Justus Lipsius and the Text of TacitusAuthor(s): C. O. BrinkReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 41, Parts 1 and 2 (1951), pp. 32-51Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298098 .Accessed: 25/03/2012 18:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS Bv C. 0. BRINK

Editors, and other students, of the text of Tacitus have of late been taken up with the problems of the two codices unici and perhaps have tended to neglect the contributions made by their predecessors. If this be true, Dr. J. Ruysschaert has rendered a service to scholarship in publishing a book on Juste Lipse et les Annals de Tacite: utne me'thode de critique textuelle aut XVIe siecle.1 It is safe to say that up to the nineteenth century a commentary on the text of Tacitus in the main consisted of comments by, and on, Lipsius. Much of this lore was gathered together in I. Bekker's Variornum edition of I83I and, augmented by G. H. Walther's more unorthodox notes and a critique of them, in Ruperti's four volumes of I832-39. At that time, however, a breach in the tradition occurred and the Corpus Lipsianum (if this name may be applied to the lore in the Var-ior-um editions) became less known than it deserves.2

To many readers of Tacitus the work of Lipsius is probably known only from those emendations of his that survive in our texts and critical notes. But if the reader is also a student of the text he needs more than that, and Ruysschaert provides him with more. He offers a full, if not alvays complete or correct, list of Lipsius's emendations from his numerous editions of the Annals. Armed with this list and one of the Var-ior-um editions, say Ruperti, the student will find not only more but also wider and more varied comments than the modern notes to which Lipsius's name is appended would lead him to expect. Ruysschaert has laboured hard to relate Lipsius's text to other early humanists' work upon the same text. He has investigated the provenance of many emendations, whether Lipsius labelled them as imported or not, and has paid particular attention to what he calls the concealed emendation-that is, a conjecture not distinguished by the editor from the transmitted text. Ruysschaert offers some i,o6o items. Though the contents of the list are a great deal more arbitrary than may appear at first sight,3 there is here a goodly quarry from which anv textual critic may draw ad libitum.

The present writer proposes to discuss tvo points arising from Ruysschaert's book. In the first section of this paper attention is given to what precisely is meant by that

me'thode de critique textuelle ' of which, according to Ruysschaert, Lipsius is possessed. The second section is concerned with a scrutiny of textual difficulties in the first book of the Annals, and vith Lipsius's solutions of them. There are no cut-and-dried ansvers to these questions, and Ruysschaert's analysis of his own material fails mainly because, instead of arguing controversial points, he takes his clues from a modern ' definitive edition. He is, in fact, more interested in Lipsius than in Tacitus, but it is to Tacitus that

Ruvsschaert's book was published by the 'Bibliotheque de I'Universite, Louvain, I949. Prof. A. MvIomigliano reviewed it in YRS xxxix (I949), I90, the present writer in CR LXIV (I950), I20. In the following pages reference is made to the chapters and lines of C. D. Fisher's Oxford text, for the Ainnals and the Histories, and, for the Opera Minora, to the chapters and sections of Furneaux's Oxford text. The sections intioduced in the recent editions of the Ainnals do not always square. It would be convenient if Fisher's meritorious editions could be brought up to date, and, at the same time, be divided into sections.

2 Information on this score in Wilamowitz's and Sandvs's histories of classical scholarship is not very enlightening and occasionally incorrect. According to Wilamowitz (Geschlichte der Philologie 26), Lipsius was the first editor of Tacitus to use the Medicean manuscripts-which he was not. Sandys is more correct about the JlIedicei, but in the one specimen of Lipsius's textual criticism that he offers, in his Historv of Classical Scholarship II, 303, he confuses conjecture and transmitted text: for both points, see below, pp. 33 ff. and 5i. Lipsius's interest in the criticism of the text of Tacitus continued while his other interests changed. His Tacitus went through

eight or more editions, and manv changes, from I 574 to the posthumous folio of I607. (The actual number is not easily available as the two fullest lists do not quite agree: see Ruysschaert xi f., and H. Goelzer in his large edition of the Histories I920, I, p. xviii, n. 3, to which Prof. G. B. A. Fletcher draws my attention.) Yet, according to Sandvs, l.c., only two editions appeared in his lifetime.

3 The list, in fact, contains either too much or too little. If Ruysschaert had restricted his collections to Lipsius's own emendations the list would have shrunk considerably, and a clearer pictuLre of the humanist's ars emtienidanidi would have emerged. If, on the other hand, it was his purpose to show the progress made by Lipsius as against earlier editions or, indirectly, as against the Medicei, he should have recorded the emendations due to Puteolanus, Beroaldus, and Rhenanus which appeared by the hundred in Lipsius's text as ' concealed emenda- tions '. The same applies to the items taken over from Pichena for Lipsius's posthumous edition of I 607. As it is, Ruvsschaert's figure of I,o64

corrections lipsiennes is likely to cause confusion. There are after all in the Ainnals not anything like that number of ' corrections lipsiennes

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 33

wve must go if ve care to assess the valu-e of Lipsius's criticism. Since the principles of editing Tacitus have recently been called in question, there seems to be an additional reason for studying the criticism of the sospitator, Taciti.

I. LIPSIUS'S EDITORIAL PRACTICE Dr. Ruysschaert applies nineteenth-century terms to sixteenth-century editorial

practice. He makes much of e,nendatio, collatio, eliminatio codicunm, and the rest. All this is supposed to add up to ' une methode de critique textuelle ', the ' methode lipsienne ' for which he claims ' valeur et originalite '. The work of Lipsius presents a very different aspect to the present vriter.

Oving to Ruysschaert's labours it is not nov difficult to define the use to which Lipsius put his manuscripts, to state precisely the manuscripts he used and those which he did not use. The negative point is an important one. As is well known, the major historical vorks of Tacitus are preserved in tvo codices unici-Annals I-VI in a iVlediceus of the ninth century, the rest of the Annals and the Histories in a 1lIediceus of the eleventh century. There are no apographa of the first 1lIediceus, but Annals XI-XVI and the Histor-ies are also preserved in numerous codices of the fifteenth century, all, directly or indirectly,4 copied from the second 1lIediceus. The 1lIediceus no. I had been collated in i5I5 by Beroaldus Jr. for his editio pr-inceps of Annals i-vi, and by Victorius for his private use in I542. It may or may not have been seen by Ferrettus,5 but its readings vere not again used to any large extent until Pichena published his NTotae in i6oo (2nd ed. I604), and his edition in I607. The Mediceus no. ii had not been used before Pichena for any printed edition.

Various accounts have been given of Lipsius's use of the Mledicei.6 The facts are, however, easily stated. There are some fev references to the M\Iedicean manuscripts in his editions published before Pichena. They are all secondhand and due either (indirectly) to Beroaldus or (directly) to Ferrettus. When Pichena published his NTotae, Lipsius's own text and commentary had gone through several editions and vas rightly considered a major vork of scholarship. Lipsius himself considered that his work vas done. The new publication caused him, however, to revise his text and notes. It may be gathered both from his letters and from the preface to his editio ultimna that what Lipsius looked for vas not improvement, but confirination, of his text. A nev edition appeared, post- humously,7 in I607-the same year which also sav Pichena's own edition. There wTere numerous changes, some marking his independence, and not alvays well considered, others based on Pichena though not frequently enough, and often unacknowledged.,8 It will be seen from this account that whatever Lipsius's merits as an editor the use he made of the twNTO codices is unsatisfactory. Twice he failed to utilize what he (after Pichena) considered manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries-as a young man, during his stay in Italy,9 and aga.in after Pichena's publications.10 For the restoration of a sound

4 This has been recognized since Orelli, Baiter, and Andresen. F. Grat, JlIklaniges d'Archleol. et d'Hist. de lEcole Fran_. de Romtie XLII (1925), con- sidered one of the V7aticani (I958) an independent witness. I do not feel convinced bh his arguments nor bh the review of his article by H. Goelzer, Buill. de l'Assoc. Guiill. Buids I925, no. 8, p. 24. C. WV. Mendell, Yale Class. Stuid. vi (I939), has gone to the trouble of classifying the apographla.

Ferrettus mav have turned the pages of the Mediceuis, but the two readings which he reports in his Ainnotatiuncuiae of I54I (cited bv Ruysschaert I25, n. 2) are both incorrect: I, I3, I4 aplud te, not cap Ut, and 20, II bituis, not zziZictuis.

6 See, for example, above p. 32, n. 2. 7 Lipsius died in i6o6. 8 There are, for instance, no more than nine

textual changes in the first book; in only five of these cases readings of Pichena and the Mlediceuts are restored, in one case a manuscript's reading is ascribed to Mercerus, who had restored it by con- jecture, and there are three new emendations.

9 In his Notae of I575 (Introd. to Book xi, cited by Ruysschaert p. 32, n. 2) Lipsius expressed himself

very clearly on 11Ied. no. I Unicum exemplar manuscriptum Europa habet, reconditum in Biblio- theca MX1edicaea, quod accurate et cum fide, ut opinio mea fert, Philippus Beroaldus exprimi curavit. Ait et Ferretus vidisse. Quorum fide nitar. Nam mihi inspiciundi eius occasio non fuit, et, ut vere dicam, post alios ne cupiditas quidem.'

10 For the evidence, see Ruysschaert l.c. I38-I43. Lipsius's attitude is shown b; two revealing quota- tions (ib. I39)-the first from a letter written in i6oo: ' Vidi Curtiana (i.e. Curtius Pichena's Notae of i6oo) ad Tacitum, et bona insunt: sed plura, hercules, a tam v-etusto exemplari exspectabam. Illud mihi delectationi, et paene dicam gloriae, v el centenis locis comprobari ab eo coniecturas nostras, quas solo ingenio duce, et timide saepe, ponebamus'- and again in the introduction to the edition of I607 w%here he remarks, ' hoc in paucis sed bonis notis e Gallis Josias M\'ercerus fecit, hoc Curtius Pichena ab Italia, sed et e Britannia contulit Savillus'. He then goes on: ' Pichena tamen super omnes, adiutus a Florentino bonae notae codice, qui in Medicaea bibliotheca asservatur, et qui centenis circiter locis coniecturas nostras, quod gaudeam, confirmavit.'

34 C. 0. BRINK

text, it vas fortunate that Tacitus's vorks vere handed on by Pichena as well as by Lipsius.

The merit which Lipsius could rightly claim vas that he vas not content to improve the text of Tacitus by conjecture but provided fresh material both to stimulate and check emendation. The actual codices which he used are tvo Vaticani (Vat. Lat. I863 and I864) and one Far-nesianus (then in Rome, now Neapolitanus iv, C zi). Ruysschaert has not only identified these,11 but has also shown great (and perhaps misplaced) industry in collating them all over again in order to establish the competence and method of the humanist.12 Though he has found some mistakes both in the variants and in references to the manuscripts, Lipsius's collation was on the whole trustworthy and served the immediate purpose of textual criticism. Beyond that it certainly did not go, since he shared the weakness of his time in making his symbols as loose and unrecognizable as possible,13 and in citing his codices when it suited his purpose to do so, not when they contained important variant readings.

The fashion of the time did not require a documentary text of one or several codices in a new edition ; rather it required a reprint of an earlier edition to which, in text, margin, or note, there vere added variants from manuscripts, and emendations from diverse sources. The earlier text was known as liber vulgatus, its readings as lectiones vulgatae. While it is true that this procedure kept fancy free for successful emendation, it is easily seen that it also encouraged such vices as carelessness, conceit, and even dissimulation- carelessness because it vas open to the editor to notice, or ignore, variant readings in manuscripts ; conceit because an editor would tend to let his ideas shine out against the dark background of the vulgate text; and dissimulation because of the undefined character of the text and its resources. If, furthermore, an editor took no care to specify, or took care not to specify, the provenance of his vulgate, an element of anonymity vas added which made a check even harder.

In all these matters Lipsius conformed to the standards of his time He never disclosed the provenance of his vulgate. Not quite a century after his first edition, Ernesti complained (in the preface to his own text of Tacitus, second edition, I772), ' planum est eum (i.e. Lipsium) in manibus atque prae oculis habuisse editionem aliquam ignobiliorem, in qua peccata secundae Rhenani aucta novis essent, quae ille pro vulgatis lectionibus haberet, de more scilicet vulgari, quo eam quisque vulgatam putat quam in suo exemplo invenit. ea quae sit, nondum potui reperire.' 14 It was left to Ruysschaert to discover, by a pains- taking comparison of the early editions, that for his text Lipsius used Rhenanus's second edition of I544, while his Notae were based on Ferrettus's Variortrn edition of I542, called, after its publisher,15 Gryphiana. It is obvious that many editorial hares were set running if the same word, vtulgata, could in Lipsius's own use refer to two different things-and neither of them specified.

With an editorial procedure such as this a distinction between transmitted text, variants from manuscripts, and conjectures is hardly possible. Ruysschaert 16 has tried to assess the mistakes in the second part of the Annals made by Lipsius either in the attribution of variant readings to his manuscripts or in distinguishing the transmitted text from conjectures. He finds not a few mistakes of both kinds. But an assessment is of little profit when a text is not firmly based on codices, and the evidence is further com-

" I.c. 26 ff. In addition, Lipsius occasionally referred to other evidence known to him from printed editions or through the good services of his friends see Ruysschaert 23 if., 30 ff., 123 if.

12 I.C. 113 ff. 13 Libri, Lib. vet., niss., vet., sincerius, optimutits, ille,

appear without a hint at the identity of the codices. At times he specifies Vat. or Farn.

14 Ernesti's criticism is not without interest in this matter. Before the remark quoted in the text he says: ' vulgatus tum textus erat Rhenani. itaque cum dudum deprehendissem lectionem, quam ipse (i.e. Lipsius) vulgatam vocat, non semper consentire cum lectione editionis primae Rhenani, cuius

exemplum in manibus erat, putabam secundae Rhenani lectiones intelligi. sed ea comparanda didici in nonnullis quidem locis ita esse ut suspicatus eram, sed plures, quas ille vulgatas lectiones vocet, nec ibi nec in ulla alia superiorum, quas haberem, reperiri.'

15 P. Cornelii Taciti eqluitis ro. ab excesslu Aluglusti Annalilumit libri sedecimn, ex castigatione Aeinylii Fewretti, Beati Rhenani, Alciati, ac Beroaldi Lugduni apud Seb. Gryphium, 1542.

16 See Ruysschaert, I.c. I15 ff., on variants erroneously attributed to one of the manuscripts 117, on the distinction between transmitted text and conjecture.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 35

plicated by continuous references from two kinds of lectiones vtulgatae in the text, to other readings, insufficiently labelled, in the margin, to further material, equally undefined, in the notes, and back again to the text. In the first six books of the Annals there is a still lesser degree of certainty since neither the vulgate nor Lipsius's contributions were directly based on a manuscript.

What the textuts vulgoatuts amounts to is incomplete evidence insufficiently presented- partly in the body of the text, partly in the margin or the note. This makes fairness in the attribution of emendations well-nigh impossible. The example of the first book may suffice to illustrate this point. Occasionally Lipsius refers to fellow-humanists when accepting or rejecting parallel passages in an inscription or in such writers as Suetonius or the two Senecas. These references are not concerned with the criticism of the text and can here be disregarded. The same applies to the few references concerned with stylistic interpretation. As for changes of the text, Lipsius, very occasionally, mentions names of scholars-four times, or so, when accepting an emendation, no more frequently when accepting one in preference to his own text in an earlier edition,17 and somewhat oftener when rejecting a suggestion. These figures are greatly out of keeping with the number of emendations actually taken over from older texts or dissertations.

It is instructive to remember that the names of the two editors who most successfully emended the text of the first six books are hardly ever mentioned-I mean Beroaldus, the first editor, and Pichena, the last editor before Lipsius's posthumous edition.18 Vertranius Mlaurus does not fare much better, though his Notae of 1569 were extensively used by Lipsius. Rhenanus's name appears more frequently because he was the editor of one of Lipsius's vulgates, but he is mentioned chiefly to be reproved, and his best emendations disappear in the anonymous mass of the vulgate. As was pointed out above,19 Lipsius never even troubled to state the identity of the textuts vilgoatuts. A comparison of Lipsius's text with-Rhenanus's second edition made by Ruysschaert in the course of his collations revealed a number of emendations still falsely ascribed to Lipsius in all modern editions. 20

It appears then that a correct or probable emendation in an earlier edition as a rule helped to disqualify, rather than qualify, its author for mention, and the more of them he had to offer the less was he likely to have his name recorded by his successors. Lipsius felt as little bound as any editor of his time to mention his predecessors unless he disputed their suggestions ; and even then a mention was far from obligatory. Agreement is expressed rarely, and if it is it serves as an excuse for a graceful compliment 21 or occasionally to mark a departure from a reading of one of the earlier editions of his own text.22 At times it would seem as if the anonymity of the textuts vulgatuts could be extended so as to shroud the authorship of any work which an editor was loath to attribute to a predecessor. This estimate applies by no means to the work of predecessors only. Lipsius, almost consistently, eschews a mention of his contemporary, Pichena, while he uses, or ignores, his work.

It will be well to remember the laxity inherent in the principle of the textuts villgatuts when Lipsius's use of unpublished material is considered. Unacknowledged borrowing from printed sources imperceptibly merges into unacknowledged use of borrowed copies,

1 The position as regards the last (posthumous) edition of I607 is slightly different. From the last edition but one I note the following references in the first book: i, 8, Vertranius; 4, 15, Muretus (though his emendation is not in the text); 32, 17, Rhenanus; 74, i, Mercerus (not in the text). The reference to Ferrettus at 13, 14, concerns a reading of the VlIediceuis. Conjectures of his own are abandoned at 4, I9 and 7, 4 with reference to M'Iuretus, at 8, 21, to Cujacius, and at 70, 21, to an anonymous still unidentified. The well-known reference to Muretus at 5, 8, may also be mentioned here.

18 For the e-vidence, see Ruysschaert's list, pp. 172 ff.

19 See above, p. 34. 20 Ruysschaert 2I, n. 3, cites these emendations

from Rhenanus's text: I, 8, 28, iniprospere repetitae; 35, 3, universi; 56, 9, nietuiebantlur; 79, I7, con- cederetlur: II, 36, 13, honorenm; 56, 17, Servaeins; 6o, i6, Lyciiin: iv, 8, 22, confirniaret; 66, 9, conexuis (correct in OCT): vI, 10, 3, Flii: XII, 43, 2, prorlutae.

21 Compare, for example, his remarks on Muretus at I, 4, 15, ' M. Antonio . . . Mureto, cuius scripta Xrenus inhabitat pariter cum Musis' (he did not, ho'wevrer, put the conjecture in the text); or ib. 74, 1,

sidus exoriens suae Galliae Jos. Mercerus.' 22 See, for example, above, n. 17.

36 C. 0. BRINK

or of suggestions made in talk or letters. The humanists of the sixteenth century must have been aware of the difference between these two kinds of borrowing ; for the former can be established, while the latter usually cannot ; but the lack of documentary evidence is the same in either case.23 No reproach was, in fact, more usual between humanists than that of literary theft. This is set in its proper perspective by the books De plagio litterario which first put in an appearance about 1550 and petered out a hundred years or so later. The new standard of literary copyright and scholarly honesty enjoined in these tracts was as high in theory as it was low in practice and, in the Catalogi plagiorurn appended to most of the tracts, the charge of plagiarism is mercilessly traced from one great humanist to the next: Bosius is seen to be defrauded by Lambinus, Lambinus by I\Iuretus, AMuretus by Lipsius, and so ad infinitum.

Lipsius made use of the unpublished books of his older friend, Iluretus, or his contemporary, Chifflet, in the same way as he treated Pichena's books which were in print. In the medley of unacknowledged borrowings which then passed for a critical edition there are found also some unlabelled suggestions of I'luretus and Chifflet. Ruysschaert has laboured hard to substantiate or refute those claims. He has collated the personal copies that are preserved of Lipsius, AMuretus, and Chifflet, and has found that there are no more than a dozen unacknowledged borrowings from Chifflet 24 while Lipsius's undeclared debt to 1luretus is likely both to be more considerable and harder to sub- stantiate.25 Useful though these researches are here as well as in his assessment of Lipsius's collations described above (at p. 34), Ruysschaert's details tend to obscure the general character of Lipsius's work. To single out a dozen futrta from Chifflet would suggest an otherwise unbroken standard of documentary evidence and a scientific rigour which, in editorial technique, is not found until the nineteenth century. These dozen or so passages have to be considered in conjunction with the many dozens of emendations or readings appropriated from printed sources, many of which can now be traced in Ruysschaert's lists. In both cases Lipsius's purpose was the same, namely to play down the contribution made by his predecessors and his colleagues.26 If modern, and extraneous, standards are applied he must be accused of dishonesty, or his faults must be excused by special pleading. Ruysschaert has come to the conclusion that Lipsius occasionally succumbed to the temptation of cribbing, and often showed a certain lack of courtesy and a vituperative temper, but that these drawbacks do not affect the originality of his method. Over against this it has been argued in the foregoing pages that Lipsius's editorial method, if there is such a thing, differs in no essential from that of his contemporaries. His work, like theirs, shows that lack of documentary evidence which gives rise so easily to dissimulation. His use of manuscripts in the second part of the Annals was erratic but extensive enough to provide a new basis for emendation ; in the first six books he had no recourse to the manuscript. If one wishes to find Lipsius the critic at his best, not at his most ordinary, his emendations and his historical comments must be considered. Of the latter I am no judge; on the former some remarks will be found in the followilng section of this paper. For a note on emendations, see below, p. 50.

II. CODEX AND EMENDATION IN THE FIRST BOOK OF TIIE ANNALS

The most conspicuous omission in Dr. Ruysschaert's study of textual criticism is, in fact, textual criticism. Lipsius may or may not have had a; methode de critique textuelle ', but even his art as an emender cannot but remain dull if we rest content with counting

23 The ordinary reader would certainly be misled by such borrowings from printed sources. Even erudite scholars, like Ernesti, tried in vain to establish the nature of Lipsius's vulgate: see above, p. 34. M\ luch painstaking effort was needed in order to identify Beroaldus's and Rhenanus's contributions- and from Lipsius's text and notes it would certainly be impossible to give his due to either of his predecessors or, indeed, to Pichena. If several centuries had to pass until some of Rhenanus's property was discovered in Lipsius's keeping (cf.

abovre, n. 2o), it is hard to understand the meaning of these words of Ruysschaert's: ' mais les emprunts de cette sorte etaient trop aisement identifiables pour des lecteurs tant soit peu avertis pour quIon puisse taxerI Lipse de plagiat aw ce propos ' (p. I52).

24 See Ruysschaert I44 if., and below, p. 50. 2 See below, p. 51.

2 6 Ruysschaert has discovered (i.c. 149 f.) that Lipsius went to the length of erasing the name of Chifflet in the margins of his working copy so as to cover his traces.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 37

and labelling his conjectures-according to whatever happens to be the latest edition of the text. It is only through a study of the text which the critic had sought to emend that an impression of success or failure can be gained. The present writer has chosen the first book of the Annals for such an experiment. This is by no means the best illustration that is available for Lipsius's ars ernendandi-the Histories or Annals xi-xvi where he exercised a choice between various manuscripts woould provide a better test. But in the first part of the Annals Lipsius worked on a printed edition ultimately based on the M11ediceuts so that his way of dealing with the readings of our manuscript can be seen in most cases. And there is yet another reason for this choice.

In a recent paper in this Journal 27 Professor R. Syme has recommended certain principles to future editors of Tacitus, and has used the first book of the Annals to argue his case. His article is remarkable at once for its erudition in rebuts Taciteis and its controversial character. The problems involved are not without some bearing upon editorial practice in general, and have appeared, at least to the present writer, to call for a re-examination. Svme calls attention to the doctrine of the Swedish School, by which he means Professor E. L6fstedt of Lund and his followers. He contends that, in editing Tacitus, scholars ought to be aware of this new learning, and show a more conservative attitude in dealing with the manuscripts. This he finds in Lenchantin's recent text of Annals I-VI which he calls impeccable, and a model of scholarly conservatism. Fidelity to the Mledicelus (the codex utnicuts of I-VI) ' is now not only to be commended but firmly to be enjoined'. Hence ' loyalty to the codex, when duly and soberly corrected, emerges as the criterion of good editorship '.

L6fstedt's contributions to Latin textual criticism are perhaps too well known to call for a renewed mention, nor are they as new as would appear from these words. The attempt to rescue manuscript readings from the dark recesses of an apparatuts criticuls, and to explain them with a wide and thorough knowledge of Latin prose style of all periods, and not least of Late and Vulgar Latin-this, if it be a neNT method, goes after all back to the first two decenniums of our century.28 What is in question here is its more recent application to the criticismi of the text of Tacitus.29

The virtues and vices of this procedure have long since been noted. There was in it healthy reaction against hypercriticism and the gratuitous use of conjectural emendation, but there was also a danger of vulgarizing an unvulgar style, and of elevating scribes' whims to the lev7el of literature. A prejudice in favour of a manuscript is no better than a prejudice against it, and is at times worse since it may lead to a belief in the letter of the codex. The question is then whether the editing of Tacitus has profited by the Swedish doctrine. How do Lipsius's numerous conjectures fare if, with Professor Syme, fidelity to the codex is now not only to be commended but firmly to be enjoined ?

It is convenient to start with the passages where Lipsius divined correct readings of the manuscript as against the vulgate text of his time. There are five such cases which I list in a note, appending the faulty readings.30 In one of the passages (3I) a historical

27 7RS xxxviii G(948), I22-a review of H. Fuchs's edition of 1946 (Edit. Helvet., Ser. Lat. iv, I),

28 Witness Lofstedt's Spiitlateinische Stuidien I 908, Ter-tuillians Apologeticini texthritisch utntersutcht I9I5, Arnobiana 1917, and the nmagnunm opuls of the Swedish School, Philologischer, Komniientari, zuitr Peregrinatio Aetheriae, 9I Ii.

29 P. Persson, Krit.-exeg. Bemerkuingen Ziz, den Kleinen Schriften des Tacitius, Uppsala, i 927; N. Eriksson, Stutdien zu den Ann. des Tac., Lund I934; and G. S6rbom, Tariatio serm-i-onis Tacitei, Uppsala I935. A similarly conservative attitude to the manuscript was shown by Len chantin de Gubernatis in his edition of Annals i-vi (Rome I940). E. Koestermann's retractatio of Andresen's text (Teubner 1936) may also be compared.

30 26, 2, mnandata Clemitenti centutrioni qutae pemferret (praeferret) ; 3I, IO, imna et zicesimanis, nisspelt as

three rords by Lipsius (undevicesirnanis); 32, 5, prostratos verbeributs mu/-llcant (miiltant); 37, 10, legiones nihil culnctatas, misspelt contatas by Lipsius (contatuts); 49, 6, et quiidarn bonorurni caesi. postqiarn, intellecto in quios saezviretur, pessinaii quioqute arnia rapluerant (. . . caesi. postqiani intellection, etc.). Lipsius retained, however, the wrong punctuation after caesi; Ruysschaert's entry, p. I74, is incorrect. In addition, two cases may be mentioned when, after Pichena's publication, Lipsius accepted correct readings of the Alediceus. 39, i, legati ab senati r egressi (regressinn) . . . Germanicumn adeutnt; at 37, 3, largitlo ditferebatur in hiber7na cuiuzsqute. n0on abcessere qui7ntani, etc., the full stop after cuuilzsqute, and cuiuizsqute for cuiuhsqutam, were restored by MViercer, and accepted by Lipsius in his last edition without a mention of the fact that cuuilzsqute had been found in the manuscript, and published by Pichena.

38 C. 0. BRINK

point, the wrong number of a legion, is corrected, one other shows a Tacitean idiom restored in addition to the sense (49), in the rest the sense is restored with a minimum of change. In a sixth passage Lipsius though retaining the vulgate reading removed a historical discrepancy by altering the punctuation.3'

Next may be considered four passages in this book where Lipsius rightly defended the vulgate, and along with it, though unknown to him, the readings of the manuscript. There are, to begin with, three historical points in which he did not allow himself to be persuaded to correct Tacitus, instead of the scribe.32 One more passage merits con- sideration: (Tiberius) Rhodi specie secessus exulem egerit (chap. 4, I, I3). If the withdrawal was a pretence the exile cannot have been one ; hence, Muretus altered exulemn to exul. Lipsius, while politely mentioning Muretus's conjecture in the note, left the text unaltered. Ago, with a personal accusative, need, in fact, involve no suggestion of pretence but may merely mean ' to take on a part '. And this is the meaning demanded here-' Tiberius took on the part of an exile though he pretended to voluntary withdrawal '. He was, in fact, called 'the exile' (Suet. Tib. I3, I). Yet Muretus's conjecture found favour, though the genuine reading exulem has never lacked defenders.33 What seems to have escaped notice, however, is the fact that Tacitus himself appears to use ago in no other sense with personal nouns indicating the ' part taken ' by the agent, like amicum, filium principis, or exulem.34 Lipsius did not remember the Tacitean usage, but his sense of style nevertheless saved him from needless conjecture.

What follows is concerned with conjectures that depart from M and the vulgate alike, and first those which are now generally accepted. There are fourteen such cases in the first book.35 Two of the emendations concern the historical matter (see chapters iO and 58 in note 35). In the other passages the sense is restored with remarkable ease, and by the slightest of alterations. The exchange in chap. 5 of the adjective gnarum for a non- existent proper name G. Navumn is especially impressive-though this may be due to Muretus. Tacitean idiom is noticed in several places, particularly at chap. 57 where recollection of mnotis rebus (at I4, 6i) enabled Lipsius to restore that expression here, and

31 49, i6, ' tramittit duodecimn milia e legionibus, sex et viginti socios cohortis (e legionibus sex, et).'

32 At I, 3, ' neque decenviralis potestas ultra biennium ,' Lipsius eschewed Vertranius's trienniu7n,m at 8, 8, l\Muretus's insertion of the antiquarian's account of Augustus's legacy (Suet., Aiug. IOI, 2) into the more general statement of the historian, and at 14, 7, Vertranius's ' aeraque adoptionis ' for the correct text ' aramque adoptionis '.

33 l\Muretus's conjecture became respectable in the nineteenth century. It was accepted by most editors, and is still found in Andresen, Furneaux, Fisher, and Goelzer. Exudlem was kept in most of the earlier editions, and is back in the texts of Koestermann, Lenchantin, and Fuchs. The accusative was defended by P. Thomas, Mnemos. 49 (I92I), 43, who in support quoted Suet., Tib. I2, 2, ' tunc non privatum modo, sed obnoxiumn et trepidum egit' (Tiberius), Pliny, Ep. i, I7, i, ' qui defunctorum quoque amnicos agant,' and a passage from Sidonius Apollinaris. See also N. Eriksson's wordv defence, Stu:d. zut deni Ann. 1934, 109 ff.

34 Ago, with the accusative of a personal noun indicating the part taken by the agent, according to Gerber and Greef, Lexicon Taciteum p. 6o, B, is found five times in Tacitus: Hist. 1, 30, 4; ii, 83, 2; IV, 2, 3; Ann. 1, 4, 15, and XvI, 28, I I. I cannot find the idea of pretence in any of these passages-for instance, what sense would there be in Domitian pretending to be the son of the Emperor (Hist. iv, 2, 3) when he was precisely that, but ' nondum ad curas intentus' ' fulfilled his part' only ' stupris et adulteriis' ? The Thes. L.L. offers interesting

material s.r. ago, col. I399. Compare also Vell. Pat. II, I24, 2, ' Ut potius aequalem civem quam eminentem liceret agere principem.'

35 Chap. 3, 24, ' sed quo pluribus munimentis (monumnentis) insisteret' sc. Tiberi domus: the emendation is also claimed by l\Muretus, Var. Lec. XI, I; 5, 8, gnarutm (C. Naitaum, corr. G. nauni?n M) id Caesari: also claimed by Muretus, see below, p. 5I; 10, 20, IulIos (IJlios) * misspelt Ilulos by Lipsius, cf. Mommsen's article Hermnes 24 (i889), I55, as cited in the notes on the passage; 13, 26, ' donec Haterius Augustam oraret eiusque (et uisqute vulgo etutsqu:e M) . . precibus protegeretur 22, I3, hi (ii); 25, i, postquam vallum introiit (introit),' despite Draeger, Pfitzner, and Gerber and Greef's Lexicon p. 1149, B; on the present after postquaam restricted to certain verba sentiendi, see Nipperdev and Andresen ad 1., Hofmann Sy'vntax 734; 26, Io, C numquanmne ad se nisi (nisi ad se) filios familiarum venturos 31, 4, ' daretque se legionibus vi sua cuncta tracturis (tractu:ru:s) ; thus Lipsius, I 585 (Ruysschaert p. 173), before Freinsheim; 57, 5, Cquanto quis audacia promptus, tanto magis fidus rebusque motis (reblus contmotis) potior habetur; 58, 22, ' sedem vetere (utetera) in provincia pollicetur' vetere M2 and Lipsius; 76, Io ' in vulgus formido- losum' in added by N12 and Lipsius; 76, i6,

quamquam id quoque (qu:od) dictum est' 77, 2, occisis non modo e plebe sed (et) militibus et

centurione': sed M2 and Lipsius. Here I also mention 28, 14, hi where Lipsius indicated at least the right way by suggesting ii for in.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 39

at the same time to introduce the necessary connecting particle by altering ' rebus commotis ' to ' rebusque motis '.36

The following section concerns Lipsius's erroneous conjectures. A perusal of Ruysschaert's list suggests some observations. The list is a long one, but numbers may be deceptive. Let it be noted first that out of thirty-three such alterations in the first book only sixteen can be held against the editor of the text, since the rest were either withdrawn by him 37 or else put forward for the sake of discussion only. There is apparent in all of these conjectures a neglect of Tacitean idiom in vocabulary or style and Lipsius showed much good sense in withdrawing them, often as early as the second issue of his edition. It is due to these judicious changes of mind that the number of his agreed failures is so small-only sixteen or so in the first book, of which thirteen are his own conjectures. These remaining thirteen alterations though probably justly rejected 38 are almost always deliberately slight, concerned with the elucidation of the sense or of a historical fact tinkering with Silver idiom or Tacitean epigram occurs very rarely.

The rest of this chapter contains passages that still evoke disagreement either because a solution that is acceptable to all judges has not been found, or because Lipsius's text has to be defended against recent doubt. The cruces, or apparent cruces, are presented first.

There are, in the first book, two conundrums in proper names: the first t que tedii et t (IO, 22) because the nature of the corrupt text allows of no convincing solution, and the second, M. or M'. Lepidus (13, 7) because the case for Marcus or Manius needs still to be made.39

There are, next, two passages where Lipsius's text is probably wrong. At 20, II one of Lipsius's most admired emendations vetus (for intus) operis ac laboris has recently been impugned by Eriksson.40 I would agree with his doubts though not with his arguments. Tacitus describes the camp-prefect Rufus who had risen from the ranks: antiquarn duramque mnilitiarn revocabat-that is, he was a disciplinarian in the old style- intus operis ac laboris et eo inmitior quia toleraverat. Intus has to be emended. The turn of speech in eo inmitior, etc., seems to imply that an idea which had been expressed earlier in the sentence is elaborated here. Something like either inmitior or toleraverat was expressed earlier in the sentence-either ' a stickler for ' hard work or ' himself inured to ' hard work.41 There seem to be two arguments in favour of the former solution. Aldus Manutius appears to have seen that eo inmitior is thrown into relief if Rufus's rigid discipline is mentioned immediately before, along with operis ac laboris. Since, moreover, this point is already expressed in ' antiquam duramque militiam revocabat ' the same idea was probably applied to labor ac opUs, to be expressed the more strongly by et eo inmitior. The word itself remains uncertain. Manutius's inmnitis convinced Muretus but no one since. Rhenanus's attentus, though easy paleographically after the ending of revocabat, lacks the notion of enforcing (discipline). Vertranius's intuis (' strict') is perhaps the best choice. It is an easy alteration 42 and is good Tacitean speech: the word is used by him several times for strictness in enforcing military discipline,43 though

36 Lindsay, Conttrac. in early Lat. Minuisclde 48, and Notae Lat. ? 412, mentions three usual symbols for con, namely c, a, or 7, all of them well known to the reader of manuscripts. Any one of these, especially the third, would easily be mistaken for q, the symbol for qlue.

37 Ruysschaert conxreniently lists the changes found in the vrarious editions: he also shows at p. 86 that ' sa connaissance de style a donc progresse d'une r6edition I l'autre '.

38 Wblfflin's argument in faxrour of inotut, for imietli, 40, i, has carried no conxriction; 54, 6, ' ludos Augustalis tunc primum coepta (for coeptos) turbavit discordia ' perhaps still deserxres some attention in vriew of 77, I, theatri licentia, proximo priore anno coepta ' : see below, p. 4I.

31 See Walther's note on the passage, and R. Syme, Romzan Rezol. 433, n. 4, JRS xxxviii (1948), I29, XXXIX (I949), 7. Syme (3RS XXXvIII, 130) also doujbts the relevrance of Dio 55, 33, 2, to Tac., Ann. I,

38, 4, 11.E'Eniuits (Nipperdey) for me?iennis (M), i.e. M. Enniius; and (JRS xxxix, I2 and 14) considers the evridence for the names Hispo I, 74, and Falanilus I, 73.

40 N. Eriksson I.c. II5, following in the main Walther's note in his edition of I83I, which was also approxred by Ruperti (I834), Pfitzner (I869), and recently by Syme, JRS XXxvIII, I29.

41 Since both traits-Rufus the hard worker and Rufus the disciplinarian-are anyhow expressed in the sentence I can make but little of Walther's contention that the latter alteration is an inepta talutologia.

42 For the skipping of letters and syllables in the AlIedicelis, see Rostagno's preface to the Leyden Facsimile p. XIII, also Ruperti's edition I, 227.

43 Lex. Tat. 663, B. There are sevren passages all told, and they all are about military matters. In Gerber and Greef's first quotation attentlis is a misprint for intentlis.

40 C. 0. BRINK

there is no example of the genitive going with it 44 Lipsius changed his mind three tinmes (Ruysschaert p. I73). In his first edition (I574) he took inztu1s from the ediitio prfinceps, in I58I he proposed niiniuzts, and in I588 vetuts. Tacitus elsewhere uses vetuts with the genitive ; vetuts laboris would mean ' inured to hard work '. This is the alternative, above denoted as inferior, which, despite Walther's and his followers' opposition, has become the vulgate reading, and is retained in all recent editions.

At 7, 4 Tacitus describes the change of regime, and the bearing of the upper classes- ' ne laeti excessu principis neu tristiores primordio ' Hence, according to the codex, ' lacrimas gaudium questus adulatione miscebant.' Variation 45 and antithesis are aimed at, but what is set over against what ? The notion of gazudiuzrin appearing between lacrimias and qzuestuts suggests a continued antithesis of laeti and tristes, that is, this punctuation ' lacrimas gaudium, questus adulatione miscebant.' No one, to my knowledge, has defended this reading and punctuation-not even Sorbom, Variatio sermoni,s Tacitei, chap. v. If a third plural noun is inserted, namely adzl1atione, the singular gauldiulm is isolated this was suggested by Divaeus,46 and adopted in Lipsius's first edition. If an ablative is introduced into the first clause, that is gazudio for gazudiuzmin, an unnecessary alteration is made this was done by Muretus, and adopted by Lipsius in all editions from the second onwardst In fact, agreement had been reached by all recent editors that it is possible to preserve the scathing antithesis along with the stylistic change of singular and plural by introducing the easiest alteration, namely Heinsius's text ' lacrimas gaudium, questus adulatione miscebant.' Lenchantin, however, defended the 11 reading adllationle, printing ' lacrimas gaudium questus adulatione miscebant ' The tricolon ' tears, joy, plaints ' seems clumsy, and the Tacitean antithesis is sacrificed to the text of the codex.

The following group of six passages contains difficulties not easily solved, though I am going to argue that Lipsius's text throughout has the greatest probability. There are, in the first place, four passages in which Lipsius had a good case for retaining readings of his vulgate-at I3, I4; I5, I2; 65, 27, and 28, 4. In two further passages his emendations have to be considered-at 70, I4 and 28, 2.

At I3, I4, Q. Haterius asks Tiberius the awkward direct question ' quo usque patieris, Caesar, non adesse caput rei publicae ? ' Thus Rhenanus's and Ferretti's convincing conjecture. Ferretti was mistaken, however, when he asserted that this was the codex reading. The Mediceuts has aputt te, which appeared in the earlier vulgate reading as aputt te. Lipsius printed in the text of his first edition Rlienanus's reading capult rei p. In the note he considered the conjecture capita which he replaced in the commentary of the second edition by the tentative proposal caputt te-both conjectures of course to take account of aputt te, the incorrectly reported reading of the manuscript. Both proposals are obviously wrong, and worth a mention only in that they show that te can hardly be understood as a personal pronoun. Subsequent editors have rested content with Rhenanus's emendation. Recently, however, Lenchantin has tried to explain te as teni which he modestly, and I believe wisely, confined to his apparatuts criticuts. Professor Syme explains ' quo usque patieris, Caesar, non adesse caput tem rei publicae ? ' as a burlesque reference to the beginning of the First Catilinarian ' quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra ? ' ' by throwing tanzdein into an unusual collocation he echoes but modifies a Ciceronian phrase.' 47 If this collocation should appear too unusual to constitute even a parody-and the present writer would be of that opinion-the syllable te may perhaps be explained as a dittography before the following rei, but the suprascript stroke remains unexplained. Nor is this the only case of the kind.

A suprascript stroke indicating -in also defies explanation in our second passage. The 44 Eriksson I.c. II6 cites Sen., De Clemii. II, 5, 3

(and Ausonius), for the genitivre with attentius, and rightly says that words like ferox provide parallels in Tacitus. Cf. Draeger, Synt. d. Tac., 3rd ed., ?71, Furneaux Tac., Anin., Introcl. chap. v, ? 33.

45 According to the Lexic-otn Tacbiteumi, ndisceo is used by Tacitus with the accusative (one or sevreral), or accusativre and ablativre. Also, adiliatio is used in singular or plural.

4G The conjecture has been discussed here because it goes under Lipsius's name, but Ruysschaert (p. 172) has pointed out that Lipsius himself attributes it to Divaeus: ' sans doute une allusion a une convrersation de l'auteur avrec Pierre vran Dievre (1535-1585), l'historien louvraniste. Cf. Biogr. Alat. BeIg.'

47 JRS xxxviii (1948), I28.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 4I

two cases may perhaps be used for mutual support. At I5, IX the Mediceuls has this remark about the Ludi Augustales ' mox celebratio annfu ad praetorem translata.' Beroaldus scribbled two obvious emendations in the margin of the manuscript, namely annuiiia and annuuiiiint, the former of which was adopted by Lipsius. This solution has a great deal to commend it. The endings of first and second declension nouns are liable to corruption because of the similarity of it and a in early minuscule, and particularly in early Caroline, script. Several times the Medicean scribe had thus to grapple with difficulties that he could not solve, and several times he blundered doubly by putting a wrong suprascript stroke as well. 48 Two it's, or i followed by a, were felt to be awkward at iII, 62, I4 passuzim has become passz7, and at I, 25, 9 we find praecipznm for praecz~luam. In the present passage annuta probably lost its final a before ad, and the remaining annlit was made into a Latin word by a suprascript stroke, anni?i. The reading thus obtained seems to me more satisfactory than any of the other conjectures, including Lenchantin's.

Since reference to the ' annual ' character of annual games has sometimes been felt to be redundant it may be well to remember that Tacitus is here reporting at least two decrees, and completely ignores the earlier history of the Augustalia.49 Of the earlier events we get some glimpses in Dio-the festival decreed when Augustus returned from the East in I9 B.C. (Dio 54, IO) ; the Games held before, but in II B.C. for the first time held by decree, ?K 86y aTo; (whatever that mav mean ; Dio 54, 34).50 In A.D. 14 the tribunes asked to be given financial and administrative responsibility as well as certain privileges at the Games (Dio 56, 46, and Tac. l.c.). The Games were then officially put in the calendar as hidci Azugutstales, the costs not, however, to be defrayed by the tribunes but by the exchequer (Tac.). The next stage is known from Tacitus only it is covered by the sentence which contains the word annuiiia; the date referred to by niox (1. I I) is unknown. I suggest that Tacitus is referring to a new decree by which the annual and perpetual character of the Games was again stated (hence celebratio annuiiia), but responsibility was transferred to the praetor peregrinus. It may be asked whether the new dispensation was enough to enable Tacitus to sav (54, 5) that the Games 'had only just been started', tzunzc primuzm coeptos. If it is, one may dispense with Lipsius's conjecture in that passage 51 Nvhich otherwise has much to commend it. It is perhaps not always advisable to press prhimus and like wrords in a writer who had to deal with an excess of material, and yet wished to be brief and incisive. Historians have still to explain how Tacitus (I5, I) could use turm primutm in the matter of the transference to the senate of the praetorian elections and yet take notice of the law of Messalla and Cinna of A.D. 5 which recently has become known through the equally puzzling rogation of A.D. I9-20, in the 1Mlagliano Inscription, reprinted by Ehrenberg and Jones in the Docutments illutstrating the reigns of Azugutstuts anzd Tiberizus (1949) I54-a half-way house between senatorial and popular voting. But whatever the explanation, it is historical comment not textual emendation that is needed in this matter. Some readers may have been misled by Gruter's starting chap. I5 at turm printuni, instead of at I4, I2 canzdidatos praetutrae. There (I4, I2) Tacitus says that he is going to talk about praetorian elections-and about praetors he talks, down to I 5, 7. Nipperdey's insertion of praetutrae (Pture) before plures I5, 6 is clever if unconvincing, and should not have been revived by Eriksson l.c. II4.

48 Omitting the common instances for the supra- script stroke wrongly put or missed, I mention i, 8, 4, aluglustli or aliglista instead of Auglistum, wrongly altered to aligliste (= Aluglustae) by the first hand of AiV: see Rostagno, in the preface to the Leiden Facsimile, p. xv ; Fisher, however, ascribes the alteration to 1\/I12. Equallv, exacta is put for exactliunt at ii, 85, 7. At ii, I5, 5, pars onlista vidneriblus tergii the opposite mistake is found; the stroke is wrongly put on what ought to be the letter a, but was taken to be iu. Because of the structure of the following clause, I still believe l\1uretus's conjecture terga to be right, and deplore Lenchantin's printing of the manuscript's reading. At v'i, I6, i, redactii may be either redactium or redac ta, probably the former.

49 For the Augustalia, see Wissowa, Religion (2nd ed.) 453, 457, and the other works cited there, and P-W II, 236i. Wissowa refers to the very instructive parallel of the Ludi Apollinares, as reported by Livy 25, 12, 9-12; 26, 23, 3; 27, I I, 6; 27, 23, 5-7.

50 I skip Dio 56, 29, I (A.D. 13, the year before Augustus's death): the incident reported there happened either at the Augustalia in October or at the Games in honour of his birthday in September.

51 See above, p. 39, n. 38. The conjecture is based on the parallel between 54, 6, ' ludos Augustalis tunc primum coeptos turbavit discordia ex certamine histrionum,' and 77, i, ' theatri licentia, proximo priore anno coepta.'

42 C. 0. BRINK

At 65, 27, as is well known, Tacitus calls a spade not a spade but ' per quae exciditur caespes ', ' things wherewith turf is cut '. After per qzuae there follows egeritzur huminuts, or at least that is what Rhenanus, followed by Lipsius and most editors, made of perq; gerittur htumuts, as found in M. Lenchantin, however, has adopted Beroaldus's reading per qutae gerittur hutmuts, and the following explanation ' non est, ut Walther docuit, sermo de aggere e fossa egerendo, verum de aggere ad vallum extruendum longius petito quem milites sportis et corbulis humeris gestabant '. It is true Tacitus did once or twice use the rare meaning of gero ' to carry ' and who will gainsay the possibility of this reading ? But is it at all likely ? As so often, Tacitus with slight variations states a situation recurring in Roman warfare. The historians describe the plight of soldiers who have to build a rampart without the tools needed for the job. The difficulty lies in digging without pickaxes for breaking, shovels and baskets for scooping and lifting, the soil, and in cutting the turf without using spades or special turf-cutters. Compare, for instance, Caesar describing the attempt of the Nervii to build a rampart without tools, BG v, 42, 3: ' sed nulla ferramentorum copia quae esset ad hunc usum idonea, gladiis caespites circumcidere, manibus sagulisque terram exhaurire cogebantur.' So in Tacitus, ' struendum vallumn, petendus agger, amissa magna ex parte per quae geritur humus aut exciditur caespes.' Caesar and Tacitus comment on the same operation, the circutmcidere of the turf -excidere in Tacitus-and the exhautrire 52 of the earth-gerere in Tacitus, as I believe.53 Similar work is represented on the monuments and, in a paper upon the army on Trajan's Column, Professor I. A. Richmond has put our passage alongside the parallels from Caesar and Vegetius (BSR Papers XIII, I935, i8 ff.). He makes no reference to the textual difficulty. But this fact renders the parallels no less valuable. Rather does it serve to show the true context of our passage, which had been obscured by the codex reading. A stylistic parallel may be added. The word egero is applied by other writers to the scooping of soil 54 and Tacitus himself says in the Histories (v 7, I2) ' modicum id litus et egerentibus (harenas) inexhaustum '.

At the beginning of chap. 28 three or four blemishes occur in a small compass and at an almost regular distance from each other so as to render uncertain the wording of the sentence though the sense is tolerably clear. Conjectures, of which there is no dearth, certainly avail little at line 4 ' prospereque cessura quae pergerent ', whether they concern cessura, quae, or pergerent. Hence, the possibilities of justifying the manuscript's reading ought to be reconsidered. Lipsius's own tentamnina moved from emendation to acceptance of the codex reading-from peragerent to urgerent (for pergerent in the first edition) to Rhenanus's gererent (in the second edition), back to pergerent later on. Two arguments are known by which quae pergerent may be justified. Lenchantin, impressed by lexico- graphical lore,55 takes it to mean quae aggrederentur, with an infinitive understood. Such ellipses occur in the colloquial language of Cicero's letters and dialogues,56 but seem out of place here. Also it is verbs like dicere, explicare, or narrare which are supplied in the alleged parallels, but are not here applicable. The other possibility lies in the extension of transitive usage to verbs mainly or wholly intransitive.57 The use of pergo is mainly

52 Compare Orosius's paraphrase vi, 10, 3, ' cum . . .instrumenta ruralia non haberent, gladiis con- cidendo terram et sagulis exportando . . . vallum ... et fossam . . . perfecerunt.' Horace (Epode V, 31) describes a similar action for a different purpose, 'ligonibus duris humum exhauriebat'.

5 Both Caesar's and Tacitus's descriptions are graphic enough to enable a reader to recognize the same operation when it is described in Vegetius's Epitonia rei militaris iii, 8, ' primum in unius noctis transitum et itineris occupationem leniorem (castra muniuntur) cum sublati caespites ordinantur et aggerem faciunt, supra quem valli, hoc est sudes vel tribuli lignei, per ordinem digeruntur. Caespes autem circumciditur ferramentis qui herbarum radicibus continet terram,' etc.

5' Examples for egero in this sense are cited in the Thesaurius p. 242, COI. 2, 41 if.

55 See Forcellini and De Vit; also Georges, Lexicon (8th ed.), s.v.

56 Cic., Ad Att. III, 15, 5, pergo praeterita IV, II, I, perge reliqua, and (probably) De Leg. ii, 69, perge cetera, are cited in corroboration. The ellipse of a verb like dico is, of course, very frequent in Cicero.

5 7E. Lofstedt has discussed many cases of this kind, mainly, but not exclusively, found in later Latin: Svntactica I (2nd ed. 1942), chaps. XIV and xv. Students of grammar differ as regards the early history of transitive and intransitive verbs. Rego and its compounds (pergo among them) happen to figure in this controversy in which the present writer has felt more convinced by the arguments set out by J. Wackernagel, Vorles. iiber Synizt. II (2nd ed.), 179, than by J. B. Hofmann's discussion of the same problems, Sy,ntax, 27 and 378.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 43

intransitive, but iter pergo exists, and was used by Tacitus himself. This may have facilitated the use of quae pergerent which contains a neuter pronoun and may therefore be compared with simple cognate accusatives of the type id laetor.58 Id persevero would be a tolerably close parallel to id per o.59 The neuter plural is, however, an extension of this usage for which no convincing parallels have as yet been adduced.

At 70, I4 Lipsius thus emended the Mledicean text: ' nihil strenuus ab ignavo, sapiens aprudenti, consilia casu differe.' Though other proposals have been made this remains the most satisfactory. In support may be cited IV, 70, 12, where non przudentein is found for non imprudentem.60 Here the alteration is an easy one. In the following passage a more determined effort is needed.

At 28, 2 the eclipse of the moon is described as follows ' nam luna claro repente caelo visa languescere.' Here the alteration seems considerable since claro repente is Lipsius's conjecture for clamnore pena of the manuscript. The vulgate of Lipsius's time, due to Beroaldus, was clarior paene, which sticks to the letters of the manuscript but signifies nothing. It is interesting to gather from Lenchantin's full note that the only student of Tacitus's text who has been able to make do with clamesore (M) is N. Eriksson. He writes clamnore (sc. mnilituni) plena. Clamnore is irrelevant, to say nothing of the grammar, and leaves caelo without its badly needed attribute. All the other editors rightly find in clanmore some form of clarus. There remains the question of pena. A general rush for plena (the full moon, and the easy conjecture) was indicated, and clariore plena, clarore plena, claro plena duly appeared. But Lipsius's conjecture is better because it accounts at once for the syllable -re at the end of clamore, and introduces an adverb describing the eclipse, to wit repente.61 The adverb goes with visa in our passage as does the ablative sinu with gerens at 40, iI ' parvulum sinu filium gerens '.62 Lipsius's note is still worth reading.63 His reference to prisca scriptura also is worth pondering over because it must apply not only to the wrong separation of words but also to the end of repente where the -a in pena must be supposed to replace the t or -te of repente. In any case, repente makes for clearer sense and better palaeography than Lenchantin's repens.

Our last group contains some passages in which, by slight alterations, Lipsius restored what the present writer considers both grammar and Tacitean style, while the Tacitean character of the M\4edicean readings was maintained a century ago by G. H. Walther, more recently by Eriksson or Lenchantin, and now by Professor Syme.64

There are five cases which I suggest belong to this category-not counting IO, z4 where Lipsius was content to repeat first Beroaldus's, later Pichena's, conjectures. It is, however, convenient to give some consideration to this passage also since here as in some other cases Lipsius's first thoughts have to be defended against his second thoughts. ' Livia grauis in rem publicam mater, grauis domui Caesarum noverca.' ill has grauliius, Beroaldus, followed by Lipsius (in all editions but the last), wrote grautis. There is an anaphora in either case and the question is whether it is of the type grave conscientiae, grave famnae sucae 65 or of the type paucis centutrionibuts, paucioributs tribiinis.66 No gradation is indicated in the rest of the sentence which can be explained with, as well as wvithout, the comparative. The problem turns therefore on the use of the adverb graviuts which,

58 This idea was applied to the present passage by Boetticher, Lex. Tac. (1830) I9. Compare also Ruperti and Furneaux ad 1.

59 So Cic., Pr-o Quin2ct. 76 and Livy XXII, 38, I3. The parallels are adduced in Draeger and Heraeus's note on the passage.

60 There, however, the end of a line intervenes between nzonz and pruden2tenm, and the reason for the mistake may be different from that in the first book.

61 Jean Chifflet's objection ' defectus enim non fit repente sed paulatim ' (Lips., Epist. ed. Burmann i, 727) is refuted by such passages as Cic., Rep. i, 23, 'quod serena nocte subito candens et plena luna defecisset' (cited by Furneaux), and ib. 25, ' cum obscurato sole tenebrae factae essent repente.'

62 The alternating order of words, thus brought about, resembles the arrangement of adjectives and

nouns at IO, 5, ' simulatam Pompeianarum gratiam partium,' which is not quite so praeposterus as H. Fuchs maintains in his note on the passage; cf. G. B. A. Fletcher, CR LIX (I945), 67.

63 Lipsius on the vulgate at I, 28, 2: luna clariore paene coelo uisa." Quid hoc clariore paene caelo ? Cassa palearum, si examinas. A Beroaldo ea lectio est, quam sperne: et substitue " luna claro repente caelo ". Facit sententia, et prisca scriptura " clamore pena caelo ". Claro autem caelo is Lunae languLor: et ideo sequitur, " postquam ortae nubes offecere visui.

64 See above, p. 37. 65 VI, 26, 5, cited by Gronovius. 66 r, 17, 2, cited by Andresen, who also compared

Agr. 25, ? 3, magnzo paratui, maiore fama.

44 C. 0. BRINK

in addition to the anaphora, would introduce into the sentence a ' Tacitean variation' of adjective and adverb. Despite much two-way traffic between adjective and adverb the various classical usages are tolerably distinct. On the one hand, a predicative adjective can replace an adverb or, conversely, an adverb can replace a predicative adjective, so long as there is a verb or participle to which, however indirectly, adverb or adjective are referred. Thus compare Ann. iv, I2, 4, occulti laetabantuir, with I, 48, 7, occitlte recitat.i7 On the other hand, some adverbs can be used as attributes as in nunc hominum mores (Plaut. Persa 385) TCov vEJv aOvepcbrcov. The adverbs occurring in this group appear to be restricted to a few usages which have been stated and classified by Kuihner and Stegmann (Lat. Gram. ii, vol. I, ? 59). The two classes comprise adverbs of time and place with which coram and palam, comminuis and eminuis, may be included, or else adverbs denoting degree like admoduim, with which qutasi and velht may be included. Virgil makes greater use of these possibilities than are found in earlier Latin, and Livy and Tacitus follow suit, without apparently extending the range of the adverbs.68 Since gravius in our passage of the Annals is outside the ambit of any of these usages it may be advisable to consider it a copyist's error. Some support for this view can be obtained from a passage which has not yet been claimed as an example of Tacitean harshness. It occurs at Ann. xiii, I3, i8, C mulieris semper atrocis (atrocius Ml), tum et falsae.' Here the comparative precedes the positive and gradation cannot therefore be assumed. I suggest that the same error is found in both places, due to the similarity, in minuscule script,69 of the strokes in -uis and -uius, for gravi(u)s, or in -cis and -cius, for atroci(u)s.

Now for the five isolated usages removed by Lipsius, and recently reclaimed for Tacitus. I, Iz, IO, ' non idcirco interrogatum ait ut divideret quae separari nequirent, sed ut (Lipsius, et M\) sua confessione argueretur unum esse rei publicae corpus,' etc. The speaker is Asinius Gallus who shortly before had asked Tiberius the disconcerting direct question ' interrogo, Caesar, quam partem rei publicae mandari tibi velis '. Tiberius is taken aback by the unexpected direct address, and Asinius hastens to create a better impression with the remark cited above. The reading et was accepted by editors up to, and occasionally after, Lipsius. Rhenanus thought it meant ' even ' (- etiam)-the implication being that the senate had already shown by its behaviour that the body politic was indivisible so that it was now for Tiberius himself to make the same admission. I cannot, however, find this idea expressed anywhere in the chapter, and suggest that it rests on the et of the manuscript. If this be so, two manipulations appear equally possible, namely, either to remove et as a dittography of set, or (with Lipsius) to replace et by lit. Since, perhaps not without reference to our passage, the same construction with a double ut (this time, consecutive tit) appears on the next page,70 Lipsius's emendation seems

67 The adverb qualifies the vrerb only indirectly, like a predicativre adjectivre, at Annl. IV, 47, 6, quiidamii autdentius . . .7visebantmr which means ' they were seen to be daring '. So also xv, 45, 5, prospere aiit inl mtietul sacraverat. These are two out of three parallels cited by Walther in support of the MS. reading grazvius, in our passage of the Annlals. But graviius, if it were correct, would here be an attribute, not a predi- cative. In Walther's third passage, Germii. 5, ? 4, 'simplicius et antiquius . .. utuntur,' I can find nothing but the usual employment of the adverb. This use of the adverb has proved a trap for eminent textual critics; cf. Madvrig on Cic., De Fini. iv, 63, and Kuhner and Gerth on the corresponding Greek idiom, Griech. Gramii. ? 497, 4.

68 Tacitus sometimes combines advrerbial expres- sions of the predicativre and attributivre classes, as at Hist. II, 98, 2, ' palam epistulis ... Vitellium, occultis nuntiis Vespasianum fovens'-where palamii can go with epistiilis as much as with fozems. Despite such passages it is expedient to distinguish the two usages. For unless this is observed the restricted character of the attributivre group is easily forgotten. This Lenchantin perhaps failed to remember when he

sought to justify the reading graviuis in our passage of the Ainnals by referring to S6rbom, Variatio serin. Tac. 96 f. S6rbom indeed gives many examples of the zvariatio of adjectivre and advrerb, but more than that is needed to justify the manuscript's reading. Cf. Hoftnann, Syntax 46I and 467, with biblio- graphy.

69 This point is made pace Dr. E. A. Lowe who has advanced the vriew that the Mediceius no. ii was directly copied from a codex in capital writing; see The nziqute M'Ianiscript of Tac. Hist. 27I (Monte- cassino i929). It is hard on this hypothesis to account for the mistakes in that codex, due to the mis- reading of minuscule lettering, such as s,'f.

70 Chap. I3, 20, ' flexit paulatim, non ut fateretur suscipi a se imperium, sed ut negare et rogari desineret.' Gerber and Greef's references, Lex. Tac. 96i, B, 4, and 962, A, 8, suggest that the two passages from the Annals, and Dial. 3I, ? i, non iUt . .. nec it . . . sed itt, are the only examples with iut of this kind in Tacitus. There would havre been nothing inherently unlikely in the construction non itt, sed + subjunctivre, but Tacitus seems not to havre employed it.

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 45

preferable.71 It may also be mentioned, for what it is worth, that in the Greek version of the story ' non idcirco ut . . . sed ut ' is echoed by o'X 'Ws . .. a cs.72

Editors differ as regards 28, I3, ' accitur centurio Clemens et si alii bonis artibus grati in vulgus'. Some admit et si alii as offered by the Mllediceus, others adopt Lipsius's conjecture et si alii (for the vulgate et sic alii). The problem is easily stated. It appears from the evidence offered in the Lexicon Taciteum (67, A) that, apart from our passage, no example of et si alius is found in Tacitus, but that si quis alius is established as the correct usage by eleven examples from Tacitus,73 and numerous others, from all ranges of Latin style. Tacitus also uses et quis alius 74 which if not impossible is less likely palaeographically. On the other hand, examples of et si aliuis seem to be wanting: if they are brought forward their relevance will have to be considered. Mluch has been made of isolated features of syntax by some adherents of the Swedish school, and it will easily be understood that Tacitean style invites such treatment. But Tacitus, for all his freedom, or artificiality, is a more traditional writer than is often recognized, and uses established turns of language. Such an established usage is seen in et si qui alii which I suggest should, with Lipsius, be introduced here in correction of a scribe's solecism.

The ungrammatical reading of M/I at 32, I7, may be mentioned in passing, since it has recently been brought back into the text by Lenchantin: ' indicium magni . . . motus, quod neque disiecti, nil paucorum instinctu, sed pariter silerent.' Lenchantin remarks: ' nil paucorum instinctu (scl. acti), verbo ex consuetudine tacitea omisso intellegit Lenchantin.' Even if, which I doubt, the meaning of nil were explained by the participle (acti) understood, a weightier objection surely remains, namely the ungrammatical character of the sequence qutod neque-nil, the firsL part of which, meaning ' because neither ', can hardly be followed by a word like nil-instead of the connective particle ' nor '. The converse order zil-ne que would, of course, be unexceptionable. Apart from its normal connective and correlative uses, and from expressions like neque eniin and neque quisquarn (ullus), Tacitus employs neque or nec in the sense of ne-quidern (Lex. Tac. 92I, A and 933, A). For this usage, see L6fstedt Pereg. Aeth. 88 and Hofmann, Syntax 64I : it has been convincingly derived from the original meaning of nec ' not ' on which Lofstedt has recently published a learned disquisition, Syntactica I (2nd ed.) 338 if. Since neque - ne quidem is a simple negative without connective or correlative notions, it is easily understood that, in Tacitus, only in this use a single neque follows sed, a relative pronoun, or conjunctions like quod or quamquain. This sense cannot be found in our passage; hence, a correlative word is needed. Beroaldus, in a note in the margin of the Mllediceus, suggested vel or neque, and vel and nec (not neque) are equally apt palaeographically to replace nil; Rhenanus, and Lipsius, adopted vel, but nec is better stylistically since the passages with neque-vel or neque-aut are different in character: see Lex. Tac. 93S, B.

Similar problems are raised by isolated instances of unusual accidence, such as the reading (30, I5) 'quia praesentia satis considerant ', for the normal consederant.75

71 Tacitus's own practice is stated in note no. 70. Another case of what is usually, and I believe rightly, regarded as an it missed out in the Mlediceius is declared by Syme to be due to Tacitus's pen-an act of vriolence which, he says, now finds approvral: I.c. 123. The passage is I, 9, I6, ' non aliud dis- cordantis patriae remedium fuisse quam (ut> ab uno regeretur '-the ilt added by Ferrettus, and approved by Lipsius. Eriksson I.c. 92 defended the manuscript's reading; so did, unnoticed by him, W. A. Baehrens, Beitrage zur lat. Syntax 375 (Philol., Supp. XII, i9i2). Both authorities seem to overlook that non alijus qiiaiii Zlt is not identical with non potiis (or similar comparativres) qiiaiii Zlt -1 subjunctivre. In the latter expression zut was nevrer more than gratuitous, evren in indirect statements, and more often than not spurned. This has been well brought out by Stegmann in Kiihner's Lat. Gram. vrol. ii (2nd ed.), 300-2, and by Hofmann, Syntax 73I f. After comparativres colloquial, or late Latin, usage sometimes has qiiaiii to mean qutaiii culmi, qiiaiii si, or

the like. On the other hand, nionz aliis quiaiii followed by a subjunctivre without itt has not been noticed anywhere before Florus (i, 13, io)-a passage which itself may or may not be sound; cf. Thes. L.L. i, I634, 2 ff. The negative point is borne out by Tacitus's own usage. Ut is freely omitted after potiius quianti (Lex. Tac. I 155, A) though not after other comparativres (l.c. I247, A). After n7onz alijus quiaiii or the like no case of a missing itt is recorded apart from our passage, but there are eight instances of it (66, B and 1246, B) and some others of quianti nze, quianii si, qutanii quia, and quianii quiod.

72 Dio 57, 2, 6, oCX COS Kai TO TpiTov pi OVTOvS roU, aAA' CbS &50VaTOV OV TfV p#Xv 5lilpEOflva, TOUTO cOt TrpOETEtVa.

7 This number comprises both et si quiis aliius and size (seit) qulis alijus.

7 4 For et quiis alilus and the like, see Lex. Tac. 67, A. 75 A similar problem is found also in the isolated

ablati-ve veteri (for zetere) at 60, 3; cf. Sbrbom, Vari-atio seriii. Tac. 27, note.

46 C. 0. BRINK

Consederant, after much doubting, was Lipsius's final decision. He started from considerat, the reading of the Gryphiana, which in his first edition he emended to constiterat, at that time turning down Ferretti's and Rhenanus's consederant. In 158I he preferred considerant-which he gave up some years later (I588) for consederant. All this amounts to a series of guesses, since the evidence of manuscripts was unknown to Lipsius. Some evidence is assembled by Neue and Wagener 76 from which it may be gathered that Priscian in discussing the perfect-stem of the compounds of sido denied the existence of forms in -sidi, etc., and recognized only forms in -sedi, etc. This seems to be borne out by the evidence of manuscripts so far as Cicero and Caesar are concerned. In Virgil, however, and even more in Silver and later Latin Prose, both -sidi and -sedi occur. If thus a case be made for admitting the non-classical forms into the texts of certain authors, greater scepticism is suggested by any study of the evidence that goes beyond Neue and Wagener. The two authorities quote with approval the opinion 77 that at Livy ix, 37, 7, and in two other passages of Latin historians 78 where the manuscripts uniformly offer considerant, this form should be printed instead of the normal consederant. But when the Oxford editors came to examine the evidence of the codices of Livy they found that the forms with i only occurred twice among the numerous passages where the verb ronsido is used.79 If this assertion may be trusted, the editors of Livy were probably right in presenting in these two passages the usual forms consederunt and consederant. Altogether six examples of such forms of the perfect-stem 80 are known to occur in Tacitus. Three of these are definitely faulty since they are derived from praesideFre, and no recent editor has sought to credit the second conjugation with these forms.81 This makes one hesitate in giving credence to the three remaining examples, and the more so if one takes the trouble to find out the incidence of the regular forms in -sedi.82 Considerant in our passage is a single isolated case as against thirteen occurrences of the regular form. Insidere and insiderant are two isolated instances against nineteen normal cases.83

At 6o, 9, pedes, eques, classis Lipsius introduced the singular classis instead of the plural classes found in 111 and the earlier editions. There was only one fleet operating on this expedition and Tacitus consistently refers to it in the singular as one would expect.84 It is likely, therefore, that Tacitus did the same in our passage and that the ending -es in classes (M) is due to the neighbouring pedes and eques. Lenchantin, however, has reclaimed the manuscript's reading classes, 'fleets,' which, he says, means the same as naves ' ships '. But does it ? It is quite true that Tacitus varies the plural naves ' ships with the singular classis ' fleet ',85 and if at various times several groups of people are said to be using various groups of ships he also varies the plural naves with the plural classes-thus in one out of the two passages adduced by Lenchantin.86 But this does not, of course, mean that Tacitus uses the pltiral classes in the sense of the singular classis,

76 Neue and Wagener, Formienlehre III (3rd ed.), 413 f.

7Landgraf, Festgruiss an die 41. Versamninlung, etc. (Wilhelmsgymnasium, Munich). I havre not seen this article.

78 Bell. Alex. 28, 3, and the present passage in Tacitus.

7 Livry IX, 37, 7, considerant in all MSS.; xxviii, 12, I5, consideruint as a vrariant. Conway and Johnson havre this note on the latter passage: ' cf. 9, 37, 7 adn. (iubi contra codd. -sed- leginiuiis) et Nene-Wfagener III, p. 414 sqq. (in his dutobuts tantunn locis -sid- in codd. nostris inuenitutr).'

80 The evidence is presented by Gerber and Greef, Lex. Tac., consido, insido, and praesideo. Cf. also H. Fuchs, Tac. Ann. I (ed. Helv., I946), i99, note on chap. 30 considerant.

81 Tac., Anzn. I, 76, io, praesidit: AlV, for praesedit; VI, 47, I2, praesidiis se: M, for praesedisse; XII, 56, I 7, praesidere for praesedere in Med. no. II. It mav also

be remembered, as Fuchs notes, that sutpersedeo in the second Mlediceits is misspelt sutpersideo, at xv, 63, 20.

82 Lenchantin's statement on p. XXXV in the introd. of his edition of Books i-vi, perhaps errs on the side of brevrity.

83 Insidere: Ann. iII, 6i, 8 * insiderant xvi, 27, 2. 84 45 , ' arma classem socios demittere Rheno

parat'; 63, II, ' legiones classe, ut advrexerat, reportat'; 70, 2I, ' quo Caesar classe contenderat.'

85 Thus immediately before our passage, 6o, 7, ipse inpositas navibus quattuor legiones per lacus

vexit: simulque pedes eques classis . . . convenere.' 86 Lenchantin quotes Germ. 2, ? i, 'classibus ad-

vehebantur qui mutare sedes quaerebant' picked up at the end of the sentence by ' raris ab orbe nostro navibus aditur '. So also Germ. 44, ? 2, ' Suionum ... civitates . . . praeter viros armaque classibus valent. forma navium eo differt quod, etc.'

JUSTUS LIPSIUS AND THE TEXT OF TACITUS 47

meaning ' ship '. There is in Tacitus no evidence for the alleged usages,87 and Lenchantin has mistaken the slip of a copyist's pen for a writer's foible-an error of judgement not seldom committed by the school of editors which has inspired the recent fashion in Tacitean studies.

The present writer would claim that the same error of judgement was shown by the defenders of the Alediceus in the last of our passages: 65, i6, ' en Varus et eodemque iterum fato vinctae legiones.' Thus, the manuscript's reading, in which the redundant et ... que is defended by Walther and Lenchantin, and approved by Syme. WIValther's case can be discounted since it is based on an indiscriminate collection of passages held together by the unwarranted assumption that -que in Tacitus means 'also '.88 Lenchantin refers to Valther and, in addition, mentions one more corrupt passage, without, howvever, informing the reader that the alleged idiom occurs in other, equally doubtful, cases.89

This is not, indeed, the only time that an interesting observation of Professor Lofstedt's has been put to a doubtful use. Many years ago Lofstedt noticed in colloquial or late Latin writings the redundant use of et -que, et atque, etiam et, and the like.90 Attention having thus been drawn to a neglected usage, it was followed up by several Swedish scholars,91 one of whom, E. Tidner, has made a good collection of the passages in which the idiom occurs in the manuscripts of Tacitus.92

No one will be surprised to find -que thus misused by writers who were not squeamish as to the meaning of words. Tacitus was. If he is to be the first, at least in highly stylized Roman prose now extant,93 to whom such usage is ascribed, some caution is indicated. Two points merit consideration. The wveakening of meaning which accounts for many redundant expressions in colloquial and later Latin is not found in Tacitus.94 There are, of course, numerous passages in which -que . . . et, et . . . -que or the like connect three or more expressions of the type ' pedes equesque et nauticus miles ' (Agr. 25, ? I). Over against these passages there are some twenty examples of what may be termed a redundant use of -que, to connect two words or phrases. And if, furthermore, the passages themselves are considered, usages established in classical prose and poetry are seen. Double -que occurs twice in Tacitus, both with a personal pronoun in the first member. The combination

87 Lenchantin's second passage comes from A. xiv, II I3, where he says the plural classes is used de una classe M11isenensi. But in the same clause the plural cohortes is used of one cohort, and Furneaux rightlvy explains both cohortis and classis as rhetorical exaggera- tions for the one praetorian cohort in attendance, and for the fleet of Alisenum. No one would say that therefore the plural of cohors means onte cohort in T acitus. Lenchantin did not refer to the other passage sometimes claimed to have the same extended meaning-thus Lex. Tac. I78 and Tlzes. L.L. III, 1284, both s.v. classis. The passage occurs at A. ii, 75, 3: ' Agrippina . . . ascendit classem cumn cineribus Germanici et liberis.' But Agrippina naturally sailed in style: she has got a fleet (cf. III, i, io and I4), and nevertheless disembarks navi, not classe, III, I, I7. There is no harm in Englishing classis by 'boat' at II, 75, 3, but ciassis does not nzean 'boat'. Compare II, 79, 2, where the several ships of her fleet are said to carry her, ' obviis navibus quae Agrippinam vehebant.' It may be added that the relevant portion in the Thesaurus needs shortening.

88 Cf. Walther's notes ad 1., and on 28, 3, ac sutis-there, however, the _1'Ied. has as2is for stis. The a may repeat the first letter of the preceding word accepit, or else belongs to that class of unexplained initial letters on which W. Heraeus entered a timely caveat in Lindsay's Palaeog. Lat. iv, I925, I4. The MS. reading is strangely defended by Lenchantin.

89 Hist. IV, 54, i, and below, n. 92. 90 Beitrcige, etc., I907, 37; Spdtlat. Stutdien, I908, 27; Pereg. Aetlh., I9II, 6I; also, Synt tactica II, I9 33, 2I9; Vernzischte Sti.,dienz, I936, 56.

91 The various redundant uses of connective particles have, in fact, become a favoUrite topic in recent grammatical lore; the references are too numerous to be given here. Hofmann has provided useful surveys, Syntax ?? 227-237, and Tlzes. L.L., s.v. et; especially 906, 32, on redundant et . . . -que. For the use of connective particles in Tacitus, see Gerber and Greef, Lex. Tac., N. Eriksson, Stuid. zl d. Antnaleni, etc., 72, and G. S6rbom, Variatio sernz. Tac. 50.

92 E. Tidner, De particutlis copulatizis ap. Scrip. Hist. Auig. (I922) I20, n. 2. The passages are these H. I, 8o, 9, 'fremit miles et tribunos et' (et deleted by the same hand) ' centurionesque proditionis arguit'; II, 2, 'inter spem et metumque' (the reading comes from Latr. 68, 4, only; Giarratano does not even trouble to mention it in his full apparatus); TV, 53, I8, ' argenti et aurique stipes et metallorum primi- tiae'; IV, 54, i, ' per Gallias et Gelmaniasque' Aznn. I, 65, i6, as cited in the text.

93 Apart from inscriptions, there are, so far as I can see, only two examples of redundant et . . . -quie alleged to occur in prose before Tacitus: Bell. Afr. 33, i, and Bell. Hisp. 42, 4, in both of which the text is doubtful. But even their being accepted by editors would be of little importance for the text of Tacitus, as this is not the kind of literature he con- sidered a model of style. In verse, the first examples cited are Ciris 79 (zi.l.) and the Carnziiza Epigraphica.

9 There seems to be only one exception in Tacitus, namely hodieque meaning 'also nowadays' (Gernm. 3, ? 3). But this is normal Silver usage, cf. Hofmann, Sywtax 657.

48 c. 0. BRINK

recalls double TE but is not a Grecism: it is found in archaic Latin, classical poetry, especially Virgil, and the great historians.95 The combination of -que and et recalls TE ... Kcai though it is not a Grecism either: it occurs in archaic Latin ; Taacitus would read it in Virgil and the historians. In his own works it is preserved sixteen times ; in all cases but one combined with a pronoun, and this one case turns out to be a variation of the old usage.96 Two occurrences of the rare combination -que . . . ac merely vary the more established usages, earlier examples being found in the poets, especially Virgil, also in Livy, and Silver prose.97 Equally rare is et . . . -que, found twice in Tacitus to connect clauses, and earlier notably in Cicero.98 Last, there is one case of nzeque . . . -que, wNith a similar ancestry,99 used by Tacitus to connect clauses. If the consistency and the pedigree alike of the Tacitean usages are considered it will be obvious that the alleged passages cannot be made to fit. The scribe of Aled. no. II was then right when he altered his own faulty text ' tribunos et centurionesque ' to ' tribunos centurionesque ' at Hist. i, 8o, 9. Unfortunately, this was not done in the other cases. But if an additional argument is needed this can be found in the words sibique et posteiis (Annaz. iv, 8, 21).100 For this precisely happens to be the tag which so often occurs in inscriptions, though in the colloquial order, thus: sibi et posterisque.101 Tacitus used the tag, but eschewed the colloquialism with which, in return, he is credited in a different place by the copyist and some recent editors.

Some conclusions may now be drawn from this discussion. In the first place the number of hits scored by Lipsius is very impressive. Of the forty-seven or so passages of the first book where he himself attempted to correct, or defend, the text,102 twenty-four are read in all editions as he emended, or defended, them ; 103 another ten though usually accepted by editors have recently been impugned-unjustly, as the present wNriter has argued.103a The incidence is worth stating: out of a total of forty-seven, there are, in the first book, thirty-four correct or probable readings, of which twenty-six are conjectures.104 The position in the rest of the first part of the Annzals is not dissimilar.

The two qualities displayed in his best work are a feeling for the word that really required emending, and a flair for the wvay in wvhich the right expression is restored by a light touch. He did not at once attain to mastery. The material which Ruysschaert has brought together from the various editions is suggestive. Lipsius tends to excise clumsy or unnecessary conjectures which are not rarely found in the early editions, particularly in the first. He was not, however, u