P ac V

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

P ac V

Post by cweb255 » Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:54 am

Does anyone know where I can find a facsimile of Juvenal's text from Codex Pithoeanus and Vindobonensis?
phpbb

User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave » Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:52 am

"I've decided to turn my attention towards a text-critical edition and translation of Juvenal to keep my Latin occupied while my other projects are currently simmering. So far this is what I have:
A copy of Bücheler's text via The Latin Library
Michael Hendry's critical text via Curculio, the site he maintains
J. D. Huff's edition [by whom you mean J. D. Duff]
E.G. Hardy's Edition"

So cweb255.

I am delighted to learn that the critical work of Buecheler and Housman is to be further advanced. As far as I understand you will not be able to obtain access, as a member of the public, to a facsimile of P or Vind. (calling Vindobensis 107 'V' only confuses the matter: Knoche used that letter for Leid. Voss. Q18; either write 'Vind.' with Housman and Beer inter al., or if you must 'W' with Knoche. Clausen also designated the Vind. as V unfortunately) in America. Instead you should use the collations of Bertin (for Jahn) and Buecheler. For the mutilated Vind. see the collation of Goebel in the Sitzungsberichte d. k. k. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. (1859), pp.37-75.
It is obviously a waste of time only to make use of one and a half manuscripts alone: to back up P you will need information about the scidae Arouienses and the florilehium codicis Sangallensis. For the vulgate branch you will want to make use of the two Parisienses, Duff's Cantabrigiensis, Winstedt's Bodleianus (of course) and the Monacensis and the Leidensis (and occasionally others, when a promising v.l. is offered). You should also read Haeckermann's Der Pithoeanische Codex Juvenals (Greifswald, 1856), Adamietz's Untersuchungen zu Juvenal (Hermes, Einzelschriften, Heft 26; Wiesbaden, 1972) and Stephan's useful dissertation De Pithoeanis in Juvenalem Scholiis (Bonn, 1882), along with the more obvious works of recent history.
The list of tools you already have is pitiful. Duff's edition is no work for editors, nor is an online (and therefore imperfect) copy of Buecheler's text (which is utterly useless without an app.crit.). Calling Hardy's Juvenal an 'edition' (it appears in the late Victorian Macmillan school series) is quaint. You need AEH's edition (and complete Classical Papers) in order to make sense of all this. Owen's OCT is rightly dismissed as awful, but Clausen's, if used correctly, can be a beneficial tool. Willis' Teubner is very much a product of the man.
If you are truly serious about attempting an edition of Juvenal, I am truly serious in saying that before even picking up your pen, you should spend at least twelve years henceforth (as a conservative estimate) studying as diligently as you can, day in, day out, the Latin language, Roman society, metrical, palaeographical and textual theory.
I hold my breath.

~D
phpbb

User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Post by cweb255 » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:46 pm

Please, call me Chris.
whiteoctave wrote:J. D. Huff's edition [by whom you mean J. D. Duff]
Yes, thanks for pointing out the mistake, and the references for study.
Calling Hardy's Juvenal an 'edition' (it appears in the late Victorian Macmillan school series) is quaint.
That much I can agree with you on. I did say that I did not recommend this for anyone, including myself, but alas, it's what the Uni library has while I wait for Housman. And as for Duff, could you go into a little further what you meant by his edition? True, he lacks several verses, satires even, but I enjoy his criticus apparatus. As for the online edition of Bucheler, I realize that every Latin text online is riddled with errors, and indeed no c.r. is debilitating. But comparatively, Judd and Hendry seem to give me a starting point.
You need AEH's edition (and complete Classical Papers) in order to make sense of all this. Owen's OCT is rightly dismissed as awful, but Clausen's, if used correctly, can be a beneficial tool. Willis' Teubner is very much a product of the man.
Of course Housman, so you also recommend Clausen? And Knoche? But I am to stay away from Owen and Teubner. Gotcha.
If you are truly serious about attempting an edition of Juvenal, I am truly serious in saying that before even picking up your pen, you should spend at least twelve years henceforth (as a conservative estimate) studying as diligently as you can, day in, day out, the Latin language, Roman society, metrical, palaeographical and textual theory.
I hold my breath.
12 years? Nah. I'll pick up my pen today and continue perfecting it until the day I die. Metrical shouldn't be too hard, since I hear Juvenal is fairly regular when it comes to meter, i.e. he doesn't have but a few incidences of, darn, the metrical term is lost to me at the moment.
phpbb

User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:17 am

Duff's work (originally published 1898) is an outdated volume for schools, notwithstanding Coffey's attempt to revise and revive it in the '70's. AEH saw its merits as far as they went and spoke of Duff's 'unpretending school edition'. To say that you like the 'criticus apparatus' (for which natural word order and scholarly custom advise 'apparatus criticus') of Duff is worrying more than it is bizarre. If you only need one lemma mentioned in the first 65 lines of satire I (lest I be thought to have picked a particularly bad spot I refer to the very beginning of the work) then you clearly have no concept of the sheer importance of a full collation of the capital manuscripts. Where are we to learn from Duff that, e.g., at I.35 P has no sixth foot; at I.38 P has the nonsense 'nontibi' for 'noctibus'; at I.85 P omits the pyrrhic of the fourth and the close of the following verse is confused among the mss? We don't. Indeed your copy of Duff probably still speaks of the 'circumference of the fish' at IV.132, where 'dish' is the truthful word to be read. The chief value of Duff's edition lies in his illustrative material, but Mayor's edition would do this job with more liveliness, especially in its famous introduction.
When you state that you wait for Housman what do you mean? Have you hunted out a copy? I doubt it, unless you have spent over $100.
Clausen's is the most encouraging text in the OCT/Teubner/Budé series but it must be handled with editorial acumen, that rarest of features which you patently exude.
For Knoche, his Die Überlieferung Juvenals got the stern criticism it deserves from the most competent Latinist of the last 150 (if not 250) years (ud. CR 40.5 pp.171-2). The apparatus in his edition of the poet, however, is perhaps the best currently to hand; it loses a good deal of value, though, when it is recalled that Knoche never collated P, a task from which he was prevented by the outbreak of war; Clausen informed Luck per litt. that this resulted in '450-500 errors of omission and commission' regarding P. He is a rather conservative critic (cf. 'Konjekturen wurden in den fast gar nicht, in den Apparat nur in eingeschränkter Auswahl aufgenommen: denn es ist sehr selten das einzelne Wort, das bei Juvenal eine Emendation erfordert.') which, in Juvenal, is not an especially advantageous feature. Mr Teubner is, as you suggest, not a useful critic.
I was interested to read that some certain voice, divine or otherwise, informed you that Juvenal is 'fairly regular when it comes to meter'. I would hazard that he is the most irregular writer of hexameters of all the Classical poets, rivalled only by certain features of Horace's sermones and epistulae. Of what D.I.I. has 'few incidences', when the word finds its way back to your thoughts, I am keen to hear.
Should your pen be picked up any time soon I could only exclaim with Porson 'tantam rem tam negligenter?'.

~D
phpbb

User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Post by cweb255 » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:10 am

whiteoctave wrote:Duff's work (originally published 1898) is an outdated volume for schools, notwithstanding Coffey's attempt to revise and revive it in the '70's.
I'm afraid I only have the printing from 1932.
AEH saw its merits as far as they went and spoke of Duff's 'unpretending school edition'. To say that you like the 'criticus apparatus' (for which natural word order and scholarly custom advise 'apparatus criticus') of Duff is worrying more than it is bizarre. If you only need one lemma mentioned in the first 65 lines of satire I (lest I be thought to have picked a particularly bad spot I refer to the very beginning of the work) then you clearly have no concept of the sheer importance of a full collation of the capital manuscripts. Where are we to learn from Duff that, e.g., at I.35 P has no sixth foot; at I.38 P has the nonsense 'nontibi' for 'noctibus'; at I.85 P omits the pyrrhic of the fourth and the close of the following verse is confused among the mss? We don't. Indeed your copy of Duff probably still speaks of the 'circumference of the fish' at IV.132, where 'dish' is the truthful word to be read. The chief value of Duff's edition lies in his illustrative material, but Mayor's edition would do this job with more liveliness, especially in its famous introduction.
Eh? Nothing you mentioned I have found. I think now we might be using different editions of Duff. Once again, I have "D. IVNII IVVENALIS SATVRAE XIV - Fourteen Satires of Juvenal" Cambridge 1932 (Republished 1972). It contains no notes at 35, doesn't include the line 38 (which I think has textual problems, no?), 85 (excuse me, but huh?) scans correctly, and contains no notes in the apparatus nor in the "Notes" in the back, and Sat. IV line 132 comments in the "Notes" as "deep dish", nothing about fish.
When you state that you wait for Housman what do you mean? Have you hunted out a copy? I doubt it, unless you have spent over $100.
Unfortunately, wait was equated with "hold out", but I am less optimistic because of you.
Clausen's is the most encouraging text in the OCT/Teubner/Budé series but it must be handled with editorial acumen, that rarest of features which you patently exude.
Give it time.
For Knoche, his Die Überlieferung Juvenals got the stern criticism it deserves from the most competent Latinist of the last 150 (if not 250) years (ud. CR 40.5 pp.171-2). The apparatus in his edition of the poet, however, is perhaps the best currently to hand; it loses a good deal of value, though, when it is recalled that Knoche never collated P, a task from which he was prevented by the outbreak of war; Clausen informed Luck per litt. that this resulted in '450-500 errors of omission and commission' regarding P. He is a rather conservative critic (cf. 'Konjekturen wurden in den fast gar nicht, in den Apparat nur in eingeschränkter Auswahl aufgenommen: denn es ist sehr selten das einzelne Wort, das bei Juvenal eine Emendation erfordert.') which, in Juvenal, is not an especially advantageous feature. Mr Teubner is, as you suggest, not a useful critic.
It would be delightful to actually examine the famed Codex myself. All in good time...
I was interested to read that some certain voice, divine or otherwise, informed you that Juvenal is 'fairly regular when it comes to meter'. I would hazard that he is the most irregular writer of hexameters of all the Classical poets, rivalled only by certain features of Horace's sermones and epistulae. Of what D.I.I. has 'few incidences', when the word finds its way back to your thoughts, I am keen to hear.
I cannot for the likes of me find my source. I will keep looking.
Should your pen be picked up any time soon I could only exclaim with Porson 'tantam rem tam negligenter?'.
Would this be the most famous Porson of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? If so, I can only respond that no, not negligently, for I keep extensive notes (hrm...no where did that notebook get off to?) for the things I make. In fact, as I already begin, I mark up every edit with colors. But you need to start early. Whether or not the finished result (which, if it makes the scene at all) comes out looking anything like it originally did, you'll still be dead of lack of oxygen.

Chris
phpbb

User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:23 am

It would perhaps not be without benefit to read the second passage of mine which you quote a second time, for it explains why the 'apparatus' of Duff is so meagre as to be useless: he doesn't give us vital information about P at 35, doesn't trouble to mention its lectio insana at 38 (for JDD has inexplicably axed 8 lines) nor does he inform us that P wants timor at 85 (which scans as the pyrrhic of the fourth foot...). There is no benefit for the textual critic in James Duff Duff's work.
You are wrong in saying that your edition mentions 'deep dish' at IV.132; that is from the note on the line before. I am talking of id.132, where orbem is glossed as 'the circumference of the fish', an amusing error for Juvenal's meaning 'circumference of the dish'.

I can't think of a different Porson whom I could have been mentioning. To call him famous is perhaps these days a misnomer, for if his work were truly well known now the textual critical scene would not be awash with metrico-critical tirones, more keen to get something published in their name than attempt to attain the truth.

~D
(who resumed breathing long ago)
phpbb

User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Post by cweb255 » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:11 am

whiteoctave wrote:It would perhaps not be without benefit to read the second passage of mine which you quote a second time, for it explains why the 'apparatus' of Duff is so meagre as to be useless: he doesn't give us vital information about P at 35, doesn't trouble to mention its lectio insana at 38 (for JDD has inexplicably axed 8 lines) nor does he inform us that P wants timor at 85 (which scans as the pyrrhic of the fourth foot...). There is no benefit for the textual critic in James Duff Duff's work.
You are wrong in saying that your edition mentions 'deep dish' at IV.132; that is from the note on the line before. I am talking of id.132, where orbem is glossed as 'the circumference of the fish', an amusing error for Juvenal's meaning 'circumference of the dish'.
Perhaps then I shall abandon this for the others. I appreciate your criticism.
I can't think of a different Porson whom I could have been mentioning. To call him famous is perhaps these days a misnomer, for if his work were truly well known now the textual critical scene would not be awash with metrico-critical tirones, more keen to get something published in their name than attempt to attain the truth.
I surely hope you don't mean me! I have no interest in publishing at this time, the project being personal. Perhaps one day, when, if, I am satisfied with it, I may release it, but I have no high hopes. Then again, you might be referring to other incompetent critics - I ignore them.

And since you're breathing again, I'll send it to you first.
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:49 am

If I may be sincere for a moment, nor that I have any authority on the matter at hand, cweb255 why are you doing this when you wrote Tua mentula est minimor quam formica ? Your time should really be spent on intensive language consolidation. Take this as you wish but I'm being serious.
phpbb

User avatar
nostos
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:30 am
Location: Montréal, QC

Post by nostos » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:16 pm

Episcopus wrote:when you wrote Tua mentula est minimor quam formica ?
shouldn't that be 'mentella tua minor qua formicae'? :P

User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Post by cweb255 » Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:56 pm

nostos wrote:
Episcopus wrote:when you wrote Tua mentula est minimor quam formica ?
shouldn't that be 'mentella tua minor qua formicae'? :P
Actually, the only thing technically grammatically incorrect was minimor, which is indeed minor (simple mistake of not thinking).

And as for the bishop - I see old thoughts don't die. I take this as my unwelcome here.

Valete
phpbb

User avatar
nostos
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:30 am
Location: Montréal, QC

Post by nostos » Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:49 pm

cweb255 wrote:Actually, the only thing technically grammatically incorrect was minimor, which is indeed minor (simple mistake of not thinking).
I've made worse mistakes, by far, and will continue to make them, in English too. Of course it's not thinking, I mean I do that all the time, I was just being facetious.

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:17 pm

cweb255 you are now a household name here, you can not leave! I am sorry if I caused offence; you took it the wrong way. I was just trying to help. I do believe that your time would be better spent elsewhere. Whiteoctave did advise that you pick up your pen and study the language before anything else. I myself am doing the same; my vocabulary is poor.

And since when do I determine who is unwelcome at an internet forum that is not even mine? I do not care. Apart from those people who post in Portuguese all the time.

The occasional derision is, as nostos said in another thread, merely playful!
Look! I made a newspaper article which keep you here! Note the "LATIN AND GREEK not dead" shirt! Classic!
Image
phpbb

Post Reply