In 1991, R. P. H. Green (= G.) published a magisterial edition of and commentary on the works of Ausonius (The Works of Ausonius, Oxford: Clarendon Press). This is a work of considerable learning, and it was rightly greeted with critical acclaim (reviews include W. E. Klingshirn, in this journal, 03.02.10 (1992), J.J. O’Donnell, Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994), 294-95, E. J. Kenney, Classical Review 32 (1992), pp. 310-14, L. Mondin, Prometheus 20 (1994), pp. 150-70, and H. Sivan, American Journal of Philology 114 (1993), pp. 464-67). This work has now been supplemented by an Oxford Classical Text edition of the works, with a simplified critical apparatus, which also allows G. to take into account the critical reception of his earlier work, together with editions of the Epistles (L. Mondin, Venice: Il Cardo, 1995), Technopaegnion (C. Di Giovine, Bologna: Pàtron, 1996) and Parentalia (M. Lolli, Brussels: Latomus, 1997) published in the intervening period.
The edition consists of the following: preface (p. v); introduction (pp. vii-xxii); order of poems in V, Z, and P/H (pp. xxiii-xxiv); Giovanni Mansionario’s list of Ausonius’ works (pp. xxv-xxvi); select bibliography (editions cited, and articles and other works offering emendations) (pp. xxvii-xxx); texts (pp. 1-259); 4 appendices (Fragmenta dubia, Oratio consulis Ausonii versibus rhopalicis, De rosis nascentibus, and Periochae Homeri Iliados et Odyssiae, pp. 261-285); concordances (pp. 286-297); and index (pp. 299-316). The appendices have been simplified from 1991, and only works attributed to Ausonius in antiquity now remain.
The following attempts to list the changes to the text and the significant additions to the critical apparatus (it does not claim to be comprehensive). These changes consist primarily of conjectures added to the apparatus rather than changes to the text itself, but there are a number of the latter – I count 12: Parent. 3.6, 8.6, 10.4, 17.16, Comm. prof. 6.45, 20.12, 21.23, Epigr. 22.2, 41.1, 41.3, Ep. 13.33, and 15.2. Of these, Parent. 8.6, Comm. prof. 6.45, 20.12, Epigr. 22.2, 41.3 and Ep. 15.2 are new conjectures, Parent. 3.6, 10.4, 17.16, and Epigr. 41.1 old conjectures, and Comm. prof. 21.23 and Ep. 13.33 reversions to manuscript readings from conjectures formerly adopted. As acknowledged in his Preface, G. has been significantly influenced by the contributions of E. J. Kenney and L. Mondin.
I. Praefationes
5.11: K.’s suggestion of sed prompta est for et prompta est is added to the apparatus.
VIII. Protrepticus
Ad nepotem Ausonium
25: ferox, the reading of T, whose omission was noted by K., has been added to the ap. crit.
35: super labentibus is now printed as two words.
X. Parentalia
Verse preface 6: Mondin’s suggestion of praeteream for praetereas is added to the apparatus.
3.6: Peiper’s eris has been adopted in place of erit, the reading of V.
8.6: G. proposes aequaevis in place of Peiper’s quamvis which was adopted before. It is worth noting that Sivan defends the manuscript reading of civis (Not a Civis? A note on Ausonius’ Parentalia 10.6 (Sch.)’, Latomus 48 (1989), pp. 879-80).
10.4: G. has adopted Tollius’ ut plenae in place of Dousa’s et plenae for the manuscript reading of et pene (K. prefers ut plenae).
17.16: munera prisca proposed by Ellis has replaced the manuscript reading munera tristia, which was unmetrical (as noted by K.).
29.1: K.’s heu vix for the manuscript vix has been added to the apparatus. G. still adopts Peiper’s o vix, but with the qualification dub. XI. Commemoratio professorum
6.45: G. adopts K.’s socris for Poelman’s soceri (ms. has soceris).
14.4: K’s suggestion of at for the manuscript reading of et is in the apparatus.
20.12: K’s tu cunctator has replaced cunctator eras (Lugd., adopted in 1991).
21.12: G. has added to the ap. crit. Ellis’
21.23: in 1991, G. proposed dulce fluentia, but now resorts to the manuscript reading of dulcia fatu (thus K.).
XII. Epitaphia heroum
21: G. proposes the deletion of in horto sepultis from the title.
XIII. Epigrammata
22.2: G. adopts K.’s belli for bello.
37.1: Mondin’s proposal of Una quidem L geminis fulget is added to the apparatus.
41.1: G.’s
41.3: K.’s
77.4: K.’s certus for ilico is in the ap. crit.
115.19: G. has added two conjectures to the apparatus, K.’s quae and his own quasi (rated dub.) for quia.
121.2: two new conjectures by Woodward ( consequeris with nec omitted, and mire) for this problematic line are included in the apparatus.
XIV. Eclogae
16.7: G. includes in the apparatus his own conjecture colunt for colant (but rates it dub.).
XV. Griphus
52: K.’s abit for coit is noted in the apparatus.
XVI. Mosella
114: K.’s horrida for arida is added to the ap. crit.
146: G. adds K.’s conjecture infundit for fundit to the apparatus.
XVIII. Cento nuptialis
133: a new conjecture in the apparatus is et paula for O Paule (Moding).
XIX. Cupido cruciatus
49: K.’s inauratis for auratis is in the apparatus.
52: G. adds K.’s ferum for unum to the ap. crit., but rates it dub.
XXIII. Caesares
97: G. has added K.’s et . . . quem for the manuscript reading quam . . . quam to the ap. crit. but retains the conjecture of Schenkl ( qua . . . quem).
XXV. Technopaegnion
14.8: G. considers the line to be suspect and has enclosed it in parentheses, and V. is changed to F. in the margin.
14.25: U. is changed to V. in the margin.
XXVI. Ludus septem sapientium
Prol. 27: K.’s at for ut is added to the apparatus.
XXVII. Epistulae
3.27-28: sunt for quae and cultuve for cultuque (both K.) are added to the ap. crit.
6.15:
6.34:
9(a).12: Mondin’s profusione for persuasione is in the ap. crit.
13.33: in 1991, G. adopted Heinsius’ veste recincta, but now reverts to veste reducta, the reading of Z.
15.2: quodque for the manuscript reading of quodve (K.) is adopted in the text.
15.7: deciesve for deciesque (also K.) has less success, getting only as far as the apparatus.
18.13: consere, a conjecture for congere, had been attributed to Gronovius, but now to Avantius.
19(a).17: edet, an addition proposed by Kurfess, is in the apparatus.
19(b).12: Mondin’s ibique is added to a list of conjectures for a line where there are already several manuscript variants.
In simplifying the apparatus, G. has on occasion left no critical annotations for text which is in fact the product of editorial work. Thus:
Epigram 14.8: the manuscripts read et si; G. has followed Schenkl in printing etsi.
Epigram 32.2: G. prints Osirin, the proposal of Avantius; the manuscript variants are osirim, osyrma, offirma, and ofirma.
Epigram 76.4: dissecuit is the text of the Venetian editio princeps of Bartholomaeus Girardinus in 1472. The manuscript variations are dissicuit, discicuit and discutiit.
Eclogue 5.5: agustusque (V) has been changed to Augustusque.
XVIII. Cento nuptialis, p. 147: 45 has been omitted from the apparatus before vel (Scaliger’s conjecture).
At Ep. 24.70, G. retains the manuscript reading verbis. The conjectures of Shackleton Bailey ( vinclis) and Haakanson ( terris) could perhaps have made the apparatus.
Although G. includes a list of editions of Ausonius and secondary studies that include emendations, a number of conjectures are attributed to other scholars whose outputs are not recorded here, e.g. Galdi ( Mosella 374), Sannaz ( Technopag. 14.8), and Weil ( Technopag. 14.25).