Despite the many typographical errors incorporated into the text by the printing office of Hubert de Croock, the collatio of the various editions has led me to consider C the best available text and to use it as the main edition for establishing the critical edition, since it probably reflects the third and final stage of the work. Hence, I have followed the readings of C almost completely. Some exceptions have been made: I have accepted the L P readings in symbol 67 (“videamus”, non-existent in C), and the Greek spelling provided by L P in symbols 100, 176, and 200. Also, I have accepted the reading of T in symbol 165 (“Antistheni” instead of
“Anthistheni”), and the reading of O in symbol 173 (“Manilius”, instead of “Manlius”). Finally, I have documented some spurious readings of Lo.
Even though later editions based on C (K 1530, H 1531, T 1532, S ca.
1533) were printed more carefully and lack typographical errors, they present minor changes that do not improve the text. Hence, one should conclude that such variations ought not to be attributed to Vives himself. I have also discarded the corrections printed on the final page of L (Lerr).
In the aforementioned letter sent to Cranevelt on 7 March 1525, Vives complained about the book printed by Martens which contained Ad sap., Sat., and Rat. stud. “They have spoiled [depravarunt] numerous passages, while they believed that they were correcting them,”65 he protests, and adds: “as for example in ea colitur.”66 This phrase is a correction included in Lerr (symbol 87) and proves that Vives disapproved of such emenda-tions. As a matter of fact, of all of them (see the critical apparatus of symbols 2, 22, 87, 160, and 199), only the emendation in symbols 2 (pugnet) and 22 (suppetat) were accepted and reproduced in later editions (π, β).
65 Illi refers most likely to the proofreaders working at the workshop of Pieter Martens.
66 In De Vocht 1928 (as in n. 3), letter 144, lines 30-31.
The Apparatus Criticus and a Note on Orthography
To sum up, the editions to be found in the apparatus criticus can be categorized into three groups: the editio princeps (L), those that follow P (La, W, W2, O, B, V), and those that follow C (K, H, T, S, Lo). The editions appear in the apparatus criticus in the aforementioned order, that is, first, the editio princeps (L); secondly, P and those editions based on P; finally, C and those editions based on C. The Commentary at the end of the critical edition includes information concerning the fontes: exact references to quotations are provided and complementary texts (in chro-nological order) in which appears a similar thought conveyed by Vives.
In some instances, a brief explanation is provided concerning a particular matter.
As far as orthography and spelling are concerned, Tom Deneire has clearly summarized the advantages and disadvantages of either “classicis-ing” or “maintain“classicis-ing” the orthography of Neo-Latin texts.67 If one is honest enough about this controversial subject, one is impelled to admit that all arguments are equally reasonable. However, in my opinion, what was not meant to be Classical Latin or did not reach the Classical stan-dard by itself, should not be altered in order to achieve what it did not achieve in the first place. Moreover, it would seem more honest and faithful to the original work that it be preserved as closely as possible to what the author or the scribe decided to write.
Consequently, I have edited the text with minimal intervention: I have expanded all abbreviations and written s instead of ʃ; I have not main-tained the distinction of v at the beginning of the word and u in other positions, even though it is the common practice in L, P, and C, but followed the editorial principles of this journal. Thus the reader will find vivere, Unde instead of viuere, Vnde. Adjectives derived from proper nouns have been capitalized, thus Attici or Graeci.
Apart from the aforementioned examples, I have maintained the spelling and orthography of the base edition, that is, C. Thus the reader will find forms such as aheneus, caeterus, charus, coelus, foemina, cymba, honus, inclytus, intelligo, lachryma, negligo, poenitentia, quum, tanquam. A classicising spelling would have deprived the reader of valu-able information, for example, of the conscious will to associate some Latin words with Greek words (καὶ ἕτερος, caeterus; χάρις, charus;
67 T. Deneire, “Editing Neo-Latin Texts: Editorial Principles; Spelling and Punctu-ation”, in Ph. Ford, J. Bloemendal, C. Fantazzi (ed.), Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo-Latin World, vol. 2: Micropaedia (Leiden – Boston, 2014), 959-962.
κύμβη, cymba; κλυτός, inclytus; δάρκυμα, lachryma); of the intended usage of archaic Latin words (aheneus, honus); of the common practice of writing quum when cum acts as a conjunction; or, in the end, of the contemporary pronunciation of Latin (intelligo, negligo, tanquam). Fur-thermore, I have maintained inconsistencies in spelling or pronunciation.
Hence the reader will find, for example, circundabo and comprobata;
vitiorum and viciorum.
If Erasmus has been given the chance to be preserved for future gener-ations as faithfully as possible to his own Latin in the majestic editions of the ASD, it would seem fair enough that Vives be given an equal chance as well.
[EPISTOLA NUNCUPATORIA]
Ioannes Lodovicus Vives dominae Mariae principi Cambriae, Hen-rici Octavi Angliae regis filiae, salutem.
1. Solitum est principibus adhiberi satellitium quod pro custodia cor-poris ac vitae illorum perpetuo excubet recepto magis more quam sapienti aut probo, quum principes eo ipso metum suum testentur, qui fere ex con-5
scientia nascitur, nec ulla certior custodia sit aut fidelior quam innocentia et populorum amor; qui non armis aut terrore extorquetur: amore, fide, diligentia, cura communium commodorum elicitur ac conservatur. Nec immerito laudata est Agasiclis, Lacedaemonum regis, sapientissima vox:
posse quemvis sine satellitio regnare qui sic subditis imperet ut filiis 10
pater. Sed, si consuetudo tot annorum usu comprobata tolli tam subito non potest, ne custodibus corporis istius careas parentes tui curabunt.
2. Ego vero matris tuae, inclytae et sanctissimae foeminae, rogatu satellitium circundabo animo tuo, quod te securiorem magisque inexpug-nabilem praestabit quam hastati aut sagittarii quicunque. Nam haec cor-15
porea custodia, corrupta nonnunquam vel precio vel metu vel deliciis, imperatorem suum aut deseruit, ut Neronem, aut prodidit, ut Galbam, aut
EPISTOLA NUNCUPATORIA 1 Lodovicus L P B β : Ludovicus La V | Vives L P β : Vives Valentinus B V | principi Cambriae β : Cambriae principi L π | 2 Angliae L π C K : Anglae H | salutem L P β : salutem plurimam B V | 5 fere ex conscientia nascitur π β : solet ex conscientia nasci L | 8 ac conservatur β : deest in L π | 9 Agasiclis π β : Agesilai L | 10 imperet β : imperaret L π | 11 comprobata π β : approbata L | 12 ne ω : nec T | 13 matris tuae, inclytae et sanctissimae foeminae, rogatu β : a matre tua, inclyta et | sanctis-sima foemina, rogatus L π | 14 magisque inexpugnabilem β : ac tutiorem L π
etiam occidit, ut Pertinacem. Hi, abs te semel bona fide asciti, pectora sua pro salute tua adversus impetus assultusque et insidias quascunque obii-cient. Est enim maius animo periculum a viribus et astu viciorum quam 20
corpori ab externis aut intimis simultatibus. Quanto cuique charior esse debet animus quam corpus; et vitiorum callidiores insidiae atque occultio-res, et eorum tyrannis gravior; et interitus animi acerbior ac terribilior.
3. Accipies igitur satellites ducentos (nam excurrentem numerum non imputo), quos sic tibi facies familiares ut nec noctu nec interdiu nec domi 25
nec in publico sinas a tutela animae ac vitae tuae vel latum unguem abscedere ne, his aut certe similibus destituta, praedae sis diabolo, qui (ut Petrus ait) “tanquam leo rugiens circumit quaerens quem devoret.”
4. Symbola appellavi quasi notas quasdam cuiusmodi vetus mos erat