The Tours and Vendôme mss. of the Liber Glossarum

186 J . F . MOUNTFOnn .

THE TOURS AND VENDOME MSS .

18 7 rum has nothing to say . What it says of the Tours MS . is needlessly inac-curate and I take this opportunity of correcting mis-statemeuts whic h one does not expect to find in a professedly authoritative work .

` De codicibus Libri glossarum Turonensibus, quos

ut

ipse inspicere t Goetzio non contigit, Mountford (Class . Quart,, XV, p . 192) breviter re -fers . Comprobatur autem vetustiorem librum (850, s . IX) in universu m cum Palatino consentire, recentiorem (851, s . XV) in Italia exaraturn e x ì110 quarnquam non transcriptum, attamen derivatum et hic illic supple-tum esse' . (C . G . Lat ., I, 332) .

So writes Wessner . But what I wrote or did not write no one coul d guess from this careless report . I described the Tours MS . (No . 850) an d said that its alphabetical arrangement agreed with that of L ; but not on e word did I say concerning the relation of the text of 7' to that of L or of P . Goetz had suggested that the Tours MS . was akin to L ; persona l acquaintance with the MSS . showed me that his suspicion was ill-foun-ded . Lacking space to refute his view in detail, I at least refrained fro m supporting it . Again in describing the younger Tours NíS . (No . 851) . I said that it was written in a fifteenth century Italian hand . I deliberatel y avoided saying that it was written in the Italian peninsula because I ha d grounds for suspecting that it was written in France . I chose my words carefully but I took no account of the distorting effects of Wessner's ima -gination . Let no one therefore, as the result of an uncritical and mispla-ced reliance on C . G . Lat ., I, mistake this present article for a recanta-tion .

I . 7' sornetinzes agrees with L against P . When Goetz (C . G . Lat ., V ,

xxzv) wrote `contextus huius libri in universum conspirat cum Palatino ' he might by a judicious selection of instances have made out a plausibl e case ; for it is quite true that in some cases T seems to follow L rather than P :

-Amurga : faex olei . Vergilius `semina vidi equidern multos medicar e serentes et nitro prius et nigra perfundere amurga ' LT medica re-serentur P pro fundere P .

Barbistomos : dicitur homo qui barbarisrnis plena profert verba P

(in marg .)

onz . LA7'.

En <h>uius, nate, <a>uspiciis : Caesarem Augustum signitica t

LTA (nautespiciis) . Enhu (ow . ceti .) P .

Eurus : subsolanus, Donatus ; Notus : auster ; Eurus et Notus : no -mina ventorum LT eurus dictus nomine ventus P .

IS.auponem : tavernarium ; de quo Cicero 'cuius est nomen Ycopo '

LTA . Ypoco P .

188 J . F . tiiouPjTkYIRD .

Pessulum : pistillum, in Cantica Canticorum 'pessulum hostii aperu i diletto meo LT hostia

P .

Talpa genus muri similis . Virgilius ` aut oculis capti fodere cubili a talpae' ; feminini genus animalis muribus noxium hortis LT mar i similis

PC

Virgilius

mn . PC

auribus noxium

PC .

Vietnam : viventem . ` nitidum lege sumtuose victantem ' dictum d c femina LA7' leges vel tuo se

PC .

Il .

T

frequently agrees with P against L . In the subjoined list there

will be included some examples of divergence in the marginal labels . These divergencies are useful in corroborating the evidence afforded b y the various readings ; but it is only in bulk that they can be allowed to have great weight . In actual fact however an examination of all the case s in which the labels of L and P differed showed that 7' agreed \vitlr

P

a t least as often as it did with L :

-A.dfatus adplieatus

PT

adelicatus L adilicatus

A .

Aeramen (= Is . Et . 12, 1, 53) Labelled : Esidori

PT

de glossis

_{LA .}

Aiden infernum

P7'

Apden LA .

Aliu tea genus floris in Creta ; Aliut mains : aliud amplius

PT

Mitt -tea aliud amplius (Din . cett .) LAB .

Amplector : amplexu teneo . Labelled : de glossis

PT

onz . LA .

Animequus : patiens

PT

Anìm : aequis LA .

Argu<t>a : corvata . Virgilius ` forte sub argu<t>a considera ! ilice Dafnis '

P7'

consederat L .

Avena : herba seminalis segetis similis . Virgilius ` unit enim liv i (-ni) campum seges, uric avenae' . Ponitur et pro c<a >larno ali-quotiens P segeti T ponitur om . L .

Bubo genus avis . Virgilius ` inventumque cavis bubo et <quae> plurima terrae monstraverunt

PT

monstra feront' L .

Conectit consuluit . Labelled : de glossis

LA

wiz .

PT.

Creporem ferri : sonus catenae ; Crepuere : effracti sunt PT Crepo -rem ferri : effracti sunt LA .

Discriminat : separat . Lucanus ` veteres (vestes) discriminat auru m (-o) ' P7' discriminata virum L .

Extima : extrema ut Lucretius . . .

PT

extranea

L .

Perpetuitas (= Is . Diff. 496) Labelled : Esidori PC7' de glossis

LA .

Plaudete : manibus sonum facite

PCT

totani glossa» our . LA .

Sortiti sorte usi

P7'

visi C tisi L .

Spasmus : contractio vel tremor PC7'vel malurn L .

Strignos (a medical item) Labelled : Ex Libris Medicinalibus

P7'

Ex Libro Artium L .

Volo et opto et cupio (= Is . Diff . 583) Labelled : Esidori

PCT

d e glossis LA .

THE TOURS AND VENDBME MSS .

189

Hundreds of examples similar to those just given have made it clea r that 7' does noi belong to the L family in anything like the way in whic h

A does ; nor is 7' as near to the P family as C is .

III . 7' frequently presents features found in neither L nor 1' . : -Albescere : mane fieri . Labelled : de glossis PLA Ciceronis 7' . Auxiliuw et praesidium (— Is . Dilf. 428) Labelled : Esidori PL, d e

glossis T .

Ilcstiae : ferae, beluac, pecudes . Labelled : Ciceronis PL de glos-sis T .

Bullae : bullas dicuntur quae pro (per) pluviam ex aere fiunt in lac u

L bullas out . 7' lacunt P lacunis 7'.

Camuris : Vergilius ' et camuris <h>irtae sub cornibus aures' L Carnariri : Vergilius ergamuris ite T iste PA auris 7'.

Caedet : minor est vincitur PL minorem vincit T. Celetur : caelestes P Celestus L Caelites T.

Cervix : dum singulari numero dicitur significar collum, dual plu-rali superbiam ut Cicero in Varonem (Verrem) ' praetorem tua cau-sas cervices frange[re] et (id est) superbiam inclina[re] P 2 tota m

glossanz on: . P t pluralibusque viam LA pluri contumacian 7' tu a cussus LA tu accusas T.

Our obis (Ciceronis) : ' quid enim est hoc ipsum diu in quo est ali -quid textrinum PLA ali-quid extrernurn T .

Cicures : plani quieti P

qui

L placidi 7' (cf. Placidus 14, 6) . Coetum : agrum xaxuxva cucina P xaxtavx L raryana 7' .

Dernonere : figere P legere LA effigere 7' .

Dicabo : dabo . Terentius . . . Labelled : de glossis 7' oat . PLA . Dido : virago . . . Labelled : de glossis P on: . T tomtit glossanz out . LA . Dispunctoreque : discolisque PL Dispunctoremque : disclusumque 7' . Drusus : patiens . PLA inpatiens 7'.

Ectasis (= ls . 1, 35, 4) Labelled : de glossis P . out . LA Esidori 7'. Encausta : pittura quae etera inolitur P vetera inolitur L cera

wo-litur 7'.

Enigmat : obscurat T sine interpretatione PLA .

Euus : ingens P Euusmis : genus L Euusmis : ingens T .

Eximere : extrahere . Labelled : de glossis P onz . LA Ciceronis 7'

(recto) .

K.alvus (= Caper 7, 100, 1) : xpxvtov vocatur licet Caelio (Gellius? ) et Varro kalvariarn dicant . . . PL caelum Varro kalvariam dicat T. Micronon : unius temporis PCL temporis id est 7' .

Nubo : coniugem Buco . Labelled : Ciceronis PC onz . L . Virgili TA . Pavertit : animo concupivit PCL Pavescit T.

Pellax : dolosus, fallax . Labelled : de glossis l'CLA Ambrosi 7 . r+ut.t . . DU CANOE . 9924

1.90 J . F . MOUNTFORD .

We have seen that 7'sonretirnes presents the errors and virtues of th e

L family, sometimes those of the P family and in many instances has

er-rors and virtues of its own . We cannot therefore suppose that the scribe of 7' had in front of him two copies, one leaning towards L and th e other towards P, from which he took what seemed to him the better rea -ding . Indeed vve shall show in a moment that the peculiarities of T ar e derived from a parent which was almost as old as L and P . It may con-sequently be claimed that T represents a third family distinct from L and P .

IV . The Value of T. There is no doubt that in a number of cases 7' i s nearer t:o the truth than either L or P . In the labelling of the items Ec-tasis and Eximere above, there can be no denying that T is right . Th e item Cicer obis was thought to contain a garbled reference to Cicero i n

Verrenn2, 4, 58 until the reading of T showed that the proper referenc e

was Pro Marcello 27 . And its reading in the Encausta item must be hel d to be very suggestive . Had all the peculiarities of 7' been of this qualit y we should perforce have considered the advisability of recording ever y single divergence of T from L and P . But in some cases it seems that w e can catch T playing pranks . Lembaonz : navenz brevenz ` aliter gaaam qu i

adverso vix /Iumine lembunn remigiis subigit' is on the face of it a simpl e

gloss with a quotation from Vergil Geo . 1, 201 . But the reading of th e other MSS . is Lennbuna : navem . are g aliter . . . with an abbreviation fo r

Vergilias, Georgicis ; and one might have attributed the reading of 7' t o

an unfortunate attempt to make sense had not the Placidus item Lombu s

naeis brevis occurred two lines previously . The suspicion arises that 7 '

is not scrupulously honest . Our fears are confirmed by the Cervix item . There was, perhaps in the archetype, an obscurity at the words Burn

plre-rali superbiam and at to accusas . T has substituted contunzaciam for su-perbiam and alone is correct in accusas ; and both of these it could have

obtained, and probably did obtain, from the immediately succeeding ite m (= Is . Et . 11, 1, fii) . Its treatment of the Kalvus gloss also looks like a n endeavour to make sense out of obscurity . When we find Caeclet :

nnino-rem vincit we wonder whether the abbreviation minor -e _was

misunders-tood and the verb altered to suit . The word /ircules has no interpretatio n in PL ; but T offers propriann neaten just as in similar circumstances i t ventured on an explanation of Enigmat . When it presents Eliminavit

extra limitem expulit in place of extra li.men are we to accept its evidenc e

against the combined testimony of PL and the Roman MSS . of Placidu s (2 .1, 6)? And if we do not accept T what is to be thought of its reliabi-lity? Then again we find that T has the label Virgili attached to many small glosses of an obviously Vergilian origin though in these particula r cases none of the other MSS . of the Liber Glossarum present the label .

THE TOURS AND VENDeIME MSS .

191.

Were these labels in the archetype or is it the case that T is not abov e guessing ?

A consideration of many instances such as t have illustrated has le d us to regard the evidence of T as suggestive rather than reliable . W e have consulted T in all cases where P and L diverge in readings or la-bels and in all cases where even a consensus of P and L left the tex t unsatisfactory . It did not seem that any advantage was to be gained by recording all the vagaries of 7' though we have recorded many of its rea

-dings without accepting them as superior to P and L .

V. The Vendome MS . is closely related to T. All the readings and la

-bels of T which were mentioned in § II and III are to be found also i n V. The following instances where T and V agree in absurdity are instructive : -Accipiunt : sumant . ) Accipiunt : sumant . Accire vocare . PLA Accipere : vocare . T V Acciri : evocari . Acciri : evocari . Dedecoratius : inhonesta- Dedecoratius id est aut' { tins . i tua iussa . Dedecui : dehonestavi . Sta- PL

Dedecui : dehonesta lusta T V t <ius> 'fidusque sacerdos si

fidesque sacerdos sinon d (sic) . non dedecui[tj tua iussa .

Thesauri : R<equire> . auri quasi serva[n]ti PGA quasieranti L Thesauri rerum auri quasi servanti TV.

A number of items which T omits are also lacking in V ; but the most striking proof of the connexion of the MSS . is found in a dislocation in the SU-chapter . In the middle of a patristic item Substantia, between the words earn substantiarn and naturalenz we find an intrusion of word s commencing with the letters super- . The intrusion commences wit h

<supersti> tes per aetatem (= Is . Et 8, 3, 6) and continues for

approxi-mately one folio of T. In T (but not in V) the intruding items are foun d repeated in their proper place ; and it seems likely that in the parent o f T there was a misplaced folio, which T has dealt with rather more suc-cessfully than V.

VI. T is not the parent of V. Though these two MSS . are very closely

related it does not seem that the Vendôme MS . was copied from th e Tours MS . The following small gaps in T do not appear in V :- Lautum-num to Lectorunz ordo (55 items) ; Poetae to Toilet (15 items) ; Rauca vox to Redivivus (450 items) . Between Profanunz and Remeantes theare are no marginal labels in 7' but V seems to have as many as P and L . It ma y of course be said that the scribe of V had in front of him T and some ot-her MS ; but such a theory would not afford a satisfactory explanation of

192 J . F . MOUNTFORD . — THE TOURS AN1) VENDOME MSS .

the fact that V retains a great deal of the nonsense which is peculiar t o 7 . The connexion between these two MSS . is much too close for us t o pretend that V is a ` contaminated' MS ; and we must think of a parent o f

TV, written before the middle of the 9th . century (the date of T) . It

the-refore follows that though V is an eleventh century MS . its authority i s almost equal to that of 7' ; and we have availed ourselves liberally of it s evidence, especially in those parts of the Liber Glossarurn where 7' i s defective .

VU . The Younger Tours MS . (No . 851) . In this 15th . century MS . se-veral items are frequently fused into one and labels are absent ; for th e constitutionof the text of the Liber Glossarurn it is negligible . But doubt -less %Vessner would like to know my reasons for supposing that it wa s not written in Italy . The older MS . ends with the itemZatcnen : gem -stopping short half way through the word lentes`ccre> ; s o does the younger M.S . In the older MS . there is a gap between Res clic -nac and .Swnsacus, due to loss of folla ; in the younger NIS . three foll a

were left blank in the hope offilling the lacuna and have subsequently been cut out . The scribe of the younger MS . was careful and would no t risk spoiling his page by copying anything ofwhich he was not certain ; he consequently left small gaps, especially when he found Greek charac-ters, and these gaps have been filled in by a contemporary hand fro m the older 'Pours MS . it is obvious that the younger MS . is a descendan t of the older and that it was in 'l'ours shortly after it was written . To think that it was written in Italy and, of all the possible places it coul d go to, returned to the home of its ultimate parent is to ask too much o f

Fors Fortuna . In the fifteenth century, Italian handwritiug was likely t o be found in any scriptorium ; and I see no reason why the younger 11íS . should not have been copied from an intermediate MS . in the Cathedra l scriptorium and subsequently taken over to the abbey of St . Martin, a mile away, for comparison with the 9th . century MS .

.1 . F . MouN'rmOnD ,