Since the publication of De verborum significatione (henceforth DVS) by W. M. Lindsay in 1913, many scholars have focused on the content and the organization of this work in order to separate Verrius Flaccus’ original work from Sextus Pompeius Festus’additions. Only a few scholars, especially those from Italy, have continued to examine textual aspects, hoping for a new edition to address the shortcomings of Lindsay’s edition.
The volume by Alessia Di Marco, a revised version of her PhD thesis at the University “Roma Tre”, offers a fundamental guide to satisfy this need. After briefly describing the divergent views of scholars on the composition and stratification of Festus’work (Introduzione), the first chapter (1. La tradizione manoscritta del De verborum significatione) highlights the need to return to the text and to its transmission by presenting all of testimonia of DVS, including Vat. Lat. 5958 (= A) and Toletanus 100-30 (= T), which were discovered after Lindsay’s edition. For each manuscript, Di Marco gives a brief summary of its history and a short account of its owners and a complete physical description, with particular attention to the paratextual aspects, the physical layout and the identification of different copyists. The photographs of some manuscripts (Tavole) make clear why she intends to stress that a new critical edition of DVS, probably even more than that of any other classical work, has to be founded on deep knowledge of the manuscript tradition.
The second chapter (2. Storia editoriale del testo) is focused on the description of all earlier editions of DVS from the editio princeps of 1500 by Giovan Battista Pio and Gabriel Conago to more recent but unsuccessful attempts by Alessandro Moscadi and the even more ambitious Festus Lexicon Project. Describing the early editions before the manuscripts might appear a bit unusual, but Di Marco convincingly explains this choice, saying that the history of Festus’editions is linked to «a doppio filo con la storia dei testimoni umanistici del De verborum significatione» (p. 15).
Here this book shows two strengths. First it defines the relationships among the editions and the humanistic apographs of the archetype, Neap. IV A 3 (= F). By doing so, she confirms that the basis of the editio princeps was the hyparchetype a, from which stems Vat. Lat. 3369 (= W), and she concludes that the liber Achillis Maffei, used by Antonio Augustín for reconstructing the already lost quires of F, should be identified with A. In addition, Di Marco demonstrates that in his edition of 1581 Fulvio Orsini used W for the lost quires VIII and X (a possibility excluded by Moscadi, pp. 62-64) and also used the Vat. Lat. 3368 (= U) to reconstruct the lost quire XVI.
The second positive aspect is the way in which the brief history of the different editions shows how the corrupt status of Fgave birth to new philological approaches as editors developed different ways to present and correct the text of DVS. For example, using the Paulus Diaconus’Epitome to fill the gaps of Festus’work in the editio princeps and Augustín’s edition and editing only the DVS in an effort to make an edition that maintained «una mise en page del tutto sovrapponibile a quella del codice» F (p. 61), as Orsini did, reveal a surprising attention to the material condition of the archetype.[1] Also, Augustín developed some diacritical signals to indicate additions, deletions and parts derived from apographs (cf. Notarum explanatio of Augustín, p. 59).
The failure of editors after Orsini to consult the manuscripts, however, represents a major weakness in all modern editions. Even Müller and Lindsay relied on L. Arndts’ and E. Thewrewk de Ponor’s collations, respectively. For this reason, the third chapter (3. Rapporti stemmatici tra i testimoni), is the most important part of this book. Here Di Marco gives us the first comprehensive view of stemmatic links among all the manuscripts. Using both textual evidence and the manuscripts’ physical conditions, she makes significant progress with a number of case-studies.
First, Di Marco constructs a reliable stemma of the manuscripts for the portions of the text where F survives. She confirms that U is a direct copy of F. Additionally, she demonstrates that W is not a copy of F because of «evidenti sviste […] in relazione a parole di agevole lettura» (pp. 86 e sgg.), and that this manuscript has to be considered a copy of hyparchetype a. The third branch of the stemma, hyparchetype b, tends both to correct simple errors and to make changes and additions, sometimes with the help of Paulus’Epitome. Two branches descend from b. The first is c, from which Vat. Lat. 2731 (= Z) and the Schedae Parisiense (= V) were independently derived; the second is d, which is common to A and to Vat. Lat. 1549 (= X), from which Mommsen believed the Leid. Voss. O 9 (= Y) was copied. Di Marco confirms that hypothesis but also suggests that corrections in Y (= Y1) are derived from c. The fourth branch of the stemma is now represented by fragmentum Toletanus. Discovered by Alessandro Moscadi, this little portion of the XI quire, because of many textual and paratextual agreements with F, is considered by Di Marco an another direct copy ‒ along with U ‒ «il cui contributo avrebbe potuto rivelarsi di grande utilità per la constitutio textus dei quaternioni perduti» (p. 101).
In the second part of this chapter (pp. 104-148) Di Marco tries to reconstruct the original textual arrangement of F’s lost quires (VIII, X and XVI). To do so, she examined in the surviving quires (IX, XI and XV) the textual portions that straddle the exterior and interior columns and established the different ways manuscripts made copies from it. For these portions, U copied only the readable parts, while W preferred to omit any traces of these parts and b tried to conserve«quanto più possibile del prezioso testo di F» (p. 109). Identifying different ways of copying leads Di Marco to assume a stemma for quires VIII and X, where d and W stem from hyparchetype a.
As for quire XVI Di Marco, starting again from some glosses straddling columns, suggests that b, unlike U and W, has modified the text by rewriting it. In these cases, she invites us to print textual portions from b «in corpo minore, rispetto al resto del testo» (p. 133), or to follow U.
At the end of the chapter (pp. 148-151), Di Marco offers some operational criteria for future editors and distinguishes three scenarios. For conserved quires she suggests making better use of F, so as to «sgombrare il testo da letture errate […] ormai insediate nella tradizione filologica ed esegetica del De verborum significatione» (p. 149). For the lost quires VIII and X she suggests considering both the mechanical errors of W and the major interpolation of d. Regarding quire XVI Di Marco recommends not only reconsidering the contribution of U but also rethinking the «ricostruzione dell’aspetto originario del fascicolo e del testo delle sue colonne esterne» (p. 151).
In the final part of the volume, (4. Edizione critica critica della lettera O), Di Marco produces an edition of littera O of DVS (pp. 157-211), to demonstrate the validity of the new methodological standards she proposes. She states (4.1 Nota al testo) that she is reconstructing the text «quale si era ancora conservato fino all’XI secolo nel filone di tradizione diretta sfociato in F» (p. 153). This approach respects the physical conditions of the most ancient testimonia and is reflected not only in limited use of the Paulus’Epitome (printed at the end following Lindsay’s edition, pp. 213-217), but also in the appropriate treatment of the diacritical signs.[2]
This new critical approach offers an edition of O which is quite different from Lindsay’s[3]. The critical apparatus is free of many errors made by Lindsay. The Italian translation is fluent and accurate at the same time, and it is accompanied by some brief notes explaining the more difficult words. There are three indexes: the first lists the modern authors cited in the entire volume; the second collects the entries of the sample edition; and the third contains the literary fontes.
Di Marco’s work provides rich data and a new scenario, making this book an essential guide for a necessary new and complete critical edition of the DVS. The next editor will have to take into account the differing quality of the testimonia and to assess more accurately the editorial consequences arising from the relationship between the text and its most ancient, damaged manuscript.
Notes
[1] It wasn’t until 1839 that Karl O. Müller opted, for the first time, for the current set-up with Paulus’Epitome in front of the DVS.
[2] For example, the use of italics to indicate textual portions which are illegible for us but were not for ancient editors; or the use of the square brackets for «le integrazioni effettuate in corrispondenza delle lacune materiali di F (o di quelle ricostruibili dalle indicazioni degli apografi)» (p. 154).
[3] For example, with respect to the recovery of the manuscripts’variants: at 172, 24 (= 196 L. Oratores) actiones F for orationes edd.; at 174, 13 (= 198 L. Oreae) the reading of F confirms the conjecture C. Laelius accepted by Malcovati against Coelius of editors; at 174, 5 (= 197 L. Orae) the hypothesized [fimbriae] in loco evanido for the non-sensical primae; at 176, 15 (= 198 L. Ordo sacerdotum) itaque {in} solus rex supra omnis of W for the less appropriate itaque in soliis supra omnes of Lindsay; at 180, 11 (= 190 L. Opima spolia) preference for opima dicuntur of X and A against the omission in W, followed by editors. Finally, it should be noted that Di Marco prefers some of Müller’s better solutions: victricium (162, 16 = 190 L. October equus); rariora (166, 11 = 192 L. Ocius); stuprum <et> (202, 8 = 218 L. Oscus); significationis {causa} (208, 7 = 220 L. Olivetam).