Ars Edendi LECTURE SERIES Volume III Edited by Eva Odelman and Denis M. Searby ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Studia Latina Stockholmiensia ————————————— LIX ————————————— Ars Edendi LECTURE SERIES Volume III Edited by Eva Odelman and Denis M. Searby STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY 2014 Cover image: Miniature from Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, ms 71 A 24, fol. 2v, containing the legend of the monk Theophilus. This is a print on demand publication distributed by Stockholm University Library. Full text is available online www.sub.su.se. First issue printed by US-AB 2012. © The authors and Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 2014 ISBN (print): 978-91-87235-74-0 ISBN (electronic): 978-91-87235-73-3 ISSN 0491-2764 Distributor: Stockholm Unversity Library Printed 2014 by US-AB Table of Contents Introduction 1 Eva Odelman and Denis Searby Contributors 9 Critical Transmission 13 Mats Dahlström Moving the Goal Posts: The Re-writing of Medieval Latin Prose Texts 29 Michael Winterbottom The Homilies of Sophronius of Jerusalem: Issues of Prose Rhythm, Manuscript Evidence and Emendation 49 John M. Duffy Diogenes Laertius and the Gnomological Tradition: Considerations from an Editor of the Lives of the Philosophers 71 Tiziano Dorandi The Editing of Medieval Latin Commentary Texts: Problems and Perspectives 105 Frank Coulson Introduction The Ars edendi Research Programme, funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond and based at Stockholm University, explores both theoretical and practical issues of the editing of medieval Greek and Latin texts, especially in genres presenting quandaries to standard error-based, Lachmannian approaches. In our series of Ars edendi lectures, ever since the start of the eight-year programme in 2008, we have been inviting experienced scholars to share with us their perspectives on current developments in textual criticism or to address specific editorial challenges. This volume, the third and penultimate, offers its readers the personal reflections and experiences of two Latin and two Greek scholars in regard to their own editorial work as well as the perspectives of a researcher in library and information science concerning critical digitization. Thanks to their admirably didactic presentations, each of the lectures, we believe, can be useful not only for scholarly research but also in teaching settings to convey the finer points of textual criticism and to indicate both the differences and similarities between editing classical works and editing medieval ones. While we were preparing this introduction and summarizing the main points of each lecture, we realized that, though at first glance they deal with rather disparate subjects, there were some common issues which could bridge the passage from one to another. Hence we will not be presenting the lectures in their chronological order of appearance according to the arrangement of the volume but will make the transition hinge on some common editorial aspect. One of the genres of particular interest to the Ars edendi programme is that of medieval commentaries on various kinds of ‘canonical’ texts (classical or biblical or even other medieval texts, prose as well as poetry). As stated on the Ars edendi homepage (www.arsedendi.org): The commentary genre represents a hallmark of medieval hermeneutic tradition. A commentary is by nature a multilevel composition in which different textual, and at times also visual, layers are interwoven and interact with each other: the text to be 2 Eva Odelman and Denis Searby commented upon; excerpts from authoritative authors; the explanations of the commentator(s). Both this circumstance and the often quite variable manuscript copies of the same commentary present specific challenges to the editor. With his wide-ranging knowledge of medieval commentaries on Ovid, Frank Coulson was a natural choice to give an Ars edendi lecture. In the published version of his lecture Coulson discusses the editorial problems peculiar to medieval commentaries and glosses on classical authors. One very ordinary but real such problem is simply locating the manuscripts transmitting glosses: many manuscript catalogues omit descriptions of such material or give only very cursory information. Scholars working on classical Latin texts deal, generally speaking, with relatively stable texts which, moreover, have almost always already been edited a number of times. In contrast, medieval commentaries on classical texts are often subject to variation and change due to classroom use, and very few of them have been edited. The core of the lecture deals with the question of how physically to represent the commentary tradition in a printed edition. Coulson offers examples from his own work on two important commentators on the Metamorphoses: Arnulf of Orléans (ca. 1180) and the anonymous author of the Vulgate Commentary (ca. 1250). In the earliest exemplars Arnulf is transmitted in a catena format, which usually led to a fairly stable text. Later, however, his commentary was transmitted in the form of scholia (interlinear or marginal glosses). The Vulgate Commentary, on the other hand, was regularly transmitted as scholia. Thus one problem for the editor of Arnulf is whether to attempt to recreate the author’s original layout or to make separate editions of the philological and allegorical glosses that were transmitted independently in later manuscripts. As for the Vulgate, the glosses are sometimes copied into a manuscript of the Metamorphoses that has alternative readings not in accordance with the commentary. Coulson concludes by discussing different ways of approximating the medieval mise-en-page as well as different types of edition. One point raised by Coulson is the degree to which corrections should be admitted. He states as a principle the need to resist ‘hypercorrecting’ the language of the medieval commentator. This is also one of the salient points in the lecture by Tiziano Dorandi, the INTRODUCTION 3 most recent editor of Diogenes Laertius. A well known textual scholar in the field of Hellenistic and Imperial Age Greek philosophy, Dorandi gave his lecture within the framework of the Ars edendi conference ‘Apophthegmata’, held at the Newman Institute in Uppsala (7-8 June 2012). Diogenes Laertius is, of course, an ancient and not a medieval author and thus falls outside the period of primary interest to Ars edendi, but his editors, too, must deal with a secondary tradition that was very much part of the Byzantine Middle Ages: the collections of sayings and anecdotes of philosophers and other luminaries which may be generically described as the ‘gnomological tradition’. Like the commentary traditions on classical and biblical authors, the gnomological tradition started in antiquity and continued down to and throughout the Middle Ages. Since sayings and anecdotes form a prominent part of the Lives of the Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, and because the Byzantine tradition may preserve independent witnesses to earlier sources, the editor of Diogenes is also compelled to evaluate the parallel medieval traditions. Yet Diogenes himself made great use of the ancient gnomological tradition and other ‘secondary’ sources in addition to the works of the philosophers themselves. Also in this case the editor must resist the urge to hypercorrect, i.e. to adjust the language of Diogenes to the supposed usage of the original sources. Dorandi illustrates this with several examples, especially a saying of Epicurus quoted by Diogenes which survives both in the later medieval tradition and in the earlier, direct tradition of Epicurus. As stated in the conclusion of Dorandi’s lecture: ... in dealing with a work like the Lives of the Philosophers, which makes heavy use of quotations from source materials that are mostly extant (if at all) in a fragmentary state or merely parallelled in such fluctuating traditions as that of the Greek gnomologia, the editor should aim at restoring the quoted texts as they were ‘received’ by the author of the work being edited and not the original state of the sources quoted. The editor must avoid falling into the trap of mixing traditions and forgetting which text he or she is actually editing. Like Dorandi, Michael Winterbottom is well known for his work on ancient authors (especially Quintilian, Tacitus, Cicero and the elder Seneca), but he has also made important contributions to medieval Latin, not least through his work on William of Malmesbury. His 4 Eva Odelman and Denis Searby lecture displays a nice ring-composition, beginning with an example of ‘moving the goal posts’ in classical Latin literature (the elder Seneca), proceeding to an illuminating discussion of the same phenomenon in medieval Latin, and concluding with an application of the lesson learned from the medieval authors to editing classical literature. Now what does he mean by the metaphor of ‘moving the goal posts’? It refers to the messy situation of manuscripts that give evidence of re-writing: Editors like a quiet life. They hope for a nice simple stemma. They have a fantasy, that their author has erected a pair of goal posts, between which the skilfully established text can be kicked with no difficulty. Unfortunately, things are often not so easy ... One familiar source of trouble is that one manuscript, or a group of manuscripts, gives what looks in general like a sincere text, while others present what looks like a widely corrected and interpolated text. Someone, alongside the original goal posts, has erected a new pair, and the editor is not sure where he should be aiming his shots. The classical scholar can only rarely determine when or where the rewriting has taken place, whereas the ‘fascination of medieval texts is that one can sometimes get right back to the top of a tradition, see the goal posts moving, and know or guess who was moving them.’ Winterbottom gives examples of re-writing with a special focus on William of Malmesbury (twelth century), discussing William’s own corrections in the autograph of Gesta pontificum and also in Gesta regum (no autograph). He reaches the conclusion that revised versions of texts – even by the authors themselves – often follow soon after the originals, more often than people usually think. In textual traditions involving authorial revisions, the apparatus criticus assumes a particular importance, and, with regard to Winterbottom’s own edition of the Gesta Regum, ‘readers have to keep an open mind, and in a sense to choose and establish the text that suits them.’ In regard to classical texts, Winterbottom thinks it entirely possible that ‘by analogy with the revisions I have been pointing to in the high Middle Ages, revision was being carried out at a much earlier stage, even contemporary with the author, and even by him’, although ‘the details of this process will rarely be available to us.’