Christ. There are about 117 manuscripts of Catullus written before 1510.
All listed and numbered on your handout, which I hope you can get sight of.
And the gaps in the enumeration arise because I have not bothered to record some of the manuscripts produced after 1510,
and the enumeration is taken from earlier lists produced by authors.
But recent editors have seen the need to use only four, which are named T, O, G and r, and of which T is available only in poem 62.
I shall explain these names, though, as classicists call them, singular shortly.
How do editors know that these are the only authoritative manuscripts?
Roger miners who helped establish chess. In both Cambridge and Oxford, Invasively wrote what you can see on the board,
all either derived from manuscripts OGL or what for our purposes amounts to the same, perhaps so derived.
And cogent evidence profound to establish this view, which was held before my notice by the Americans William Hale and Bertolt Ullman.
I ask this, not least because the hope lingers in some university cities, notably Parma.
But some of the 15th century manuscripts of Catullus contain readings inherited from the
Middle Ages that are not to be found in the 14th century manuscripts that editors use.
Lack of a clear and coherent exposition that long frustrated me, not least because of the fame of Catullus,
and because the number of manuscripts is manageable and incentive to do some work on.
The problem came from having to lecture on Catullus text in Cambridge over the last 15 years.
The need to develop some more coherent views came from an invitation a few years back,
from Tony Workman and the late Ian to Kenny, to write on the manuscripts of Catullus for The Cambridge Companion to Catullus.
That invitation spurred me on to look at the 70 or so manuscripts that I had not then seen,
and to try to produce or celebrate the whole tradition in a form intelligible to readers of The Cambridge Companion at that chapter is now published.
But The Cambridge Companion is not the place to parade much intricate detail.
And in it I stated my conclusions, but little citation of evidence.
Now, an oral lecture to you today is probably also not a suitable occasion for a parade of two intricate details,
but I do want to present to you some of the evidence that I should like to publish in full elsewhere.
Maybe helpful to present my conclusions in advance,
or experience with other manuscript traditions that made me expect that I should find
some manuscripts that were indeed independent of the four that I have mentioned.
They failed to materialise, and I now think that probably all the extant manuscripts do derive from those called O and are.
In the case of many manuscripts, there is no doubt that they do derive entirely from G and all,
and I shall present some of the evidence for that later.
However, what minuses eloquent statement obscures is that if all the manuscripts do derive from O, g and r,
one has to postulate much correction and cross-fertilisation or contamination between the different streams of text.
I typed in this lecture to offer some general thoughts on such cross-fertilisation,
which is endemic in all periods of plentiful manuscript production.
But exploring the tradition of Catullus is going to take all the time available.
I'm not going to be able to prove decisively that all the manuscripts that have a contaminated text must derive entirely from Ogu,
or I hope to show that the fingerprints of at least one of these can be found on the most, perhaps even all.
Behind all this lies a more general question about transmission.
Is it possible to trace lines of descent through a tradition that is contaminated?
Or is the quest always hopeless?
Now this third lecture is going to be slightly more philological and more contain a little more Latin than the others.
I apologise in advance to those of you who are not classicists, and I shall try to make what I say intelligible.
Basic facts about the transmission of Catullus are quite well known to classicists, especially those who have lectured on his text here in Oxford.
Nevertheless, I need to start with a phrase.
You may have these basic facts, both to bring those of you who are not professionally engaged with Catullus into the picture,
and because it is a necessary prologue to what is going to follow, but nothing that I say,
what I suppose is going to take about ten minutes will be original to me.
There are a few traces between antiquity and the late 13th of Catullus, between antiquity and the late 13th century.
Most important is a ninth century anthology that contains poems 62, known to editors as team.
That's one of the two leaves that have Catullus. Second most important is a reference to Catullus by Rata, bishop of Verona in the 10th century.
There are also some echoes which I think are rather pitiful or alleged echoes of his poems in a very few medieval poems.
Next poet. The poet next emerges into view in the late 13th and early 14th century,
when his text is quoted by various poets and learned men, including Galliano, Da Pass, Stranger and Petrarch.
We were men who worked, composed and travelled in Verona and neighbouring cities in northern Italy.
Mostly it is from this epoch, or shortly after it, that our main manuscript OGX and.com.
Second oldest is O. Number 72 on the list called for the obvious reason for this, now housed in Oxford,
and indeed it's one of the best known manuscripts of a classical Latin text in Oxford,
and I greatly regret that the authorities of the Portland Library didn't allow it to be displayed because it is, um, so famous.
Um, but there we are. It dates from the 14th century, and it contains all the poems that we now can read,
as do virtually all the other manuscripts about which I shall speak.
General assumption that it was written in Verona is not implausible, but there is no decisive proof.
And since later, perhaps around 1430 or 1440, decoration and the Lombard style was put on its first page,
and there are good reasons for thinking that it was, which we'll come to, that it was available in Milan or Pavia.
In these years it is conceivable that actually it was written in or near Milan.
Third earliest manuscripts.
Number 87 on your handout is called G by editors because it was once housed in Paris in the Monastery of Saint Germain de Pré,
and is now housed in the Bibliotheque Nazionale. Our textual information on it tells us quite a lot about it.
Above all, that it was written in Verona in 1375.
There is the power of textual information you may find.
And number three on your handout. After Catullus.
It contains a poem. Lines of master and venuto to campus.
Prisoners of be. Chains. On the re-emergence of Catullus, the poet from Verona in Zile I return to my fatherland from distant borders.
A fellow countryman is the reason for my return, namely, the person to whom France gave a name from his pens,
until he describes the travel of the passing crowd with such words as you are able sing the praises of fill.
Catullus, whose paper work has been shut away under a measuring vessel, or perhaps I should say bushel.
Since Benvenuto Campos was dead by 1324, this epigram must have been written before that year.
Its subject must be either Catullus himself or catalysis book of poetry.
I shall not call for a full discussion,
but merely note that the poem appears to suggest that the text of Catullus has returned to Verona from elsewhere.
The fourth earliest manuscript is called R number 101 on the list, which stands for Codex Romanos and is now housed in the Vatican Library.
It was owned by the Florentine Carluccio Salo Tati, whose corrections and annotations undo Mendelssohn's are found,
all in French research, being framed on the slide you can see.
At the end of the two arrows is the cataloguing mark that is found in many manuscripts of Salut Tartars!
Absolute artist correspondence.
We learned that for several years he'd been trying to get hold of a copy of Catullus, which he knew that Petrarch had read.
One of these letters was written to an acquaintance in Verona, a poem about the return of Catullus to Manuscript G.
Places after Catullus is in this manuscript, and you can see it plays before the poems of us,
and stands at the top of the slide beside the blue capital A.
The fifth earliest manuscript of number 115 of Catullus is called M or Marciano's because it is now housed in the Biblioteca marciano of Venice.
On his first page,
it has an example of the primitive time stamp decoration that was put on Florentine manuscripts in the period between about 1414 35.
A description shows a moving away from Gothic script to the humanistic script that was to become the norm for well-produced copies in Florence,
and then all over Italy by the 15th century.
Arrows. Terror attacks to material and historical evidence.
External to the manuscripts allows a genealogy to be created and a story to be told.
Tell us became known to North Italian humanists in the years around 1300,
almost certainly from a copy of the text, but read first in his home city of Verona.
But manuscripts ogling are on them all derive from one topic which must have been.
Either this copy or a descendant of the one that emerged in Verona.
Is established by errors that they share with each other, including some in poem 62 against a manuscript in Paris from the ninth century.
Row is either carelessly copied or has careless copying in its ancestry, and has very many uncorrected mistakes not found in G,
R, and M and G r, and I have a smaller number of uncorrected mistakes that are not found in O.
Some of these, I offer you a well known example in poem 64, lines 139 to 41.
Originally deserted after what one presumes was a night of passion.
But Theseus, uh, says the lines that are on lumber for a fuel handout and which appear here.
Uh. But in the past, you gave promises to me in an ingratiating, um.
So manuscript. Oh, um, but manuscript grab have something different.
Voice. That's one not of this kind. You did not tell me to hope for my current circumstances, but for a joyful union for a long before marriage.
Reading of Garland is most unlikely to be right.
No beast would duplicate magic with the punctuation above.
And if one were to move the punctuation to after work, chat and bike share would be left hanging awkwardly at the beginning of the verse.
This error, and others like it, shows that Garland derived from a copying of the archetype different from uh.
Nowadays, scholars call this lost copy of the archetype.
X capital x. We can also show that G on the one hand and R and M on the other are independent of each other.
D has a few uncorrected mistakes. There are so many corrections.
I think there are very few uncorrected mistakes that not.
But there are some that are not found in R again, and I'm not going to bother to give you an example.
And R and I'm sure uncorrected mistakes not found in G.
Since M has all the significant uncorrected mistakes of R, it must derive from it.
That makes good geographical sense.
All was owned by Salu Tati, who lived in Florence, and M was returned in Florence Ancelotti's lifetime, but has a style of handwriting later on all.
There are a few complications of which I shall give a very, very brief account.
Of manuscripts O, G, R, and and have variant readings written either between the lines or in the margins of these O as only a few.
Almost all at beginning at the text. The beginning of poem 64.
More on that later. O has a large number of corrections, variants, and marginal comments.
A few are in the hands of the original scribe and reflect his own correcting of his work,
doubtless with the aid of his exemplar Thompson and his standard edition holes.
These are one value more in the hands of salute ha two, known as r two.
And here again is my. I hope this nice slide on which three of them are rigged.
Thomas Sadler thought his annotations seemed to be conjectures.
Others to derive from a manuscript.
The most economical explanation of the latter is that Salo taught took them from the mountains from the margins of manuscript X,
which he had sent to him in Florence. That was the extent from which are itself was copied.
And then Salo Tati went back checking. And the scribe and follower was perhaps instructed only to copy the main text.
But although this is the most economical explanation, it is not quite certain.
One could postulate another lost sibling of old X that was the source of these readings.
Am also has marshland into linear Barrett variance almost always reflect those.
And uh and they were clearly taken over from uh.
Is more complicated. After copying some variants for oxygen a fairly faint ink and thin hands by hand called G1 by Thompson.
This was probably the scribe himself. Other variants were oxygen, a thicker hand with darker ink, and this is called G two by Thompson.
If we're lucky, the slides will be visible and you might be able to see the difference between them.
The problem is about G2 is that we trade through these variants not from Juice Exemplar,
which was I said was called X, but from manuscript and the copy of all.
And so already in the second and fourth oldest of the complete manuscripts, we see cross-fertilisation occurring.
What I have been saying can be depicted diagrammatically on a stemmer such as you find after the list of manuscripts on your handout.
As I remarked earlier, nothing that I have said about the manuscripts of Catullus.
So far is anything other than common knowledge. If you've ever had to engage with the subject.
And so we come to the remaining 112 manuscripts, all but one of which I think I've now seen in either the flesh or reproduction.
And I've had a collection of that other one. And, uh, as I said before, you'll be relieved that I'm not going to discuss them all, but I shall.
I tried to slant my discussion to include remarks on the manuscripts that you can read in this library, should you wish to do so.
Um. We've got a slight problem with a slide coming up which, uh,
showed various lines of a stunner on it on my laptop yesterday, but appears not too after it was transferred.
I don't I'm afraid my technological technological knowledge is not up to explaining why, uh,
to find a manuscript independent of the lost archetype of OG and all is well, I suppose, would be the wildest dream of an optimistic fantasist.
But one could dream about finding a manuscript, um, that is, uh, independent.
At various points.
The most exciting discovery would be a manuscript entirely independent of both uh and G uh, thereby giving a third line descent from the archetype.
Second most exciting discovery will be a browser, though, thereby fleshing out that line of descent.
A less exciting discovery, but still interesting would be a brother of G.
Or, uh. I say brother rather than sister because Codex is masculine.
But, um, we could perhaps sibling, I should say, uh, it would be at least exciting because in G and uh,
it would be the least exciting because in general, we already have two set legs.
As I've mentioned often enough in these lectures,
a sign that a manuscript derives from another manuscript is that it has all the significant uncorrected errors of the other manuscript,
and adds more of its own in the case of Catullus.
This raises an interesting methodological problem.
What counts as a significant error tells us this text is famously corrupt in a large number of places.
There is no such thing as a conservative prediction. The Oxford classical text of sir Roger us nowadays often thought of as such, that is,
conservative prints on George School's count about 800 young men and over 105 pages.
In Gould's view, about 221 of these were made in the 15th century.
And here is an example. Oh, I'm 51.
Uh, while I catalysis most famous poems. If you are not a classicist, you might have come across this man.
Seems to me be like a god.
Catullus is referring to a man who makes him jealous because he is sitting beside his girl lesbian, and brings out her smiles and laughter.
Some of us may be able to identify with that at various stages in our life.
Tell us that a is a Latin adaptation of an equally famous opening by Sappho.
In our oldest manuscripts, the poem begins. Let me hear.
Empower, I said Deo without uh uh impa um like gives precisely the opposite censor part and does not scan.
And there is an illustration from, uh, manuscript.
All the two changes, new dates were made in the 15th century.
May well may have been affected, perhaps by sallow, tarty half of Impa coming later.
Here's the beginning of another poem in the primary manuscripts. Uh, this time in manuscript G.
Uh, well, you can read Okello in that. Well, I could respond to it later, a long ago.
That needs to be amended to give us the well-known opening line of poem 17.
Oh, colonial. Quite to Luther, a long ago. Oh, colony, you who desire to have fun on your long bridge again.
The changes needed were made fast in the 15th century.
Correction of many of the corruptions, and tell us was within the power of talented humanists,
and in considering places where descent from OG and R may seem to be blocked by an error avoided,
what needs to be sure that the error could not be corrected by conjecture.
I often think about the manuscripts that do not share all the uncorrected errors, and either O or G or R is going to go like this.
First, many of these errors were correctable by conjecture and therefore not significant.
Second, many of these manuscripts share most of the uncorrected errors of all, and therefore they derive from,
or sometimes with slight contamination, and that contamination probably originated ultimately in G.
Or perhaps more likely. Uh, although I can't always prove this.
Um, I shall explain in a minute. While I do not think that they derive from a putative lost twin of all.
Knows the chair. Fewer of our significant uncorrected errors have us have similarly had them removed, either by conjecture or by contamination.
Again, in my view, originating ultimately in G or IO, this will be the weakest part of my argument.
You may want to probe ten questions, but I think I still believe it.
Many of the manuscripts that most often avoid the errors of all share errors with uh.
Therefore, they either derived this material material from either I or what scholars and desperately
want to argue for independence must argue they derive from a lost brother or brothers,
and according. Chalk the fingerprints of something very like G or much more often are on virtually every manuscript.
Those manuscripts that do not have such a fingerprint, where one might expect it, very often share some errors with a.
If some scholars want to argue that 80% of a manuscript derives from all but the remaining 20% from some lost manuscript independent of Ojai and,
uh, or even perhaps independent of the archetype itself, I can't stop them arguing this.
Um, and I doubt that either I or anyone else should ever be able finally to prove them wrong.
And at the moment, I don't believe them. I wouldn't believe them.
A sensible first move in the classification for 15th century manuscripts is to ask how many manuscripts share the errors of the lost x.
If we look at just that, not on your handout, that is the source of G and all.
Generally thought by people about those matches, but directly copied from this text.
If a manuscript shares even some errors with text,
it must arrive at least in part either at best from the same copy of the archetype as X, or more probably from X itself.
If the manuscript share also share significant errors with G against all or with or against G, then the more optimistic derivation is ruled out.
A Hungarian scholar now in Barcelona, Daniel Kirsch has made a notable contribution to answering this question.
In most texts of poems 61 and just number seven on your handout.
I don't think I have a slide on that.
Um, I don't have a slide. Uh, this is 97 to 105.
Run as printed and tell us said, uh, your husband not typically given over to an evil, adulterous and chasing after shameful disgraces.
So apologise for my, um,
crude translation and not wish to go to bed away from your soft breasts and then thumped like a pliant vine coils around the trees planted beside it.
He will be entwined into your embrace.
In verse 102 lent us said, is the reading of uh g and R, and hence the lost text behind them have lent a quiet or lent a cry?
Um, and it therefore follows that X had one of these readings.
Most editors and critics, though today as Rinehart's predecessor, Edward Frankel,
no count as an exception, have felt that their adverse connection offered by those text must be right.
Established that all other manuscripts except number 86 on the list have either the reading of G or a progressive corruption of M.
If lentil said is indeed right, this would seem to imply that here at least all manuscripts except number 86 derive from ex, or for optimists,
the same copy of the archetype as x, and thus it ought to follow that the only manuscript that could offer a new line to the architect is number 86.
But if you actually go and look at number 86, you will see that it's late.
Um, and it is a very contaminated manuscript.
Nevertheless, more evidence needs to be examined, not least because O may have its true reading here by a fortunate scribal accident,
and in other passages manuscripts may show themselves to be free of access readings.
Let's go back to Theseus. Says planned speech to Ariadne.
You will recall that search. I'm 64.
Line 139 blunder is the true reading of manuscript.
Oh, whereas manuscripts G and Da. And that means that ancestor X had no base.
How many other manuscripts have nobis. And I've put, um, number eight on the handout.
You can see how they break down. In this passage at least, and I could see plenty of supplementary evidence from elsewhere.
All the manuscripts that have no basis must derive from either ex or the same copy of the archetype as text, from the point of view of at a time,
a manuscript that derives from X or as a brother of X must be independent of AUB,
but could be independent of G and R only if it is a brother or cousin, either G or I don't disagree, not if it derives from them.
Um, should such a manuscript arise? Survive? Unlikely to offer much help in the constitution of the text.
Um, so it would be unlikely to offer anything not found already in the old of G and all.
Nevertheless, from the point of view of the text transmission, the question is worth investigating.
Um. On the standard view, X was taken to Florence, where all was copied from it.
One might expect other manuscripts also to have been copied from it.
As I have said, if anywhere, I have not found proof of this sent.
A few manuscripts do derive from G on your list numbers 1893 and 65, from one copy of G, and numbers 31, four, and 68 from another copy.
In fact, form 68 derive from G via manuscript 31.
And there's a mistake that nicely illustrates this derivation, um, of the text in the first poem.
Um. I'm with that already on that slide.
Um. But that's out of that poem.
Uh, manuscript 31, inherited from X by G, and you have G up on the fold.
The false variant met all that in which, um, you can see a double belly, uh, ringed.
It's clearly, um, it's clearly cued in manuscript G, but.
And go on to manuscript 31 is on the left hand side.
Uh, it's presumably still meant to refer to the belly, but it is put on a rather ambiguously on the line above.
And that manuscript also originally wrote Laboriously Square instead of laborious six, which was corrected.
You can probably just see the Q um, raised, uh, and that caused further problems for subsequent scribes.
Um, and you can see what's happened on the right hand side where that has been put after laboriously on line number 68,
now in Yale University Library.
But for the second earliest complete manuscript of Catullus, is due probably as a family of six manuscripts in a small home.
By contrast, all provides a splendid illustration of what's an important phenomenon in the transmission of texts in the Italian Renaissance.
And that's the arrival in Florence of a new text, often absolute artists behest,
and often from northern Italy and its subsequent circulation in Florence and further abroad.
I have subjected all manuscripts of Catullus to various texts of derivation from all the results of two I published in my Cambridge Companion chapter.
One was to ask whether an early script shared non metrical transposition of R's in Poem 35,
the other similarly on metrical transposition and poem 42, and how the manuscripts divide can be seen on number nine of your handout.
And I think also by asterisks that I've put beside manuscripts on the list of manuscripts.
Both tests are passed by 48 manuscripts.
Um, when I publish, I shall add some other evidence.
But these two readings that I check strike me as being the most cogent.
If all was a direct copy of acts, a standard doctrine has it.
All these manuscripts must derive from all, and therefore kind of inherited no ancient reading that does not come from all.
However, scholars can be too confident in talking about direct copies of lost manuscripts, and X is lost.
You might say that I have not shown that there was not a lost manuscript on the stand between R and X,
and that these manuscripts could perhaps derive from such a lost manuscript.
And I should agree, I haven't shown that. But what if they share with are not just errors of, ah, uncorrected, but errors in post later on?
Ah well. Originally before correction, correction and inverted commas all had a reading of uh and j.
If they share both errors with ah uncorrected and with errors that uh had after correction by Salo Tati,
it's hard to escape the conclusion I derive from.
Ah. In The Cambridge Companion, I tried to show that numerous manuscripts have an error in poem five,
the famous poem in which Catullus asks Lesbos for a thousand and more kisses.
Um. And this error was imposed on her by Sal, who taught in detail, who taught him well.
If his letters quotes a poem with his own faults, a correction, rather than repeat that material,
I've put on the manuscript on the handout number ten, a list of manuscripts.
The chair. Another such error. Fellow Tartars. The first Sapphic stanza of poem 11.
There are all the famous lines which you, um.
Classicist. You all know if you were once a classicist, you may remember.
Tyler Tata seems to have forgotten that art can sometimes mean wear.
I'm for it. Imposed geometrical up on all parties up there as a correction.
What's the result? That more or less the same is true of manuscripts read obey.
Also, torches interventions were often correct at the end of poem two, which,
along with a discriminating minority that includes at least I know one other person in this room,
I prefer not to split that poem, and us compares a wish to release from his worries as pain.
I quote so thankful to me, as they say that the golden girl, that the golden apple which undid her fastened girdle was to the swift girl.
By whom? Um, he means Atalanta.
Uh uh, it is, it is in, uh.
Um. O, G and r rate um zone that buffer our before collecting zone.
Um do make our time uh, not her unfastened guard Baton girdle.
All that had been long dinner it and all the work.
She refused to take her clothes off and he man um person to grammarian um and has been followed by most editors.
Um at the line with Nick all time from the crossing uh cattle that had long been bound up which southern talk to discovered and imposed,
as you can see in the ring at the bottom on uh.
Um, but he reported the reading the chair removed with a right neck art hand, which I suppose means, in effect, that God, um, used to be that.
And you can just about make out right at the bottom. I'll come back to that reading.
If we break down this mass of manuscripts, we find certain clear lines of descent from all I'm going to look at for today.
As you would expect from all hadn't been owned by Silo Tata.
Many of these lines of descent involve known scripts written in Florence or Tuscany.
One such was 3623, owned by Mattia Lupi of Sangin and Yarn,
though it places all of its capacity before Catullus chosen the second page of the
Catullus to use as a slide because of the way it handles the correction of legal time.
In the context of Atalanta's garden, correction is placed in the text,
but the original reading of all Nygaard turn and a rat has been bizarrely taken from on.
There you can see the erotic, um, well, perhaps unnecessarily taken over.
Another line leads to 3312 and the NCL of Florence.
And I single this manuscript out because it has classic Florentine decoration.
It fails to replace nougat time with like, our time.
We should remember that when the original reading of a manuscript,
in this case all was still ascertainable, the scribe was not obliged to take over every correction to it.
More productive line of descent leads to quite a large family.
It includes beyond of 3198.
Um. Us, alligator.
You can see that. Written by Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, a man whose nephew gave his name to a continent.
But the reach of his family was not limited to Tuscany.
The relatives of Vienna, 319 out in northern Italy, and the next line of descent on which I want to concentrate is spread throughout Italy.
All descendants are dominated by a massive family that may be called Alpha.
Thompson, in his standard tradition, talks about Alpha possessions.
Its earliest descendants. And that's numbers eight, 22,
95 and 109 on your handout are amongst the earliest of all the 15th century more recent manuscripts and alpha manuscript Alpha itself,
which is lost, could have been as old as them and must have been older, and all other extant manuscripts off and og and all.
Principal defining characteristic of the group is that its members all have in some form a trance possession,
in which times 25 to 43, and almost a poem 44, and in some 19 some of 24 are placed between poem 62 and 63, and.
Uh, you can see it in, um, belong to the oldest of these manuscripts.
Bologna two, 6 to 1. I will go on to the next slide as well.
That is. Know your Catullus, you will see what's gone wrong.
Most groups that have bought Thompson calls. These Alpha class transpositions are listed as number 12 on your handout,
sorted into those that have been noted already as sharing errors with R and those that have not.
Argument is simple. I hope those simple. It's right.
Those exact lines transposed very, very slightly.
It seems to me incredible that such a transposition occurred more than once independently.
I therefore postulate a single origin in all these manuscripts in a lost copy of all.
There's no doubt that the earliest manuscripts derive from all have all lost uncorrected errors.
I put the variation, which is mostly in later manuscripts, down to correction by humanists.
I note that all these manuscripts have in common, some other errors as well as the big transposition, and that the older ones share all our errors.
In short, they derive fundamentally from our father, the lost Alpha.
Even though many manuscripts have been corrected, later ones corrected with some contamination.
Almost certainly the parents of many North Italian manuscripts in this group is number eight,
which is Bologna 2621, written by Zero Alarm, or Donato, a Venetian patrician, in 1412.
I hope that I'm not deluding myself. Um, and thinking that what I'm about to say provides an eloquent confirmation of, um, this, uh,
the derivation of many North Italian manuscripts from this one in conventional texts of Catullus, the last word in poem 66.
His translation of Callimachus is poem. Apparently case is oh, Ariane.
Oh, uh uh uh uh um, which is the spelling that's, of course, used by the constellation that we today and most Greeks and before us called Orion.
Oh. Uh oh. When the scribe of Bologna 2621 copied the line, he left out the unusual eh and put um a character mark and uh eh above the line.
But it's not put in perhaps the most obvious place, the, uh, and it gives, uh,
Oreo a uh uh uh uh, and a form which not even Callimachus is likely to have been attracted to.
Orient is found in several manuscripts, which also also show other signs of deriving from this Bologna manuscript.
And we come to Oxford. I illustrate this with number 71, which is, um, Latin class 17.
Yeah. In Oxford. Uh, is, uh, are.
This is not a terribly eloquent man.
I'm afraid old most Oxford catalysis are not very elegant, apart from the famous one, and the last one of which I will show a slide of.
It was written by a scribe called French Francesco Scrollbar.
To us in collection. We all know in the villa town in which town he is attested as having been a notary.
And so geography here nicely matches textual dissent from the manuscripts, but along the one that was written by a Venetian patrician.
Here is the opening folio.
I think I've got a slide of both guys with Legatum, and as you can see, it's not a terribly elegant manuscript,
but they are if you want a more or less pure descendant of all and you're interested in the stammer of Catullus, there is one in Oxford.
Another two Oxford manuscripts that have a personal feel for Trump's possessions.
Uh, number 69. Uncertainty on your list. Latin class or Latin class?
I never know whether these class marks are English or Latin. In Oxford, someone might tell me.
End of the lecture E-3 and 15. These two are very closely related throughout much of their texts.
They differ from 17 in that they have had many errors of are corrected, but both have legatum.
Nevertheless, the fact that they have a version of the alpha transposition seems to me to be a powerful argument for dissent from all,
even though they don't share all of all the errors. Who would I wish to mess up several poems by introducing such a transposition by contamination?
Uh, these two manuscripts really are exceptionally scrappy.
I'm working on them is no great aesthetic pleasure, but a few interesting things can be said about them.
One is that they derive from manuscript 121, which is now in Venice's of Horror.
I rather resent the fact that, um, family,
friends and colleagues sometimes imagine that when I go abroad to look at manuscripts, it's some kind of holiday.
But nevertheless, it gives some pleasure. Casually drop into a conversation that one was working the other day in Saint Mark's Square.
In fact, the windows of the Marciano, uh, manuscript room are all.
We have always been closed. Every day I've been there, which is quite a few days.
But in the same building, just round the corner, whilst waiting for one's manuscript to arrive in the Museo Cora,
one has a view that no library I know can match.
There it is. It is perhaps the only library in which delay for a manuscript does not make the patient.
As I gaze out of the window, though, in fact, you don't get much of a delay that terribly efficient.
Thirdly, I've only ever needed to look at four manuscripts the.
Readings that confirm the derivation can be found in poem 45.
Alice's ironic comment on Septimus and Akbar's innocent love for each other, and I put side by side the Museo Cora manuscript and light, plus a story.
You can see that it's not a thing of beauty.
Um, you can see how the 41st variant here, Margaret in the corner.
And I apologise for those of you who are not classicists, but that's in the Cora manuscript in the top right box on the right.
What's up? First written in that class, age three.
Um. And how the known floating rather on clearly in the middle, in the margin in the middle has been incorporated into E 50.
Let me. Hope.
That illustrates that. So not reading from the margin, in short, from the Cora manuscript have come in to the two Oxford manuscripts.
Those clinch the derivation which can be. Unproblematic.
Sharon, many of you are as distinctive of the group of manuscripts to which these three last belong to open caps of Catullus,
printed in Venice in 1472. I've said that the Alpha group big transposition split in 44 oh font Noster into two lines,
1 to 21, in one place, but line 21 the final line in another.
That final line was then followed quite properly by poem 45,
which and modern additions are not always in the manuscripts which struggled with proper names, begins in Septimius.
That's a reminder I think I've got.
But there you are, you can see. Now there are no print caps.
I start home 45. Not with Ackman, Septimius, but with the last line of poem 44.
I believe you may want to disagree with me, and I can't completely prove it, that this is a legacy of the transposition,
and certainly on the idea to print captures many errors with the later manuscripts that have this.
And at the risk of oversimplification which but time ticking away, I'm going to do.
One could say that the whole enchilada tradition of Catullus derives from the idea to open caps,
though with a slight infusion of readings from elsewhere in the second printed edition.
If this is right. These are all manuscripts derived from printed editions derive ultimately from, uh, number 14 of your handout.
I've listed 15 such. I've got time to discuss just one of these derivations here.
As so often within two labels, it's quite easy to establish a chain of one location printed from another.
I should be saying more about that in my next lecture.
And in Catullus, for example, the 10th printed edition, Venice 1493, derives from the ninth Venice 1491,
which derives from the eighth Venice, 1480 seventh, which derives from the seventh century in Prussia, 1485 or 1486.
I said proof,
but the derivation of a manuscript DNA 3243 as number 1 to 5 on your list from either the ninth or 10th edition comes at lines 8 to 9 of catalysis.
Famous poems A Catholic Paul Catullus.
These additions adopt a remedy for a fault in the archetype that modern editors would regard as unsatisfactory,
and restore verse nine so as to reach um yum.
No ill are known Walt to in a now she is unwilling, but you two are out of control.
Go for? Um, space for a, um, bus line itself.
Um, put it at the end of verse eight with a mark showing that it was to be read at the end of the next line.
So that line out and um, follows as.
This arrangement is not found in the eighth edition,
but was taken over quite unnecessarily given the space available in either the ninth or 10th edition by, um, the Vienna manuscript.
There's absolutely no need for footage. Of that before correction and that manuscript.
That one could actually show that behind three, two, four, three must derive from the 10th edition.
Almost all the extra areas of which it shares. Another Oxford manuscript,
like the two previous written on paper found on YouTube classics Latin for Classical Latin 33 belongs to a different line of descent from our.
It is only a little more presentable than the other.
One's most striking feature that I've noticed, um, about its text, is there's two versions of poem 64, line 69 to 114.
First of these has the normal text of its family, but places it in the wrong place in the middle of poem 63.
Second has the text in the correct place, but in the version of those manuscripts that derive from the Bologna manuscript,
which I showed you an image of a few minutes ago.
Um, presumably I can't offer a certain explanation for this, but presumably two manuscripts were involved in its production.
Oh, correction or correction of its archetype. And hence you've got this double text.
Uh, I'm going to finish by quarter past.
So I've just been under and I apologise for being longer than 15 minutes,
but I'm going to turn briefly to manuscripts that do not entirely derive from ex manuscripts that read blander rather than X's.
No. In poem 64, verse 139, the reading of the time mentioned earlier.
Um, I must drive. I can't drive from there.
They must arrive either from, uh, or a sibling of, uh.
Out. There is a family. Uh, there are several manuscripts, but have this reading.
Uh, the family that interests me most comprises manuscripts ten, 15, 37, 57, 88 and 94 on your handout.
Um, and I put the number 17 some of the readings that they share with manuscript.
Uh, and I'd like to focus on line 11 of poem 64.
And if you look at number 17 of your handout, I put what I think I can't remember what Gail Trimble retailed,
but but maybe editors read ala route um course who print in bullet and for 310 that ship first
gave go um for troops who is a senior standing for the sea a new experience with uh sailing.
As I said at the beginning of poem 64, O is corrected more often, done elsewhere.
And. Uh, as a slide.
I've ringed the correction of the line I read out, but you can see others in the margin.
Yeah. Program seems to be off. I presume is a faulty conjecture.
And although there are other possibilities, I find it hard to believe that the 90 scripts I just listed ten,
15, 37, which I've put on a slide and, uh, you can see program,
um, in the text of it, um, do not derive from, uh, all these manuscripts, metaphysics,
which also have partial some, some precocious and double as well written in Lombard.
As I said earlier. Oh has Lombard declaration from the about 1430.
However, neither these nor any other manuscript can derive entirely from oh, because no manuscript has all those errors.
So I conclude that readings taken from oh were used to correct manuscripts which otherwise derive from something else.
Uh, quite what that something else was.
Uh, I've not been entirely able to determine, but the presence of some of the corrections that Tati imposed on,
uh, makes one suspect that ultimately they derive from, uh.
Um. There are other manuscripts that have longer.
They are harder to handle, and they are probably the hardest for my argument.
Um, highly sophisticated manuscripts.
Some of them are first one that almost certainly despite bland art just derived from uh, is.
Um, a famous manuscript. Um, the so-called Codex Targaryen, because it has, as well as Catullus and other things.
Uh, our only text, Petronius, is conventional queerness.
Uh, it derives clearly from, uh, for much of its text, but it does have the Reading land,
uh, which must come ultimately from, uh, or something like, uh.
Um, other manuscripts. Um, and I'm thinking of numbers 118 122, 128.
Um, which are unsigned, have all been ascribed to one of the best known scribes of the late 15th century,
Bartolomeo San Vito, one of the most elegant italic script.
Number 118 is from Marciano in Venice and is probably the earliest fruit, perhaps dating from 1459.
Um, it's been extensive, as you can see in part those planned this.
I've reined in it.
It's been extensively corrected and annotated and is one of the best places to see the work of humanists on the manuscript of Catullus.
Um, another reason for just saying a few words about these manuscripts is that San Vito wrote multiple manuscripts,
and some authors, the access working methods have some interest, and those who are specialists and certain.
Vito and no two manuscripts of Catullus are so alive because numbers 122 and 128, both copied by San Vito,
and both originally having an almost identical text with some variants imposed upon it.
And so that raises interesting questions, one copied from the other. Or did San Vito have a master copy?
Um, and that is a very difficult question I found to resolve, um,
if we accept the parallel graphical judgement on a priority mode by on and novel only,
then that would allow 122 to derive from 128, but not 128 from 122.
Well, once you resolve this question in theory by looking for errors in one that are not found in the other San Vito,
but some in some manuscripts copied so accurately that looking for errors is like looking for needles in a haystack.
My tentative answer was that he was probably copying from an exemplar that he had.
Here is. The Vicens manuscript, which has footballers as well as tell us in.
It's actually a fairly early example of his splendid handwriting.
I'm going to. Close, but just one more image.
And. There's another manuscript of this I think is the most handsome of the 15th century manuscripts in Oxford.
It has a text extremely like the San Vito that is now involved and beautiful, and I think probably derives from it.
You can see it's got Blundell.
So I would try to put a box around and it script seems to imitate that of and veto in some ways and surely written in northern Italy.
Well. I've got a lot of detailed readings, which I hope some stage to inflict on the world.
Um, which I swear to you, has given you some idea of the way I hope to operate when I go into print.
Uh, if I get round to going into print, uh, on the manuscripts of Catullus.
And thank you very much for listening.