Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:13:34.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Textual Tradition of Quintilian 10. 1. 46f.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. Winterbottom
M. Winterbottom
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article does not set out to cast doubts on the established textual basis of the bulk of Quintilian's Institutio, or on the history of the work's fortunes in the Middle Ages. What I say about these things will be unoriginal and, I hope, uncontroversial. My object, however, is to show that what is true of the bulk is not true of 10. 1. 46–131; and to fill in some details in the history of the tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 1962 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 169 note 1 For this see esp. Lehmann, P., Philologus Ixxxix (1934), 349 f.Google Scholar: Boskoff, P. S., Speculum xxvii (1952), 71 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 170 note 1 Peterson's edition of Book Ten, despite his elaborate manuscript discussion and critical notes, is eclectic rather than critical: and there is no formal apparatus.

page 170 note 2 See esp. Peterson, , Introduction, p. Ixi.Google Scholar

page 171 note 1 Some of these conclusions were arrived at by C. Fierville in his edition of Book One (Paris, 1890): see especially his stemma on p. Ixxxvi. But he was badly misinformed about the Vossiani, and he did not realize the superior quality of XY. Nor did he draw any wider conclusions.

page 173 note 1 It may be added that σ was almost certainly known in the fifteenth century: Johannes Poulain copied it, I think, into his manuscript that is now Paris. lat. 7721, to supplement what appears to be a copy of the Nostradamensis (or perhaps of the Salmantius).

page 174 note 1 The S-version of 12. 10. 10–15 was not influential in the fifteenth-century (or any other) texts: naturally, because even the mutilated texts had included the passage (in a less corrupt form) in the body of the book.

page 175 note 2 Radermacher, in fact, could have saved himself much trouble by pondering on a dis- cussion by Kroll, W. in Saturn Berolinensis (1924), pp. 61 f., where it is suggested that only between 9. 4. 135 and 10. 1. 108 is there any sign of an independent tradition in c. 15 texts. In fact, however, the limits can be narrowed still further, to those that I have suggested—10. 1. 46–107. Outside these, Kroll cites only two passages, 9. 4. 144 and 10. 1. 42 : in both of these, Renaissance conjecture is clearly at work. Kroll calls his demonstration ‘erne Warming fur alle Stammbaumfanatiker’. But in fact a stemma is clearly profitable in sorting out the complexities of this part of the tradition.Google Scholar