14 tuei, mortaleis (acc.), formeidatur. It is conjectured then that V is copied directly or not from an old school-reader, the compiler of which-in the times of the Antonines probably-altered spelling and order of words and made some other alterations for school purposes, while in the spurious compositions, of which he was perhaps himself the author, he employed what he not always rightly understood to be the spelling of Sallust's time. (There seems to have been a similar collection of speeches from Livy. Suet. Dom. 10.) The above are the only MSS. whose readings Jordan quotes separately. Of the manuscripts which fall under the head C (i. e. ceteri codices)—some or all of the MSS. of the first which have been collated-the most important is another Paris MS. of the 10th century, later, but not much later than P, with which it generally agrees. Wirz, its collator and champion, claims for it that in not a few places it gives us the right reading, for instance, in 7. 7 possum, and 51. 15 severior. I have sometimes added its readings under the title sign of P' on the authority of Wirz. The best of the MSS. of the second class is a Munich MS. of the 11th century (Monacensis. lat. 14477), useful chiefly for filling in a part of the lacuna, but it comes to an end at J. 106. 1. Another is Vaticanus 3325 of the 11th or 12th century, which has the missing chapters appended at the end by a contem 14 E. g. C. 52. 2 P longe mihi alia, V longe alia mihi. C. 51. 35, P atque ego haec, V atque haec ego. C. 51. 24 P neglegeris, V neglexeris. J. 85. 16 P posset, V possit (to correct the grammar). J. 24. 9 P scribo, V scripsi (where the epistolary tense is quite out of place). porary hand. A Leyden MS. of the same time has these chapters in their proper place, but it again is maimed in the middle of c. 110. Besides the MSS., the earliest of which belongs perhaps to the 9th century, we have earlier help towards the determination of the text in the quotations by grammarians and scholiasts, by the Fathers and other writers; and hints may now and then be gleaned from imitators. The recognized archaic tone of his style attracted the grammarians, the profusion of moral sentiments and unfavourable estimate of his times made him a favourite with the other writers. Of the grammarians, most of them belonging to the fourth century, the most important are 'Acro' (7th cent.), Messius Arusianus, Charisius, Diomedes, Donatus, Nonius Marcellus (3rd cent.), Priscianus (6th cent.), Servius. Among the writers are Fronto, Gellius, Macrobius; Augustine and Jerome: among the imitators, Aurelius Victor, Hegesippus (the Latin paraphrase of Josephus), Septimius (Dictys Cretensis) all three of the fourth century. I have mentioned these names in the notes, but have not thought it worth while to call them in when the reading in them too was uncertain. The help derived from this source is not very great, and it is disappointing that they do not quote the most difficult passages (22. 2, 39. 2, 51. 27, 57. 4). The grammarians, in particular, are not much to be relied on, unless they quote especially for the word or construction in question, and not always then (cp. 61. 3). Yet one is grateful to Gellius for showing us (33. 2) that the process of tampering with what Sallust wrote had begun even in his time (he was born about A. D. 130). And grammarians show us in some places (e. g. 2. 8 transiere or transegere) that the variety of reading with which our MSS. present us goes back to earlier times. To Augustine we owe a sentence 6. 2, a couple of words in 5. 9, and the right reading in 54. 6. The support of the grammarians makes the form senati certain. The text here given is that of Jordan's second edition of 1876 without any alteration, except that misprints have been corrected. Jordan has kindly given me information as to one or two places in which I was in doubt as to whether the reading was intentional. It should, however, be understood that Jordan does not give out his text as by any means a final text. In not a few places he is of opinion that conjecture is required, but he wisely prefers, as things stand at present, to lay a sure foundation. The notes which I give at the bottom of the text are also for the most part selected from Jordan; I have, however, added occasionally the readings of the MS. P' from the recension of Wirz (or more accurately his correction of Dietsch's recension) as already stated, and have noted a number of conjectures, all in fact that I know of which deserve consideration. Jordan mentions only a few. In the adoption of Jordan's text, his orthography is of course included. In this matter P is not always a safe guide, for the MS. occasionally gives us (according to Dietsch) atquae dii vult libet honeri (oneri) michi etc. But such things apart, the well-established reputation of Sallust for archaic forms seems to have made the writers of manuscripts careful in the matter of spelling, and Jordan follows P where it is reasonable. The reader will find in the text that u is written for i in such words as aestumo existumo lubet lacrumae legitumus novissumus; o for u and e in voltus volgus vorto voster advorsus percontari etc.; and though v is written, ignavos novos in nom. sing.; e for i in neglego intellego etc.; s is always omitted after ex, e. g. exequi execrari. Imperator imperium imperare are always written with m; but the following words sometimes im-, sometimes in-,―imbellis imbecillus impedio impetus impendeo etc., though the majority are written without assimilation. In the same way communis commendo, but conmittere etc. Such inconsistencies as pulcherrimus and pulcherrumus, manifestus and manufestus, and exsanguis (?), which occur thus in P are retained. Dietsch adopts a more uniform system, especially in the matter of verbs compounded with prepositions, but I do not know that he has any MS. authority for this or for such forms as caussa set haut etc., or for e. g. G. Manlius. |