{"title":"Problems of textual criticism and interpretation in Lucan's De Bello Civili","authors":"L. Håkanson","doi":"10.1017/S0068673500004107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As is well known, the first edition of Lucan's De bello civili that offered a critical apparatus in the modern sense of the word was Carl Hosius' edition, first published in 1892, then revised and reprinted twice, the last time in 1913. It is the editions of Hosius and Bourgery-Ponchont that give us the fullest information about MSS readings. The most important edition of Lucan in this century, that published by Housman in 1926, contains, on the other hand, only a selection of readings taken over from Hosius. In his preface as well as in his apparatus Housman is eager on any occasion to demonstrate the unreliability of the codex Montepessulanus, M, the favourite of his predecessor Hosius, and a scholar who has recently re-examined an essential part of the tradition of Lucan says about him: ‘The slighting of M and the MSS in general was Housman's peculiar contribution to the study of the transmission of Lucan's text. Rather than attempt to understand the nature of the evidence, he preferred to ignore it. It would be relevant to ask an editor with such an attitude why he bothers to provide an apparatus criticus.’ These hard words come from Harold C. Gotoff, who in 1971 published the monograph The transmission of the text of Lucan in the ninth century. Gotoff's book will certainly give valuable help to a future editor of Lucan as far as the composition of the critical apparatus is concerned, but not at all, I think, to the same degree when it comes to the constitution of the text. This may perhaps sound somewhat peculiar, but I will try to make clear what I mean.","PeriodicalId":177773,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500004107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
As is well known, the first edition of Lucan's De bello civili that offered a critical apparatus in the modern sense of the word was Carl Hosius' edition, first published in 1892, then revised and reprinted twice, the last time in 1913. It is the editions of Hosius and Bourgery-Ponchont that give us the fullest information about MSS readings. The most important edition of Lucan in this century, that published by Housman in 1926, contains, on the other hand, only a selection of readings taken over from Hosius. In his preface as well as in his apparatus Housman is eager on any occasion to demonstrate the unreliability of the codex Montepessulanus, M, the favourite of his predecessor Hosius, and a scholar who has recently re-examined an essential part of the tradition of Lucan says about him: ‘The slighting of M and the MSS in general was Housman's peculiar contribution to the study of the transmission of Lucan's text. Rather than attempt to understand the nature of the evidence, he preferred to ignore it. It would be relevant to ask an editor with such an attitude why he bothers to provide an apparatus criticus.’ These hard words come from Harold C. Gotoff, who in 1971 published the monograph The transmission of the text of Lucan in the ninth century. Gotoff's book will certainly give valuable help to a future editor of Lucan as far as the composition of the critical apparatus is concerned, but not at all, I think, to the same degree when it comes to the constitution of the text. This may perhaps sound somewhat peculiar, but I will try to make clear what I mean.
众所周知,卢坎的《文明论》(De bello civili)提供了现代意义上的批判工具,第一版是卡尔·霍西乌斯(Carl Hosius)的版本,第一版于1892年出版,随后修订和重印了两次,最后一次是在1913年。Hosius和Bourgery-Ponchont的版本给了我们关于MSS阅读的最充分的信息。另一方面,豪斯曼于1926年出版的《卢坎》是本世纪最重要的版本,其中只收录了从霍西乌斯那里继承来的精选读物。在他的序言和他的仪器中,豪斯曼渴望在任何场合证明蒙特佩苏兰努斯抄本的不可靠性,M,他的前任霍西乌斯的最爱,一位学者最近重新审视了卢坎传统的一个重要部分,他说:“对M和MSS的轻视总体上是豪斯曼对卢坎文本传播研究的独特贡献。与其试图理解证据的本质,他宁愿忽略它。不妨问问一位持这种态度的编辑,他为什么要费心提供一个仪器评论家。这些难听的话出自Harold C. Gotoff,他在1971年出版了专著《九世纪卢坎文本的传播》。就批判工具的构成而言,戈托夫的书肯定会给未来的《卢坎》的编辑提供宝贵的帮助,但我认为,在文本的构成方面,这一点就不一样了。这可能听起来有些奇怪,但我将努力说清楚我的意思。