Manuscripts Bamberg, Staastbibl., Patr. 61 (B) and Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 660 (M) are among the most important witnesses of Cassiodorus’ 'Institutiones'. B is famous for its origin in southern Italy (probably Montecassino), towards the end of the VIIIth century. Much less in known about M, for which scholars have proposed an origin in northern Italy (possibly Nonantola) during the IXth century, and whose textual connection with B is much debated. In his 1937 edition of the 'Institutiones', Roger A. B. Mynors proved M to be a 'codex descriptus' of B, but a few years later Edward Rand raised some objections in this regard, because of the absence in M of some of the Bambergensis’ mistakes and later corrections. This paper presents the results of a new and complete collation of the two witnesses, discussing the «delicate matter» – as Rand defined it – of their mutual relationship from both an ecdotic and an historical point of view. This will also allow a wider consideration of the value of ‘physical evidences’ vs. textual criteria for the identification of a 'codex descriptus'.
Padri e figli a confronto: I manoscritti Bambergense Patr. 61 e Mazarine 660 delle 'Institutiones' di Cassiodoro / Morresi, Ilaria. - In: FILOLOGIA MEDIOLATINA. - ISSN 1124-0008. - 30(2023), pp. 325-352.
Padri e figli a confronto: I manoscritti Bambergense Patr. 61 e Mazarine 660 delle 'Institutiones' di Cassiodoro
ILARIA MORRESI
2023
Abstract
Manuscripts Bamberg, Staastbibl., Patr. 61 (B) and Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 660 (M) are among the most important witnesses of Cassiodorus’ 'Institutiones'. B is famous for its origin in southern Italy (probably Montecassino), towards the end of the VIIIth century. Much less in known about M, for which scholars have proposed an origin in northern Italy (possibly Nonantola) during the IXth century, and whose textual connection with B is much debated. In his 1937 edition of the 'Institutiones', Roger A. B. Mynors proved M to be a 'codex descriptus' of B, but a few years later Edward Rand raised some objections in this regard, because of the absence in M of some of the Bambergensis’ mistakes and later corrections. This paper presents the results of a new and complete collation of the two witnesses, discussing the «delicate matter» – as Rand defined it – of their mutual relationship from both an ecdotic and an historical point of view. This will also allow a wider consideration of the value of ‘physical evidences’ vs. textual criteria for the identification of a 'codex descriptus'.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.