
Codex
xix,
lix?,
Ix,
i,
xx. xxix,
Ixxi,
xxxiv,
Ixxix,
xlv,
xlix,
1,
liii,
Ixxx.
The
ft
errors
(xxxiii,
Turning to the
tradition,
we can
to a very close relationship with O. Nearly of the every page apparatus criticus will show one or more cases in which K has a reading which is otherwise in O alone: 3, 4 et
2 quibus uel quae, etc. We may easily decide that K's parent was a gemellus of O with numerous variants added from an manuscript, or even that K was copied from O's parent,
si-,
6,
in
origin
O was copied. It is unlikely that K was in an a manuscript with very numerous contaminations
N
from O.
The
1
2
tary copy.
Pp.
We
it is
related
4243.
5*
P. 59.
68
CHAPTER
to
II
CD: 2, 3/4 missurus eram; 2, 10 bene omitted, etc. All its a readings are represented in CD. Its 8 variants are only vi, xiv, xxiii. On the other hand the following readings come from a /?
source:
ii,
iii,
xliii, xliv,
agrees
with
against a: liv, Iv, Iviii, Ix, Ixi, Ixv, Ixvii, Ixviii, Ixix. These may all be derived from some ft source, but it is not
Zfi
more precise about the exact provenience of the contamination. In view of the generally good character of the readings borrowed from /?, we are justified in positing for N a manuscript related to CD, the text of which has been intelpossible to be
ligently corrected from
ft
manuscript.
Other Manuscripts
I
cent,
1516
related to
than to
C; (2) Munich Lat. 2560, ff. 12Qv 123 has a text similar to N, but is complete; (3) Rome, Vat. Lat. 366, ff. 165168 is
to be considered a gemellus of
J.
Among manuscripts which I have not examined, Bodleian Laud. Misc. 350 and Laud. Misc. 383 are of the end of the XI cent. I have taken account of all the manuscripts older than
the XIII cent, of which I have had any notice. My edition is based on a few of the XII cent, plus all of the older ones with the exception of the two in the Bodleian. The XII cent, manu1 scripts not used are the following
:
Draguignan 15
Erlangen, University 176 Erlangen, University 354
1
Manuscripts which
69
MANUSCRIPTS
Eton College 135
Bvreux 9
*Florenee, Laurentian, Plut. 45, Cod. 26
Le Mans 143
London, British Museum, Harl. 2659
Mons 48/102
(No. 297)
'-
Munich, Lat. 536 (a. 11445) *Munich, Lat. 14371 (a. 114553), probably a copy of Lat. 536 Oxford, Bodleian Laud. Lat. 47 Oxford, Brasenose College 13 Paris, Bibl. de I Arsenal 1086 Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 776 Paris, Bibl. Nationale, Lat. 336 *Paris, Bibl. Nationale, Lat. 1791 *Paris, Bibl. Nationale, Lat. 2359 Reims 431 *Rome, Vat. Lat. 8100 Rouen 931 Soissons 123 St. Gall 897 Vorau 170 (CXVI)
1 ;
to mention.
Later manuscripts of this Correspondence are too numerous By the XIV cent, the Letters are included in almost
all of the many manuscripts of the complete works of Seneca. The total number of the manuscripts of the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul in existence today must be close to 300. The majority of these is to be found in France.
The
of
manu-
Gall
IX IX
cent.
cent.
61
cent.
cent.
Amand
library
cent.
CHAPTER
HI
could
not
have been
accurate
until
the
text
was
determined with the aid of the best manuscripts. There follows, therefore, a discussion of three phases of the Latinity of this
Correspondence: vocabulary, syntax, and clausulae.
A. Vocabulary
which
departure, whether in form or in the classical from best usage, as far as can be meaning, determined with the aid of available dictionaries and of special
their
New
word:
derivamentura 14, 5
Only here and Ps.-Novatianus (P. Batiffol and A. Wilmart, Tractatus Origenis de Ifbris ss. scripturarum [Paris, 1900] 171). The word is combined with allein both instances gorice
Only here and Hilarius, in Matth.
7,
71
Words
Tertullian)
Christianus 11, 14 Corinthii 7, 3
=
=
Deus
ethnic! 14, 7
Galatae
strictly
classical,
deputare 12, 7
evidenter 6, 4 rusticulus 7, 14
temporalis 14, 11
Greek words:
apocrypha
1,
= "apocryphal
first
used in
Itala,
classical
classical
Post-classical words:
allegorice 13, 2
exordium
10 generositas 1, 13
7,
in scholiasts, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine "treatise" in Columella common in Christian first in Columella,
writings
form see
p.
73
und Vulgata
(Leipzig, 1869)
72
CHAPTER
III
Newly-developed meanings:
colliders 18, 3
dirigere 1, 9
mostly poet-Augustan and but unexampled in sense with epistola once each Cyprian, very common century
late Latin, rare in figurative sense pejorative sense only in late Latin very rare word, unexampled in sense "difficult to do" in Cicero "ingratiating one's way", in late
offensa
offensus/
8,
10
retinere 13, 5
subripere
7,
offensa common in classical Latin, offensus poetical and post-classical. Here there is a distinction in meaning between the two: offensus the insult done to the resentment felt another; offensa by the other as a result of the injury memoria retinere, only in Aulus Gellius and the Digest classical, unexampled in sense "to keep
= =
secret"
The use of foro (11, 7) is made clear by the commentary of Donatus on Terence, Phor. 1, 2, 29: scisti uti foro. Donatus
'Forum' pro tribus intellegitur: loco, tempore, et persona; scisti, inquit, his uti. Et est vulgare proverbium. Sensus autem hie est: scisti, inquit, quid te facere oportuerit.
remarks:
B. Syntax
Cum
4;
8,
causal
is
followed by the subjunctive four times (6, 1 but once (14, 12) it has the indicative
The
indicative
is
also found in
10)
is
found in classical
6/8
in ecclesiastical Latin.
The sequence
Vellem
. . .
tenses
is
violated
three times:
7,
prof eras
If
manuscripts
may be
trusted.
73
liceret
viderent.
in indirect discourse is found
2/3.
unusual genitive, tui praesentiam, occurs in 1, 7 and 1 probably also in 4, 2 parallel to the praesentiam iuvenis of
,
An
2, 3.
Of.,
8, 8,
where meo
is distinctly felt
as an object of the verbal action in the noun, and occasione nostri I, 5/6, although the text of the latter is uncertain.
Two
de futuro
phrases with de are un-classical: de proximo 4, 5 and 8, 9. Of the latter I find examples in Tertullian, adv.
Marc.
1,
24,
and Martin
The
active
form praevaricare
Other unusual syntactical arrangements involve awkward grammatical constructions. Isolated manuscripts, however, often
visis nobis
show individual corrections of these peculiarities. The first is 1, 6, which is naturally taken as an ablative absolute, but nobis is also required as a dative to complete the sense of
is
it possible that visis, which is not found in P, an addition of 2? Since no reason appears for adding it, it seems probable that it was omitted in P. Another unusual con-
adiuncti sunt. Is
by
certe
quod
1,
7;
emended to certeque 2 In
.
'
is slightly
of
and
J.
it
line, 2, 7,
same construction
manuscript
1 -
7,
is
no
error.
Of. p. 49.
quod,,
Aubertin compares certe quod with. Greek drjAoetmi which occurs frequently in Tertullian.
74
CHAPTER
III
In 11, 18/19 there is a reminiscence of Vergil, quoted in a slightly changed form. Unum pro multis dabitur caput (Aen. V 815) is one of Vergil's incomplete hexameters. The
quotation
was changed to read datum est, which should, have been dedit, since optimus quisque cannot be however, construed in any other way than as its subject. As it stands, caput must become the object, which is impossible unless the
verb
to
is active.
is
mean "the one best man", i. e. Christ, not "all good men". The comparison seems to be triple: the quotation itself refers to the death of Palinurus, who is to be sacrificed in order to
assure the safe arrival of the rest of the followers of Aeneas; in addition it is here used to refer to Christ who died for all,
and to predict that Nero shall also be destroyed put an end to his persecutions of the Christians.
C. Clausulae
in order to
Wilhelm Meyer was the first to discover that Latin writers, Greek, from the fourth century employ an accentual rhythm derived from the original quantitative rhythm. His study was published as a review of Havet's Prose Mttrique de Symmaque in Gott. gel. Anz. (1893) 127 and reprinted, with additions, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Mittellateiniin
common with
schen Rhythmik II 236286. He found that in the prose which he studied the last two accented syllables of a clause are separated by two or four, rarely by three, unaccented syllables.
'
It is necessary to qualify this statement, however, according to the peculiarities of an individual author. Some, like Ennodius, often
syllables;
it.
others, like
Ammianus
The method of analysis in the present examination of the on prose rhythm of the letters of Seneca and St. Paul is based one developed by A. M. Harmon in 'The Clausula in Ammianus
75
Academy
of
Arts and
(1910) only the number of syllables between the last two accented syllables, but also the number of syllables following the last accented syllable and the word-division. The recognized forms
Sciences
XVI
117245.
denotes are listed in the following table, in which the sign a syllable, and the cross shows the position of the accent:
T
J,
X *^
'"V/
'^c*
*^*
''Vx
*^C* ***w
*^^
f^t
*^*t
J.J.
III
&
-^
*^*
-^
IV
^
~~
*^^
A
B C
'^^
~
/>^
~ -^ ~ &
~ ~
-*
~~
~~
.
~ ~
^'^
~
^>^
-^
'>-
*^
~
-w
"^
-^-
Each form is divided into types by the position which the caesura occupies and these may be indicated by Greek letters according to the number of syllables between the first accent
of the clausula
(i
Hence
esse
Romanum
ys
is
if]
v
and
graviter fecisse is
within a single word. clausula may also have more than one caesura, which is indicated by more than one Greek letter;
is fy5.
There are altogether in the Correspondence 185 clausulae, which include 64 sentence-endings, exclusive of the formulae of
farewell.
most
easily determined.
The
a certain form
it.
is
not
The sentence-endings
follows:
I,
are
divided
76
CHAPTER
III
certain,
one
1
.
I,
II,
regular ones. The nearly complete absence of III and IV and the large number of C and are remarkable features of this
text.
fully.
In I the y (evidenter ostendit') and 8 (comites mecum) types each occur four times, as also /? (est offendetur) which
is
less
common
in
other authors.
This form
may
also
be
two examples.
Ily (igni cremabitur) is found five times
sentiaf)
and 118
(taliter
four times.
types.
As
common
if
of III seems to be
one allows synezesis, it becomes A. There are four examples of AY (possit expediri) and three
of
AS
(divinitas concessif)
of
is
Ten
of C's cases are of the type y (patiatur constai) Seven of D's are also of type y (secessu angimur).
With this analysis established we can turn to the 121 2 Their distribution is as follows: clausulae within the sentence
.
I,
and
42; II, 22; III, 6; A, 17; B, 6; C, 13; D, 15. For I, II, A, C, the proportions thus remain about the same as in the
sentence-endings.
Four
of III
can again be
disposed of
set,
by synezesis (mendacium velamentum, fieri potuisnot so, however, provinciae direxisti, speciem adhibere) the other two (opera colliduntur, volumina ordinavi). It is
;
urbe contrarium
fit
(11, 6)
it
by allowing
can be adapted to a possible form only be emended to fit contrarium (cf. sit
of course, a subjective element in the choice of certain phrase-endings to be regarded as clausulae and the rejection of others. It does not seem worth while, however, to list completely all of those which are here included among the 121 cases of clausulae within the sentence.
77
This would
of
forms III
distributed in the
In these internal clausulae the types within each form are same way as those of sentence-endings, y and
I, and five of a and ft again show an unusual leaning towards these types by our author.
Nine cases of Ily and five of 115 are in the regular proportions. There are no cases of A outside of y and 5, while only two of C and two of D are not the usually types. There are
four cases of
B5 (hominis
rusticuli}
is
contained
a
I
Others
Total
II III
A
B
C
D
?
Total
78
CHAPTER IH
substitutions of quantity are also found, e.g. ^ u velim ut meus. instructus videtur; and v> ^
|
^ ^, The hexam|
is
agamus,
heri accept).
Therefore, the person who forged this Correspondence had, presumably, just begun to learn to use the forms of the cursus
The regular forms I and II he employed but he has not become fond of form III, commonly enough, which is so very frequent in other writers. The unusually large
in his composition.
proportion of C and D 51 cases out of 185 betrays a writer who has not yet been trained to make each and every one of his
clausulae conform to one of the accepted types. Finally the monosyllabic sentence-endings, e. g. nobis adiuncti sunt and
quodam decoranda
est,
show a
style which
is,
if
not careless,
at least unpolished. This evidence that the author did pay some attention to the rhythm of his prose is alone sufficient to prove
that these letters were not written before the middle of the
fourth century, when writers first began to make use of this accentual rhythm. The further evidence that in this case the
adoption of the system was not complete fits in well with the thesis of the following chapter (p. 89) that the author was quite
,
possibly a student in a school of rhetoric and that the date 1 of the Correspondence may be placed between 350 and 392
.
This knowledge of one of the stylistic features of this author may now be used as a criterion in judging the relative
worth
of manuscript variants. It happens, of course, that many variants do not change the form of the clausula, when they fall
1 writer as recent as E. Lienard in an article, 'La Collatio Alexandri et Dindimi', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire (1936) 819838, entirely denies the existence of clausulae in these letters. His explanation (p. 834) is: Nous n'avions pas trouve cet element dans les lettres de SSneque
XV
et de Saint-Paul, prohablement parce qu'elles devaient pouvoir passer pour authentiques et que, comme 1'auteur aurait cru commettre un anachronisme en introduisant des clausules dans un texte soit de S6neque soit de SaintPaul, il e'est prudemment abstenu.
79
1,
13
earum rerum
est
5VCD; earum
est
rerum
co
The
(Ij>8) is
3,
VCD
most probably
te praeteriri
/?;
8/9
te praeterii a
There are
five other
examples of
If),
D/?.
5
.
co
As
The reading
accepted.
12, 10
IV
is else-
text,
the laudare of
should be
Eomanum PS;
esse te
Romamim
co
The table
of frequencies
CHAPTER
IV
few have attempted to show that these Epistles were actually exchanged by Seneca and St. Paul, although there are still some who believe that between these two great figures of
the ancient world there was actually a Correspondence, which has since been lost and has somehow been replaced by the one
which constitutes the subject of the present volume. In any case -it is interesting to speculate about the exact origin of
these letters in order to determine as closely as possible the period in which they were written, the person or persons who wrote them, and the purpose for which they were intended.
The
Seneca's
conversion
I.
to
Christianity
has
been
treated
in
Chapter
Two
important
The who said that Seneca would first was that of Lactantius have been a true Christian, if there had been someone to show
for dating the earliest appearance of this Correspondence.
,
Inst. Div.
VI
24,
1314.
81
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
This statement was made in 325, so that neither the surviving Correspondence nor any other presumably was generally known at that time. The other relevant statement
is
by Jerome
*,
who
is
It is necessary to dispel
letters of
of the
Seneca and Paul of which Jerome wrote. Were they the same as those which now exist? It has been objected that
if
letters
now
in existence
he
would not have had any excuse for mentioning Seneca in his De Viris Illustribus. The answer to this is that Jerome does
not specifically state that he had seen the letters themselves. Then, it may be replied, if Jerome did not read them, how could he
his
words optare
se dicit
seem quite certainly to refer to 12, 10/11. The most plausible explanation which has been suggested for this difficulty is that,
perhaps in Rome, who had told him something of its content. It has. also been suggested by those who consider the present
the words supposedly quoted
Correspondence different from that mentioned by Jerome, that by Jerome may have been inserted
purposely from Jerome by the author. This, however, seems unlikely from the naturalness of their position in 12. There is
then no reason on external grounds to doubt that the Correspondence now extant was in existence in 392, when it was
mentioned by Jerome, and that it had become generally known after 325, at which time it was unknown to Lactantius. If it be supposed that the actual date was much closer to 392 than to
325, this will furnish a plausible explanation
of
of
the failure
Correspondence.
De
82
CHAPTER
IV
It is now necessary to see how this date compares with the evidence that may be compiled from the letters themselves.
the evidence of the vocabulary, language, and clausulae, as it was adduced in the preceding chapter, must be examined. The unusual words used by the author of this
First
of
all
Correspondence include several which are unknown before the time of Tertullian, several which are exclusively Christian, and still others which are found not before the fourth century and then only rarely. The best inference which can be drawn from
this information is probably that the letters could hardly
have
been written before the middle of the third century, though they may have been written later than the fourth.
No more definite limits can be set by a study of the grammatical constructions. The certainty that the author was acquainted with the system of accentual clausulae, however, is at least sufficient to place his period of activity with some
certainty after the middle of the fourth century, when this system acquired popularity. The failure to adopt these forms
consistently throughout the text may be due either to the fact that the letters were composed at the time when the clausulae
were being introduced, in which case the date must be near the middle of the fourth century, or to the inexperience of an
author just learning their use, in which case the date may be any time after 350. So far the results are not incompatible with the external evidence.
is
Next in importance for the dating of the Correspondence the material on which the historical allusions in the CorThere
is,
first of all,
a quotation
(7,
14/16) from Cicero, in which the story of Vatienus is related. It is unlikely that the immediate source was Lactantius, who
had borrowed the same tale from Cicero, or Valerius Maximus, who had also borrowed from Cicero 1 There is also one quotation
.
Of. p. 143, n. l.
83
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
Unum
815:
The knowledge of the fire in Rome may be based either on Tacitus or on Suetonius 1 but the former is more likely,
,
which
is
may possibly have influenced the author. In 11, 16/17 the statement: cui voluptas carnificina est et mendacium
This
is
velamentum.
to be compared with
et
Hactenus Nero
flagitiis
sceleribus
velamenta
Almost immediately after this in the Annals come the words: quoniam diverso itinere Sallustianos in hortos remeaverit. Quite
plausibly the mention of the gardens of Sallusi; in 1, 5 may have been suggested by this passage in Tacitus. Finally, the word
2 grassatus used by Tacitus of the fire in comparison with the grassator of 11, 16 makes it almost certain that the author was
acquainted with the Annals of Tacitus. This, however, cannot have been his only source for his story of the fire, because his letter gives the definite information
that 132 houses and 4000 apartment-houses were destroyed. This does not have the appearance of being a fiction and must have
is now lost. Most probably was one of the numerous chronologies existent in the late empire, and from it the names of the consuls in the dates of the last five letters would also have been taken. These names are correct except for three errors, all of which may easily have arisen in the manuscript tradition after the publication of the Correspondence; these are: Nerone IV for Nerone III in 10, Frigi for Frugi in 11; and Lucone for Lurcone in 13 and 14. The now extant lists of consuls which
were available to a fourth-century writer contain for the year 58 only the regular consuls, and not the consules suffecti, Lurco
fire
and
XV
84
CHAPTER
IV
been
the names of all the consuls for the years 58 to 64 must have contained in some chronology which is now lost.
The
discovery that the names of Lurco and Sabinus were actually used for dating documents is very remarkable *. One can hardly suppose that information of this nature was available to any writer considerably later than the
fourth century. It certainly .could not have been obtained during the age of Charlemagne, although some would argue that at
least
a part
of this Correspondence
was written
(11,
libuit licuit
nection with the list of tyrants recalls a passage in Spartianus' Antoninus Caracallus 10, 2 in which Caracalla, wishing to marry his step-mother Julia, receives from her the encour-
agement: si libet, licet. It would not be wise, however, to insist too much upon this parallel. The story may have been current in the fourth century, or the play upon the words libet and
licet
may have
It
is
noteworthy that, although this Correspondence purports to have Seneca for one of its principals, the works of Seneca are not imitated therein. Only once is he represented 2 as referring to other writings of his own and even then it is
,
not a particular reference to any definite passage in his other works. On the other hand, Paul is occasionally imitated
verbally, while dependence upon other parts of the New Testament is even more evident. It may be said that the Bible, more than any other source, has influenced the author of this
Correspondence.
At present it is impossible to cite the Latin versions of the Bible translations previous to Jerome for passages which
are parallel in the Bible and in this Correspondence. Obviously the Correspondence was written before the Vulgate translation
of
P. 146.
13, 5.
85
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
available it is possible to cite only one passage from the Itala
version, I Cor. 15, 42: seminatur corpus in corruptione, surgit
sine corruptela.
This
may
be compared with
14,
15:
novum
corruptela perpetuum animal parit. Here the Vulgate version reads in incorruptione for sine corruptela. The
sine
hominem
parallels
table:
4,
4/5
Cum primum
itaque venire
apud
111 loh.
vos, et os
me futurum ad os loqui
autem protinus
proximo videbinms.
14 Spero
te videre, et os ad os loquemur.
5,
II Cor.
1,
sum
JI loh. 13 Plura habens vobis scribere nolui per chartam et atra-
6,
2/3
De
stis
non
mentum
HI
tibi:
13 Multa habui scribere sed nolui per atramentum et calamum scribere tibi
loh.
6,
Act. 17, 30 ut omnes ubique paenitentiam agant Act. 26, 20 ut paenitentiam agerent
10, 4/5
esse
/ Cor.
I Cor.
9,
sum
10,
omnia omnibus
placeo
I Cor. 15, 28 ut sit
Deus omnia
in
omnibus
12, 5/6
altissimorum
montium
ca-
Es.
cumen
colles
Mich.
4,
tus in vertice
9/10
scias te
Act.
22,
26
hie
est
enim
homo
civis
num
12, 10/11
Romanus
86
CHAPTER IV
14, 4/6
I Pet.
bum
mentum
derivaet
23 renati non ex semine sed incorruptibili per verbum Dei vivi et perma1,
corruptibili,
ma-
nentis in aeternum
I Pet.
aeternum 25 Verbum autem Domini manet in aeternum. Act. 6, 7 verbum Dei crescebat Act. 12, 24 verbum autem Domini
nentis in
1,
manet
New Testament
is
is
which
is
sent
by Seneca
probably to to Paul
and Theophilus
jointly.
There
writer in joining Theophilus, rather than Timotheus, to Paul, for Theophilus was the friend of St. Luke. The important thing to notice, however, is that Paul included the name of Timotheus
with his own in Romans 16, 21 and at the beginning of II Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians,
and Philemon.
1 has called attention to a very Eecently E. Lienard significant resemblance of the letters in this Correspondence
to the letters of
in length
any
likewise filled
Symmachus. Most of the latter do not exceed Paul and Seneca. They are with banalities and an exchange of compliments.
of those between
One
of the
common
topics of
Symmachus
is
is
whom
he
quoted by Lienard,
is
Symmachus
Amo
ratio
litteras tuas,
sed
sed expecto praesentiam; nam mihi dierum me scribere spes adventus tui non sinit,
detrahimus,
coram
fabulis
rependemus.
The resemblance
and phrases;
1
of these
Lienard gives a
XI
(1932)
list
with discussion
of
'Sur
la
523.
87
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
The conclusion to be drawn from this comparison is must have been written at approximately the same period, since they are so kindred in spirit. In the letter of Symmachus just quoted there is absolutely nothing
each
.
by which
of
it
can be dated, but since the earliest extant letter in 364 or 365 and the latest in 402,
it
this fits excellently with the date already suggested for the
in
The manuscript
and
is
St.
tradition of the Correspondence of Seneca Paul goes back at least to the sixth century 3 This
.
Westerburg
that some of the letters in the group were written as late as the Carolingian age. There remains, however, another difficult
problem, namely the reason for the order of the Epistles in P and the question whether 13 and 14 were part of the original
1
to
Symmachus and
Excluding the more usual Latin words, the following are common to the Seneca-St. Paul correspondence: clareo, contristor,
copia verborum, corrumpo, cultus, depute, divinitas, eloqui, evidenter, exhibeo, exhortatio, generositas, graviter, horror, impune, indignatio, insinuo, invicem, legitimus, levitas, offensa, perpendo, persuasio, praeconia, prospere, ritus, rubor, secta, sermo, sero, sors, subinde, sublimis. The length of this list is the more striking in view of the extreme briefness of the apocryphal letters. 2 Lienard has also studied another apocryphal Correspondence, that
.,
between Alexander and Dindimus: 'Collatio Alexandra et Dindimi', Revue Beige de Phil, et d'Hist. XV (1936) 819838. In this article Lienard demonstrates in a fairly convincing manner that this second group of false letters was written at the end of the fourth century, after 383. I have not yet been able to study in detail the text of these letters, which has never been edited according to the complete evidence of the best manuscripts, and therefore I am as yet unwilling to subscribe to Lie"nard's theory that the two sets of Epistles were composed by one and the same man. Certainly they were both written at nearly the same time, but if they were the work of a single person, some more telltale bit of evidence might be expected than has yet been brought forward. For one thing the Seneca and Paul letters are far more poorly written than the others. Is this possibly to be attributed to the re-editing that they appear to have undergone, along with the genuine letters of Seneca, some time before the seventh century?
3
4
Cf. p. 35.
sei (Berlin,
1881) 22
88
CHAPTER
letters.
IV
The
is:
1,
7, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 10,
unfortunately, very little internal evidence by which to determine the proper order. Ep. 12 is an answer to
12, 3, 4, 9.
10,
There
P and
2. In 3
Seneca says that he is going to tell Nero about Paul and the Christians; in 7 he writes to say that he has done so, and
immediately receives a rebuke from Paul in 8; Seneca's apology comes in 9. If this sequence is correct, then P is in error, for in it 3 comes after 7 and 8. Certainly it seems rather weak to
include this letter after Paul has given Seneca sufficient warning that it is too dangerous to give such information to the
emperor.
On the whole, it is much better to accept the traditional order of the letters as they appear in the largest
number of manuscripts, for this has the advantage of putting them in regular order, so that each odd-numbered Epistle is from Seneca and each even-numbered one, with the exception of 12, is from Paul.
In addition to this inexplicable arrangement of the letters, has also lost the last two. Is it possible that 13 and 14 were written later than the others? It is true that 14 stands apart
from
all
activities to be carried
the rest as being the only one in which the missionary on by Seneca are discussed, and it is
whole Correspondence are to be found in 14 alone. There on the other hand, any similar reason for supposing that 13 did not form a part of the original group of letters. The subject with which it deals, the improvement of Paul's Latin, is in perfect harmony with several of the earlier letters.
in the
is
not,
which have been Whatever may be the reason for 1 the dates accompanying only these five and none of the others
There
is,
1 If all of the letters bore dates, then the first nine dates were lost some point before the present manuscript tradition begins. Possibly they had been left for a rubricator who failed to carry out his part when the main text of the manuscript had been finished.
at
89
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
those which have survived show that 10
14 belong together. Furthermore, as I have said, the information contained in these dates could hardly have been available to a writer much later
than the fourth century. On the whole, therefore, there is no good reason^ for supposing that the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul was ever before the public in any form other than
that in which
it exists
today
*.
The date
of the letters
shown that in all as we have them now. The next problem to discuss is the vexed one of their authorship and the reasons for their composition.
has thus been set as closely as it has been in a group were probability they published
Previous theories have been inadequate in that they all suppose that the purpose of the letters was to show that Seneca was a Christian, perhaps in order to give more authority to some of
the statements of Seneca which people wished to use in support of Christianity; but a close study of the content of these letters
reveals only a few places outside of 14 in which Christian doctrines are even mentioned. These are chiefly the places in
the new
Paul that he has been informing Nero of Another topic, that of expressing oneself well and in good Latin, is quite as prominent throughout, and it is always Seneca who is trying to teach Paul this lesson. A closer examination must now be made of the letters in which a
which Seneca
tells
beliefs.
discussion of style
1.
is
prominent.
Seneca has been reading and discussing some of Paul's Epistles to various churches and has derived much inspiration from them. He praises their high moral purpose and intimates
that they express not only Paul's sentiments, but through him also the will of God. There is the highest praise of what Paul
says, but as yet
1
it.
of C. Pascal, Letteratura Latino, Medievale (Catania, that the Correspondence was first written in Greek is utterly untenable, as shown by the reference to latinitas in 13, 7.
The theory
140,
1909)
123
90
CHAPTER IV
2. Paul, in excusing his delay in answering, says that Seneca will understand for he knows quando et per quern et
quo tempore et mi quid dari committique debeat. This over-full list, with its duplication in quando. and quo tempore, resembles
a rhetorician's
list
of
arguments
3.
all-inclusive.
first sentence
In the
are
more reminders
of rhetoric:
Seneca has put some writings in order, and has arranged them
according to their divisiones.
Once again Seneca praises the divine inspiration of Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and others and the noble utterances contained in them, but this time he goes on to say that, in spite
7.
refinement of language.
Seneca has sent Paul a liber de copia verborum. From the use of copia verborum in Cicero and Quintilian it appears
9.
that
it
more
regularly referred to facility in using a language. It is 1 closely defined by Fortunatianus . It is clear, therefore,
is
that Seneca
well.
Once more Paul is praised for the force and inspiration of his thoughts, once more he is criticized for failure to express himself in a manner worthy of those thoughts. This elegant style, Seneca goes on to say, depends not so much upon a
flowery use of words as upon a certain refinement. Seneca however, that he is now contradicting what he himself has preached on other occasions. At the beginning of his
reflects,
tells Lucilius to
1 III 3: Elocutio quibus partibus constat? quantitate verborum et structurae qualitate. In verbis quid observabimus? ut copia abundemus et bonitate. Copia quo modo gignitur? legendo, discendo, novando, exercendo.
91
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
he
is
it is
saying and to pay less attention to the manner in which said. The strongest appeal in the whole Correspondence
the last sentence of this letter, which admonishes Paul
is in
to ohey the rules for writing Latin in order to give a good outward appearance to his gift of noble sentiments.
14.
In the last
letter,
in
is
most prominent, the missionary activities which Seneca is to pursue are placed on a rhetorical basis. His sophia and his praeconia rhetorica are the two things upon which Paul depends
for the effective introduction of Christian teachings
among the
members
of Nero's household.
In view of this emphasis on rhetoric throughout the entire Correspondence and in consideration of the generally crabbed style of the letters themselves and of the evidence from a study
of the clausulae,
is
that of
one who
it
just learning to adopt these forms for his writing, appears not unlikely that the Correspondence constitutes the
is
work
of a student in a fourth-century school of rhetoric. The constant admonitions of Paul to Seneca may re-echo the very words which a teacher in such a school would use to one of his
pupils:
ideas in your essays, but you This would explain plausibly the yourself badly." express very
amount
of religious discussion.
-'
which have survived, the emphasis must have been on oral presentation of assigned topics, dealing with historical and
literary subjects or with more general themes. which are known are Vergilian topics, such as the
Among
words
,
those
of
Dido
92
CHAPTER
dor
IV
who betrays
his country
.
*,
in
oratory and the characteristic method of attaining oratorical perfection was by discussion and declamation, it seems nevertheless that writing as well as speaking
part of the training. The Correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul might then be considered as an exercise on a fictitious
subject assigned by the teacher. As I have already suggested, it is impossible to say whether the teacher was reminded of the
by the fact that a them already existed or whether the tradition grew up later after the letters were published. The other Correspondence which goes back to about the same period, that of Alexander with Dindimus the king of the Brahmans, would be
possibility of such an exchange of letters
tradition about
a product of the identical, or at least a closely allied, school. The comparison already made with the letters of Sym-
machus suggests that Symmachus and this author may have been trained in the same rhetorical school, though in that case Symmachus was probably the later of the two, since there is no argument for direct borrowing from him in the Correspondence.
The
Cor-
the work of more than one hand, perhaps of two respondence or three scholars in the same school, working in competition
.it
on a set problem. This hypothesis has the additional value that will give a satisfactory explanation for the numerous in14,
Nero, the slight emphasis upon Christianity except in the differences in vocabulary.
and
The letters of Seneca and Paul, mentioned uncritically by Jerome and by Augustine, were quickly accepted as authentic
1
Ibid. 14.
Ibid.
17.
93
SOURCES AND AUTHORSHIP
and for many hundreds of years their influence can be traced. They never form a part of the extensive apocryphal literature
but are very frequently found concerning the New Testament in the manuscripts with the genuine works of Seneca. Their existence was used not so much to show to what extent Paul
,
had spread his influence as to prove that Seneca had felt that influence. Undoubtedly a considerable element in the importance which Seneca enjoyed throughout the Middle Ages was due to the belief that he had been a Christian, while this belief in turn became so widespread because of the substantiation given to it by these letters to and from St. Paul.
1 is the only one of the manuscripts used in this edition in which the Correspondence is found with some of the New Testament, but since this manuscript is made up of several unrelated parts, put together at a
CHAPTER V
EDITIONS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
A. The edition by Alcuin
One of the most important problems of the present day in the field of textual criticism of the Vulgate edition of the Bible concerns the role which Alcuin played in determining the exact
nature of that text.
At the same time.this question also has important bearing on the whole subject of the script of Tours at the time of Alcuin's influence and later. Illumination is one
important source of evidence for the dating of the manuscripts of this period and the writing is another. When examinations
of
these
two
sources
disagree
in
their
results,
as
they
occasionally do, it is necessary to determine by the methods of textual criticism the exact interrelation and the relative
amount very of material which he had before him and because of the enormous
difficult to determine, chiefly because of the large
of labor involved in obtaining anything like complete information by means of collations of all the ninth century Bibles which have survived to our own time. Many preliminary
amount
studies
must
first
be made before
to
it will
together
enough information
enable
one to
certainty that any particular variant in the text is definitely and unquestionably an emendation by Alcuin himself.
of
Alcuin
is
95
EDITIONS
W. Kohler, Die Karolingischen Miniaturen. Erster Band: Die Schule von Tours. Des Textes erster Teil: Die Ornamentik (Berlin, 1930). With the review by E. K. Hand, Gdttingische gelehrte Anzeiqen 193 (1931)
336351.
E. K.
logical
Rand, 'A Preliminary Study of Alcuin's Bible', Harvard TheoReview XXIV (1931) 323396. With the review by W. Kohler,
G. g. A. 193 (1931) 321336. L. W. Jones, 'The Text of the Bible and the Script and Art of Tours', Harvard Theological Review XXVIII (1935) 135179.
It happens that Alcuin also made an edition of the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul and that the text of those manuscripts which are descended from his edition stands clearly
apart from other manuscripts in 42 places (see the list of 8 readings on p. 59). Here, with the possible exception of emendations -which might also be scribal 'errors, the hand of
Alcuin
may
existence of this edition will be presented first, followed detailed study of the variants themselves.
by a
The
chief evidence is
brief
poem by Alcuin
in
which he
dedicates to Charlemagne a volume which contains a copy of this Correspondence and of the equally spurious letters of
Alexander and Dindimus. In fairness to Alcuin, however, it much as hints at any doubt
as to the genuineness of these two groups of letters. The poem itself is found in the following manuscripts
Bruxelles
*:
of Seneca
and
MS. B of the Correspondence 41v, IX cent. The poem precedes the Alexander-Dindimus and Paul letters and was published from this manuscript in Pertz,
283942,
St.
f.
Paul.
Reims
and
St.
434,
f.
3,
IX
cent.
MS.
is
poem
found.
manuscript in Alcuini Carmina, ed. Diimmler (Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini I) No. 81, p. 300 and repeated by C. Morelli, 'Sulle Tracce del Romanzo e della Novella', Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica N. S. I (1920) 51.
1 I have photographs of the Bruxelles, Reims, and Paris manuscripts. Another copy, containing only the first distich, has been brought to light by the publication of Dom Wilmart's catalogue of the Codices Reginenses Latini 1-250 in the Vatican Library. This copy is Reg. Lot. 126, f. 259, late XII cent., just before a complete MS. of the Correspondence of Alexander and Dindimus.
96
CHAPTER V
Paris lat. 7886, f. 14, IX cent., in which a fragment of the AlexanderDindimus correspondence follows the poem. It was published from this manuscript in Germanici Caesaris Aratea, ed. Breysig (Berlin, 1867) p. XVI. Oxford, Corpus Christi 82, p. 165, XII cent., in which the poem is in the margin of a complete copy of the Alexander-Dindimus correspondence. The first two lines of the poem are printed in H. 0. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum MSS. qui in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur
II (Oxford, 1852) Corp. Chris, p. 29.
Millstadt,
Apparently the
poem came after the Alexander-Dindimus correspondence. This manuscript was used by Frobenius for his Alcuini Opera II 606 P. L. 101, 1375. Prom this it is repeated in Julius Valerius, ed. Kuebler (Leipzig, 1888)
p.
XXVII.
The text of the poem is as follows: Gens Bragmaima quidem miris quae moribus extat
Hie legitur; lector mente fidem videat. Hie Pauli et Senecae breviter responsa leguntur: Quaenam notavit nomine quisque suo.
5 Quae
tibi,
et clarissime Caesar,
edition
by Alcuin
in
existence today is the Bruxelles manuscript, where occur in the proper order: the dedicatory poem, the letters of Alexander and
Dindimus, the letters of Seneca and St. Paul. The same manuscript is also, as far as can be determined, ,the oldest copy
1 extant of either of these sets of Correspondence In addition to B and R the edition by Alcuin
.
is
also to be
traced in
E and
Alexander and Dindimus. Furthermore, S and A show all 42 of and G have a large the variants of the Alcuin group, while
1 The conversations of Alexander with the king of the Brahmans are found in one other ninth century manuscript, Leyden Voss. lat. Q. 20. I have to date located about 60 copies of this work in manuscripts, of which quite a few are incomplete. The latest and most convenient edition is that of B. Kuebler, Julius Valerius (Leipzig, 1888) 169189. Among the manuscripts which contain both. Correspondences are Paris lat. 6385, Karlsruhe 506, and Oxford Brasenose College 13.
97
EDITIONS
proportion of them. These eight manuscripts, which are always cited in the order BARSEWGQ, constitute the group descended
from the recension by Alcuin. One other manuscript (K) also contains both sets of the Correspondence, but its text of the
letters
of
Seneca
and
St.
Paul
is
in
no way related to
that of the Aleuin group, in spite of the fact that it is much contaminated from other sources! Does it then also give
the Alexander-Dindimus text in a form which antedates Alcuin's
but I
study seems to indicate that this is quite possible, unprepared as yet to make any definite deductions from that part of my work.
edition?
My
am
The
existence
of
common
ancestor
of
BARSEWGQ,
a, has been sufficiently proved (pp. 59 ff.) and namely 8, it is now safe to assume the identity of 8 with the text as
a copy of
published by Alcuin. The 42 variants of the 5 manuscripts may, therefore, be examined to see whether any or all of them can
Rand
order
(ff.
of
the
books
of
the
Bible;
(2)
the
number
and
of the prefatory pieces to the gospels; (3) chaptertitles of chapters in the gospels;
the gospels. This same division is pertinent to the treatment of the text of the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul, although this is not the place to discuss the order of the letters
Alcuin has kept the letters in the order in which they were found by him and as they are represented by all the other descendants of 2.
in this Correspondence
.
letters of Seneca and Paul regularly have one prefatory the twelfth chapter of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. It is piece, and Q in this group. Since these two however, found, only in
The
it is
simplest to assume
Cf. p. 88.
98
CHAPTER V
that they took the notice from Jerome from some other source and that this notice was not in Alcuin's edition. Since Alcuin would probably not have left this prefatory piece aside if he had found it in his original manuscript, it may be concluded
that
it
in his exemplar,
but
it is
not possible
to prove this.
Fortunately, a much better criterion is to be found in a study of the general title of the Epistles and the salutations and farewell formulae for each of the fourteen letters, with the dates of 10 14; thirty-four items in all. Here the Alcuinian
manuscripts often stand apart from all the rest: see i, vi, xi, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxxi, xxxv, xxxix of the 5 variants, p. 59.
These headings correspond to the eapitula in the Bible texts. There is, first of all, the general title. A title different from
that of
all
is
abbreviated in R. It
other titles
,
It reads: EPISTOLAE SENECAE AD APOSTOLVM PAVLVM ET 1PAVLI AD EVNDEM QVAS SIBI PROPTER FAMILIARITATEM MVTVAM TRANSMISERVNT; EXCERPTAE DE LIBRIS EIVSDEM SENECAE.
Paul seems rather unnecessary, unless it indicates that some readers, not knowing of such a friendship, might be surprised to learn of the existence of an exchange of letters between the two. The last phrase has been interpreted in the
Appendix (p. 114) to mean that this copy of the letters was taken from a manuscript which also contained other works of Seneca, most probably the genuine correspondence with Lucilius. It is certainly impossible to suppose that anyone could have
1
exhibit a similar
The Alcuinian manuscripts of the letters of Alexander and Dindimus title. The form in B is: ALEXANDRI REGIS MACEDO-
NVM ET DINDIMI REGIS BRAGMANORVM DE PHILOSOPHIA PER LITTERAS FACTA CONLATIO. The form in K, presumably nonAlcuinian,
is:
macedonum ad dindimum
99
EDITIONS
thought that these letters were made up by adapting other works of Seneca. How much less could a scholar like Alcuin have thought so! There were, to be sure, many works in the Middle Ages which were excerpted from Seneca: De Quattuor
Virtutibus,
tate,
De Moribus, De Remediis Fortuitorum, De PauperDe Oopia Verborum, to mention the best-known examples 1
;
but one who sets about forging such a Correspondence as this does not make it up from all-too-obvious quotations, and one
does not believe that such a Correspondence is genuine, if one perceives that the letters therein consist merely of quotations.
Three of the salutations have variants in Alcuinian manuscripts. That for 1 is omitted entirely in the uncontaminated
may
and a farewell, and where any of the latter was missing he seems to have inserted one of his own. In the salutation of 6 the 8 manuscripts have LVCVLLO where most others show LVCILLO. The latter form is quite common in
to have a salutation
manuscripts of the letters of Seneca to Lucilius. Probably the change to Lucullus is an attempt to make a genuine Latin name
out of Lucilius. The same Lucullus
scripts at
1,
is
manu-
2,
it
is
likewise in C, it is not
absolutely certain that the change was made by Alcuin. In the title of 7, BAR have SENEO; this again must be some
ANNEO
from Seneca but to him. It is most probably a mistake made after the copy left the hands of Alcuin. If Alcuin were making a thorough revision of the text of these letters, he might be expected to have corrected the use
sort of error, for the letter is not
of the name Theophilus in this same title. Paul's friend was Timotheus, not Theophilus, as Alcuin must have well known. There are other indications that this recension was made hastily. The rest of the salutations show few variants, although
1
Cf.
Schanz-Hosius, Gesch.
d.
Rom.
71720.
7*
100
CHAPTER V
they are not well unified, e.g. Annaeus appears in the of 2, 4, and 7, but nowhere else.
titles
The same manuscripts have the following variations in the formulae at the close of each letter: 1, frater is omitted, as, also
in P;
2,
diu
is
omitted, as also in
MTP;
3,
amice
is
is
added after
Bene ualeas
added, where
seems to have lost the formula by accident; 6, ualeatis for ualete; 13, ualeas for uale. There may also be noted in 11, ualere te BASE with D for te ualere. There is a desire to change
several of the imperatives to subjunctives.
letters
In Alcuin's own
both ualeas and uale are found, though usually the concluding formula is more elaborate. One salutation is left
uncorrected; a careful revision should have changed the uale of 7, which is directed to two persons. Finally 10 14 usually bear dates. 5, in common with many
other manuscripts, had lost the date of 12, and had also made an error of its own in losing that of 10. In 11 the Frigi of all
the other manuscripts has been changed to Frugi. This is an intelligent and necessary correction and one which should be
was not available a ninth century scholar, however, to correct the name Lucone in the dates of 13 and 14. All of these changes appear to have been the work of a
attributed to Alcuin. Necessary information
to
single person, who was attempting to standardize and when possible to correct the regular titles and the closing phrases of
the letters.
In the last place as regards the text itself, there are thirty-two cases in which the edition by Alcuin departs from the other manuscripts (cf p. 59) For Alcuin's recension of the text of
. .
the Bible thirty-six distinct variants have so far been identified. Five of these are given by Prof. Rand (E. T. R. 24, 3845) and
the rest
28,
1745). They
are of con-
siderable importance as parallels for the cases in the Correspondence, although in total
in
101
EDITIONS
proportion to the extent of the text. The thirty-two cases from the Correspondence fall into certain groups. Two (xxii, xxvii) concern proper names. Achaicis is an attempt to interpret a
difficult passage.
the Galatians, Corinthians, and Achaeans. The latter has been * interpreted as referring to II Corinthians. The editor of the 8
knowing that Paul did not write directly to the Achaeans, suggested that the text should read: letters to the Galatians ,and to the Achaean Corinthians. The same suggestion was
text,
made independently
UT.
correction of this
of
in the
margin
of
name
some
of the
manu-
scripts Cicero, which have hoth Vatiriius and VaMenus. Similar changes are found in Jones' list for Matt. 27,46 and
Luke
3, 28.
There are five examples of omission vii, viii, ix, xii, xxxix. All but ix may be accidental, but such omissions are paralleled from the list of Jones: Matt. 15,35; Mark 11,25; Luke 2,42;
7,32 etc.
v|.?!5
There are four instances of the addition of a single word to the text of which at least the last iii, xxxv, xlii, xliii
,
make improvements.
Cf.
Jones Luke 8,12 and John 12,22. Five cases of change of word-order x, xix, xxix, xxxi, xxxviii may be compared with Jones Mark 4,26; John
1,12 and 21,1.
With the exception of xxiii, which may represent the reading of a and which is very difficult to interpret if meant ii, iv, v, xv, xviii, xx, seriously as an emendation, all the rest
are xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxx, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxvii, xli variants which constitute for the most part simple changes of
single words.
1 2
A large
number
of examples, even to
mere spelling
P. 142.
Cf. p. 37.
102
CHAPTER V
variants,
may
be found in the
lists of
Rand and
Jones.
From
the present list may be eliminated xv, xviii, xxv, xxxiii, and xxxiv on the ground that they are more probably scribal errors than deliberate changes on the part of an editor. careful
examination of the remaining cases of changes in the text will furnish an accurate and intimate picture of Alcuin's editorial
methods.
A
is
(p.
He
discussing the error of treaior tria. "Six scribes of Tours in the first half of the ninth century would hardly fall independently into
this mistake.
I
it
existed in
used by Alcuin, that he had put a dot below the e and an i above it, and that some of the copies of his recension, even one so late as B. N. 3, had failed to take the correction. This
consideration leads to the important inquiry as to the form of Alcuin's edition. He did not, I take it, remove all traces of the
basic text, but like Theodulf put many of his variants in the margins or between the lines. One copy of his work was sent
to the emperor.
scribes,
One or more remained as models for later who would inevitably differ in the exactness with which
they incorporated Alcuin's variants in the text. This consideration should lead us to go slow in constituting the groups of
manuscripts." It is no less advisable to "go slow" in attempting to constitute groups for the descendants of Alcuin's edition of the
Correspondence. The little evidence which is available for this purpose has been stated on pp.61 62. The following three instances are sufficient to indicate that the three oldest Alcuinian
manu-
the correction, now scripts, BRS, may present individually the original reading of the text in which the changes of Alcuin
now
had been made: preuaricare BS, preuaricari R; uellis BR, uelis S; ornament a, B, ornament o RS. It is because of such readings as these that these three manuscripts have been represented in
103
EDITIONS
the stemma as separate copies, or descendants of separate copies, of Alcuin's manuscript. In the second of these three
readings R 'has corrected uellis to uelis. This probably indicates that Alcuin found uelles in his copy. verb form so obviously violating the sequence of tenses must be corrected, he thought.
He
the second
and an and R
over
failed
to omit the
and
iii
of the list
discovered his mistake, but B did not. Nos. ii on pp. 61 62 may also be used to show a
similar state of affairs in other parts of Alcuin's manuscript. One further test of Alcuin's influence on this group of
manuscripts may be applied from his treatise on orthography V written to direct his scribes at Tours. Of bourse, no existing
manuscript of the 8 family comes nearer than J>0 years to the date of Alcuin's death, but it may nevertheless be profitable
to state briefly the degree to which the three oldest, BRS, observe the recommendations of Alcuin. I have selected 44
words from the text of the letters of Seneca and St. Paul, for the spelling of which a preference was stated by Alcuin. In each case Alcuin's model word follows in parentheses.
In 25 cases all three manuscripts follow the form preferred by Alcuin: neglectum (neglegens), annuerit (annuo), impune
intellegant (intellego), apparuissent (apponoy, quicquid twice (quicquid), affecti and affectent (afficio), hi and his twice each (hi, his), hand (hand) 3 Id twice (deficit R)
2
(improbus*)
apud (apud), atque (atque), committi (commodamus), opto three times and optauimus (optat), supplicium
(kalendas),
(supplico), colliduntur (collocat).
On
fail to
already been
1 2 3
mentioned:
afferat
BR1
adferat
RS
7,
(afficio),
3, 8,
Orthographia Albini Magistri, ed. H. Keil, Gram. Lat. but in 11, 13 BR have inpune, S has impune. 12, 7, but in 7, 12 B has haut.
295312.
104
CHAPTER V
caeperis B, coeperis RS (coepit), ammirandarum BR, admirandarum S and admoneri BS, ammoneri R (ammoneo), praerogabis
BS, prerogabis
(ae),
imponat BS, inponat R (improbus), carissime once and feme with ab-
breviation
corruptela
(carissime),
corruptella B,
(corruptela) Finally all three violate Alcuin's rules four times: inbutus
.
RS
(imbuii), admirer
the possible exception of evidence points to Vatini rather than Vatinii in the exemplar).
This makes a total of 94 agreements out of a possible 127 between the spellings of the three oldest 8 manuscripts and that indicated by Alcuin as his own preference. S agrees 34
times out of 43. In consideration of the time which had elapsed from Alcuin's death to the copying of these manuscripts, the amount of agreement is sufficient to show that the 6 tradition was quite probably influenced by Alcuin *.
The conclusion of this section, that the Carolingian recension of the Correspondence represented in the 8 family was made by Alcuin himself, is, therefore, supported by the following
arguments: his own dedicatory poem, the common variants in the headings and conclusions, the emendations in the text, which resemble those in Alcuin's recension of the Bible, and the
correspondence of the orthography of the manuscripts with that
recommended by Alcuin.
B. Modern Editions
Repertorium Biblio-
Edm. Lienard, Revue Beige XI (1932), states that Manitius thought that these letters were written by Alcuin. But Manitius says nothing of the kind; he merely remarks that Alcuin made the Correspondence familiar to the French. His actual words are: So machte Alchvine die Kategorien Augustins, den Briefwechsel zwischen Paulus und Seneca und die Briefe zwischen Alexander und dem Bragmanenkb'nig im Frankreich heimisch (Gesch. der lat. lit. des mit. I 248).
105
EDITIONS
1 The oldest of these are graphicum II, 2 (Stuttgart, 1838) 14590, Naples 1475, and 14601, Rome 1475, the former in a volume of the complete works of Seneca, the latter accompany.
14593, Venice 1490; 14594, Venice 1492; 14607, Cologne 1499; 14628, Cologne 1499. The third of these is the only one in which
the Correspondence was published separately. The first great editor of the works of Seneca was Erasmus.
in England. It was produced rather in those charge and therefore required revision carelessly by and improvement for a second edition, which appeared in 1529. The Correspondence with Paul is included with the other
spurious works of Seneca and is preceded by a long paragraph in the forceful Latin of Erasmus, could leave little doubt
^hich
in the
letters.
minds
To quote a
few. sentences:
'
His epistolis non video quid fingi possit frigidius aut ineptius et tamen quisquis fuit auctor, hoc egit, ut nobis persuaderet Senecam fuisse Christianum Quam nihil est in Paulinis epistolis illo Pauli spiritu dignum, quam vix usquam audias women Christi, cum ille non soleat aliud crepare quam lesum Christum Illud insignitae cuiusdam stultitiae est quod Seneca mittit Paulo librum de copia verborum quo posthac melius scribal Romane. Atqui si Paulus nesciebat Latine poterat Graece scribere, cum Graece nosset, Seneca Illud omnium impudentissimum quod cum faciat Senecam in Apostolo desiderantem copiam et cultum sermonis, tamen in his epistolis nihilo cultius scribit Seneca quam Paulus. Sed par est
. . . . ,
Non dubito utriusque balbuties et sensum frigus atque ineptia quin vel mulio vel agaso Senecae minus inepte fuerit scripturus.
.
Doubtless Erasmus
that such strong language was necessary to combat the influence that this Correspondence had been
felt
enjoying almost unchallenged for so many centuries. Of other sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth century editions of the Epistles only those two deserve mention which
The supplements
of
available.
106
CHAPTER V
Sancta (Lyon, 1575) I 111113 and Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Hamburg, 1703) 880904. Sixtus
Senensis
was one
group
of
were genuine.
He
explains
the Latin, so unlike Seneca's own, by supposing that Seneca wrote in such a style for the express purpose of being able to deny authorship, if any of the letters should be intercepted!
more
scientific
respondence was made by two scholars who published their work in the same year in the middle of the last century. A. Fleury in his St. Paul et S&neque (Paris, 1853) was a
strong champion of all previous believers in the probability of Seneca's adherence to Christianity. He did not, however, believe that the existing Correspondence is genuine. Nevertheless he
the second volume of his work, pp. 300 338, with and an apparatus criticus, followed by a French many notes translation on pp. 339 347. His text was based chiefly on a Toulouse manuscript of the fifteenth century, but relies occasionally upon readings from three Paris manuscripts, lat. 2359, 6344, and 6389. Aubertin, Seneque et Saint-Paul (Paris, 1872) 428 444 repeated without change the text of Fleury, but added a new French version.
included
it in
The other
year 1853 was by Haase in the Teubner series, L. Annaei Senecae Opera Quae Supersunt III 476 481. On p. XXII of
the preface to this volume, the editor told of the difficulties
which he had in establishing a text which would be at all satisfactory. He unfortunately used the edition of Fabricius as
"forum
The phrase foro quod sors concessit (11, 7) is explained as the of divine justice, since that is the only one left to us by a tyrannical emperor". Fabricius was also the first to suggest the interpretation of
Achaeis which
I
have adopted on
p. 142.
107
EDITIONS
a model, only correcting its more obvious corruptions and omissions. In addition he had the collation of an Erfurt manuscript made for him by Fickert and the readings of two Breslau manuscripts, which he had himself examined. Of the state of the text and of the possibility of restoring it further he
remarked:
Tot supersunt loci dubii et depravati, ut verisimile mihi sit ineptam falsarii orationem iam. a veteribus librariis magis etiam vitiatam esse; sed tamen quoniam codices vetusiissimi, Argentoratensis, quo epistulae Senecae, et Mediolanensis, quo dialogi continentur, ad emendandas subditicias has epistulas nondum adhibiti sunt, sperare de Us optima quaeque licet.
F and L
of the present edition. Scholars of the next three decades devoted their energies to obtaining and interpreting the readings of
the ninth century. The studies of Lowe on the Beneventan script have shown that L should be ascribed to the end of the eleventh
1
century
Wachsmuth, 'Zu Seneca's Briefwechsel mit dem Apostel Paulus', Rhein. Mns. XVI (1861) 3013, was the first to make available some of the readings of the Ambrosian manuscript (L) He gave a selection of 56 readings and glosses which, he believed, furnish improvements over the text of Haase. He made a
.
first
Epistle and
He
has, furthermore,
made
several errors in reading this hand. It is important to call attention to one of them at this point. For some inexplicable
reason editors since Erasmus have printed the eleventh letter of the Correspondence after the twelfth. In his comments on 12,
really 11,
script:
Wachsmuth
studiose,
manucritics
vir
quotienscunque tibi
Of. p. 16.
108
CHAPTER V
as proof that even in this manuscript the position of the eleventh letter is uncertain. Actually the comment was meant
to accompany the twelfth letter, in which Seneca discusses the subject of the proper position of Paul's name, in answer to 10.
a wild guess
for
some word ending in -dere apparently; subscribe is actually scribo as in 10, 2. These are, therefore, to be interpreted as the remarks of a reader who wished merely to call attention to the
fact that 12
is
other (F) of the two older manuscripts known to Haase was utilized for an edition by F. X. Kraus, 'Der Briefwechsel
The
Pauli mit Seneca', Theologische Quartalschrift XLIX (1867) 603 624. It had been sent, together with another Strasbourg
manuscript
(J), to
in the
hands of
Biicheler,
a nearly complete
It is
edition,
years
after
publication.
was
in the article of
Wachsmuth
cited above. The text of Kraus is fairly sound, considering the one-sided evidence that was available, for it will be noted by reference to the stemma that, with the exception of the contaminated readings of J, a late manuscript and
all
ready to republish the works of Seneca he was able to take advantage of Wachsmuth's publication of L and Kraus' of F and J. His second edition of 1872, reprinted in 1883, 1895, and most recently in the
in the
of 1902, pp. 7479, differs from the first in at least 55 places. In spite of this fact, the misleading preface of
Supplementum
the first edition has been repeated without change with each new reprinting of the improved text, which has been the only
109
EDITIONS
one readily available for the last 66 years. Haase's exact debt
to
in
list of
variants
my
first
Index
in the apparatus.
mono-
graph by E. Westerburg,
material
already
mentioned,
complete collation of L,
made
for
contains several conservative conjectures by the editor, one of which (sublimi ore 7, 5) I have accepted. This edition was
reviewed by Harnack
'
in
Theologische Litteraturzeitung
.
VI
(1881) 446.
fifty-seven years that have elapsed since the time of Westerburg have produced no study whatever of the text of
The
these Epistles. Thus, of the nineteen manuscripts older than the twelfth century now available only three have ever been
examined before.
*
Pp.
1534.
CHAPTER
VI
TESTIMONIA
The passages which are brought together here include, as far as could be discovered, all references to the Correspondence
of Seneca
time
it is
and St. Paul before the thirteenth century. At a later mentioned much more frequently, especially by the
Italian humanists.
I.
Jerome,
De
392 (text on
p.
122)
II.
413414.
apostolomm fuit, cuius etiam "Omnes odit, qui malos
Merito
odit."
Seneca,
qui
temporibus
epistulae:
Goncursus quoque multus de domo Caesaris fiebat ad eum (Paulum), credentium in Dominum lesum Christum et augmentabatur cotidie fidelibus gaudium magnum et exultatio, sed et institutor imperatoris adeo est illi amicitia copulatus, videns in eo divinam scientiam, ut se a colloquio illius vix temperare posset, quatinus si ore ad os ilium alloqui non valeret, frequentibus datis et acceptis epistolis ipsius duleedine et amicali colloquio atque consilio frueretur, et sic eius doctrina agente spiritu sancto multiplicabatur, ut licite iam doceret et a multis libentissime audiretur. Disputabat siquidem cum ethnicorum philosophis et revineebat eos, unde et plurimi eius magisterio manus dabant. Nam et scripta illius quidam magister Caesaris coram illo relegit et in cunctis admirabilem reddidit. Senatus etiam
de
illo
alta
non mediocriter
sentiebat.
poem
to his edition,
c.
795 (text
in
on
p. 96).
V.
identical
Peter
Abelard,
in
Sermo
in
XXIV
(repeated
almost
words
Expositio
Epistolam Pauli ad
Roma-
nos
I,
1).
et apud philosophos habitus sit (Paulus) qui eius vel praedicationem audierant vel scripta viderant, insignis ille tam eloquentia quam moribus Seneca in epistolis quas ad eum dirigit his verbis protesta-
Quantus autem
Ill
TESTIMONIA
tur 1 Libello tuo lecto, de plurimis ad quosdam litteris, quas ad aliquam civitatem sen populum caput provinciae direxisti mira exhortatione vitam moralem contemnentes, usquequaque refecti sumus. Quos sensus non puto ex te dictos, sed per te, eerte aliquando ex te et per te. Tanta etenim maiestas earum rerum est tantaque generositate clarent ut vix suffecturas putem hominum aetates quibus institui perficique possint. Meminit et Hieronymus huiizs laudis Senecae erga Paulum in libro De illustribus viris, cap. 12, ita scribens: . Then follows the chapter of Jerome in full.
: . .
VI.
Id.,
quoque inter universes philosophos, tarn moralis doctrinae vitae gratiam adeptus, epiritum sanctum bonorum omnium distributorem patenter profitetur, ita de ipso ad Paulum apostolum in quarta 2 scribens epistola: Profiteer me bene acceptum lectionem litterarum tuarum quas Galatis Corinthiis Achiis misisti. Spiritus enim sanctus in te supra excelsos sublimiqr satis venerabiles sensus exprimit.
Seneca
quam
VII.
Id.,
Ex
Senecae
ad Paulum:
followed
by the same
Nonne ipsi Paulo famosus ille philosophus Seneca dixit nullas se credere suffecturas aetates ad litterarum illarum altitudinem eapiendam? 4 Nonne et ilia crudelis bestia Nero, his eodem philoeopho recitante auditis, mirari se dixit, unde homini, ut dicebat, indocto, tanta scientia inesse
potuit?
5
nam
etiam et
et superior ilia frivola nimis et vana sunt, ultimum hoc nefarium immane. Et ita tibi visum: una quidem epistolarum tuarum ad
.
X. Among several fragments found in some XIV and XV century manuscripts of the De Moribus, attributed to Seneca
Seneca to Paul, 1. No. 7 in the Correspondence, but the fourth letter written by Seneca. 3 It is noteworthy that VI and VII both follow quotations from the Correspondence of Alexander and Dindimus, showing that the author was quoting from a manuscript derived from the edition by Alcuin.
2 4 5
e
1
1,
14.
of
7, 11.
112
CHAPTER
VI
and published by B. Haureau in Notices et Extraits des M.8S. de la Bibl. Nat. 33 (1890) 1, 227 ff., repeated in Notices et
Extraits de Quelques MSS. Latins de la Bibl. Nat.
(Paris
18903) V178ff.
Seneca Paulo: Tulit priscorum aetas Alexandrum, Philippi filium, et post Darium et Dionysium, nostra quoque Caium Julium Caesarem, quibus quicquid libuit licuit.
Mention of the Correspondence in the four following places appears to be derived solely from the notice in Jerome:
I.
Freculphus, Ohronicon,
IX
century.
ecclesiae I 12,
9,
9.
a.
II.
Honorius
of
Autun,
De luminaribus
1120.
III.
Otto of Freising, Ohronicon III 15. IV. Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Historiale
The
brief
4,
Finally there
the
Z,
mentioned on
p. 25.
quote lines
1923.
dictus,
Conpunetus uerbis, fit mox per cuncta fidelis. Quod Paulus gaudens domino gratesque rependens Dilexit, semper uerbis scriptisque libenter.
APPENDIX
On
the Relation of
Extant MSS.
of
Seneca's Epistles 1
88
More than half of the manuscripts used for this edition of the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul contain other works ascribed to Seneca, whether falsely or correctly. In D the Correspondence is preceded by the Declamationes of the Elder Seneca and followed by the De dementia of Seneca the Younger.
The De dementia
also follows this Correspondence in K. L is the famous manuscript of the twelve Dialogi. In N the supposed epitaph of Seneca is inserted between the notice from Jerome
and the letters to Paul. In L and U it follows the letters. Other works attributed to Seneca are the De Copia Verborum in Q and the Proverbia in X.
Of greater significance is the existence of one or more of the genuine Epistles of Seneca in six of these manuscripts. O and'Z are alike in contents, in that they contain the letters to
Paul, the epitaph, and the first 88 letters to Lucilius. J was
probably similar to these, but it is now destroyed and there are no accurate reports of it. We have a much better description
of F, also destroyed.
The account on
p.
11 shows
how
the letters
to Paul, followed
by a part
first quaternion of a manuscript which has contained originally only Epistles 89124 to Lucilius. twelve selected letters to Lucilius, all taken from Epistles 2 47,
letters to
followed by the first letter to Lucilius. Apart from and J there are four manuscripts which contain both the
is
114
APPENDIX
the
Correspondence of Seneca and Paul and a certain number of Letters of Seneca to Lucilius, whose importance for
determining the text of the latter is recognized by all editors. The exact collocation of these manuscripts is as follows:
Seneca-Paul Seneca-Paul Seneca-Paul Seneca-Paul
= = W= Z =
F
A
(or Par. b)
recent study
suchungen
zu
Quaestiones 'Wurzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft', Heft 10 (Stuttgart, 1936), makes it possible for the first time to have some definite information as to the character
of the archetype of the manuscripts of the genuine Epistles of
Senekas
Seneca.
2",
comparison of this archetype, which is called Q, with the archetype of all the manuscripts of the Correspondence of Seneca and St. Paul except P, will prove interesting for the itself was light that each can throw on the other, since
almost certainly a manuscript of the first 88 letters to Lucilius, preceded by the Correspondence with Paul. One of the reasons
for this assumption is the identity of contents of
of
and
Z,
and
as far as it goes
l
.
Another reason
is
to be found in the
the letters to
.
The full Paulnm et Pauli ad eundem, quas sibi propter familiaritatem mutuam transmiserunt, excerptae de libris eiusdem Senecae. One cannot possibly think for a moment that the last phrase is to be interpreted as showPaul, as copied by four 6 manuscripts,
(cf p. 98)
.
BASE
ing that Alcuin thought these letters mere excerpts from other works of Seneca. The best inference to be drawn from the word
libris is
that
of Seneca,
1
it refers to a manuscript containing some works whether letters to Lucilius or something else, from
It is
letters
to Lucilius.
RELATTON OF
2 TO
115
MSS.
OF SENECA
which Alcuin took the copy of the letters to Paul for his edition. Thus there is evidence from Z and partial evidence from C and 5 for the existence of the letters to Lucilius in a, also
evidence from
in
/?.
F and
same
letters
It
is,
that
was a manuscript
Paul followed by
sets of corre-
spondence may have been put together for the first time in 2, along with the notice about Seneca from Jerome's De viris
illustribus, since
is
only preliminary.
He ,left
and g, so fragmentary, and gave very slight mention to that b is the. only one of these four ^manuscripts represented among the six which he studied. Hence it is impossible to be
certain that his archetype does not correspond to the this edition, rather than to 2.
ft
of
One
date of Q. In Rev. de Philologie I (1877) 156 Chatelain had already demonstrated that MS. p of the letters to Lucilius was
copied from a minuscule manuscript which was written earlier of Charlemagne. Poerster's classification
direct copy of Q. This date does
makes p a
that of
is
since
5,
a descendant
of
known
Both
to be earlier than 804, the year of Alcuin's death. and 2, then, were written in the eighth century, or
possibly earlier.
in' the following manner: Q had three copies, and which a, 7, p, may be proved by the fact that each one of these has independent errors. It is also found, however, that ap agree in error occasionally where y has the right reading, yp agree in error where a has the right reading, and ay agree in
8*
116
APPENDIX
error where only p is correct
This state of affairs is reasonably had two readings wherever two explained by assuming that of these three manuscripts have common errors and that the
.
copyists have 'exercised their own judgment in choosing now the one, now the other. Furthermore, Foerster finds it necessary
to assume that y often copied both variants from Q, because of such cases as the sharing of errors between p and one or two single descendants of y. This exactly corresponds to the situa-
tion in the manuscripts of the letters of Seneca to Paul, where had doublets which were copied by ft, so that they appear as variant readings in copies of /?. An excellent example of this
in the letters to
in
Paul is the variation between quae and quibus See the discussion of this point on p. 50. It is to be noted that MS. O(= b) is descended from ft, for the Correspondence, and, for the letters to Lucilius, is descended from y. There
6, 2.
is,
however, no sufficient evidence for assuming the identity of the /? of this edition with Foerster's y.
An
word
of
made by Foerster on
p. 33,
every
which
is
and Paul as to the genuine letters: "Es steht fest, dafi der Text der Brief e Senekas im 9./10. Jh. und wohl schon frtiher
starken Eingriffen unterworfen war, die den Zweck batten, einen verstandlichen Text herzustellen; denn die Briefe waren kein Schriftwerk, das durch Zufall und ohne sachliches Interesse selten abgeschrieben wurde, sondern sie wurden wirklich zum Studium gelesen; das bezeugt auch die grofie Zahl der erhaltenen
On
p.
Lesart
in
wenn
sich
Fehler findet, nicht oder nur aus einer der Vorlage von ayp (= ,,Archetypus") stammen."
Doppellesart
aus
RELATION OF
aber
2 TO
117
MSS.
OF SENECA
schriften
enthielt
eine
grofie
Fehler."
of
Further study of the manuscript tradition of the Epistles Seneca to Lucilius should bring to light other interesting
poissibilities.
No
Z has
52 are by the published. It is known, however, that Epistles 1 first scribe and 53 88 are by the second. Since there are other
and manuscripts of these Epistles which contain only some which contain only 53 88, it remains to be shown whether
the two sections in
152
contamination which
p.
it
are from a single source. In view of the was necessary to assume for Z (cf.
may be
of
importance.
EPISTOLAE SENECAE
AD PAULUM
ET PAUL! AD SENECAM
QUAE VOCANTUR*
Conspectus Siglorum
A Rome
B
XI IX XI
XII
saec.
113
G H
J
K
L
M N
P
Strasbourg C. VI. 5 Angers 284 Rome Reg. Lat. 119 Strasbourg C. VI. 17 Rome Reg. Lat. 147 Milan C. 90. inf. Munich lat. 14436 Munich lat. 18467 Paris lat. 8539 Paris lat. 2772
Paris
St.
lat.
XI IX/X XI
XII
19
XI
XII
XI X/XI
XII
17,
11 legitime
(1, 7, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 10,
XI
X(IX/X)
,
112
12, 3, 4, 9)
R
S
12295
XII
Reims 434
Gall 197 T. Metz 500 U Zurich C 129 (453) V Rome Reg. Lat. 1424 Wolfenbiittel 335 Gud. Lat. Vienna 969 Vienna 751
IX IX/X
36
13,
1-12
post 14
X
X
IX
3
eis
W
X Y
Z
a 8
de-
Metz 300
XI IX IX XI
12, 9 quippe
14
/?
= consensus codicum BARSEWGQVCDZ = consensus codicum BARSEWGQ = consensus codicum XFOLYUMT consensus codicum LYTJMT = consensus codicum omnium praeter nominatim = Kr Kraus
co
adlatos
editio F.
add.
cod. coni.
corr.
del.
addidit
codex
coniecit
marg. om.
correxit
delevit
editor, editio
ed.
Ep.
lac.
Hit.
Epistola
lacuna
littera
m.
Lineola
|
manus
finem versus indicat.
122
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECA M
INCIPIT
Lucius Annaeus Seneca Cordubensis, Sotionis stoici discipulus et patruus Lucani poetae, continentissimae
vitae fuit.
5
.epistolae provocarent quae leguntur a Pauli ad Senecam aut Senecae ad Paulum, in plurimis,
nisi
illae
me
quibus,
cum
et illius
temporis
potentissimus,
apud suog
quam Petrus et Paulus martyrio coronarentur a Nerone interfectus est. EXPLICIT PROLOGVS.
Q) de Seneca sic scribit (sic scribit om. K) in libro de illustribus QK Iheronimus in cathalogq uirorum industrium (sic) D RELATIO IERONIMI DE SENECA Z IEEONYMVS Incipit prologus
(lelj uiris
NIMVS
HIERO-
leronimus
F INCIPIT PROLOGVS SANCTI HIERONIMI IN LIBRO EPISTOLARVM VERSA DOMNI HIERONIMI PRESBITERI QVAE POSVIT SENECAE IN CATALOGO SANCTORVM VIRORUM ILLVSTRIVM CAPITVLA XII (CAPITVLA XII om. M) DE LVGIO ANNEO (ANNIO corr. T) SENECA
MT
presbiteri
Incipit praefacio leronimi presbyteri Incipit prologus sancti iheronimi (s. i. p. om. J) in epistolis paulo apostolo (apostolo dm. H) a
W
||
seneca transmissis
||
HJ Titulum
Ennius
AENNEVS Z
V 4 carthalogo (r chatalogo U sanctorum] illustrium ?OKr 5/6 a plurimis om. 6 plurimis] cum 5 7 pluribus D pluribus VU aut] et QVZ F?MTKEj6/7 in quibus] qui 8 potissimus D optareNeronis esset Q magister Neronis V tempore eiusdem corr. euos] optasse dicitur se esse aput suos eius loci loci supra suppl. esse eius 9 Pauli 10 suos] Syros D 2 Explicit prologus OHJ Explicit prologus sancti iheronimi in marg, O
co
W
||
VXU
2 Lucius om.
exp.)
WDXOH
||
||
constantissimae
||
||
||
||
||
||
XUM
123
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR>
ET PAVLI
I.
coraites
mecum.
Nam
in
Titulum ante prologum exhibent QV om. XLUNK EPISTOLAE SENECAE AD APOSTOLVM PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD EVNDEM QVAS SIBI PROPTER FAMILIARITATEM (FAMILIARITEM S) MVTVAM TRANSMISERVNT; EXCERPTAE DE LIBRIS EIVSDEM (EIVSDEDEM S) SENECAE (SENECAE S) BAS EPISTOLAE PAVLI ET SENECAE INTER SE PROPTER FAMILIAR! R'lncipiunt epistolae senecae ad paulum
apostolum, paulique similiter ad eundem, quas sibi causa familiaritatis transmiserunt, excerptae de libris eiusdem senecae E INCIPIVNT EPISTOLAE AD SANCTVM PAVLVM TRANSMISSAE SENECA Ineipiunt epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam GQ SENECAE ET
PAVLI EPISTOLARIS COLLOCVCIO V INCIPIVNT EPISTOLAE PAVLI AD SENCAM (com) ET SENECE AD PVLVM (sic) C Incipiunt
epistolae senatoris Senece ad Paulum apostolum et Pauli ad Senecam D SEQVVNTVR EPISTOLAE SENECAE Ad paulum apostolum ET pauli Ad SENECAM Z INCIPIVNT EPISTOLAE SENECE AD PAVLVM APOSTOLVM Incipiunt epistolae illustris uiri Senecae magistri Neronis ad Paulum
apostolum et ad Senecam Pauli in marg. ante prologum M Epistula ad sanctum Paulum transmissa a Seneca post prologum MT Incipiunt epistulae Lucii Annei Senece Cordubensis philosophi ad Paulo (sic) apostolum et Pauli apostoli ad eundem P Incipiunt epistolae ad sanctum Paulum a Seneca transmisse (transmisse a Seneca J) HJ
I.
112,9
6,
||
uidearis om. Y,
10, 12,
3, 4,
Epp. in
9
fj ||
scriptae
Gr
||
7,
SALVTEM
om.
BARSEWXF
||
2,
5,
8,
11,
PAVLO SALVTEM
om.
2 Seneca]. Lucius Anneus Senoca (sic) P || Senica ad Paulum add. ras. 1 litt. post Paule mi post Paule add. Z5 j| nuntiatum quod heri] nurtia testis aderit qui id P (qui id in quod? corr. P 2 ) || fuisse post nuntiatum add. fore odd. Z 5 esse add. F?J || quid hori || heri in marg. suppl. TJ 2 de te post heri add. aNJ et F teste Kr, del. D cum supra suppl. U 2 || Lucilio scripsi cum DIKK1 lucullo 8C locullo
VU
WGUMT
A
||
||
PH lucinio 3 apogryphis BR apoeryfis apogriphis S apocryphis E apochrysi C apocrisi D apocrisis Z aprocrisi apocriphis 3 aliis-4 tuarum] aliarum T 3 sermonem post TJ apochrisi altis P 5 rebus add. Z Kr habuimus D habuerim P enim erant] t in ras.
V
lucillo Z(l lucio
NK
||
\\
om.
supra suppl.
||
4 quidam om.
1
litt.
RP
comitis corr.
2
||
ras.
post comites
\\
124
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
hortos
Sallustianos
secesseramus,
quo
loco
occasions
nostri alio tendentes hi de quibus dixi visis nobis adiuncti eunt. Certe quod tui praesentiam optavimus, et hoc scias
volo: libello tuo lecto, id est de plurimis aliquas litteras
10
quas ad aliquam civitatem seu caput provinciae direxisti mira exhortations vitam moralem continentes, usque
refecti
te,
sumus. Quos sensus non puto ex te dictos, sed per Tanta enim maiestas
15
earum est rerum tantaque generositate clarent, ut vix suffecturas putem aetates hominum quae his inetitui perficique possint. Bene te valere, frater, cupio.
salluseianos sallustians P salu5 ortos AQCMT hortis P salustiaoiios ocaeione stianos &> j| recessceramus P lociZj&Kr || et ante occasione add. 6 nostra GZ/SN his Cfi hii AQDPHJ BU occasiones V occansione enim post hi add. BARS diximus GNvisis nobis ora. || de|de corr. 2 uasis G s 2 7 quod] -que D quo uis corr. subp. Z om. P || || visis]
||
||
||
||
||
R
||
||
||
praesentia
optauinus et hoc scias] scire te C hec obtauarimus P 7/8 soias. Volo corr. 1? SlibroP id est] etc verba de plurimis glossam esse putavit Kr de] o D 1 pluris R plurimis ex pluribus ex pruribus U pluribus MTP aliquas] ad
||
EG
(corr.
||
E)
||
||
||
aliquibus litteris CDHJ || lideras E literas 9 ad om. C litteris G literis F aliquas ciuitates V aliquas corr. 10 aliquam del., post civitatem scr. prouintiae exortatione mirae exhortationis XF.K> miram exortationem P continentes om. exortacione V mortalem BARSVCDM immortalem Q continens C continentem P habunde ante usque add. C|| usquequaque 8PH 11 sed] et P 12 uel post certe del. et add. T || aliquanto usque adeo V enim supra suppl. D 2 P || est ante enim add. magestas 12/13
quosdam
ft(praeter
W), om. Kr
\\
||
BARSEGCZXOUTK
|| ||
||
RSWOMTK N
||
||
||
earum rerum
maiestas
est maiestas
K
||
||
||
P P
CN
2 14 suffectura corr. U2 putes corr. A potem corr. U aetatem corr. A hominum etates N ominum et ante aetates add. D P quae his scripsi ex quehis P quibus 8/J (praeter U) HK quibus his institit ex VDZUNJKr quibus haec C instituti corr. D instituis corr. ut post institui add. DXlTHJUTr 15 perficique] non dicam institui? U 3 1 -que in -q; corr. B 2 perfici CDHJ possunt SMT posent K posint
jj
generaositate
||
clarent]
clarente
P
|
callens
CZ/SNJ pollens
||
ut] ex
uis
|j
||
||
||
possint
K2
||
||
||
||
ualere te
DUP VALETE in TE VALERE corr. T te R frater om. 8PN eupio frater CDX
|| ||
supra
cupio
||
||
obit
||
UM)
125
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR>
II.
neglectura,
litteris
dum
me
diceres,
censor sophista magister tanti principis etiam omnium, nisi quia vere dicis. Opto te diu bene valere.
III.
10
Quaedam volumina
II.
ordinavi
et
divisionibus
suis
ANNAEO-SALVTEM
\\
om.
||
LVTIO ante ANNAEO SENECAE PAVLVS (Paulus in textu X) XF ANNAEO add. P Annio EN (corr. E), om. U SENAECE (ras. 1 litt. ante C) R SENECA P Paulus PALVS (ANNAEO SENECAE om.) W 2 hie Senecae (ANNAEO om.) GCOK SALVTEM om. WGVDZ0HJP
j|
||
||
||
[|
incipit
||
PAVLVS
respondere G rescrbere potuissem F?J?.Kr presentem iuuenem fueram P 3/4 missurus eram
||
Literas |j semper \\ hilaris heri om. C eri P resscribere Q tibi 3 statim om. 6 (praeter W) || potuit corr. D
EWF
||
||
Sis 4 habuissem post iuuenis 5 et om. D et post cui add. H quando] quod G quern] quam D 2 dari om. 8 -que om. 8 -q; ex -que L comittique P &(praeter G) enim ante ergo add. Z/8NJ? subp. debeat committique corr. V quid MT 6 non] ne GVK L2 enim ex enom X ergo] enim D ego N putes? subp.
||
||
WCDN
||
quam D
[[
te]
uos
||
eram]
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|j
|j
L2
||
te ante neglectum add. GJ post putes T 1 negglectum necglectum P negletum corr. persona equalitatem 2 litteras corr. L 7 quod] qm (= quoniam?) H 7/8 Sed-iudicio om. V 1 2 bene corr. S literis corr. litteras meas bene a uobis acceptas alicubi uos 5(bene ex bone B) (bene tuos A) acceptos bis scr., corr. a om. P alicui N scribitis DL scripsistis P 8 arbritror M tanti] casti P 2 hoc om. a (praeter neque WKr n(= non) D non H iudicio] o subp. L
potes corr.
Q QO
||
ras. 1
litt.
||
||
|j
||
||
||
||,
||
||
||
||
V).MT
I)
dicere res
dicere
dicerereris
G diceris J
P
|| ||
9 recensor
(et
||
sophysta BAZ.sofista
edd. omnes,
diceris
||
tanti magister
etiam] et
8V
||
et
iam F?J?
10 uera
et
||
om.
CDZ
||
GQVCDZ8HJ
omnium om. C
bene diu
||
diu om.
E 8MTP
bene om.
III.
CDN
Lutius Anneus ante Seneca add. Epp. 3 6 post 14 collocavit R P Annaeus add. Q PAVLVS corr. U 2 PAVLO SALVTEM .om. 2 Q]uedam Z Quadam corr. R2 suis om. V supra SALVTEM om. GC
||
GQ
||
||
suppl.
||
126
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
statum
Si
5
eis dedi.
Ea quoque
Caesari legere
sum
destinatus.
modo
lit
tu praesens; sin, alias reddam tibi diem, hoc opus invicem inspiciamus. Et possem non prius edere ei earn scripturam, nisi prius tecum conferrem, si modo impune hoc fieri potuisset, hoc ut scires, non te
eris forsitan et
praeteriri.
IV.
te nobiscum
3
corr.
eis
||
statum
cesari
||
eis] ei
G
||
|(
dedi eis
||
sum destinatus legere in marg. suppl. destinatus sum distinatus BRE 4 et ante Si add. |) sors GQDZ0HJ fors ex f??s P || prospera modo] me P || fors] fros annuirit corr. annuerfe L aiuuerit P adiuuerit P2 || afferat a 2 SE 1 1 inueniam aferat E offerat C adferfe corr. forte T P 5 eris om., spatio relicto P forsan praesens]
Q legere C
quoque
||
N X
||
||
dedit
||
OK
||
BAR
A WGQDZOL MTHK
2
||
||
DZXOLK
||
alia corr. R distinctionem preues P prebes P sin] illi P olli P 2 6 ho corr. R2 inscipiamus corr. O post alias habent WGCDZXOTK 1 2 OHK aspiciamus corr. A respiciamus C inspitiamus P possim 7 edere bis scr. H edere ei earn] ei hanc non possem N prius om. N edere a (ei hanc om. D) earn edere N ei supra suppl. earn] quam || 1 hanc 'scripturam 'earn earn scripturam] conscripturam P2 hanc 2 tecum prius LP (1 hanc subp.) H prius om. aN supra suppl. U earn ante tecum odd. UMT conferam Z/SNHK tecum] tc (J te corr. Z 2 8 hoc impune C (conferram corr. L ) conferem Q conferre D inpune
8 2
||
||
||
||
EW
|j
||
|,|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
EDZPLUMPHK
hoc2 om.
1 1
WXOLHKfir
seias
res
H
E P
||
om. o(praeter W) posset N possit 1 potuisset H 8/9 hoc ut-carissime om. D Sutom. T|| scires] 9 praeterire corr. J praeterii aE 1!^ te non AJ te om. NH
||
|j
fieri
||
||
(preteriri
Paule cariesime om. Vale Paule carissime om. praeteriui frater post Paule add. N Paule del. et post carissime add. CU amice post carissime add. 6 frontes missus add. P INCIPIT ante ANNAEO odd. X IV. ANNAEO-SALVTEM om. F Senacae ANNAEO om. WGCOUK Ann et ras. Q SENECAE om. SALVTEM om. Paulus Seneca C Paulus Senece GO PALVS 2 QJuotienscumque ZF QuotiesLutius Anneus Seneca Paulo salutem P literas tuas om. D ras. 2 Hit. (corr. E) cumque ACUMT (corr. T) 3 aliut P existimo J tuam 6ZP (in lac. vel del. W) post audio R omni om. L ras. 1 -2 litt. post tempore H extimo P aestimo cu 3/4 uobiscum L8 3 te supra suppl. nobiscum esse te U
ptire
|| ||
_preterit
W)
praeteri
(corr.
L2 )
||
WO
praeterit
||
preteriit
MT
||
||
||
||
||
WGC
M
||
||
||
EW
))
||
||
||
||
127
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR>
Cum primum itaque venire coeperis, invicem nos et de proximo videbimus. Bene te valere opto.
esse.
V.
secta veteri recesseris et aliorsum converteris, erit postunon levitate hoc existimet.
vale.
Bene
VI.
De
IV
non
licet
arundine et
II loh. 13; III loh. 14. Cor. 1, 17. VI 2/3: II loh. 13; III loh. 13.
4/5: 5: II
.4
Cum] Quam
et
||
P2
||
caeperis
V. SENECA PAVLO SALVTEM om. F PAVLO SALVTEM om. W Lutius ante Seneca add. P Annaeus add. Q SALVTEM om. G SENAECAE U SENAECA U 2 PAVLVS corr. U2 Paulu corr. P Paullo H 2 Nimium SEWL2HJ successu RFM suecessu corr. secessu tuo CD W se- ex ? L2 angimur secessu OHJE Quid est] Quidem UP (corr. U) uel ante quae add. OKKr te om. A, post res DH (rex corr. Quae] quo P
|| ||
|| || ||
MT primum itaque] igitur D venire] uoiire corr. B ceperis FU (corr. F) 4/5 et-videbimus] uidere ualebhnus om. P 5 Bene-opto] om. G ValeC ualerete opto ualere te J 2 ualere ante te suppl. R te om. P valere] ualo corr. P
|| ||
||
||
cupio 8 (praeter G)
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|j
||
[|
H)
||
MT) HJK
3 emotum remoratum Zj8 (rememoratnm Hit. post faciunt ras. 4 Hit. post Si R est ante dominae add. H dominae om. G domini ZOMTNK est post dominae add. C 4 veteri om. G ueteris corr. C quod a ex ? L2 -a om. F 1 tui P aliorsum] aliorum EH ad aliorum C alios rursum fiK (alios sursum ad ante alios add. U conuersus sis 8CZ 8HJ erat corr. B K) 4/5 5 ratione] traditione /?K facta 8 (praeter G) factum postulanti corr. T 2 Z 2 aestimet W* hec Q existimetur GFH &is tim&ur existimes CU 6 Bene vale scripsi Bene ualeas 8(Valeas bene G) Vale CMT Bene uatere P Vale Paule lone om. a> Paulus Seneee GC) VI. SENECAE-SALVTEM om. WGCF (Paulus Annaeo ante Senecae add. Q ET LVCILIO om. OP AENICE T Lutio LVCVLLO b(ex LVCVLO A1 ) lucilio ZH (ex lucio H) lucillo a> 2 2 D]e ZF Seneee Paulus P bis] is corr. O quae] quibus uel quae OK arondine quibusque LU quibus MTP unus scripsistis L scribsisti P corr. T 2 harundine BARSEWG 2 DMP (corr. M) et] aut
2/3
remotum
facient
res
||
CP
||
ras.
56
||
|J
||
|]
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
\\
||
||
||
|)
||
128
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
atramento eloqui, quarum altera res notat et designat aliquid, altera evidenter ostendit, praecipue cum sciam inter vos esse, hoc est apud vos et in vobis, qui me
intellegant.
est,
tanto magis
quanto indignandi occasionem captant. Quibus si patientiam demus, omni modo eos et quaqua parte vincemus, si modo hi sunt qui poenitentiam sui geran't. Bene valete.
VII.
ANNAEVS SENECA PA.VLO ET THEOPHILO SALVTEM. Profiteer bene me acceptum lectione litterarum
tuarum quas Galatis Corinthiis Achaeis
misisti, et ita
3 artramento
||
res
2
)
res altera loqui 8 quorum altera] -ra del. B || et designat] edesignat corr. disignat RS (corr. || SCD aquit corr. evidenter] cni detur C || pr&ipueP 2 iam D 5 esse inter sciam] -am in ras. 3 4 litt.
||
||
||
||
||
capiunt D oapta 7/8 si patientiam WCDXFLUPNHJ (si supra ras. H) (pacientiam P) sapientiam OMTK si sapientiam 8Z (praeter W) 4 eos 8 damus G omni om. f || omni modo] omnino J (patientiam Z ) 1 om. C |1 et om. HJ ex (et U) et ex E quaque BARSED 1!! arte G || uincimus L uindicemus MT 9 quaeumque CD || parce utraque hi in marg. suppl. rubr. ex ? L2 his MT hii si modo bis scr. eint XOLUHN om. MT sunt <(FJ ex silentio) sui gerant] AQDP Bene om. ualeatis suggerant MT || gerunt FJP (corr. F) agant || || vl W) uale COL (uel ualete add. O 2 ) VI ualere te opto U 8(Valeas Val ann Sen post ualeatis add. et del. A ualente corr. P ualere te || capiant
quantus post "hoc-vpbis glossam sapiunt" Kr est add. OK || est supra suppl. apud] capti aput'WP || vos2 om. U 6 intelligunt OK habenda corr. 2 || et ante tanto add. F 7 quod D occasione magis post quanto add. C indignant! corr. indignati P ||
||
WP
\\
||
||
||
8C
||
R A
||
AWCDFU X
||
[|
||
||
H M
||
WCN
\\
ANNEO BAR ANN S Annius J ANNAEVS-SALVTEM om. P SENEG BR (corr. R2 ) SEN S om. OUNK ET]E corr. R2 om. OUMTK 2 Thophilo D theophlo (y infra add.) M om. OUK in marg. suppl. O Paulo et Theophilo Seneca Paulo (rel. om.) GC Paulus Senecae salutem Seneca W PHILO SALVTEM LVOIVS ANNEVS SENECA PAVLO ET THEO me bene AWJ me om. R 2 P]rofiteor Z profiteer post tuarum P P litterarum lectione G 3 quos lectionem XFP 2/3 tuarum litterarum C P Galathis WGQCD 2ZOUMHJK gala P chorintheis B corintheis R chorinteis S chorinthiis WCH coriatiis G corinthis U chorintiis P et post Achaicis 8UT achais M ac athenis Z ageis N aceiis P Corinthiis add. QK misti P achemisisti corr. L 2 achaicis 1 achileis (1 a. del.) H et] ut MT et ita om. spatio relicto D in marg. suppl. D 3 3/4 et-vivamus om. C
VII.
|| || ||
||
||
||
||
|,
||
||
1|
||
||
||
||
||
129
EPISTOLAE (QVAE VOCANTVR)
invicem vivamus, ut etiam cum horrore divino eas exhibes. Spiritus enim sanctus in te et super excelsos sublimi ore satis venerabiles sensus exprimit. Vellem itaque, cum res
eximias proferas, ut maiestati earum cultus sermonis non desit. Et ne quid tibi, frater, subripiam aut conscientiae meae debeam, confiteor Augustum sensibus tuis motum.
Cui perlecto virtutis in te exordio, ista vox fuit: mirari eum posse ut qui non legitime imbutus sit taliter sentiat. Cui ego respondi solere deos ore innocentium effari, haut
10
horrore in ras. T honore XF ex se om. C exhibis L exibes U exhibuistiM exibuisti T exirem BARSEZ 2 exigerem CDZ erigere J suscepimus H 5 Sanctus enim spiritus suseeperimus G exceperim Q exiui P audirem 8 in te om. C Spcs qui post sanctus add. sanctus] sps corr. B MT et super FLMTP (super in ras. T) supra 6 (praeter W) CDN exuperat Z et supera et supra WOUHJK 1 supra excelsos sublimior add. T? 2 excell.os T excelto ante excelsos add. L2 MT te excelsus texcelsos sior G sublimi ore coni. Westerburg sublimior 8CDN subliores F subli6 sublimiores mior est sublimior es J sublimiorum et P sullimiores uenerabilis P sensus ex ? L2 senses P Velle C uerabiles 6/7 cumproferas] cum res et ceteras XOLU cum res esset et ceteras MT cures et ceteras F cures et cetera mittas P 6 rex corr. H 7 proferas eximias C et ceteras ut subp. L 2 eorum magestati EM perferas ut] turn 8 ne supra 8 desint UMT frater tibi D GD sermonum C quo G
||
GH
ut]
L2P
||
2 diuino supra suppl. eas ante |j exhibes exibis (ras. 1 litt. ante s)
||
quomodo P cum MT
||
esse
WXF
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
H
N
||
||
||
||
||
frater
subripam X subrepam L2P sur??pam L H aut] et G aud 10 cuis P corr. L 9 meae om. P Augustum] autemP permotum CDHJ in te om. lecto C/5 perfecto Q unicae ante uirtutis add. K cuius P2 fixor P fuit uox corr. X exordia mutari C aN3 ista] sita L tuis P non legitime] cum his verbis desinit N legi11 non post imbutus CDHJ time] legittime R legi meae ft (meae legi cum notis permutationis M) lege ame G inbutus BRSEZLUP sis P sentias P 12 Gum BARSG Turn EWQ solerere corr. L ego om. K ergo ZP solere-innoeentium] dminnocentium solere (ore om.) P innocentium ore D affari baud ARSEHJ aut 13 deorum cons" Z CZ/?PK (corr. Z2 ) preuaricari REWXP (corr. X)
I)
||
|j
||
||
||
||
om.
2
UK
||
]|
||
j|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
1 1
||
||
|)
||
||
||
||
||
WU
||
predicari
||
2 2 post preuaricare add. L U (ex ? L ) doctrina sua in marg. suppl, M) MT quid] quidem D non C quid non (corr. E) posint D
preuariearejcare
||
(care del et
e2
||
||
U
||
2
||
doctrinam suam
||
sua om.
||
possunt
CFJ
(corr. F) possit
EP
130
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
Vatieni
ei
exemplo
hominis
rusticuli,
cui
viri
duo
15
VIII.
darum,
se
5
non
deficiet, amatorem esse, permittit tamen sed admoneri. Puto enim te graviter fecisse, laedi,
si
quando
in
quod
ei
notitiam
perferre
non
deos colat, quid tibi visum sit video, nisi nimio amore meo facere te hoc existimo.
voluisti
Cum
VII 14:
Cic.,
De
Nat. Deor. II
Aem. Paul.
Div.
Vatini 8(uatim Vatieni homicui cum CD rusticoli F rustici 8P nis] cui] cur 15 apparuerunt P solus, om. duo uiri ,SECJ apparuissent in-Reatino om. C || retiano SL reatipo G o)(t suppl. E)(aparuissent M) 2 2 castus P 16 sunt qui ex ? L quo corr. Z pollus corr. L polux sati com E 2 uideatur XL "videbatur forsan" Kr om. Valete om. Vale senece E .Bene te ualere opto U Bene scripsi cum Q VI ualere frater obto P Vale a> Lutio ante Senecae add. VIII. SENECAE PAVLVS SALVTEM om. P P Anneo add. Q Paulus Seneca salutem E Paulus Senece Seneca
ei
||
14
om.
exemplo
||
ei
CD
||
exsemplo
||
BA
uatum R)
||
A*K
uatis
enim
OHJ
uigiendi
||
||
EWQUHJ
||
||
WC
||
||
||
||
WG
\\
||
||
non supra suppl. Paulo salutem DO 2L]icetFLiceatP ignoremus 1 a Caesarem nostrum om. C Caesarem] e in ras. S caesare M non non H nostrarum Kr P nostrum ex (3 sileniio) nostrum] 2/3 ammiran3 3 deficient DP deficiat C darum BRCZL (corr. L2) 3/4 esse-se om. C esse om. D permittes W/SK permittentes T permittet J permi|tit corr. H 4 se P solus, om. RDT, te co (post laedi L) (supra suppl. tamet AF ammoniri R2 T 2 ) laedis X ammoneri AEGQCZL (corr. L2 ) amoneri Poto corr. U 2 "te "enim M te om. D corr. P 2 Puto] Pu corr. 5 ei om. C in notitiam] innocenfecissem G fecesse corr. U 1 gratanter P uoluissem G tiam GQCU (corr. U) proferre C ferre P perferri BARSDZ
|| || || ||
||
WGC
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|>|
6 5/6 ritui et disciplinae] et disciplinae et ritui C quid P ritu corr. H ille enim ZXFOL ille supra suppl. H contrarium sit 8 6/7 deos gentium eum 7 calat corr. ut om. P eum scire 8C CK sit] est corr. uellis B uelis ASEW uellis (I 1 subp.) R 8 minio corr. G velles] cumelles P hoc facere te 8P (hoc te facere W) extimo (s mei K nimium R
|| ||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
supra add.)
||
||
existimasti
131
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR)
Rogo de future ne id agas. Cavendum est enim ne, dum me diligis, offensum dominae facias, cuius jiuidem offensa
neque oberit,
si
10
si
perseveraverit, neque, si
non
sit,
proderit;
est regina,
vale.
non
Bene
IX.
non tarn
tui causa
commotum
litteris
quas
ad te de editione epistolarum mearum Caesari feci quam natura rerum, quae ita mentes hominum ab omnibus artibus et moribus rectis revocat, ut non hodie admirer, quippe ut is qui multis docum'entis hoc iam notissimum
ne id agas] meidigas P id ex ? L2 9 Rogo] Rogito te C enim om. 10 offensum] offensam DHJK offensus H ras. 3 litt. post offensum Z corr. Z 2 dominae] dominicae G omnino post dominae add. tibi dominum domini C2MT dominum Z 1 dominae facias] dm efficias P equidem D offensa] ofensa corr. E 2 offensio U 11 oberit supra ras. L perseueritRS (corr. R ) preseuerauerit
|| || ||
agae] facias
||
||
||
||
|-|
||
||
perseuerauerarit perseueraberit P perseuerauit perseuerfe perse2 2 2 2 rauerit corr. si ] sit corr. neque -proderit om. P || neque ] nee C \\ 2 si -proderit] proderit si desierit. Nam C Z proderit sit. cum n'otis 12 regina-'offendetur om. ras. 1 2 litt. post non permutationis || 2 2 mulieri est om. EC (suppl. E 2 ) non indignauitur LP (corr. L ) Bene vale om. 13 Bene om. G offenditur Z/S (corr. ZL2 ) || || oberit et proderit inter se permutavit, fit pro sit scr., et verba ualere P si est regina-offendetur in calce Ep. 5 collocavit Kr IX. SENECA PAVLO SALVTEM om. Senca;(sic) Paulo in marg.
||
|]
||
||
||
\\
||
II
UK
WG
||
XP
||
L2 )
||
S]cito
Lutiue Anneus ante Seneca add!. P Annaeus 2 Scito A^ (ras. i litt. post scito A) (corr.
||
||
tarn]
causas corr. S
||
G
C
..
mearum P
quam] _
.
solus tuarum
satisfecisti
fere 6 corr.
litt.
4 omnibus] omni huius H 5 actibus K et coni. Kr &PhecP 3 moribus] manibusX rectis om. intellect?s P inleotas P 2 uocat reuocit K reuocant J ras. hodie om. P odie U litt. (sic ?) ante ut ammirer corr. L 2 6 ait ut is scripsi cum K, in marg. coniecerat L 2 om. a post quippe del. ut XF ut his OLTJMTHJ de uobis .P hoc supra suppl. qui] cum a D D 2 iam om. F? tarn UMT notissimum iam CD
is
editione epistolarum] epistolarum institutione Caesari om. C ci sari corr. P 2 || fecerim || 4 natura rerum] naturarum nature P || ras. || ominum qua eita corr. L2 || ida corr. || ||
co
om.)
||
Z2
WK
||
23
||
[|
||
||
||
||
|)
9*
132
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
habeam. Igitur nove agamus, et si quid facile in praeteritum factum est, veniam inrogabis. Misi tibi ]ibrum
de verborum copia. Vale Paule carissime.
X.
scribo
et
nomen meum
subse-
Debeo enim, ut saepe professus sum, cum omnibus omnia esse et id obser.vare in tuam personam quod lex Romana honori senatus concessit, perlecta epistola ultimum locum
eligere,
mei
arbitrii fuerit.
ne cum aporia et dedecore cupiam efficere quod Vale devotissime magister. Data V
P nouae AXF non Q nave coni. Kr. noua aga C negamus Q agatur P et] ut DZOLUHJK facile ante factum MT im (corr. Z ) 7/8 imperitum corr. M peteritum corr. T tantum D post preteri 5 litt. (-torum vel eorum ?) 8 factum in marg. suppl. F2 om. Kr gestum del. et -turn add. P 2
7 lam ante igitur add.
corr.
|[
|j
\\
eagamus
L2
||
||
||
||
||
||
praerogabis
?
8DZ 2
||
erogabis
rogabis
inrogauis
corr.
P2
uerborum ex
L2
Explicit add. G X. Epp. 10 om. G SENECAE PAVLVS SALVTEM om. XFO Lutio Anneo ante Senecae add. P Anneo add. Q PAVLVS] Paulo E Paulus Senece (salutem om.) 2 Quotien cumque Quotiescumque CUT (corr. T) et] nee Kr, coni. Wachsmuth tibi ante subsecundo add. 1 subscribe add. C 2 3 et ante Q/8HJK & add. C 2/3 subcundo corr. inconmee secte D sectae QZ/SHJ et] -que post incongruentem CD 2 4 sicut rex corr. incognicione (rem. del.) P gruam Z incugruentem
||
WGD
[[
||
WC
||
||
\\
||
||
||
X
||
||
professussum corr. L profer sussum P cum] com corr. 5 et supra suppl. M obseruent P2 tua persona romano B quod supra suppl. M quo corr. P 2 et 6 honor E perfecta coni. Kr 1 elige MT nee romanam corr. 2 coni. Kr et non aporia] rubore 8R (robore AB) rubore aporia CD 1 et et T cupiam] culpam quippem K quippiam K aporiora corr. H 8 mea F aruitrii corr. P 2 arbi arbitrii (arbi 1 del.) cuiuspiam coni. Kr H Vale-magister om. (praeter Q) DOCTISSIME X deuote LUMT dne 8 Dai H P magister om. J 8/9 Data-consulibus om. BAESEDFOUMK 33 9 lul.] Maias P mai P 2 Nerone-consulibus om. V om. T VI P consule III scripsi, om. H quater Q IIII a> massala Q messa T
MT
||
sepQ
||
||
]|
||
\\
||
WD
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
WP
LT
||
||
||
\\
||
consul
ZX
133
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR)
XI.
(XII.)
et
Ave mi Paule carissime. Putasne me haut contristari non luctuosum esse quod de innocentia vestra subinde
5
supplicium suraatur? Dehinc quod tarn duros tamque obnoxios vos reatui omnis populus iudicet, putans a vobis effici quicquid in urbe eontrarium fit? Sed feramus aequo
et utamur foro quod sors conoessit, donee invicta Micitas finem malis imponat. Tulit et priscorum aetas
animo
Macedonem, Philippi
nostra quoque
licuit.
10
Incendium urbs
sit
Romana
manifeste
saepe unde
potuisset
si effari hiimilitas
humana
quid causae
et
impune
XI
10, 2.
XFOU
XI. Ep. 12 ante collocaverunt edd. omnes codd. nulli \\ SENECA PAVLO SALVTEM om. ante Seneca add. P Annaeus add. Q SALVTEM om.
XFOH
praeter
||
|]
WC
||
miM XFOUT (corr. F) michi M haut om. aP non Q aut UMT baud carissim^ B carisime R 4 OLHK contristare X 3 non] minus P nostra Q subinde om. D sumuntur 8CDHJ (sumantur SEW)- sumansubplicium P supplicia 8CDHJ tur corr. Z a Dein corr. M Deinc corr. T tan dure 8 (praeter W) K tamquam 8 (praeter W) XK 5 vos om. RED (supra suppl. R2) nos Q populi W iudices Q uidelieet H putas corr. P2 vobis] nobis QO 6 quic corr. O 2 quidquid LP (corr. L 2) quiequit M quod K in urbe] urbi 7 furo P fortiter eo coni. Kr MT contrarium] noxium C sit WDMH sos corr. P fors C concensit M inuita R infausta quo 8CD quoquo P 8 felicasR malis ex?lPom. P C imponat malis W inponat REZLUM et om. D 9 alexandrum ante pricorum corr. H prisea CD apponat P macedonem add. C macedonum E machedonem ZXOLMT filippi ZXL et post Darium add. 8K phylippi FM cyros P solus, et post o> co 10 quoque dionysium G-DHJ dyonisium RE donisium corr. P dionisium nostra OHJ nostrum P ras. 1 lilt, post nostra Gaium] G. AREL 2 2 libuit supra ras. quicquid] quoque F quidquid corr. L P quiequit M D2 11 Incendium ex ? L 2 urbs ex urbis ? K urbis roma P sep corr. E 11/12 unde patiatur ante urbs (saepe om.) C j| manifeste post patiatur D 12 manifestum est ante constat add. W affari U humilita corr. 2 M 13 quidquid P causa P sit] 'si P inpune BREZLMPK (corr. L ) et ante in add. R in his] inis corr. E 13/14 in-omnia om. P
Habe
]] ||
MTP
Que
||
Aue.mi ex
|]
L2
||
||
mi]
]|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
[|
\\
||
||
|.|
||
[|
||
||
||
\\
j|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
]|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
)|
||
134
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
viderent.
Christian! et
ludaei quasi
machinatores incendii
solet.
pro!
iste
Grassator
20
mendacium velamentum, tempori suo destinatus est, et ut optimus quisque unum pro multis datum est caput, ita et hie devotus pro omnibus igni cremabitur. Centum triginta duae domus, insulae quattuor milia sex diebus arsere; septimus pausam. dedit. Bene te valere, frater, opto. Data V Kal. Apr. Frwgi et Basso consulibus.
carnificina est et
(XI.)
XII.
Ave mi Paule
18/19 Verg., Aen.
meo
vir
815.
ZXFOLU
Q E
||
(corr.
') tamen
MT
L
|j j|
||
xpini corr.
cristiani
a>
\\
quis
P
||
15
(h
affecti
add.)
(o,
esse
P
2
||
MT
om.
machinatoris
afflicti
HJ
macinator
BARSEQCZL MTHK
subplitio
||
effect:
solent 16 fieri] _i ut com. Kr Gras sator A Crassator WQMT grassatoriQ P ex pr. m. in dubio est 16 quisque /? (praeter F) quisquis est iste P 16/17 cui-est om. P et post uoluptas add. 17 carnificia euius RSE 2 uoluntas aH est om. C et medicina post est add. K mendatium corr. B QDZOUMTHK mendatu P uelamen eorum P velamentum om. K tempore 2 18 distinatus BRE et om. JKr ut om. a (et in ut corr. ) QCDJ 2 donatum Z/S (praeter ras 2 litt. ante quisque optimis E obtimus MP T corr. 19 hi hoc et ex ut T'|| C U) HJK 18/19 datum est] dabitur CD crematur deuotis E 2 donatus K igne RSEWCF?U omnibus] multis D duas P 20 Centim F corr. R cremaretur corr. T cremauitur corr. P 2
|| \\
D SCDHJK2
P P
||
WC
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
dmus
teste
corr.
E domes ZP
Till
(corr.
Z2 )
||
Bucheler
LU quemadmodum
WZXOM
et
ZXFO
(suppl.
ARFOUMK
BSE
add.
||
||
2 arserunt Q assere corr. plausam corr. Rpausum P 21/22 21 ualere te 6 (ualete in ualere te corr. R) DK Bene-cupio] Bene uale 22 frater om. DUHJ fratrem MT Data-consulibus om. te om. XMT
Z2 )
WP
ITEM ante SENECA XII. SENECA PAVLO SALVTEM om. XFO 2 ZLTHJ Lutius Anneus add. P Anneus add. Q SALVTEM om. CZ Aue mi ex Abe m? L 2 Aaue Z Haue XOU Habe MTP Que H mi] mihi ZXOUP 2 michi MHK m T paulo R si|Si (si exp.) Q nomineque E
||
Datum B D&l SET 33 V] X CD 2 Frugi-consulibus om. P Aprilis TP mai P CSVL cons Q consule X consul T Frigi co
|| ||
||
(corr.
||
||
||
||
||
|j
||
||
135
EPISTOLAE (QVAE VOCANTVR)
tantus et a Deo dileetus omnibus modis, non dico fueris iunctus, sed neeessario mixtus, optime actum^rit de Seneca
tuo.
Cum
sis
igitur
vertex
et
vis
altissimorum
laeter,
si
omnium
sim
tibi
ita
proximus ut alter similis tui deputer? Haut itaque te indignum prima facie epistolarum nominandum censeas, ne temp-tare me quam laudare videaris, quippe cum scias
Romanum. Nam qui meus tuus apud te velim ut meus. Vale mi Paule carissime. tuus locus, qui Data Kal. Apr. Aproniano et Capitone consulibus.
te civem esse
10
XII
6: Es. 2, 2;
Mic.
4, 1;
10/11 Gal.
4, 12.
a Deo dileetus scripsi adeo dileetus "WKr ad? dileetus P 8 omibus ras. 6 litt. post /?K ad id electus aHJP 2 omnibus modi corr. P2 4 uinctus CPDOH functus P sed] d supra M 2 missus P ex ? P necesario R optime add. Haase aptum LUMT (corr. L2 ) aptum actum XFO auctum CK erit om. quod P2 senica corr. R2 5 sis suppl. P 2 uercex X uertix P uere corr. H 6 motium E omium aceumen D cacamen H gentium corr. F 2 uirtutum U 3 sed vix recte non] 3 nee U et forsitan U vis om. D is vel uis P his P 2 ergo om. HJ 2 ita post vis add. H lateri 8Z (praeter Q) latere QCDZ HJ l^uiter T lt corr. K si om. HJ ita post uis C ia corr. om. D tibi om. Wi 6/7 7 ut alter om. D alteri Z^? (alter ex ? L 2 )(corr. Z) proximus tibi CD 3 litt. similis tui] tuus CDHJ tui similis alteri? et ras. 2 tu Kr 2 Haiit itaque] Auditaque J Haud BARSECL2HK tui] tuis XFOL (corr. L ) 1 3 aut jSM ? (haut M) ut corr. Z ex ante 8 faci corr. U itaque in ras. P 2 nominandas corr. K2 9 epistolarum add. /?K (subp. L )(exeplarum F) ne tarn CKr n nonne E lac. vel ras. 1 litt. post ne U temptare] me temptare 5 (me om. E) ceptare MT temtare P quam] me] te U laudare P solus ledere D ludere co quan supra add. P 2 videaris] ui et lac. C cum om. K 10 te om. L ciuem e&se quippe cum] hie incipit Y te WZ/S (praeter 0) HJ ciuem te esse COK ciuem Eomanum esse E Romanum] ras. 3 litt. post ro- Y Nam] Quam a (praeter WQ) qui1 ] quis 11 est ante locus odd. D'|| tuus2 om. 8 (praeter Q) corr. H aput 2 velim ut] uelint ita U 3 sed vix recte ut om. P meus] mus corr. P VAL corr. E mi-carissime om. Vale-carissime om. YU mi] nrihi || BZXFO 1 MINE michi T m LMHJ om. P carissime om. HK 12~Datadate corr. P 2 D? Q consulibus om. BARSEWXFOYUMK (v add. W) X om. PH Apr.] om. in lac. C aplis T mal P Aproniano-consulibus om. P os Q consules corr. Z 2 CONSVLE T apromiano corr. T 3 et om.
||
||
dileetus (a
Deo om.)
||
|j
M
||
,,
||
||
W
\\
\\
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
|]
||
\\
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
\\
||
||
||
||
||
||
WMP
||
||
||
\\
||
||
||
[|
||
|]
||
||
||
||
I]
136
SENECAE AD PAVLVM ET PAVLI AD SENECAM
XIII.
decoranda
est.
Nee
vereare,
retineo,
multos qui
talia
virtutes evirare.
morem
10
Bene
vale.
consulibus.
j|
SENECA PAVLO SALVTEM om. WCFO XIII. Epp. 1314 om. XP 2 Allegoricae et enigmaticae Item ante Seneca add. ZLUHJ Anneus add. Q LYU aenigmatice] enigmatece con*. D enigmatQ ras. ~L lilt, ante t H eo ante usquequaque add. a (praeter W) 2/3 opera usquequaque F dicta 3 opera om. SCD supra su.ppl. Y conliduntur usquequaque (opera om.) 4 attritrata D tributi OYU concluduntur ex ? L2 colliguntur T numeris D H non supra suppl. U 2 ornamenta BQZYUMT (corr. Q2 Z2 ) ornamentis
1|
|| ||
||
||
||
||
5 uerere Q/? et corr. E 1 uereri Z uertere U 3 et for3 diesise dixisse saepius] series U vix recte retineo] dixisse te teneo SZ (dixsiss te teneo E) dixisse te retineo CDJ dixisset ineo T te dixisse retineo HL 2 (ex ? L) et U? dedisset dixiss&ineo 6 aff ectent BARSEWZFL8 affectant Dli affectaent retineat U 3 vix recte 6 rerum om. 7 virtutes] merearis T 6/7 corrumpere-uirtutes om. C U 3 vix recte euitare et L2 ? ex?L deuitare euiscerare CDHJ Ceterum Kr uelim et FJ teste Kr, om. CDH uel id ex uelut? L 2 uelut co et F?J? latinifcate uelim post ,concedas exhibent codd. omnes praeter corr. R 2 D latinitatem C latinatati corr. O 2 lanitati U S morem] meae rem 2 et uocibus et om. /8HJK speciem in marg.. suppl. (corr. U )
CD
||
occultu corr.
tasse
reuera
A OK
||
\\
||
||
WYU
||
\\
MK A
||
YU
||
||
YU U2 spem
||
||
||
ARFOMK
||
10 Bene om. Bene vale om. U expediri in marg. U 2 epediri corr. 2 ualeas 8 WYU, post consulibus habet T 10/11 Data-consulibus om.
1
||
||
2 numeris D C peciem corr. D 9 moneris corr. R2 muneres corr. a te] concessi corr. Z 2 concesso OLUMT (corr. L 2 ) digne] bene C 1 possis Y expedire corr, Q adhiberi an|te Y ate OLU ad te M ! date M
||
||
||
||
10 Dal BS Dada
E TOW
||
pridie] priifl
10/11 Lurcone-consulibus om. scripsi LVCOLLE B locone CDZLH loene J lucone <x> T 11 cons Q consules corr. Z 2 consule T
lulias
lulii
BS
DH
U II WH YU
\\
||
Nonas
BSDH
10 Lurcone
sauino
ZHJ
sapino
137
EPISTOLAE <QVAE VOCANTVR>
XIV
Perpendenti tibi ea sunt revelata quae paucis divinitas Certus igitur ego in agro iam fertili semen
sero,
iortissimum
et
manentis in aeternum. Quod prudentia tua adsecuta indeficiens fore debebit, ethnicorum Israhelitarumque
observationes censere vitandas.
Christi
lesu,
Novum
te auctorem feceris
rethoricis
inrepre10
praeconiis
ostendendo
hensibilem
sophiam,
quam propemodum
fidis
quibus aspera et incapabilis erit persuasio, cum plerique illorum minime flectuntur insinuationibus tuis. Quibus
vitale
instillatus
novum hominem
25; Act.
6,
||
iam supra suppl. EM in ante fertili add. Y fertilitatis MT'|| iam post 4 materia MT materiem F? materiam ex ? L2 semen add. quae] quern 2 2 corr. Q 5 uideatur 8Q D (uideantur Q) possit YU sed uerbum corripi A Us scr. H dei stabile K distinctionem ante Dei habent ARKr diriuamentum ASQYUM (dir- in ras. S) diriuatum Z crecentis corr. 1 6 tua prudentia K tua supra suppl. (ras. 1 lilt, ante n) U cresentis H 7 indeficienter D M adsecuta om. DL forre H flore D florere D s debebit om. {! (debet P ex silentio) ethieorum RT (corr. T 1 ) ethichorum R2 et iudeorum D hisrahelitarumque WMT israheritarumque corr. U 1 8 nouumque 8 te om. R auctorem te K auctorum corr. -que] sed D
QK
om. FO Anneo Seneca Paulo salutem MT 2 Perpendentibus LMT (corr. 3 Certus igitur om. YU
|| || ||
||
||
||
}}
||
||
||
||
||
\\
jj
||
9 lesu Christi SEWD (corr. S) lesu bis scr., pr. del. K ostendo ras. 3 Hit. post ostendo preconis M rethoricis] o in ras. ^ E retoricis PJ rhetorieis K et post rethoricis add. a 9/10 inprehensibilem 10 sophistam /?K Q inreprehens L inreprehensibili sophia D quern K es post adeptus add. 8Q 2 (est Q) 11 temporiali corr. atque] ac insinuabilis D insinuauis corr. L 2 12 incababilis corr. E inplacaadque J bilis incapabilis P ex silentio captabilis D incaptabilis ZYU H erit] eri E 2 13 eorum OHK minime Us scr., pr. del. flectanplrerique corr. E tur /JHK (inflectantur YU) fl&untur R insinuationibus] persuasionibus K 14 uitali corr. R2 uitalem corr. U Dei om. YU instellatus M
R2
actorem
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
distillatus
||
||
138
SENECAE ET PAVLI EPISTOLAE
sine corruptela
Deum
istinc
properantem. Vale Seneca carissime nobis. Data Kal. Aug. Lureone et Sabino consulibus.
15 corruptella B coruptela corr. corruptele T perpetuam animam amimam corr. U parit] -que post perpetuum add. a (praeter D) uel pergit in marg. add. A2 hie finiunt MT (-V- -et VALE add. M) 16 Seneca-nobis om. Seneca om. Z semper D 16/17 Data-consulibus om. RFOMTHJK 16 Dai BASE E>D Agustarum B Augustarum ASQ Augu17 Lurcone-consulibus om. D starium B Augustus Lurcone scripsi lucullune B lucone co sabina A sauino ZYU Explicit BE Expliciunt epistolae quattuordecim sancti Pauli apostoli et Senecae quas ad se mutuo scripserunt L nullam subscriptionem exhibent co
||
|
||
||
||
||.
||
||
||
I.
I believe
cussion which
that you have been informed, Paul, of the dismy friend Lucilius andjjl held yesterday concerning
2
the apocrypha
of of
and other matters: for some of the followers your teachings were with me. We had retired to the gardens 3 Sallust and it was our good fortune that these disciples
,
to Seneca;
to
Paul in
new and
full
the canonical Authority of the New Testament ~by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones (London, 1726) II 64; (1798) II 50; (1827) II 44; W. Hone, Bookseller, The Apocryphal New Testament, 3rd ed. (London, 1821) 74 78; M. R. James, The Apocryphal N.ew Testament (Oxford, 1924) 480484. 2 It is most natural to suppose .that apocrypha to a writer of the fourth century would stand for the so-called uncanonical works, chiefly of the New Testament. Christian writers, both Latin and Greek, from the end of the second century denounce apocryphal and heretical works. We must credit our author with considerable stupidity, however, if we allow him to represent Seneca and Lucilius having a discussion with some of Paul's disciples about .apocryphal books. If it is not an accidental anachronism, then we are forced to look for some other explanation. The translation of M. R. James suggests as an alternative "the secret mysteries". Fleury conjectured apographa, which would make this one more reference to the
Settling
writings of Paul. 3 The gardens of Sallust were a large tract of land in Rome between the present Piazza Barberini and the Porta Pia. They became imperial property under Tiberius. There is one other mention of them by a fourth century author, Incerti auctoris Panegyr. in Const. 14,4 (Teub. ed. 300,26). If the meeting of Seneca and Lucilius with Paul's disciples indicates that these gardens were open to the public, it is our only ancient authority for this fact. Seneca, of course, might have had access to them as a close friend of the Emperor. The gardens were sacked by Alaric in 410. Cf. Plainer and Ashby, Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford,
1929) 271
f.
140
CORRESPONDENCE
whom
I have mentioned saw us there and joined us, although on their way elsewhere. You may be sure that we were they wished that you, too, had been present, and I also want you to this: when we had read one of your treatises, that is to one of the many letters of wondrous exhortation to an say life which you have sent to some city or to the capital upright
know
of
I believe,
a province, we were completely invigorated. These thoughts, were expressed not by you, but through you; though
sometimes they were expressed both by you and through you; for they are so lofty and so brilliant with noble sentiments that in my opinion whole generations of men could hardly be enough
to become established and perfected in these matters.
I
wish
you good
health, brother.
II.
greeting.
I was extremely glad to receive your letter yesterday, and could have answered it immediately if I had had with me the
young man whom I intended to send to you. You know when and by whom and at what time and to whom a thing should be given or intrusted. Therefore I ask you not to think yourself neglected, while I pay attention to the qualities of the messenger. But you write somewhere that you are pleased with my letter and I count myself fortunate in the approval of a man who is so great. For you, a critic, a philosopher, the teacher of so great a ruler, nay even of everyone, would not say
this, unless
in
sincerely.
may
long be
my
in order
them
The authorship
37.
of the
on
p.
141
OF SENECA AND PAUL
to Caesar. If only fate is kind enough to cause him to show renewed interest, perhaps you will be there alsoj if not, I will at some other time, set a day on which we may examine this work together. I co'uld not show him this writing without first
if only it were possible to do so without getting into trouble, so that you may be sure of this, that you are not being forgotten. Farewell, dearest Paul.
IV.
greeting.
As
you are
present and I imagine nothing else than that you are continually witH us. As soon, therefore, as you begin to come, we shall see each other face to face. I hope that you are in good health.
-/^
We
What
is
the matter?
are distressed at your exceedingly long retirement. What makes you stay away? If it is the
1
who can hardly Poppaea. Seneca tells Paul to be careful not to offend not like his having deserted Judaism for Christianity. sympathy for the Jews on the part of Poppaea, which it is, in fact, possible to substantiate from other sources. A footnote on p. 29 of Westerburg's introduction discusses four passages, three of them from Josephus, which may indicate that Poppaea was a secret Jewish proselyte. Once when some Jews were sent by Pestus, procurator of Judaea, for trial before Nero, he was persuaded by Poppaea to set them free; it is related that she even kept two of them in her own house (Ant. XX 8,11). On another occasion Josephus made a trip to Rome to make a personal plea for some prisoners. He formed a friendship with a Jewish actor named Aliturus, was introduced by him to Poppaea, and solicited her aid. She made a successful intercession in his -behalf and also gave him presents before he returned home (De vita sua 3,16). Another procurator of Judaea, Plorus, had a wife Cleopatra who was a close friend of Poppaea (Ant. XX 11,1). The final passage is from Tacitus, Ann. XVI 6, referring to the burial of Poppaea: corpus non igne abolitum, sed regum externorum consuetudine differtum odoribus conditur tumuloque luliorum infertur.
8 each contain references to a domina,
142
CORRESPONDENCE
your old rite and creed and are turning elsewhere, then you will be given an opportunity of asking her to believe that you acted reasonably, not lightly. A kind farewell.
'
VI.
To Seneca and
I may not speak with pen and ink concerning what you have written to me, for the one marks a thing down and defines it, while the other makes it all too clear, especially since I am
some among your number, with you and your midst, who are able to understand me. We must show
respect to everyone, the more so as they are apt to find cause for offense. If we are patient with them, we shall overcome
them
in every way and on every side that are the kind of people who can be sorry for done. kind farewell.
is,
if
only they
these letters (?). For the holy spirit that is in you, surpassing the highest, with lofty speech utters thoughts worthy of reverence. Therefore I wish, since you have such excellent
matters to propose, that refinement of language might not be lacking to the majesty of your theme. And in order that I
1 No Epistle, canonical or apocryphal, is known to have been addressed by Paul to the Achaeans. It is not likely that such an Epistle has been lost, after having been known in the fourth century, or that its existence should not have been mentioned by any other writer. Fabricius plausibly believed that this refers to what we know as the second Epistle to the Corinthians, which was sent (1,1) "to the church of God which is at Corinth and to all the saints who are in all Achaea". There is the additional argument that the three Epistles here mentioned, if this
.
identification is correct, occur consecutively in our present New Testament, although there the letter to the Gnalatians follows, rather than precedes, the
143
OF SENECA AND PAUL
may not
Augustus was
affected
your sentiments.
When my
by you
was read to him, this was his reply, that he was amazed that one whose education had not been regular could have such ideas. I answered him that the gods are accustomed to speak through the mouths of the innocent and not of those who are enabled by their learning to distort anything. When I gave him the 1 a farmer, to whom appeared in the example of Vatienus territory of Reate two men who later were found to be Castor
,
I-
VIII.
To Seneca Paul
greeting.
Even thought! am not unaware that our Caesar is now fond of marvelous things, although he may some day cease to be so (?) (or possibly if ever he has leisure), still'he allows himself not to be rebuked, but to be informed. I think that it was a very serious mistake on your part to wish to bring to his notice what is against his practice and training. Inasmuch as he worships the gods of the gentiles, I do not see what you had in mind that you wished him to know this, unless I am to think that you are doing this from your great love for me. I beg you not to do this in the future. You must also be careful
was first told by Cicero, De Nat. Deorum repeated by Valerius Maximus I 8,1 and later by Lactantius, Inst. Div. II 7,10. It is also given, with some errors, by the scholiast of L (text on p. 15 n. 1). Cicero's account is as follows: P... Vatinius cum e praefectura Reatina Romam venienti noctu duo , iuvenes cum equis albis dixissent regem Persem illo die captum, <.cum> senatui nuntiavisset, primo quasi temere de re publica locutus in carcerem coniectus est, post a Paulo litteris allatis cum idem dies constitisset, et agro a senatu et vacatione donatus est. The reference is to the victory of L. Aemilius Paulus over Perses at the battle of Pydna on June 22, 168 B.C. The name in Ciceronian manuscripts fluctuates between Vatinius and Vatienus. Vatienus was adopted by the author of the present Correspondence, but it was changed to Vatinius in 6 manuscripts, probably by Alcuin on the authority of a manuscript of Cicero which he possessed.
1
II 2,6.
of Vatienus
it
is
144
CORRESPONDENCE
not to offend our empress while showing affection for me. Her displeasure, to be sure, cannot harm us if it lasts, nor can we
be helped
if it is
not be insulted;
if
never incurred (?). If she is a queen, she will a woman, she will be angry. kind farewell.
summons
upright pursuits and practices, so that I am not astonished in the present instance, particularly because I have learned this well from many sure
the minds of
all
proofs. Therefore let us begin anew, and if in the past I have been negligent in any way, you will grant pardon. I have sent 1 you a book on facility in using words Farewell, dearest Paul.
.
Whenever I write to you and place my name after yours, commit a serious fault and one incompatible with my creed 2
1
instances of copia verborum and copia dicendi in Orators and in Quintilian show that to these authors the phrase meant facility in using the Latin language. The same meaning is quite in. keeping with the general tone of the present Correspondence, in which Seneca often criticizes Paul for not expressing better his fine sentiments. Codex Q contains a work which bears the title De Copia Verborum, and in other manuscripts, e.g. Paris lat. 8542, the heading indicates that scribes believed this to be the very treatise which Seneca sent to Paul. An examination shows that it is built up of a condensed form of .the Formula Vitae Honestae of St. Martin of Braga, followed by a long collection of sentences from the earlier Epistles of Seneca to Lncilius. In short, the work owes its title to this statement in Ep. 9, although some writers, notably Haureau in Notices et Extraits de Quelques Manuscrits Latins de la Bibliotheque Rationale (Paris, 1890 93) II 195 ff., have declared that this proves that the Correspondence was written after St. Martin of Braga. For further discussion of this subject see J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 2nd ed. (London and Cambridge, 1869) 327 ff. 2 The subject of 10 is rather obscure. Paul is trying to show deference to Seneca, and I believe that the only possible interpretation is that he wishes to do so by signing his name at the end of the letter. Others have
Cicero's
Numerous
De
145
OF SENECA AND PAUL
For I ought, as I have often claimed, to be all things to all people and to observe towards you what the Roman law has granted to the honor of the senate namely, to choose the last
place
in
when I have finished my letter, lest I desire to perform an inadequate and disgraceful manner what is my own will. Farewell, most devoted of teachers. Written June 27 in the 1 consulship of Nero for the third time and Messala
.
believed that he was trying to say that he should not write his name ahead of Seneca's in the salutation. The manuscript tradition of these salutations is very corrupt and has probably been tampered with, but up to this point Paul's letters bear the heading SENECAE PAVLVS SALVTEM. To accept the theory of certain other editors requires changing et in line 2 to nee so that we have: "Whenever I write to you and do not put my name after yours, I commit a serious fault." But this is '-in conflict with line 6. The real meaning is: "Whenever I write to you and do put my name directly after yours, I commit a serious fault, for I ought rather, having finished the letter, to choose the last place." It has not been noted by other commentators that Paul actually does sign his name at the end in Colossians and II Thessalonians. There are two small difficulties in the letter. One is perlecta, which Kraus with some reason emended to perfecta; in any case the meaning is clear, since it must refer to the finished letter. The other difficulty is in regard to the honor paid to the senate by Roman law. It is useless to search for parallels in which the writter .placed his name after the senate in the salutation, since the few known cases are due to the writer's own whims of the moment, and since in any case the present passage refers to placing the name at the end of the letter, which neither the Greeks nor the Eomans ever did, so far as I know. It is best to assume with Lienard that the law here referred to is a fiction. Seneca's answer comes in 12,7 ff. Paul is not to think himself
of having his name prima facie epistolarum. Prima facie is a phrase, but here seems to be without its legal meaning. It is best interpreted in this instance as equivalent to prima fronte, the use of which with the meaning initio is given in Thes. Ling. Lat. VI 1, 1365, 38. The reply, therefore, is in keeping with the following interpretation of Ep. 10: "Do not think yourself unworthy of having your name at the beginning of your letters, rather than at the end." This has again been misunderstood by some reader or copyist, for 14 is headed PAVLVS SENECAE SALVTEM and is the only letter which has Paul's name first. 1 The dates which accompany 10 14 have been examined in a brief note by F. Ramorino, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica VIII (1900) 507 9. His remarks leave little to be said that is new, in spite of the inaccurate text which he had at his disposal. The following consular infor-
unworthy
common
mation
Romani
taken from the list of W. Liebenam, Fasti Consulares Imperil (Bonn, 1909, cover dated 1910) (= 'Kleine Texte fur Theologische u. Philologische Vorlesungen u. trbungen' 41 43): A.D. 58 Imp. Nero III::M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus [C. Fonteius Agrippa
is
10
146
CORRESPONDENCE
my
Do you
think I
am
not saddened and grieved because you innocent people are repeatedly punished? Or because the whole populace believes
liable to guilt, thinking that every misfortune in the city is brought about by you? But let us endure it calmly and take advantage of whatever opportunity
fortune allots to us, until happiness all-victorious gives us release from our troubles. Earlier ages endured the Macedonian,
the son of Philip, the Cyruses, Darius, Dionysius; our own age put up with Gaius Caesar; all of them were free to do whatever they pleased. The source of the frequent fires which the city of
A. Paconius Sabinus with A. Petronius (for Nero in June)] Lurco (Aug. 14, Dec. 15)
C. Vipstanus Apronianus::C. Ponteius Capito C. Laecanius Bassus::M. Licinius M. f. Crassus Prugi There are, therefore; three small errors in the dates of the Epistles as found in our manuscripts. With Messala they place Nero's fourth consulship, which actually took place in A.D. 60 with Cornelius Lentulus
59 64
as a colleague. Following Ramorino I have emended IIII to III in 10. Ep. 11 gives the name Frigi, which was corrected in 8 manuscripts, probably by Alcuin himself. Lucone of 13 and 14 is easily corrected to Lurcone. These three errors most probably arose in some manuscript, although it is barely possible that one or more of them were already found in the lists which were consulted by the author of the Correspondence. The five letters are, then, dated as follows: 10 June 27, 58; 11 Mar. 28, 64; 12 Mar. 23, 59; 13 July 6, 58; 14 Aug..l, 58. It will be noted that the fire- in Rome is supposed to have ended by Mar. 28, whereas Tacitus Ann. XV 41 places its outbreak on July 19. Regarding the date of 10, Nero had been replaced by Ponteius Agrippa before June 27, but it is not unlikely that Nero's name would still have been retained as that of eponymous consul. It is a little remarkable that the consules suffecti were used for the dates of the last two Epp., but it becomes even more astonishing when we discover that in this particular year the names of the consules suffecti were actually used for dating. In two wax tablets from Pompeii they appear in connection with the date of Aug. 14 and later in the year (C. I. L, IV, Suppl. I, Nos. 142, 150), and their names are also used in the Ada Fratrum Analium from Oct. 12 through December (C. I. L. VI 2041, 4). Until now the accession of these suffecti could not be placed before Aug. 14, but I am of the opinion that the evidence of 13 is historically accurate, so that we may be sure that Lurco and Sabinus were in office on July 6, and, therefore, probably on July 1, which would be the most natural date for commencing their term.
147
OF SENECA AND PAUL
Rome
safely
allowed to
in
these
understand
everything.
if lowly people had been were permitted to speak of ill-fortune, everyone would now Christians and Jews, charged with if it
But
are being put to death, as is responsibility for the fire alas! usually the case. That ruffian, whoever he is, whose pleasure is
murdering and whose refuge is lying, is marked for his time of reckoning, and just as one good man gave his life for many; so he shall be sacrificed for all and burned by fire. One hundred
and thirty-two private houses and four thousand apartmenthouses burned in six days; the seventh day gave respite 1 I hope that you are in good health, brother. Written March 28 in the consulship of Frugi and Bassus.
.
Rome.
domuum
et
insularum
numerum
inire
hand promptum
fuerit.
The
exact figure of 132 private houses and 4000 apartment-houses must have been contained in some list that was available to writers of the fourth century, although it has not survived to the present day. Bticheler in Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1927) II 61 f. Joferfe. f. Phil 105 (1872) 566 f. defends the number 4000 against the quattuor adopted by Haase. As a matter of fact the error in Haase's manuscript arose comparatively recently in the manuscript tradition. The other definite statement concerns the duration of the fire: it stopped on the seventh day. Tacitus says (XIV 40): sexto die finis incendid factus, but later: rursum grassatus ignis. The account of Suetonius gives approximately the same figures: per sex dies septemque nodes ea clade saevitum est. The probable guilt of Nero and the persecution of the Christians are both mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius.
10*
148
CORRESPONDENCE
and
name, then your Seneca will be wholly satisfied. Since, you are the peak and crest of all the most lofty mountains, do you not, then, wish me to rejoice if I am so close
therefore,
my
to
you
a.s
you? Therefore
do not think that you are unworthy of having your name in the first place in your letters, or else you may seem to be
making a test of me rather than praising me, especially since you know that you are a -Roman citizen. For I wish that my position were yours in your writings, and that yours were as mine. Farewell, my dearly beloved Paul. Written March 23 in the consulship of Apronianus and Capito.
XIII. Seneca to Paul greeting.
writings are everywhere composed by you alleand enigmatically, and for that reason you must adorn gorically that powerful gift of truth and talent which has been bestowed upon you not so much with embellishment of words as with a certain amount of refinement. And do not fear, as I remember I have frequently said, that many who affect such things spoil the thoughts and emasculate the force of their subject-matter. I do wish you would obey me and comply with the pure Latin
Many
good appearance to your noble utterances, in order that the granting of this excellent gift may be worthily performed by you. A kind farewell. Written July 6 in the consulship of Lurco and Sabinus.
style, giving a.
greeting.
in
the Godhead has granted to few. Therefore I am certain that I am sowing a rich seed in a fertile field, not a corruptible matter, but the abiding Word of God, derived from Him who is eversense has attained
increasing and ever-abiding. The determination which your good must never fail namely, to avoid the outward
149
OF SENECA AND PAUL
manifestations of the heathens and the Israelites.
You must
make
yourself a new sponsor of Jesus Christ by displaying with the praises of rhetoric that blameless wisdom which you have
almost achieved and which you will present to the temporal king and to the members of his household and to his trusted
friends,
whom you
persuade, since
many
all influenced
Word
of
God has
inspired the
by your boon of
within them, it will create a new man, without corruption, an abiding being, hastening thence to God. Farewell, Seneca, most dear to us. Written August 1 in the consulship of Lurco and Sabinus.
,
r,
Bibliography
0. Aubertin,
et St.
Paul
sur
les
C. Aubertin, Seneque et Saint-Paul (Paris, 1872). 0. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur
(Freiburg,
(Heidel-
1913) I
60610.
Romischen Literatur
'
E. Bickel, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der berg, 1937) 245. E. Bickel, 'Die Schrift des Martinus
IJ.
von
Braeara
formula
vitae
(1905) 505551. honestae', Rhein. Mus. G. Boissier, La Religion Romaine, 5* ed. II (Paris, 1900) 4692. P. Biicheler, Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1927) II 61 f. Jahrb. f. Phil. (1872) 566 f. F. Biicheler, Senecae epistulae aliquot ex Bambergensi et Argentoratensi codd. (Bonn, 1879). Erasmus, Senecae Opera, 2nd ed. (Basel, 1529). / Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Hamburg, 1703)
LX
CV
880904.
P. Faider, 'Seneque et saint Paul', Bulletin Bibliographique et Pe&a(1926) 109119. C. Pascal, 'La falsa corrispondenza tra Seneca e Paolo', Letteratura Latina Medievale (Catania, 1909) 123140 Rivista di Filologia (1907) 33 ft P. Faider, Etudes sur Seneque (Gand, 1921).
XXX
XXXV
A. Fleury, St. Paul et Seneque (Paris, 1853). Reviewed by C. de Re"musat, Revue des Deux Mondes II (1853) 2071 F. Haase, L. Annaei Senecae Opera Quae Supersunt (Leipzig, 1853) 47681; 2nd ed. (1872); Supplementum (1902) 7479. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1893
1904) I 763, II 2, 458. B. Haureau, Notices et Extraits de Quelques Manuscrits Latins de
la
Bibliotheque Rationale (Paris, 18903) II 195 ff. W. Hone, Bookseller, The Apocryphal New Testament, 3 rd ed. (London, 1821) 7478. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924) 480 4. J. Jones, Six Epistles of St. Paul to Seneca; and eight of Seneca to Paul in new and full Method of Settling the canonical Authority rd ed. (London, 1827) II 44. of the New Testament, 3 F. X. Kraus, 'Der Briefwechsel Pauli mit Seneca', Theologische
Quartalschrift XLIX (1867) 603 624. E. Lienard, 'La Collatio Alexandra et Dindimi', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire XV (1936) 819838.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
152
E. Lienard, 'Sur la Correspondance Apocryphe de Seneque et de Saint-Paul', Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire XI (1932) 523. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 2 nd ed. (London
and Cambridge, 1869) 327 ff. L. Mauri, Lucio Anneo Seneca, Delia Clemenza e Delia Brevitd, della Vita; Opuscoli tradotti da Raffaele Battista, e Le Epistole a S. Paolo, e di S. Paolo a Seneca, volgarizsate nel secolo XIV (Milan, 1929) Biblio-
teca Universale, No. 388. F. Ramorino, 'De Suetonii operum deperditorum Indice deque Pseudosenecae epistulis ad loannem Baptistam Gandinum', Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica VIII (1900) 5079. Schanz-Hosius, Geschichte der RSmischen Literatur II (Munich, 1935)
7147.
Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca Sancta (Lyon, 1575) I 111 3. C. Wachsmuth, 'Zu Seneca's Briefwecbsel mit dem Apostel Paulus', Rhein. Mus. XVI (1861) 3013. E. Westerburg, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei (Berlin, 1881). Reviewed by A. Harnack, Theol. Liti. Zeit. VI (1881)
4449.
Books. and articles dealing with the tradition of Seneca's Christianity, but not concerned with the Correspondence, are listed by Fleury for works previous to 1853, and by Schanz-Hosius for works after that date. Cf. also: J. C. Naber, 'Christus Seneeae Auditus', Athenaeum N.S. XV (1937)
180186.
Th. Schreiner, Seneca
1936).
Editio Haasii
Prol
154
INDEX LOCORUM
Editio haec
8,2/3
Editio Haasii
si
admirandarum,
deficiet,
quando
esse
admiratorem,
si
quando
deficiet
ama-
amatorem
torem esse
permittes
te voluisti id,
permittit
se'
4
5
9,3
voluisti
quod
quod
mearum
rerum
ut is
tuarum
[ipsarum] rerum
[>t]
4
6
10,2
meum
sectae
meum
meae
et
tibi
3 5 7 9
11,1
et sectae
meae
tuam personam
tua persona
[illud]
effieere
effieere
6 9 12 15
humana
fieri solet
ut
18 20 20
12,3
datum
quattuor milia sex a Deo dilectus ne laudare te civem esse
donatum
quatuor [in] sex
dilectus
9 9
ne tarn
ludere
10 10
13,2
Nam
colliduntur dixisse rerum virtutes
3 5
6/7
Certum
velim concedas
pridie
7 10 10
14,5
V
Leone verbum
stabile, dei
derivamentum
mentum
6 13 15 17
adsecuta
fleotuntur
assecuta [est]
flectantur
156
INDEX LOCORUM
Index Verborum
This Index contains every occurrence of every word in the Correspondence. are found Citations accompanied by an is not included. only in the second edition of Haase. Words which Haase placed in brackets are omitted. I have also included in brackets a select number of words to be found only in the apparatus criticus. All references are by letter and line of the present edition.
The Prologue
a 5,3; 11,5; 12,3; 13,2; 13,9 ab 9,4 accipio: accepi 2,2; acceptum
acceptos 2,7
7,2;
allegorice 13,2 alter 12,7; altera 6,3; 6,4 altus: altissimorum 12,5
adeptus 14,10 adiungo: adiuneti 1,6 admirator: admiratorem 8,2H admiror: admirer 9,5; admirandarum
adipisco:
8,2
amator: amatorem 8,3 amicus: amicis 14,11 amor: amore 8,8 ango: angimur 5,2 anima: animam 14,15H animal 14,15 /" animus: animo 11,7 annuo: annuerit 3,4 apocrypha: apocrifis 1,3 aporia: aporia 10,7 Aprilis: Apr. 11,22; 12,12 Apronianus: Aproniano 12,12
,
. .
[aptus:
aptum
12,10
12,4]
apud
6,5;
arbitrium: arbitrii 10,8 arbitror 2,8 ardeo: arsere 11,21 ars: artibus 9,5
actum
Augustus: Augustum
auris:
7,9;
Aug. 14,16
1,6
aures 3,4
aliquid 6,4; 1,9; aliquas 1,8 alius: aliud 4,3; alios 5,4H; aliis 1,3
aut 7,8 ave 11,2; 12,2 Bassus: Basso 11,22 bene 1,15; 2,7; 2,10; 4,5; 5,6; 6,9;
7,2;
8,13;
11,21;
13,10
158
INDEX VERBORUM
cacumen 12,6
Caesari 3,3; 9,3; Caesarem 8,2; 11,10 caleo: calens 1,13H Caesar:
[capio: capiant 6,7] Capito: Capitone 12,12 capto: captant 6,7 caput 1,9; 11,19 carnificina 11,17 carus: carissime 3,9; 9,9; 11,2; 12,2; 12,11; 14,16 Castor 7,15 causa 9,2; causae 11,13 caveo: cayendum 8,9 censeo: censeas 12,8; censere 14,8 censor 2,9
Corinthius:
Corinthiis 7,3
cum cum
(prep.) 1,2; 7,4; 10,4; 10,7 (conj.) 4,4; 6,4; 7,6; 8,6; 12,5; 12,9; 14,12 -cum 1,4; 3,7; 4,3 cupio 1,15; cupiam 10,7 euro: cures 7,6H
centum 11,20
certe 1,7; 1,12 certum 13,7
Cyrus: Gyros 11,9 Darius: Darium 11,9 de 1,3; 1,6; 1,8; 4,5; 6,2; 8,9; 9,3;
9,9;
11,3;
12,4
certue 14,3 ceteri: cetera 1,1H ceterum 13,71? Christianus: Christian.! 11,14 Christus: Christi 14,9
civis:
decem:
deficio:
deficiet 8,3
civem 12,10
civitatem 1,9 clarent 1,13 coepi: coeperis 4,4 cogito 4,3 collide: colliduntur 13,3 eolo: eolat 8,7
civitas:
clareo:
14,14;
deum
14,15;
12,3;
1,6;
concedas
diem
3,5;
diebus 11,21
digne 13,9
diligo: diligis 8,10; dilectus 12,3.
confiteor 7,9 conseientia: conscientiae 7,8 consto: constat 11,12 consul: consulibus 10,9; 11,22; 12,12; 13,11; 14,17 contineo: continentes 1,10 contrarius: contrarium 8,6; 11,6 contristo; contristari 11,2 converto: converteris 5,4
copia: copia 9,9
rum
1,4
diu 2,10
divinitas 14,2 divines: divine 7,4 divisio: divisionibus 3,2 do: demus 6,8; dari 2,5; dedi 3,3; dedit data 10,8; 11,22; 11,21;
159
INDEX VERBORUM
documentum: documentis
domesticus:
domesticis
fecisse 8,4;
9,6 14,11 domina: dominae 5,3; 8,10 domus: domus 11,20 donee 11,7
factum
5,5;
9,8;
fieri
felicem 2,8
fero:
feramus 11,6;
fertili 14,3
tulit 11,8
dono:
donatum 11.18H
2,6;
fertilis:
dum
8,9
finem 11,8
14.13H
fors 3,4
.
forsan
fortis:
3,5JE?
forsitan 3,5
me me
enim
8,6;
mi
7,8; 11,22
[electus 12,3]
2,8;
7,5;
Frugi'l 11,22
eloquor:
eloqui 6,3
1,12;
2,4;
8,4;
1,3;
8,9; 10,4
epistola
10,6;
epistolarum 9,3;
12,8
ergo 2,5;
3,2;
3,5;
12,6
3,6; 4,4; 5,3; 5,4; 6,2;
7,7H;
10,3
,,-
10,3; 10,5; 10,7; 10,9; 11,3; 11,7; 11,8; ll,9tf; 11,13; 11,14; 11,17; 11,18; 11,19; 11,22; 12,3; 12,5;
12,12; 13,2; 13,35is; 13,8; 14,6; 14,12; 14,17 ethnicus: ethnicorum 14,7
13,10;
6,6
heri 1,2; 2,2 hie 11,19; hoc 3,8; 6,5; hoc 1,7; 2,8; 3,6; 3,8; 5,5; 8,7; 8,8; 9,6; hi 1,6; his his 6,2; 1,14; 11,13; 6,9;
[9,6]
hilaris 2,2
hominum
1,14;
9,4
5,5;
exordium: exordio 7,10 expedio: expediri 13,9 exprimo: exprimit 7,6 fades: facie 12,8
facile 9,7 facio 10,3; faciunt 5,3; facias facer e 8,8; feci 9,3; feceris
honestus: honestis 13,8 honor 6,6; honori 10,6 horror: horrore 7,4 hortus: hortos 1,5 humanus: humana 11,12 humilitas 11,12
iam
2,9ff;
9,6;
11,14;
14,3
160
INDEX VERBORUM
[lateo: latere 12,6] latinitas: latinitati 13,7,
ignore:
ille 8,6;
ignorem 8,2
illorum 14,13
lectione 7,2
impune
3,8;
11,13
10,5; 11,6; 11,13; 14,3; 14,6 incapabilis 14,12 incendium 11,11; incendii 11,15
legitime 7,11 lego: legere 3,3; lecto 1,8; 7,10# Leo: Leone 13.10H; 14,17tf levitas: levitate 5,5 lex 10,5
libellus: libello 1,8
liber:
libet:
licet
8,12;
indig-
11,13;
licuit
11,11
littera:
2,2; 4,2;
2,7;
9,2
10,6;
locus
1,5
5,5;
12,11;
locum
loco
loquor: loqui 11,13 Lucilius: Lucilio 1,2; 6,1 luctuosus: luctuosura 11,3 ludo: ludere 12.9H
inspicio:
instillor: instillatus
Lureo: Lurcone 13,10; 14,17 Macedo: Macedonem 11,9 machinator: machinatores 11,15 magis 6,6
magister 2,9; 10,8 maiestas 1,12; maiestati 7,7 malum: malis 11,8 maneo: manentis 14,6 manifeste 11,11 materia: materiam 14,4
,
mendacium 11,17
mens: mentes 9,4
Messala: Messala 10,9
7,13;
earum
6,8; eas 7,4; ea 3,3 Israelitae: Israhelitarum 14,7 iste 11,16; ista 7,10 istinc 14,15
meus
7,9;
12,10; 10,3;
8,8;
meo
mille:
12,11; mei 10,8; meae meo 12,2; meum 10,2; mearum 9,3; meis 2,7
.
ita
7,3;
9,4;
11,19;
12,6
itaque 4,4; 7,6; 12,7 ludaeu'S: ludaei 11,14 iudicium: iudicio 2,8
iudico: lulius:
mirus: mira 1,10 miror: mirari 7,10 mitto: misi 9,8; misisti surus 2,4
7,3;
mis-
mixtus 12,4
modo
11,22; 12,12;
3,4;
3,8; 6,9
Kalendae:
KaL
10,9;
161
INDEX VERBORUM
moveo: motum 7,9
ordino: ordinavi 3,2
mulier 8,12 multus: multa 13,2; multos multis 9,6; 11,18 mumis: muneris 13,3; 13,9
6,4;
ostendendo
nam
-ne
1,4; 12,10
3,9;
9,9;
11,2;
12,11
nimium: nimio
5,2;
8,8
per-
petuum 14,15
perseverp: perseveraverit 8,11 persona: personae 2,6; personam
10,5; persona 10,5ff
persuasio 14,12
Philippi 11,9 /plerusque: plerique 14,12 plures: plurimis 1,8 poenitentia: poenitentiam 6,9
Pliilippus:
nove 9,7
novus:
3,4
novum
14,8;
novas
possum:
possem
3,6;
possi't
13,9;
nuntio: nuntiatum 1,2 obnoxius: obnoxios 11,5 observationes 14,8 observatio observo: observare 14,8 obsum: oberit 8,11
:
occasio: occasionem6,7; occasionel,5 offendo: offendetur 8,12 offensa 8,10 offensus: offensum 8,10 omnis 11,5; orani 4,3; 6,8; omnes
possint 1,15; 7,13; posse 7,11; potui 2,3; potuisset 3,8; 11,12 post 11,9H postea 7,15 postulo: postulandi 5,4 praecipue 6,4 praeconium: praeconiis 14,9 [praerogo: praerogabis 9,8]
praesens 3,5
praesentia: praesentiam 1,7; 2,3; 4,2 praetereo: praeteriri 3,9
11,14;
6,6;
omnium
2,9;
12,5;
omnibus
11,14; omnibus 9,4; 10,4; 11,19; 12,3 optime 12,4 optimus 11,18 opto 2,10; 4,5; 11,22; optavimus 1,7 opus 3,6; opera 13,3
10,4;
omnia
162
INDEX VERBORUM
prius 3,6; 3,7 pro (inter j.) 11,15 pro (prep.) 11,18; 11,19 profero: prof eras 7,7 profiteer 7,2; professus 10,4 propemodum. 14,10 propero: properantem 14,16
ratio:
ratione 5,5
refecti
1,11
prospere 3,4
regina 8,12
res:
prudentia 14,6 puto 1,11; 8,4; putas 11,2; putem 1,14; putes 2,6; putans 11,5 qualitas: qualitatem 2,6
respicio
2,6
quam
(indef.)
6,7
2,4 8,3
quasi 11,14 quater: IV 10,9# quattuor 11,20 -que 1,3; 1,15; 2,5; 11,4; 12,2; 14,7;
14,11; 14,15tf qui 7,11; 9,6; 12,10; 12,11; quae 9,4; 14,4; quod 8,5; cuius 8,10; cui 7,10; 7,12; 7,14; 11,16; quern 2,3; quam 14,10; quod 10,5; 10,7; 11,7; 11,15; 13,5; 14,6; quo 1,5; qui 6,5; 6,9; 7,13; 7,15; 13,6; quae 1,14; quarum 6,3; quibus 6,7; 11,10; 14,12; 14,13; quos 1,11; quas 1,9;
2,2;
7,3; 9,2;
1,6;
ritu 5,3
Romanus: Romana
10,5;
11,11; Ro-
manum
rusticultts:
12,10
rursum 5,4ff
rusticuli 7,14
rustici 7,14]
[rusticus:
Sabinus: Sabino 13,10; 14,17 saepe 10,4; 11,11; saepius 13,5 Sallustianus: Sallustianos 1,5 sanetus 7,5; sanctis 1,QH
[sapientia: sapientiam 6,7/8] satis 7,6; 7,16 scio 9,2; scis 2,4; sciam 6,4;
.
bus
quae 1.14H
6,2;
14,2;
qui-
quia 2,10 quid (indef.) 2,5; 7,8; 7,13; 9,7 quid (inter.) 8,7; 11,13
1,7;
scribo
1,4;
scias 12,9; scires 3,8; ecire 8,7 10,2; scribis 2,7; scripsistis
quidam:
13,4;
quidam
6,2
semen 14,3
'senatus 10,6
6,8
1,7; 2,7;
5,3;
8,5;
11,3;
Seneca: Seneca 12,4; Seneca 14,16 sensus 7,6; 13,6; sensus 1,11; sensibus 7,9 sentiat 7,11 septimus 11,21
sentio:
163
INDEX VERBORUM
jsermo 14,14; sermonis 7,7; sermonero
1,3H
sero 14,4
2,3;
3,4;
3,7;
5,3;
6,7;
6,9;
8,3;
ter:
TheopMlus: Theophilo
[traditio:
12,7
sin 3,5
3,5;
7,8;
8,7;
9,8;
10,2;
7,5H;
1,15; 2,3; 2,10; 3,8; 4,3; 4,5; 5,2; 8,4; 8,4ff; 8,8; 9,2; 9,3; 12,10bis; 11,21; 12,7; 13,5ff; te 1,11; 1,12; 3,7; 7,5; 7,10; 14,8;,
13,2;l!13,9
tuus
12,10;
12,11;
1,8;
statim 2,3
status:
10,5;
tuo
5,2;
statum 3,3
10,5H; tuarum 1,4; 7,2; 9,3ff; tuas 2,2; 4,2; tuis 7,9; tuis 14,13 ultimus: ultimum 10,6
1,5H
subripio: subripiam 7,8
unde 11,11
unus: unum 11,18 urbs 11,11: urbe 11,6
uro: uri 11.16H usque 1,10 uscLueciuaque [1,10]; 13,2
^
subsecundo 9,2
sufficio:
sum
6,5;
6,6;
11,17;
1,11;
11,18;
11,19;
6,9;
13,5;
sumus
14,2;
9,5;
9,6;
10,4;
11,18;
sunt
12,4;
1,7;
7,16;
12,11; 13,8
eram
5,4;
utor:
utamur 11,7
14,12;
fuit 7,10;
fueris
12,3; sim 12,6; sis 12,5; sit 7,11; 8,6; 8,7; 8,11; 11,13; fuerit 10,8; esse l,2fl; 4,4; 6,5; 7,4ff; 8,3; 10,5; 11,3;
valeo: valere 1,15; 2,10; 4,5; 11,21; vale 3,8; 5,6; 7,16#; 8,13; 9,9; 10,8; 12,11; 13,10; 14,16; valete 6,9; 7,16
velamentum 11,17
[velut 13,7] venerabilis: venenabiles 7,6
talia 13,6
taliter 7,11
tarn 9,2; ll,46is; 12,9tf 8,3 tantus 12,3; tanta 1,12; 1,13; tanti 2,8; 2,9; tanto 6,6
verbum
13,3;
14,5;
verborum
9,9;
13,4
tamen
vere 2,10 vereor: vereare 13,5 vertex 12,5 vester: vestra 11,3 vetus: veteri 5,4
11*
164
INDEX VERBOKUM
video 8,8; videtur 7,16; 14,5; videbimus 4,5; videaris 12,9; viderent
11,14; visum 8,7; visis 1,6 vinco: vincemus 6,8
12,2; viri 2,8; viri 7,14 virtus: virttitis 7,10; virtutes 13,7 vis 13,3 vita: vitam 1,10
vitalis:
vivo:
vivamus 7,4
vir
vitale 14,14
vox
11,5 7,10;
vocibus 13,8
STEMMA COD:
SAEC.
IX
XI
XII
VIMA
CODICUM
'aaa|*.-ij^i^ *V A >^
._*
.-%->
MS. Latin
2772,
f.
50 V
PLATE
II.
MS. Latin
2772,
52.
'
<f
?^ V""'""^?^^^
;'*'
'
*
,
^^J^^^'-^^f^
* , "
<. '
,ti.
,>
IV^r
VfiW *
>
-l
**
-i
.
'*
V|f
.
"*
<
*,
*K.
'i^' .J?<
i-.''*r^ Jr
.^?V*
.
iJ*^*
I*
-4
*.
a>lj
i'i*
rf
^L . \i
'
""Tis
'
<_oB
J;*t.
*
--
^a^MiXft
u
','
^"N^V.-jk
'
J:
"^/"'-.rtlp'''
-'fcviM>-
^ijpr^oprreiC:
fe:
j
C*.
!
~
'<'
5*-
^VT^ K- 1
jMP*<<i
'
.*!
(w*#r
fev
'J.
^
".'''^>'
^*ft:f;:4
i-
-*"
"*
ranar
ssfjjw&i*;
A^i^fc
"
dtelHIlM
,-
j
.
"*.
"
^'Vi
- rf
H--<r^^'*"r,m
s i
.
-
v-
'
-^
*
'
, '*
'
-.
'4-J
-*
*$$*&&*
>
JsX.^>v
'
'"'*"'.
>'
*4'
\"%*^
>ii^
v} '
^W,^ ,J^feH
>
"^S?*!
-TKx
'H
-fcia
MS. 283943,
f.
"
'
'
'
fcf vugrmi
ht
h onor
p?fm,$r%)^
'
'
">."-'
"
:
"
'
";
;f
il.
v ;,
-.-
^x
^.;'-.'
',
^ilM^s^*;-.'^
"
'
'li?;i'.fw^'i,
'"vi'"'":'^'!";-;'^
:
-^
',,
\-^/'^^^'^fJ[^E^ J^!Si^^it^:
'
.,*)
&'
>
tf-''$i
'??<
>-M
'.'
!.'
UNIVERS TY OF CH CAGO
21 052 600
//J