Seneca’s De Beneficiis saw its first modern critical edition during the last quarter of the 19th century (Gertz 1876). After that, two more were made, all within the space of fifty years: Hosius 1900 (later 1914) and Préchac 1926. These were the only three critical editions of the treatise we had until Kaster’s newly published OCT. Indeed, since 1926 a lot of progress has been made in the field, which Kaster now assesses comprehensively for the first time. On the one hand, many scholars put their efforts into improving Seneca’s text with conjectures and emendations: e.g. Alexander 1950, G. Mazzoli 1974, and Shackleton Bailey 1970. On the other hand, thanks especially to the research of G. Mazzoli, we now have a much deeper knowledge of the manuscript tradition and know with certainty what used to be only a working hypothesis, namely that N (Palatinus Latinus 1547) is the preserved archetype.
Kaster’s work situates itself along this path, being, as he tells us in the Preface (p. vii), a sort of Prolegomenon to his own OCT edition of Seneca’s treatise. The book discusses 206 textual problems covering the entirety of De Beneficiis. It also contains a brief Preface, an Introduction, and three final appendixes, followed by a Bibliography, Index of Manuscripts, Index of Passages, and Index of Names.
In the Introduction, Kaster surveys the documentary evidence on which his edition is based. He describes the two main manuscripts, N and its close copy R (Reginensis Latinus 1529), the latter of which originated the remainder of the tradition (about three hundred manuscripts, with two possible exceptions, as we will see below). Kaster’s account does not indulge in details, as is appropriate for a preamble to a piece of philological work; though the interested scholar may be left curious to know more, Kaster’s terseness is counterbalanced by his precise footnotes and a wealth of bibliographical references.
Kaster, then, proceeds to survey all the branches of the tradition. His exposition, while closely following the seminal work by Mazzoli 1982, has also the merit of focusing on those sources that Kaster personally regards as the most stimulating for the modern editor, and of which he therefore made the most use.
The following commented list of all the modern editions draws upon Kaster’s previous research on the printed tradition of De Beneficiis (Kaster 2021), the first of its kind and an essential tool for whoever undertakes scholarly study of Seneca’s treatise. As the dedication of the book shows, the outstanding contribution of M.C. Gertz is—at last—fully acknowledged, and Kaster is right to call his 1876 edition “the best approximation to date of what Seneca wrote” (p. 11). Among the sigla, however, Kaster groups all the correcting hands of N together under ‘pc’ (post correctionem), but it would have been useful to have a dedicated mark for that specific one that Reinhard Kekulé called primus corrector, who Kaster agrees could have had access to N’s antigraph and whose variant readings are therefore as authoritative as those of N itself (p. 1 and n. 1; cf. Gertz 1876, iii–iv).
At the end of the book, three Appendixes provide supplementary material on specific topics that could not be fully covered in the Introduction. In particular, Appendix 1 tackles a secondary yet delicate issue about the manuscript tradition, upon which I comment below. Appendix 2 is a detailed collection of the most common scribal mistakes to be found in N, whose utility for the text’s emendation needs no emphasis. Lastly, Appendix 3 provides a list of previously undetected manuscripts containing the text of De Beneficiis, complementing the recensiones by Mazzoli 1982 and Malaspina 2005, 50–51.
Appendix 1 responds to the hypothesis, formulated by Mazzoli 1978, that two twelfth-century German manuscripts named M and Q (the so-called μ-branch) might descend from N independently of R. In fact, as he immediately states, Kaster prefers a weaker version of that claim and agrees with Malaspina’s view that μ, while still descending from R, must have been contaminated with a source that had access to N (Malaspina 2016, xxii-xxiii). The argument runs as follows. Kaster discards the vast majority of Mazzoli’s evidence on the ground that those readings were either incorrect or the result of later corrections, trivial mistakes, or more or less easy emendations present elsewhere in the manuscripts and in the printed editions. The twenty-two remaining cases are indeed considered true indications of direct influence from N, but, as Kaster observes, they are concentrated in books 5 and 6 and their small number makes them “as nothing in a manuscript that otherwise so clearly bears the impress of R” (p. 185).
Kaster’s argument, though documented with clarity and precision, only does half the job. His demonstration is surely enough to prove a direct contact with N but cannot discriminate between direct descent and contamination. Shrinking the number of cases hardly helps, as one single good case is enough to demonstrate kinship. Contamination, however, is not a weakened form of descent, but emerges from the coexistence of contrasting signs of derivation from separate branches of the tradition. In other words, Kaster’s argument would have been more solid had he shown at least a few strong cases of RQ (and M) vs. N, substantiating that clear “impress of R” he talks about in the end but of which he gives no evidence.
Coming to the discussions of vexed passages that constitute the core of the book, each begins with the relevant excerpt of Seneca’s text as constituted by Hosius 1914, with the specific words at issue in bold. There follows an extremely detailed apparatus, often in columnar format, which makes even long lists of variants highly readable. A careful examination of the available options accompanies the analysis and the author’s conclusions are always clearly stated. Even though he only rarely ventures to emend the text himself (as he does, e.g., on p. 66 ad 3.1.5), Kaster’s choices are always grounded on solid arguments and a deep critical acumen, making his contribution to the text of De Beneficiis unquestionable. Generally speaking, his most evident virtues are the clarity and sharpness of his discussions, together with a complete independence of judgement; in addition, the wealth of his documentation (ranging from the variant readings of manuscripts and editions to scattered humanist conjectures and even to excerpts and paraphrases by medieval authors such as Vincent of Beauvais or William of Malmesbury) and his command of Seneca’s own idiolect, prose rhythm, and Latin linguistics overall are outstanding.
At 4.11.3, for instance, Kaster’s linguistic sensitivity brings him to follow an early corrector of N and introduce an et before statim, correctly restoring the antithesis between in nostrum delatis portum and statim abituris in its full force (and perhaps also adding a concessive nuance that would fit the context perfectly: “although immediately leaving …”). In the same passage, then, consideration of clausulae allows him to prefer the expression nauem instruimus (“we equip a ship”) to N’s nauem struimus (“we build a ship”), surely better for sense as well. Furthermore, in two cases (6.40.2 and 7.27.1) Kaster uses Wackernagel’s law to select the right position of an integration, and in both cases the resulting text is more than satisfactory. Even when Kaster opts in the end for the cruces desperationis (as at 2.14.5), the analytical structure of his discussion is exemplary. Once and for all, he clears the ground from previous speculations and lays the foundation for future progress.
4.6.1 is another passage where Kaster’s work constitutes a decisive step towards the solution and, although I do not necessarily agree with his final choice, the terms in which I now think of the problem are inevitably his. Seneca is describing the gods’ gifts to humans and is now focusing on precious metals. N reads: tot metalla defodit tot flumine misitera super quae decurrunt solaurum uehentia. Kaster’s logic here is cogent. The five main verbs of this very long sentence (of which I have reported only one part) must have the same subject and this subject is likely to be something like Haase’s deus before defodit. Then, two minor adjustments: fluminemisit can reasonably become flumina emisit and solaurum can become sola aurum (Kaster’s reading of N is wrong here, since N has, in fact, solaurum and not *solarum). Kaster goes on to ask two questions, one about the remaining bit of fluminemisitera and the other about what to make of super quae decurrunt sola. He finally prints the following text, adopting Skutsch’s solution: tot metalla deus defodit, tot flumina emisit terra quae decurrunt super sola, aurum uehentia. While this is certainly a solid option and makes perfect sense, the two questions Kaster asked prompt me to wonder whether the mysterious era and super, which Kaster deems misplaced, could be the result of a single corruption: may I suggest tot flumina emisit cursu per quae decurrunt sola aurum uehentia (i.e. “transporting gold in their stream along those lands they traverse”)? All it takes is for some scribe to have accidentally written *crusu instead of cursu, and then super might have originated from wrong word-division and era might have been a context-induced misreading of e instead of c and a instead of u, all very similar to each other in minuscule scripts; although Kaster explicitly says that such minuscule-generated interchanges are “infrequent” in N, he does list some (p. 186 n. 2). After all, to specify that rivers run on lands might sound a little redundant and, on the other hand, emisit need not be supported by terra, because the antithesis with defodit seems to be the main point here.
Only two very general criticisms can be made of Kaster’s otherwise impeccable work. The first concerns his decision to use Hosius’ text as the reference text of his discussions (a choice from which he departs, as far as I noticed, only ad 5.14.1-3, p. 134). I found this choice occasionally confusing inasmuch as the Latin you actually read reflects neither the manuscript base nor the editor’s final solution, so that visualizing what is going on exactly requires a fair amount of figural imagination.
My second criticism concerns the complete lack of consideration given to digital resources. In fact, Kaster does not even mention the fact that both N and R (but most of all N!) are publicly available online in high resolution on the website of the Biblioteca Vaticana (Pal. lat. 1547 and Reg.lat.1529 respectively). On top of that, both Gertz’ and Hosius’ editions (Gertz 1876; Hosius 1900, the first one) can be read for free through the Internet Archive project. All these are invaluable instruments for anyone who undertakes a philological study of Seneca’s De Beneficiis as well as for Kaster’s generic reader, who might remain unaware of their existence.
In sum, Kaster’s work represents the apex of nearly a century of philological efforts, and in it all the best contributions are gauged and further elaborated, resulting in a series of great improvements to Seneca’s text. Even before his eagerly awaited OCT edition comes out, Kaster’s impressive expertise has provided the philological community with a new reference point for the study of De Beneficiis, a research tool from which everyone will have a lot to learn.
References
Alexander, W. H. 1950. Lucius Annaeus Seneca De Beneficiis Libri VII. University of California Publications in Classical Philology, v. 14, no. 11. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gertz, M. C. 1876. L. Annaei Senecae libri De Beneficiis et De Clementia. Berolini: Apud Weidmannos.
Hosius, C. 1900. L. Annaei Senecae de Beneficiis Libri VII, de Clementia Libri II. Lipsiae: Teubner.
———. 1914. L. Annaei Senecae de Beneficiis Libri VII, de Clementia Libri II. 2nd ed. Lipsiae: Teubner.
Kaster, R. A. 2021. “The Vulgate Text of Seneca’s De Beneficiis, 1475–1650.” In Classical Scholarship and Its History. From the Renaissance to the Present. Essays in Honour of Christopher Stray, edited by Stephen Harrison and Christopher Pelling, 59–80. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.
Malaspina, E. 2005. L. Annaei Senecae De Clementia Libri Duo: Prolegomeni, Testo Critico e Commento. 2nd ed. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
———. 2016. L. Annaeus Seneca: De Clementia libri duo. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.
Mazzoli, G. 1974. “Restauri Testuali Nel De Beneficiis Di Seneca.” Bollettino Del Comitato per La Preparazione Dell’edizione Nazionale Dei Classici Greci e Latini, no. XXII: 53–98.
———. 1978. “Ricerche Sulla Tradizione Medioevale Del De Beneficiis e Del De Clementia.” Bollettino Del Comitato per La Preparazione Dell’edizione Nazionale Dei Classici Greci e Latini 26: 85–110.
———. 1982. “Ricerche Sulla Tradizione Medievale Del De Beneficiis e Del De Clementia Di Seneca: III. Storia Della Tradizione Manoscritta.” Bollettino Dei Classici 3a (3): 165–223.
Préchac, F. 1926. Sénèque. Des Bienfaits: Texte Établi et Traduit. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1970. “Emendations of Seneca.” The Classical Quarterly 20 (2): 350–63.