In the concomitant volume to his new OCT of the Saturnalia (Studies in the Text of M's S., Oxford 2010, Robert Kaster invites the reader to think critically about indirect transmission and proposes that we be clear-headed about the factors that may have prompted M. to write down a text that diverges from our direct transmission, so that the editor will be able to decide when to keep and when to discard a divergent reading.
In 1881, A. Stachelscheid in RhM published the notes Richard Bentley had written into his copy of Macrobius, noting at 5.11.23 (Aen.7.464) that the received text of Macrobius was wrong. The received text of M's citation is: *exsultantque aestu latices, furit intus aquae vis / fumidus atque alte spumis exuberat amnis*. The problem with Aen.7.464 is of course well-known, but as Bentley noticed, there can hardly be any doubt in the case of Macrobius, for he continues below, 5.11.25: *In latinis versibus tota rei pompa descripta est, sonus flammae et pro hoc quod ille dixerat *[Iliad 21.362-65] *πάντοθεν ἀμβολάδην, exultantes aestu latices et amnem fumidum exuberantem spumis atque intus furentem*. The *amnis* (*aquae*) is *intus furens*, not the* vis aquae*. Bentley writes: *Nota, amnem intus furentem. Ergo legebat aquaï, *and thus we have restored today's vulgate text of Vergil. A few paragraphs later (5.11.26), Macrobius cites Aen.9.675-82. We note the received text of M. at 677-8: *ipsi intus dextra ac laeva pro turribus adstant, / armati ferro et cristis capita alta coruscis*. All mss. of Vergil read *corusci*, Kaster retains the archetypical text, and Mynors cites this as a variant reading. However, keeping in mind the observation of Bentley, we read on, 5.11.29, to find this passus: *et geminos heroas modo turres vocat *[sc. Vergilius]*, modo describit luce cristarum coruscos. * * * *Pace* the difficulties of reading *coruscis*, I feel that this should be conclusive enough for us to discard the archetypical reading and restore the Vergilian *corusci*. * * I am a novice in more than one way, but having now spent a few months studying the text of Macrobius, this is only one instance of our received Macrobian text not being thought through sufficiently, especially before entering into apparatuses. I write this as a caveat lector and to remind of the existence and relevance of Macrobian studies. This is also my first post here, so hi! I never thought there would be a newsgroup on Vergil. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mantovano" group. To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/mantovano?hl=en
