(The figures in brackets refer to the page and line of Roth's edition of Suetonius in the Teubner series.) 1. Vesp. 2 (225, 24). 2. Vesp. 4 (226, 15). 3. Vesp. 12 (231, 25). 4. Vesp. 15 (232, 23). 5. Vesp. 23 (234, 21). omit principibus. Read tribunus militum. After potestatem supply aut. After umquam supply laetatus est et quamquam. 9. Tit. 8 (239, 30). 10. Domit. 1 (241, 26). 11. Domit. 3 (242, 37). supply principatus filium, 12. Domit. 4 (244, 8). 13. Domit. 14 (250, 4). 14. Domit. 21( 250, 9). After superioribus read a se concessa and (239, 1) Read nihil publice nisi sibi perisse. Read variae. For filium read filiam, and after alteroque anno INTRODUCTION.1 The purpose of these pages is to investigate, chiefly upon the basis of internal evidence, the text of the passages given in the preceding index. Palaeographic arguments will however be used at times, and Ms. authority for all important variants will be indicated and weighed. To facilitate an understanding of so much of the discussion as rests upon the relative value of Mss., a short introduction is necessary, exhibiting the results of the most recent critical work upon the Suetonian codices. Previous to 1857 there had been no attempt to classify scientifically the Mss. of the De Vita Caesarum; there are vague references to "libri optimi," "libri boni," or "libri deteriores," categories formed very much according to the prejudices of individual editors. But in that year C. L. Roth, in his masterly preface to the Teubner Suetonius, pointed out the disadvantage under which the previous editions had labored, and sought to remove it by grouping, in four divisions, constituting a descending scale of merit, the Mss. with which he was acquainted.3 Unfortunately he was able to collate in person only the Codex Memmianus and the Codex Parisinus 6116, depending for the rest "mainly on the often inaccurate excerpts of the earlier editors;" in consequence his classification of necessity lacked finality, though his wonderful intuition and excellent judgment enabled him to achieve in the construction of his text results which are actually astonishing." In 1862 Gustav Becker brought forward' readings from an 1 The following are constantly referred to in the foot-notes to the thesis: 1. C. Suetoni Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia rec. C. L. Roth. (Leipzig, Teubner Press, 1904.) 2. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vols. xii (1901) and xvi (1905). Referred to in abbreviated form as H. xii and H. xvi. 3. Troisième Étude sur l'Histoire du Texte de Suétone de Vita Caesarum: Classification des Manuscrits. Par L. Preud'homme. (Brussels, Hayez Press, 1904.) Referred to as Preud'homme T. E. or as T. E. simply. 2 Introd. v: Verum hoc nondum etc. 3 Introd. xxiii-xxix. 4 Introd. xxii and xxvii. 5 H. xii 19. • Preud'homme, T. E. 3. 7 In his Quaestiones Criticae de C. Suetonii Tranquilli de Vita Caesarum libris viii, Memel. authority the worth of which had up to that time been practically unrecognized, the Gudianus 268, a Ms. of the eleventh century; though he perhaps overestimated its value," his enthusiasm regarding it served the useful purpose of directing critical attention towards this Ms. of really prime importance in Suetonian textcriticism. Again in 1867 he published1o an account, strangely incomplete," of the Vaticanus Lipsii (No. 1904), the worth of which Roth had already surmised.12 In 1901 and in 1905 Professor Clement Lawrence Smith of Harvard University issued13 accounts of personal examinations into the relations existing among a number of Mss. of the Lives, chiefly those of later date (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). In 1901 there appeared11 a study of a certain Parisian Ms. of the De Vita Caesarum, No. 5809, by Professor Albert A. Howard, also of Harvard University, in which he showed a disposition to attribute greater weight to Mss. of the fifteenth century than had Roth in his introduction.15 17 Finally, in 1902 M. Leo Preud'homme, member of the Royal Academy of Belgium, published16 two articles dealing with minor Suetonian problems such as the sources and values of the various excerpta (Lislaeana, Vossiana, et al.), and in 1904 his Troisième Étude, in which he covered with the minutest diligence the whole field of textual criticism as it relates to the De Vita Caesarum, and was able in consequence to construct a scheme of relationship among the codices1s which by its accuracy and definiteness marks a notable advance in our knowledge of the sources of the text of Suetonius. This Troisième Étude has been fol 8 Roth was entirely unacquainted with it (Preud'homme T. E. 4, footnote 1) and Fr. A. Wolf employed it only in the most slovenly fashion (Preud'homme T. E. 65). 9 Preud'homme, T. E. 65. 10 In Symbola Philologorum Bonnensium II 687 sqq. 11 Preud'homme T. E. 65. 12 Introd. xxvii. 13 H. xii 19-58 and xvi 1-14. 14 H. xii 261-266. 15 xxix. 16 In Bulletins de l'Académie royale de Belgique, 1902, pp. 299-328 and 544-551. 17 In vol. lxiii of the Academy's publications (1904), pp. 1-94. 18 T. E. 61. lowed by a text19 founded upon the critical results which it achieved; this stands for the present as the last word on the subject. The scheme of relationship among the Mss. of the De Vita Caesarum is given by M. Preud'homme thus: 9. Early ancestor of P, written in capitals, possibly of fifth century. P. Archetype of all the known Mss. of the De Vita Caesarum. X. Archetype of the Mss. of the first group. Z. Archetype of the Mss. of the second group. x. Archetype of B and x'. x'. Archetype of a b c f. E. Archetype of A and D.20 A. Codex Memmianus, Parisinus 6115, ninth century.21 B. Codex Vaticanus Lipsii, No. 1904, eleventh century, containing only the first three Lives and a short portion of the Caligula. C. Codex Wulfenbuttelanus or Gudianus 268, eleventh century. D. Codex Parisinus 5804, fourteenth century. a. Codex Mediceus 68, 7 (called by Roth, after Jac. Gronovius, Med. 3), eleventh century. b. Codex Parisinus 5801, twelfth century. c. Codex Mediceus 66, 39 (called by Roth, after Jac. Gronovius, Med. 1), thirteenth century. f. Codex Montepessulanus 117, thirteenth century. a. Codex Londiniensis, Brit. Mus. 15 C III, twelfth century. 19 Leyden, press of G. F. Theonville, 1906. 20 M. Preud'homme does not give E in his scheme, but I have ventured to introduce it on the strength of his remarks in T. E. 37 regarding the relationship of A and D. 21 A full description of this and all the following Mss. is given in Preud'homme, T. E., pp. 63-78. |