No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Critical Notes on the ‘Chronica’ of Sulpicius Severus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Extract
In the course of preparing for the Corpus Christianorum an edition of the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus I have come upon nearly a dozen passages in which the adopted reading invited discussion beyond the limits of an apparatus criticus. This discussion is supplied in the following notes, which may be seen as a supplement to similar treatment of many other passages in the Chronica that are found in my doctoral dissertation, Studien zu Sulpicius Severus (Lund 1940). As an appendix appears a discussion of a few passages in the writings of Sulpicius Severus on St. Martin of Tours; this too looks to the new edition of the text that is to appear in the Corpus Christianorum (where I have the collaboration of Dr. Bernard M. Peebles) but is especially prompted by a recent criticism of my dissertation.
Information
- Type
- Miscellany
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Fordham University Press
References
1 The base-text used throughout, both for the Chronica and for the works dealing with St. Martin of Tours ([Vita sancti] Mart[ini], Epistulae, Dialogi), is that of Karl Halm, CSEL 1 (1866); this is often cited by page and line only, sometimes by (book,) chapter, and section of the work of Severus in question. In determining the readings of the unique manuscript of the Chronica (Vatic. Palat. lat. 825), I have controlled Halm's (second hand) report through a fresh collation, making use therein of a microfilm generously provided by Dekkers, Dom E., O.S.B., general editor of the Corpus Christianorum project, to whom I am deeply indebted in other ways as well. Severus's principal source in the Chronica, the Latin Scriptures, are basically quoted from the best editions of the Vulgate, but account has also been taken of any significant variants of the Old Latin tradition. — I would here acknowledge the valuable and extensive assistance given me by Dr. Peebles in revising the English text of this article.Google Scholar
2 There is nothing in the tradition of the Septuagint, Old Latin, or Vulgate texts of this passage that would yield aliquando or any similar expression; see Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 1 (Genesis, hrsg. Fischer, B.; Freiburg im Br. 1951–1954) 385.Google Scholar
3 It does appear, however, in the spurious Epistulae: 2.17 (Halm 247.19), 6.3 (255.20). Google Scholar
4 One of the five passages falls in the Martiniana, where the vocabulary can show striking variation from that of the Chronica. To the material assembled in Hyltén 53–57, now add: at (27 times in the Chron., 8 in the Martiniana), invisus (9 times in the Chron., lacking in the Mart.), paululum (lacking in the Chron., 17 times in the Mart.), aliquantulus (lacking in the Chron., 9 times in the Mart.) — cf. Hofmann, in Stolz-Schmalz Lateinische Grammatik, 5th ed. by Leumann, M. and Hofmann, J. B. (Munich 1928) 834ff. (on at and invisus).Google Scholar
6 At Vita. 5.1 (115.5) aliquantum (… commoratus est) appears in the Veronensis, but ‘in litura’; against Martin, J.'s proposal (Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 35 [1918] 354) to adopt this form I have argued (Studien 129) in support of the vulgate aliquandiu. Google Scholar
6 Cf. Halm's ‘Index verborum et locutionum,’ s.v. ‘virtus.’ ‘Chronica’ of Sulpicius Severus Google Scholar
7 A. Lönnergren, De syntaxi Sulpicii Severi (Diss., Uppsala 1882). Google Scholar
8 Cf. R. Kühner - Stegmann, C., Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 2.1 (3rd ed., 1955) 416f.Google Scholar
9 Bernays, J., Über die. Chronik des Sulpicius Severus (in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, hrsg. Usener, V. H. [Berlin 1885] 2.128 n. 48 [p. 28 in the original publication, Berlin 1861]).Google Scholar
10 Lampi, Georg, Utrum Sulpicius Severus in componendis ‘Chronicis’ eodem stilo usus sit atque in ‘Vita sancti Martini’ conscribenda et in ‘Epistulis’ edendis necne: five parts contained in the Jahresbericht of the Kollegium Petrinum in Uhrfahr-Linz a. d. D. for, respectively, the years 1951/2, 1954, 1955/6, 1957, 1958.Google Scholar
11 J. Fürtner, Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Sutpicius Severus (Progr. Landshut 1884/5) 26. Google Scholar
12 Abolita : PRAE 20 (ed. Lindsay, W. M. Glossarla Latina 3 [Paris 1926] 161), Liber glossarum: PR 1163 (ibid. 1 [Paris 1926] 460); Dr. Ehlers had cited Goetz, G., Thesaurus glossarum emendatarum 2 (= Corp. gloss. lat. 7; Leipzig 1901) s.v. Google Scholar
13 The adjective is rare in the Chronica, appearing (apart from the present passage) only once (6 times, however, in the Martiniana). Google Scholar
14 For P's transpositions see Hyltén 118 (e.g., Halm 3.18 auctor] acutor P), with these examples additional thereto: 18.29 fulminibus] fluminibus P, 99.1 is] si P. Google Scholar
15 ‘Lysias duces belli delegit Ptolemaeum, Gorgiam, Doronem et Nicanorem [Doronem cum Sigonio aut delendum est aut scribendum Ptolemaeum Dorymenis filium; cf. Maccab. 3, 38 et Jos. Antiq. 12, 11.] Google Scholar
16 On certain occasional misunderstandings in Severus, mostly in non-essential matters, see Bernays (cit. supra n. 9) 181n. 81 (p.61, Berlin 1861). A number are noted in da Prato's commentary; Halm quotes an example at 21.17, and I here transcribe another from de Prato's note (p. 33 n. 2) on Chron. 1.20.4 (Halm 22.16) [on Severus's ‘primoribus labiis admotis carnibus,’ representing Num. 11.33: ‘adhuc carnes erant in dentibus eorum’]: ‘Expressit phrasin Scripturarum, Num. cap. XI. 33 et Psal. LXXVII. 30, neque tamen eius vim intellexit. Non enim significatum est, eodem quo primum carnes coturnicum dentibus mandebant momento temporis eos periisse, sed cum adhuc iisdem vesci per plures dies pergerent.’ See also the next section infra. Google Scholar
17 Vonck, C. V., Lectionarum latinarum libri duo (Utrecht 745) 28.Google Scholar
18 Cf. Bernays, , ibid. Halm's reading (cf. de Prato ad loc.), with e Gallia, reposes on Sextus Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 7.2 (quoted by de Prato): ‘Qua [sc. potentia] dies fere quinque et octoginta praecognita moribus potitus, postquam a Vitellio, qui e Gallia descenderat, Veronensi proelio pulsus est, mortem sibi conscivit.’Google Scholar
19 Bernays, , ibid., suggests that Vespasian's diadem may have originated in a vague and confused recollection of Titus's in Suetonius, Titus 5.Google Scholar
20 Callidus appears three times in the Chron., twice in the Mart.; callide three times and once respectively. — At Chron. 2.51.1 (quoted infra, section 10) the adjective is used of bishop Ithacius to designate his possession (albeit, ultimately, fruitless possession) of the kind of shrewdness of judgment that was lacking, in the case in point, to Vitellius.Google Scholar
21 See ThLL VII.1 844.40–51. Google Scholar
22 Lampl (cit. supra n. 10) 5.30f. lists 14 (not 15) examples in the just over 100 pages of the Chronica. Google Scholar
23 The other is from Boethius, De musica 5.2. The two examples of incallide reported (Cicero, Gellius) are both in litotes. Google Scholar
24 Zellerer, J., Palaeographicae et criticae de Sulpicio Severo Aquitano commentationes (Diss. Munich 1912) 58, favored the intrepidus found in an important group of manuscripts (DKM — see infra, Appendix), to which should be added Ambr (Hyltén 135). To the parallel cases with intrepidus cited by Zellerer — Halm 117.23f. ‘orationis suae ac misericordiae Domini intrepidus exspectabat eventum,’ 123.10f. ‘at ille confisus in Domino intrepidus opperiens …’— maybe added the following cases involving the positive adjective trepidus: 102.2, 165.22, 202.10, 210.5.Google Scholar
25 Martin, J., in Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 35 (1918) 20.Google Scholar
26 Moreover, , sollicitus = sollicitatus is not only lacking in Severus — in spite of what Halm says ad hunc locum and at p. 278 (‘Index verborum’) — but also is rare in other authors.Google Scholar
27 In sections 6 and 9. Google Scholar
28 Op. cit. 18 n. 32.Google Scholar
29 Absoluo = ‘acquit’ appears 8 times in the Chron., once in the Mart. Google Scholar
30 The reader will note that my proposal is virtually that of Sigonius (see Hyltén, Studien 110) and differs only in having absolutus for solutus. Google Scholar
1 J. de Wit, ‘De Sulpicio Severo observationes,’ Vigiliae Christianae 9 (1955) 45–49.Google Scholar
2 Page 103 (on Chron. 2.12.6), 120 (on Chron. 2.17.2), 129 (on Mart. 3.3), 146 (on Dial. 1.14.2). Google Scholar
3 Ch, For E. Babut and his advocacy of the great superiority of D, see my Studien 72–84.Google Scholar
4 In the interest of brevity the evidence — base-text, my original remark, de Wit's comment — has been greatly compressed. Google Scholar
5 Mart. 25.7. — What justification de Wit has for holding (46) that the indicative is used when quippe qui = cum ‘iterativum,’ the subjunctive when ‘quippe qui id quod: etenim vel videlicet valere potest,’ he does not say.Google Scholar
6 De syntaxi Sulpicii Severi (cit. supra, n. 7) 70f.Google Scholar
7 Schmalz-Hofmann, , Lat. Gramm. (cit. supra, this article proper, n. 4) 713. — The Sallustian color in Mart. 1 is not confined to sect. 1–2, where it has been noted by Pratje, H., Quaestiones Sallustianae … (Diss. Göttingen 1874) 9.Google Scholar
8 Hyltén, , Studien 45 for the 3 clausulae to match sepulcris dederint (type 120.10 adiri poterat); ibid. 39 for the 4 exact parallels to sepulcris dederunt (taken with cretic base) (type 120.18 orationi vacabant) — the count here is 18 if the restrictive criterion of the cretic base is ignored.Google Scholar
9 The manuscripts of the Martiniana mentioned in this article are the following: V (Verona, A.D. 517), D (Dublin, ca. A.D. 807), K (Munich Univ., s. 8–9), F (Munich Staatsbibl., s. 10), A (ibid., s. 11), Ambr (Milan, s. 11) [(Ambr.) = a s.-15 supplement], B (Brescia, s. 15), M (editio princeps, Milan, ca. A.D. 1479). For details see my Studien 9–13. Google Scholar
10 In V crede stands as the work of the renovator; the original reading may have been credere. — B.M.P.] Google Scholar
11 ‘ … diabolus cum vidisset Martinum non statim sibi credidisse, idem rogavit aliis vocabulis et eo modo Martinum ad fidem vult cogere, quae sententia multum evanescit si sequimur Hyltén’ (de Wit, p. 46). De Wit's remarks on this passage close with the following sentence: ‘Fortasse recta lectio confirmatur codice D: quid dubitas credere cum vides.’ If the five italicized words are what de Wit proposes to read, he does not say why he gives ‘Chronica’ of Sulpicius Severus support to D's (apparently unique) vides; if they are meant to represent what actually appears in D, then cum stands where quem should stand.Google Scholar
12 Martin's defense of nec (Woch. f. kl. Ph. 35.355) preceded the discovery (see note 14) of the true reading in V. Google Scholar
13 Seeing this passage as one in which the greater weight of manuscript authority has been wrongly subordinated to excellence of clausula, de Wit adduces my handling (Studien 130) of Mart. 6.5, where, he notes, I have allowed the superiority of clausula to take second place. The case cited is a weak one, since I show doubt that Severus intended there any clausula whatever. Google Scholar
14 Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 51 (1940) 323 n. 3. V's actual reading: quae nec sibi adesse non posset. Google Scholar
15 The proposed clarescentibus was actually reported by da Prato from his codex Patavinus. The identity of this manuscript, if it has survived, has not been established: cf. Peebles, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 13 (1936) 27f. and in the Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1960) 467. Google Scholar
16 Cf. my Studien 7. Google Scholar
17 For my recognition of good qualities in D, see Studien 24, 84. Google Scholar
18 In the passages adduced by de Wit three D solus readings are found: two, quem (Mart. 6) and prodisse (14.7), enjoy no favor at all; if the third, vides (24.6), satisfies de Wit, he does not say why. In two places, Mart. 1.3 (dederunt) and 8.3 (marcescentibus), D joins other manuscripts in admittedly inferior readings. On the merits of dubitas credere (24.6) and quae sibi … non possent (14.7), readings likewise common to D and other manuscripts, critical opinion is divided. The D readings in Mart. 5.4 are patently good but far from unique. — Most of D's good readings are already found in Halm's apparatus or in the collation of K published by Zellerer in 1912. Google Scholar