Christopher Ligota and Jean-Louis Quantin (eds.), History of Scholarship: A Selection of Papers from the Seminar on the History of Scholarship held annually at the Warburg Institute, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006
2
Renaissance Philology: Johannes
Livineius (1546—1599) and the Birth of
the Apparatus Criticus
Luigi Battezzato
1. INTRODUCTION
Some inventions look deceptively simple once they are made. Classical scholars are used to the concept of apparatus criticus, and are most annoyed when faced with the fact that Renaissance and seventeenth-century scholars did not know of such a thing. Beatus Rhenanus, `in spite of his professions, . . . did not make clear to users of his edition [of Tacitus] the sources of his own innovations in the text'.1 Adrien de Tournebu (Turnebe), in his edition of Aeschylus (1552), emended the text using variant readings found in the scholia, and his own conjectures, but `he did not indicate the changes he had introduced; hence the reader could not know for certain the source of any given reading'.2 With Justus Lipsius' editorial procedure for Tacitus, Brink complains, `a distinction between transmitted text, variants from manuscripts, and conjectures is hardly possible'.3 In Joseph Scaliger's edition of Catullus `the procedure

I thank B. Amata, H.-J. van Dam, R. Ferri, C. Ligota, and E. Stagni for their useful comments, corrections, and suggestions. S. Gysens offered detailed criticism of the paper and kindly sent me copies of his papers and of other relevant material.
1 E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book (Berkeley, 1974), 52.
2 A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, i (Oxford, 1983), 85. See now A. Galistu, `Le congetture eschilee di Adrien Turnebe, parte prima: L'Orestea', Lexis, 17 (1999), 155—94; V. Citti and R. Dawe, `Congetture ad Eschilo dalle edizioni cinquecentine', Lexis, 22 (2004), 249–60.
3 C. O. Brink, `Justus Lipsius and the Text of Tacitus', Journal of Roman Studies, 41 (1951), 32–51 at 34.

76	Luigi Battezzato
is still correction of the current text codicum et ingenii ope: and the essential principle of scientific editing, enunciated and re-enunciated by Ernesti and Wolf and Sauppe, that the appeal to the MSS must be continuous, is, whether understood or not, neglected in practice'.4 Ernesti, Wolf, and Sauppe were all born long after Scaliger's death, and Kenney seems at times to be judging Renaissance scholars by their ability to anticipate the standards of accuracy and the stemmatic method developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: a method that Kenney considers of perennial value.> Kenney himself later concedes, following Schwartz and Pasquali, that the stemmatic method, distilled by Paul Maas into his famous Textkritik, only applies to a small minority of classical texts,6 and that `a critic such as Cobet . . . will usually end by presenting a better text of his author, however slapdash his methodology [in selecting manuscripts], than the most painstaking but untalented drudge'.?
4 Kenney (as in n. 1), 56—7. Timpanaro's judgement on Scaliger's edition of Catullus is much more favourable: S. Timpanaro, La genesi del metodo del Lachmann (3rd edn., Padua, 1985), 10 and 151; see also J. H. Gaisser, `Catullus, Gaius Valerius', in Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vii (Washington, DC, 1992), 197—292 at 267—71. See Timpanaro, Genesi, 30—4 and 58—60 on Ernesti, Wolf, and Sauppe. For a reassessment and a discussion of the different editions of Timpanaro's work, see V. Di Benedetto, `La filologia di Sebastiano Timpanaro' in R. Di Donato (ed.), Il filologo materialista: Studi per Sebastian Timpanaro (Pisa, 2003), 1—89.
5 See A. Grafton's review of Kenney's book, in Journal of Roman Studies, 67 (1977), 171—6, esp. 171. Kenney restated his point of view in `A Rejoinder', Giornale italiano di filologia, 32 (1980), 320-2.
6 Kenney (as in n. 1), 141. Timpanaro (as in n. 4), 84—103, 152 gives a more nuanced assessment of the application of Lachmann's method in the 19th and 20th cc. See also G. Luck, `Textual Criticism Today', American Journal ofPhilology, 102 (1981), 164—94, esp. 184—6; M. Reeve, 'Cuius in usum? Recent and Future Editing', Journal of Roman Studies, 90 (2000), 196—206, at 198; and especially G. Fiesoli, La genesi del lachmannismo (Florence, 2000), 360-461.
Kenney (as in n. 1), 119. For a masterly survey of Renaissance editorial techniques and the use of manuscripts see G. Pasquali, Scoria della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence, 1952), 43—108. More recent case studies include J. F. D'Amico, Theory and Practice in Renaissance Textual Criticism: Beatus Rhenanus between Conjecture and History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988); J. H. Gaisser, Catullus and his Renaissance Readers (Oxford, 1993); T. W. Richardson, Reading and Variant in Petronius: Studies in the French Humanists and their Manuscript Sources (Toronto, 1993); E. Stagni, `Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta di Petronio: L'editio princeps dei "longa" e i codici di Tornesio', Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici, 30 (1993), 205—30; many papers by M. D. Reeve, esp. `The Rediscovery of Classical Texts in the Renaissance' in O. Pecere (ed.), Itinerari di testi antichi (Rome, 1991), 115—57 (with a very useful introductory bibliography on pp. 115—23) and 'Beatus Rhenanus and the lost Vormacensis of Livy', Revue d'histoire des textes, 25 (1995), 217—54; L. Canfora, II Fazio ritrovato: Juan de Mariana eAndre Schott (Bari, 2001). See also below, n. 50, on Carrion.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	77
In fact many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century philologists prepared editions the same way they would have prepared manuscript books. They would copy the text from one source (occasionally changing model for some particular sections), inserting conjectures and variant readings from other witnesses; they would also add variant readings in the margins.
Scaliger's copy of Petronius is a good example of how humanists prepared their texts: he copied the Cuiacianus manuscript, which had large new sections of texts, but used the (vastly inferior) 1565 printed edition of Sambucus for the sections that were already known, recording variant readings from the Cuiacianus in the text or in the margins.8 Renaissance scholars often appear to be improving a classical text the same way they would improve a map or a catalogue.
I want to argue that we should take into account some factors that explain why sixteenth-century editors seem so inconsistent: (i) finding and selecting manuscripts was extremely difficult, and it was not possible to form an idea of the whole manuscript tradition; (ii) scholars could not check the antiquity or value of the manuscript sources of the editio princeps, which was frequently regarded as deriving from a very authoritative manuscript;10 (iii) many editors were not aiming at producing a critical text, but a readable one, and their work should not be judged by the standards we use for a modern critical edition; (iv) modern apparatus critici use a concise system of sigla and abbreviations which did not exist, and would have been difficult to print. We shall see that this style of presentation made its first appearance in Renaissance collations, and we will examine some of the reasons why it took some time before it became standard in editions. These four points will be made clear also by examining the career and the works of a relatively little-known scholar who came very close to creating a veritable apparatus criticus.
Johannes Livineius (Jan Lievens) was born in Dendermonde, near Ghent, in 1546—7 and died in Liege in 1599. He published two short treatises by Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom and an edition of the Panegyrici Latini. Friends managed to publish posthumously his notes on the Latin elegists, and a couple of translations of Byzantine
8 Scaliger also included a number of old and new conjectures in the text, as well as new mistakes: Petronius, Satyrica: Schelmenszenen, ed. K. Muller, trans. W. Ehlers (Munich, 1983), 393—5 (MS Leidensis Scaligeranus 61). On Sambucus see below, n. 173.
9 On `improved' editions see E. L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1979), i. 107—26; see also i. 80—1 on the process of standardization.
10 It is characteristic that Scaliger, who collated the Paris manuscript ofArnobius, failed to identify it with the manuscript used for the editio princeps: see below, n. 89.

78	Luigi Battezzato
authors that he had completed during a stay in Rome. His notes on Sophocles, Euripides, Arnobius, Minucius Felix, Silius Italicus, and other authors remained unpublished for centuries. This part of his Nachlass is now better known, and his philological abilities emerge as remarkable. H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson have shown that he often anticipated later scholars in his notes on Sophocles, and made some attractive conjectures." His notes on Euripides, Arnobius, and Minucius Felix are equally important.12 His collation notes resemble very closely a modern apparatus criticus. I shall use this evidence as a starting point for a discussion of philological methods and editorial techniques in the Renaissance (§§ 4 and 5).
2. LIFE AND WORKS OF LIVINEIUS
Anthony Grafton has shown how sixteenth-century classicists divided along national and methodological lines. Italian scholars emphasized one side of Politian's legacy: the study of manuscripts and the importance of a careful recording of scribal mistakes for establishing the true reading. This line of study was followed especially by Pier Vettori (1499—1585) and by people associated with him or sympathetic to his methods, such as Gabriele Faerno (1510-61), Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), and Cardinal Sirleto (1514—85).13 French scholars were less interested in collating
Livineius wrote his notes in the margins of Sophoclis Tragoediae septem (Venice: Aldus, 1502), Trinity College Cambridge, Adv. d. 4.1; see H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson, Sophoclea: Studies on the Text of Sophocles (Oxford, 1990), 270.
'2 See my earlier paper: L. Battezzato, `Livineius' Unpublished Euripidean Marginalia', Revue d'histoire des textes, 30 (2000), 323-49. Livineius wrote his notes in a copy of Euripidis teagoediae septendecim ... (Venice: Aldus, 1503), British Library, C.45.b.23–24. R. Alston, Books with Manuscript: A Short Title Catalogue ofBooks with Manuscript Notes in the British Library (London, 1994), 18 on Livineius' Arnobius, 208 on his Euripides. I reported some readings from the notes on the first book of Arnobius in my earlier article, p. 328 n. 22; see my forthcoming `Congetture cinquecentesche inedite ad Arnobio e Minucio Felice', Lexis, 24 (2006).
13 Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 45–70, 95–6. J. F. Maillard, J. Kecskemeti, and M. Portalier (eds.), L'Europe des humanistes (XIVXVII'' siecles) (2nd edn., Paris, 1998), 422, 178, 329, 391 give concise information and bibliography on these scholars; I generally follow their indications for the non-Latinized forms of personal names of Renaissance scholars. On contacts between Orsini and scholars and printers in Antwerp (including Torrentius and Christophe Plantin) see P. de Nolhac, La Bibliotheque de Fulvio Orsini: Contributions a l'histoire des collections d'Italie eta l'etude de la Renaissance (Paris, 1887), 57–9; W. Bracke, `Giusto Lipsio e Fulvio Orsini', in M. Laurens (ed.), The world of Justus Lipsius: A contribution towards his intellectual biography', Bulletin de l'Institut Historique Beige de Rome, 68 (1998), 81–96, esp. 88.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	79
manuscripts, but developed a fashion (and a talent) for conjectural emendation,14 an enterprise that Vettori considered risky at best.15 Jean Dorat (1508–88), Adrien Turnebe (1512–65), and Marc-Antoine de Muret (1526–85)16 are among the most significant in this tradition. Their conjectures restored many corrupt passages of classical authors.17 Of course, there were French scholars who worked on manuscripts (e.g. Denis Lambin (1519–72) and Jacques Cujas (1522–90))18 and Italian scholars who made brilliant conjectures (including Vettori himself and Faerno).19 Grafton's broad characterization, however, is a useful guide in analysing the method of sixteenth-century philologists.
Livineius is a generation younger than Vettori or Turnebe. Coming from a Catholic family in the Low Countries, he was influenced by French textual criticism but was also exposed to the Italian tradition. He has many successful emendations to his credit, but his philological work was always spurred by access to new manuscript evidence.
Livineius20 studied in Cologne and Leuven, and befriended Andre Schott (1552–1629),21 Justus Lipsius (1547–1606), and Willem Canter
14 Cf. Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 71–100.
15 Cf. ibid. 184.
16 Dates and essential bibliography in Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 157, 412, 315. See also J. Lewis, Adrien Turnebe (1512–1565): A Humanist Observed (Geneva, 1998).
17 For instance Aeschylus: see M. Mund-Dopchie, La Survie d'Eschyle d la Renaissance (Louvain, 1984) and Aeschyli Tragoediae cues incerti poetae Prometheo, ed. M. L. West (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. xxii–xxiv.
1s See Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 258 and 139.
19 See G. P. Goold, `A New Text of Catullus', Phoenix, 12 (1958), 93–116 at 99 for their conjectures on Catullus. Paolo Manuzio was on Muret's side against Vettori: Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 89. Grafton himself is very careful to nuance his picture of scholarly trends: ibid. 45–100, esp. 69, 87–8, 99.
2° S. Gysens has recently written two excellent studies on the life and works of Livineius: a useful biographical entry `Livineius, Johannes (Jan Lievens)', Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek (Brussels, 1990), xvi. 539–48 [hereafter Gysens, NBW], and a longer article `Johannes Livineius (1546/47–1599): Een minder bekend humanist uit Dendermonde', Gedenkschriften van de Oudheidkundige Kring van het Land van Dendermonde, 4th ser., 21 (2002), 7–54 [hereafter Gysens, Gedenkschriften]. See also below, n. 24. Previous works include L. Roersch, `Lievens (Jean) ou Livineius', in Biographic nationale (Brussels, 1892–3), xii. 124–8; J. N. Paquot, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire Iitte'raire des dix-sept Provinces des Pays Bas. . . (Louvain, 1765) [repr. Westmead, 1970], i. 350–1. For other bibliographical references and evidence on the manuscripts used by Livineius see Battezzato, `Livineius' Unpublished Euripidean Marginalia' (as in n. 12).
21 Schott was in contact with Livineius and Torrentius; he corresponded with the latter: see L. Torrentius, Correspondance, ed. M. Delcourt et J. Hoyoux (Paris, 1950–4), passim. Schott, after many travels, came back to the Jesuit Collegium in Antwerp in 1596: cf. A. Roersch, `Schott (Andre)', in Biographic Nationale (Brussels, 1914–20), xxii. 1–14 at 9; G. Tournoy, `Schott (Andre)', in C. Nativel (ed.), Centuriae Latinae: Cent une figures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumieres offertes a J. Chomarat (Geneva, 1997), 749–53;

80	Luigi Battezzato
(1542-75).22 Livineius was made canonicus of Saint Peter's in Liege in 1573,23 and began working on Greek patristic texts. His first publication, the editio princeps of Gregory of Nyssa's De virginitate (1574),24 includes conjectures by Canter and himself. His uncle, Laevinus Torrentius (Lieven Vander Beke) (1525-95), who was to become bishop of Liege, and a very powerful man, supported his work.25 Livineius took advantage of his uncle's trip to Rome to obtain readings from a Vatican manuscript of De virginitate against the sole manuscript he was working on.26 Torrentius was a classical scholar in his own right, in contact with both Sirleto and Faerno.27 Livineius' second publication, the editio princeps of John Chrysostom's De virginitate,28 presents a much smaller number of variant readings and conjectures than the Gregory. Livineius had shown good potential as an editor and textual critic, but his interest in Greek texts could not really flourish without access to new material.
The turning point of his career was Torrentius' offer of a trip to Italy. Livineius was in Rome in the period 1579-82.29 The stay in Rome was
Canfora, Il Fazio ritrovato (as in n.7), passim. On Schott and Livineius see also Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 46. On Schott and Lipsius see also the contribution by Paul Nelles to this volume.
22 See L. Roersch, `Lievens (Jean) ou Livineius' (as inn. 20), 124. W. Canter moved to Paris, where he studied with Dorat and met J. J. Scaliger (1540–1609). See R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 (Oxford, 1976), 104, 106, 125; Grafton, Scaliger (as inn. 2), 104, 275 n. 21; G. Demerson, Doratetson temps (Clermont-Ferrand, 1983), 173; 180–5; Mund-Dopchie, La Survie (as in n. 17), 239-42.
23 Cf. L. Roersch, `Lievens (Jean) ou Livineius' (as in n. 20), 126.
24 Gregorii Nysseni De virginitate liber, Graece et Latine nunc primum editus, interprete Iohanne Livineio Gandensi (Antwerp: Plantin, 1574). On this work, see S. Gysens, "Libellus hic aureus est... ": Sur l'edition princeps du "De virginitate" de saint Jean Chrysostome (Anvers, 1575) et son manuscrit de base', Sacris Erudiri, 41 (2002), 55–79.
25 On Torrentius see the concise biographies by A. Roersch, `Torrentius (Laevinus)', Biographic nationale, xxv. 462–75; M. J. Marinus, `Torrentius (Beke) Laevinus', Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, xiii. 779–85. The extant correspondence (years 1583–93) has been published (see n. 21). Other bibliography in Battezzato (as inn. 12), 325 n. 8. S. Gysens refers me also to M.-J. Marinus, Laevinus Torrentius als tweede bisschop van Antwerpen (1587–1595) (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie—Klasse der Letteren, Jaargang 51 (1989), 131; Brussels, 1989) and J. van Damme (ed.), Laevinus Torrentius: Tweede bisschop van Antwerpen (Antwerp, 1995) (exhibition catalogue, with essays).
26 The manuscripts are now Vat. gr. 401 and Montepessulanus 122: Gregorii Nysseni opera ascetica, ed. W. Jaeger et al. (Leiden, 1952), 233–4 and 243–4.
27 Torrentius wrote poems praising Faerno's philological work, and Sirleto's learning: Laevini Torrentii Poemata Sacra (Antwerp: Plantin, 1594), 372–6.
23 Ioannis Chrysostomi De virginitate liber, Graece et Latine nunc primum editus, interprete Ioanne Liuineio Gandensi (Antwerp: Plantin, 1575).
29 The exact date of his arrival in Rome is not certain: see Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 540, Battezzato (as in n. 12), 326; see also Torrentius, Correspondance (as in n. 21), i. 128 (20 Mar. 1584), and 156 (3 May 1584).

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	81
very productive. He was introduced to Torrentius' Roman friends and connections, especially the Cardinal Librarian, Guglielmo Sirleto. Sirleto, though very learned, was not too willing to give access to the treasures of the library. Montaigne notes with pleasure that he was allowed to see a manuscript of Seneca that Sirleto had previously refused to show to the French ambassador, Louis Chasteigner. Sirleto had also withheld from M. A. de Muret a manuscript of the historian Zosimus, alleging that it was `empio e scellerato';30 and he burnt part of a Byzantine manuscript that contained anti-Western texts.31
The authors that interested Livineius were considered pious enough by Sirleto, who supplied him with manuscripts, and helped him with a number of philological and historical problems. He joined Antonio Carafa and Fulvio Orsini's team in the revision of the Septuagint published in 1587.32 The support of Cardinal Sirleto gave Livineius access to a number of manuscripts: a manuscript of Sophocles, four of Euripides, and one of Propertius. Sirleto also provided Livineius with manuscripts of two Byzantine texts, which he translated into Latin: the Dialogus contra Iudaeos attributed to Andronicus Comnenus and the Sermones catechetici by Theodore the Studite (759-826). Livineius had access to new material, he made many conjectures, and gained invaluable experience in manuscript collation. He recorded variant readings and noted the most common types of error. For instance, he observed that lines were occasionally misplaced in manuscripts and suggested transpositions in Euripides.33
Sirleto probably supplied him with too many books, if it is true that, as a contemporary source tells us, Livineius studied far too much, to the detriment of his health.34 Livineius recovered, but did not bloom in the garden of Renaissance philology. The turning point was one in intellectual terms only. None of these Roman works was published in

3o journal du Voyage du [sic] Michel de Montaigne, en Italie ... , ed. A. D'Ancona (Citta di Castello, 1895), 274 n. 1.
31 Cf. A. Grafton, `The Vatican Library' in A. Grafton (ed.), Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture (Washington, DC, 1993), 3—45 at 43 on Vat. gr. 837; on Zosimus see also Canfora (as in n. 7), 135—6 and n. 2 (with bibliography).
32 Nolhac (as in n. 13), 50 n. 2; Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 540; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 20. On Carafa (1538—91) see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 99.
33 See Battezzato (as in n. 12), 345, 347-8. Finding manuscript evidence for disturbance in the order of lines confirmed the general plausibility of transpositions. W. Canter had suggested some; Scaliger's Propertius, published in 1577, was notorious for similar, and bolder, suggestions: Kenney (as in n. 1), 55.
34 Cf. F. Modius, Novantiquae lectiones, tributae in epistolas centum ... (Frankfurt: apud heredes A. Wecheli, 1584), 461-2.
82	Luigi Battezzato
Livineius' lifetime. He wrote to Sirleto from Liege (2 September 1584) telling him that he was trying to get the translation of Theodorus published by the Plantin press.35 He did not succeed. In the Low Countries, Protestants were in rebellion against Spain. The translations of Theodorus and Andronicus had to wait. They were published posthumously in 160236 and 1616,37 thanks to Andre Schott. Schott was promoting an important cultural project. He was trying to extend the canon of works that could interest scholars, giving special prominence to late antique and Byzantine texts. For his purpose, Latin translations of Greek authors were essential. In the course of a brilliant career that took him to France, Spain, Italy, and the Low Countries,38 he published the first editions of major late antique and Byzantine texts, such as Aurelius Victor (1579) and Proclus' Chrestomathy (1587), and translated into Latin extensive works such as Photius' Bibliotheca (1601).39 Justus Lipsius urged the editor, David Hoeschel, to publish Schott's translation of Photius: `nosti quo ventum sit ignavia aevi: pauci haec [ = Greek texts] legunt aut capiunt, et nisi Latina addantur, paene dicam non dedisse.'40
Latin translations of Sophocles and Euripides already existed, and Livineius concentrated on the textual criticism of these authors—with even worse publishing fortune than for his translations. His notes on Sophocles, preserved in the margins of a copy of the Aldine Sophocles,41 were published only in 1813.42 The material was not very extensive, but
35 See Vat. lat. 6195, fo. 578`.
36 See Theodorus Studita, Sermones catechetici CXXXIV (Antwerp: Erven J. Bellerus, 1602); reprinted in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum ... (Cologne: Hierat, 1618), ix. 214—76. Livineius explains (Magna Bibliotheca, 214) that he used a manuscript provided by Sirleto, now Vat. Ottobonianus gr. 251. See E. Follieri, `Due codici greci gia cassinesi oggi alla Biblioteca Vaticana: Gli Ottob. gr. 250 e 251', Palaeographica, diplomatica et archivistica: Studi in onore di Giulio Battelli . . . (Rome, 1979), i. 159—221 at 207—11, 220—1; Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 543; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 23. Livineius also consulted Vat. gr. 634: cf. Battezzato (as in n. 12), 327 n. 13 with bibliography. The translation is reprinted in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 99: 506—687.
37 Cf. Andronicus Constantinopolitanus, Dialogus contra Iudaeos, in Tomus singularis insignium auctorum turn graecorum quam latinorum ... , nuncprimum in lucem prodire .. . iussit Petrus Stevartius ... (Ingolstadt, 1616), 255—398. It was probably based on Vat. gr. 1204: Battezzato (as in n. 12), 326 n. 12. See also Gysens, NBW (as inn.20), 543; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 23 n. 47. In his preface, Livineius mentions the opinion of Cardinal Sirleto on the chronology of the work. The translation is reprinted in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 133: 791—924.
38 He assembled an important collection of Greek manuscripts, now in the Bibliotheque royale de Belgique: A. Roersch (as in n. 21), 13.
39 On the edition of Photius, see now Canfora, Fazio (as in n. 7), 105—33, 163—205.
40 Cf. ibid. 284; see also 176 and 169.	41 See n. 11 above.
42 `Ctesiphon', `Collation of Two Mss. of Sophocles', Classical journal, 7 (1813), 428-36.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	83

included many acute and sensible suggestions on the text.43 The notes on Euripides are much fuller, as Livineius collated four manuscripts, and made a number of original suggestions.44
Livineius became secretary and factotum to his uncle Torrentius. Busy with practical matters and church duties, he had less time to devote to his studies, and no chance to continue working on Greek authors, or to prepare editions of the authors he collated.45
In June 1588, Livineius was rewarded for his hard work: he became canonicus et cantor at Antwerp cathedral.46 His uncle also gave him more intellectually demanding tasks. He prepared a second edition of Torrentius' commentary on Suetonius, published in 1592 by the Plantin press.47 As Torrentius himself admits, this second edition was `Livineius' work more than mine'.48
It was difficult for Livineius to have access to Greek manuscripts in his homeland. In 1584 he worked on Athenaeus49 but nothing came of this. He wisely decided to focus on Latin authors, a field where he was in a position to exploit important manuscript discoveries by Louis Carrion (1547-c. 1595) and Francois de Maulde (Franciscus Modius, 1556-97).50
49 Cf. Lloyd-Jones and Wilson (as inn. 11), 270—5, dating the work to 1589, but see Battezzato (as in n. 12), 325—6 and n. 9.	
44 See Battezzato (as in n. 12).
49 See Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 544; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 29—40, 51—2.
46 Cf. Torrentius, Correspondance (as inn. 21), ii. 195—6 (8 Apr. 1588); ii. 205—6 (28 Apr.); ii. 219—20 (16 May); ii. 234—6 (2 June). See Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 541 and 544; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as inn. 20), 29—40. Torrentius often helped his relatives to acquire good positions: S. Gysens refers to J. Hoyoux, La Famille de Torrentius, in Hommages a Marie Delcourt (Collection Latomus, 114; Brussels, 1970), 361—7.
47 Laevini Torrentii in C. Suetonii Tranquilli XIL Caesares commentarii (Antwerp: Plantin, 1578; 2nd edn. 1592). See Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 544.
48 `Livineii magis opera quam mea': Torrentius, Correspondance (as in n. 21), iii. 235 (20 Aug. 1591). Torrentius expected his nephew to prepare his edition of Horace for publication, which, however, appeared posthumously: Q. Horatius Flaccus cum erudito Laevini Torrentii commentario (Antwerp: ex officina Plantiniana, 1608).
49 Torrentius, Correspondance (as in n. 21), i. 181 (7 July 1584), in a letter to Lipsius: `Nunc torus in Athenaeo est'. The notes on Athenaeus, as well as others on Gregory of Nazianzus and Plutarch, were in Leuven, according to L. Roersch `Lievens' (as inn. 20), 127—8. I have not been able to check whether these notes are still extant.
5o On Modius see P. Lehmann, Franciscus Modius als Handschriftenorscher (Munich, 1908). Pasquali, Storia (as inn. 7), 43—71 discusses the work of Carrion and Modius. W. Ehlers and G. Liberman have recently published a fragment of the important manuscript which Carrion used for his edition of Valerius Flaccus. This discovery confirms the general accuracy of his collations: see Valerius Flaccus, Argonautiques, ed. G. Liberman (Paris, 1997), i, pp. lxxi—xc, with bibliography; C Valeri Flacci Argonauticon Tiber VLL, ed. A. Perutelli (Florence, 1997), 71—81. On Carrion's collations see also P. R. Taylor, `The Authority of the Codex Carrionis in the Ms-Tradition of Valerius Flaccus', Classical Quarterly, NS 39 (1989), 451—71. F. Hurka, Textkritische Studien zu Valerius Flaccus

84	Luigi Battezzato
Modius collated several important manuscripts from the Cologne cathedral library, before they were dispersed or lost.51 His philological programme sounds very much like a continuation of Vettori's, insisting on the importance of collations and mistrusting conjectural emendation.52 Livineius too, as far as we know, worked only on texts for which he had new manuscript evidence, either directly or through someone else's collations. In his study of Propertius, he revised the notes he took from a Vatican manuscript of that author,53 made use of manuscript readings published by Modius,54 and collated a manuscript owned by Johannes Post(h)ius (1537-97).55 Livineius' notes on the Latin elegists appeared only in 1621.56 For his work on Silius Italicus' Punica, he made use of readings from the Cologne manuscript of Silius (C), now lost, relying on the accounts published by Carrion and Modius. The importance of Livineius' work on Latin poetry received full recognition only recently.57 By using a siglum for the readings of the manuscript,j8 Livineius is more accessible to a modern reader than Modius or Carrion.59
(Stuttgart, 2003), questions the validity of Carrion's testimony, but see V. Roggen in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 18 March 2005 (http:ccat.sas.upenn.edulbmcr/2005-03-18 html)
51 Lehmann, Modius (as in n. 50), 93.
52 Modius, Novantiquae lectiones (as in n. 34), 119 vents his anger against those `qui sola ariolandi fiducia nitentes scriptorem aliquem in integrum restituendum suscipiunt'. I. Bisonneirus (quoted in Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 184) reports that `Vettori argued that one should rarely or never depart from authority. Conjectures, like false witnesses ... should be completely abhorred.'
53 Livineius calls the manuscript `nec antiquus nec probus'. The manuscript has not been identified.
54 Lehmann (as in n. 50), 137; cf. Modius, Novantiquae lectiones (as in n. 34), 80—6. Livineius worked on Propertius from 1582 until at least 1592: see Battezzato (as inn. 12), 327 n. 17; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as in n. 20), 27—28.
55 The manuscript is now at Groningen, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit 159: J. L. Butrica, The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius (Toronto, 1984), 152—3 and 234—5.
56 See Caii Valerii Catulli, Albii Tibulli, Sexti Aurelii Propertii, quae extant, cum elegantissimis Joannis Livinei notis numquam antehac editis . . . [ed. J. Gebhardus] (Frankfurt: Wechel, 1621), and Gaisser, `Catullus' (as in n. 4), 279—80.
5' See Silius Italicus, Punica, ed. I. Delz (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. lxii—lxiii.
58 Delz (ibid., p. lxii) reports Livineius' note on Sil. It. 1. 1 from the 1543 edition, Wolfenburtel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Gud. lat. 8: `C membranas notat quae Coloniae in aede summa, p. coniecturas, P editionem Parisiensem cum Marsi scholiis [S. Colinaeus, 1531], L Lugdunensem Seb. Gryphii [1547]'. Of C Livineius says: `citat Modius sparsim Novantiquis [=Novantiquae lectiones (as in n. 34)] as Emendat. libris Carrion [ = L. Carrion, Emendationum et observationum liberprimus ad V. Cl. Claudium Puteanum and Emendationum et observationum fiber secundus ad V. Cl. Nicolaum Fabrum (Paris: apud Ae. Beysium, 1583)]'. Reconstructing the original collation of C is not an easy task: see H. Blass, `Die Textesquellen des Silius Italicus', Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, 8. Supplementband (1875—6), 159—250, at 187—216; Pasquali, Storia (as in n. 7), 68—70; Delz, Silius (as in n. 57), pp. liv—lxiv.
59 On the vague terminology of Carrion and Modius see Pasquali, Storia (as inn. 7), 70.
Renaissance Philology: Livineius	85
It is not clear whether Livineius meant to publish the Latin elegists and Silius at that stage or whether he was planning to do more work on these authors. The extant material is detailed enough for printing a text with variant readings and short textual notes, but does not offer much in the way of exegesis. We have evidence that he worked on a number of other authors as well.60 The Plantin press had not published his translations of Byzantine authors, and Livineius might have lost the self-confidence that was needed to embark on a large research project. Be that as it may, he wrote a short funerary poem in Latin (22 lines) on the death of Christophe Plantin.61 Staying on good terms with the Plantin firm was a good idea. They published Livineius' most important work: the Panegyrici veteres. Livineius had new manuscript evidence for this edition. Torrentius owned a manuscript of the work,62 as well as a copy of Beatus Rhenanus' edition with collation notes made by Carolus Langius.63 Livineius also refers to a collation made by Franciscus Modius of a manuscript now lost.64 The manuscript evidence used by Livineius and his conjectures made this edition a standard text, still indispensable for modern editors.
In these years, Livineius also had unexpected access to important sources for the text of Arnobius' Adversus nationes. Carrion died in the summer of 1595,65 and Livineius inherited a collation of this very rare and very corrupt text. More importantly, Carrion also left him a manuscript of Arnobius. As Scaliger said, Carrion `est doctus sed
6° See Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as in n. 12), 329, Gysens, NBW (as in n. 20), 543–4; Gysens, Gedenkschriften (as inn. 20), 44–5. H.-J. van Dam, `The Coming of the Silvae to the Netherlands', in F. Delarue, S. Georgacopolou, P. Laurens, and A.-M. Taisne (eds.), Epicedion: Hommage a P. Papinius Statius (Poitiers, 1996), 315–25 at 319–20 refers to Livineus' notes on Statius (Bernaert's 1595 edition, now Leiden, Leiden UL, Shelfmark 757 F 15) and on Seneca's tragedies (edition of Fabricius, s.d., but preface dated 1565, Leiden UL, shelfmark 756 G 18).
61 See loannis Bochii urbi Antverpiensi a secretis Epigrammata funebria ad Christophori Plantini Architypographi Regii Manes (Antwerp: apud viduam et I. Moretum, 1590).
62 Torrentius, Correspondance (as inn. 21), i. 412–13 (8 Sept. 1585). This manuscript (`V' in Livineius' edition) is now Bruxellensis 10026–32. For the identification, see Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as inn. 12), 329 nn. 26 and 28. On the study of the Panegyrici in the 16th c. see also J. Delatour, Les Livres de Claude Dupuy: Une bibliotheque humaniste au temps des guerres de religion (Paris, 1998), 75–6.
63 XII Panegyrics Veteres, ad antiquam qua editionem, qua scripturam infznitis locis emendati, aucti, lohannes Livineius Belga Gandensis recensebat (Antwerp: ex officina Plantiniana apud I. Moretum, 1599), 6.
64 Livineius' report is our only source: XII Panegyrici Latini, ed. D. Lassandro (Turin, 1992), p. xv and n. 32.
65 Cf. W. Pokel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon (Leipzig, 1882), 42; Lehmann, Modius (as in n. 50), 131 (17 Aug. 1595).

86	Luigi Battezzato
summus fur librorum . . . Lipsius 1'appelle Stellio.'66 Carrion had acquired the Arnobius manuscript from Modius, under the pretence of borrowing it. Modius, however, had obtained it in much the same way.67 Livineius was supposed eventually to return the book to Modius,68 but Modius died in 1597.69 Livineius finished collating the manuscript and wrote extensive notes on the text. His edition, had it been published, would have surpassed all previous ones for accuracy and completeness in reporting manuscript evidence.7°
3. LIVINEIUS' ARNOBIUS: SIGLA, COLLATIONS,
AND CONJECTURES
We shall now examine Livineius' editorial practice and compare it with those of his contemporaries, focusing on his work on Arnobius and Minucius Felix. We should remember that the textual tradition of these two authors is identical. The Octavius happened to be copied after the seventh (and last) book of Arnobius, and became book 8 of Arnobius in the manuscripts. Neither Faustus Sabaeus (1543) nor Sigismundus Gelenius (1546) corrected this mistake, which was clarified only in 1560.71
66 J. Scaliger, Scaligerana, ou Bon Mots ... del Scaliger, avec des notes de Mr. Le Fevre et de Mr. de Colomies (Cologne, 1695), 81—2.
67 Modius acquired the manuscript at some point after 1580: Lehmann (as in n. 50), 130. Carrion, Emendationum liber secundus (as in n. 58), 38 and 52 quotes readings from it.	68 Cf. Livineius' note reported below, n. 79.
69 Cf. Lehmann, Modius (as in n. 50), 28.
7° L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (3rd edn., Oxford, 1991), 145 record a similar, earlier, case: Politian collated both the manuscripts on which the text of Apicius is based.
71 Cf. Arnobii Disputationum aduersus gentes libri octo, nunc primum in lucem editi [ed. F. Sabaeus] (Rome: F. Priscianese; dedication to Francis I dated `cal. Septembris MDXLIII'; papal privilege and colophon dated 1542); Arnobii Disputationum aduersus gentes libri VIII. nunc demum sic accurati, ut ab eruditis sine ulla offensatione et cum maiore lectionis operae pretio cognosci possint. Accessit index carton quae notatu digna sunt [ed. S. Gelenius] (Basle: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, 1546); M. Minucii Felicis, Romani olim causidici, Octavius, ... restitutus a Fr. Bald[uinol (Heidelberg: L. Lucius, 1560). Balduinus stresses his discovery in the preface. Other scholars had already suspected the truth in 1559: Minucius Felix, Octavius, ed. B. Kytzler (Leipzig, 1982), p. v. On Gelenius (Sigmund Gehlen/Zikmund Hruby z Jeleni: 1498—1554) see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 201, and P. Petitmengin, `Un ami de Melanchthon: Sigismundus Gelenius, editeur et traducteur des textes classiques et patristiques', in G. Frank, T. Leinkauf, and M. Wriedt (eds.), Die Patristik in der /* Then Neuzeit: Die Relektiire der Kirchenvater in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart—Bad Cannstatt, 2005), 65-92.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	87

3.1 Sigla and Collations
The use of sigla for designating manuscripts or editions dates back to the end of the eighth century72 and was common in the Renaissance.73 It is interesting to note that, in his collations of Euripides, Livineius used a single siglum for a group of manuscripts, as if they were a family. He used the siglum V when he only had one Vatican manuscript, but in the plays where he had two Vatican manuscripts, V indicated their agreement,74 and if a third manuscript was available, Livineius adopted a special symbol for it. In Hecuba, Orestes, and Phoenissae the manuscripts designated by V share many readings,75 whereas the text of the third manuscript (Vat. gr. 909) is markedly different. This system had two drawbacks: the same symbol referred to different manuscripts in different tragedies;76 moreover, Livineius had to use Vt, and V$ to distinguish particular readings of the V manuscripts, and the similarity of the symbols caused some mistakes.77 He later abandoned this system, and resorted to the common practice of designating each manuscript with a single letter. He adhered to it in his notes on Propertius, Silius Italicus, Arnobius, and the Panegyrici.78
On the first page of his copy of Arnobius, Livineius states that he had three sources: manuscripts P and L, and the editio Romana R.79
72 See Pasquali, Storia (as inn. 7), 155 n. 2; M. Gorman, Theodulf of Orleans and the Exegetical Miscellany in Paris. lat. 15679', Revue benedictine, 109 (1999), 278—323 at 279—82. On medieval editions see G. C. Alessio, `Edizioni medievali', in G. Cavallo, C. Leonardi, and E. Menesto (eds.), Lo spazio letterario del medioevo: 1. Il medioevo Latino. III. La ricezione del testo (Rome, 1995), 29—58.
73 See S. Rizzo, Il lessico fzlologico degli umanisti (Rome, 1973), 164, 168, and 177; Kenney, Text (as inn. 1), 8; Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes (as in n. 70), 145; Timpanaro, Genesi (as in n. 4), 24—5 n. 16; Delatour, Livies (as in n. 62), 70; for the 17 c. see e.g. Heinsius in F. Munari, `Manoscritti ovidiani di N. Heinsius', Studi italiani di filologia classica, 29 (1957), 98—114.
74 Cf. Lloyd-Jones and Wilson, Sophoclea (as in n. 11), 274; Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as in n. 12), 330-1.
75 Cf. Battezzato, ibid., 335. Both these manuscripts show affiliations with the c-class.
76 In Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae Vt = Vat. gr. 52; Vt = unidentified Vatican MS; V = Vat. gr. 52 + unidentified Vatican MS; special symbol = Vat. gr. 909. In Medeia, Hippolytus: Vt = Vat. gr. 910; Vt = Vat. gr. 909; V = Vat. gr. 909 and 910. In Alcestis, Andromacha, Rhesus, Troades: V = Vat. gr. 909.
77 The mistakes often involve using V when only one manuscript had the reported reading: Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as in n. 12), 338—9.
78 Cf. Delz, Silius (as in n. 57), p. lxii.
79 He writes in the margins of Gelenius' edition (see the title in n. 71 above), kept in the British Library (C.61.d.5), on p. 7: `Decedens Lud. Carrio testamento mihi legauit / Arnobiu(m) suu(m) edit. Romanae cu(m) P collatu(m). Itaque / a pag. 44 uacabit hoc signu(m). A qua item / deinceps L citabimus fide nostra. na(m) id ipsi / diligenter

88	Luigi Battezzato
Manuscript P corresponds to Par. lat. 1661, and is given the siglum P in modern editions. Livineius reports P from Carrion's collation.85 L corresponds to Brux. 10846-10847, and is called B in modern editions. Livineius reports the Bruxellensis in part from Carrion's notes, and in part from his own collation.8; In 1598 Livineius restored the order of the sheets of the Bruxellensis.S2 After his death, the Bruxellensis was bought by the Jesuits of Antwerp, along with Livineius' book.83 Most scholars assume that the Bruxellensis is a copy of P.84 It is occasionally useful when P's original readings have been altered; it also offers some easy corrections.85 Le Bonniec, in his edition of book 1 of Arnobius, systematically reports the readings of the Bruxellensis. A collation of the text of the Bruxellensis for the other books has not been published.
tractauimus, sub/missu(m) ab executoribus iussu testato/ris, reddendum tamen ubi eo / usi essem(us) Fra(n)c. Modio, qui id / Carrioni procurauerat'. The sentence `Itaque / a pag. 44 uacabit hoc signu(m)' is unclear. Livineius reports numerous readings from P for every book, and Carrion was his only source for them. I take the sentence to refer to Carrion's collation of manuscript L: Carrion had collated L as far as page 44 of his copy of the `Roman edition'. Livineius, further down, adds: `R editionem Roma/na(m) p. coniecturas notat, / P Regiae prope Parisios / bibliothecae exe(m)plar / L Luneburgense / tractatu(m) a Carrio/ne cu(m) cura utru(m)que.'
80 Manuscript P has notes in a 16th-c. hand which takes readings from the editions of Gelenius (as in n. 71) and that of Dirk Canter: Arnobii Disputationum aduersus genres libri septem, recogniti et aucti. Ex bibliotheca Theodori Canteri, cuius etiam notae adiectae sunt (Antwerp: C. Plantin, 1582). Dirk (Theodorus Canterus, 1545—1617) was the brother of Willem Canter. The author of the notes on manuscript P has not been identified, but it is earlier than Scaliger's collation of c.1598: Arnobii Adversus nationes libri 7, ed. A. Reifferscheid (CSEL 4; Vienna, 1875), pp. xi—xii; Arnobe, Contre les gentils. Livre I, ed. H. Le Bonniec (Paris, 1982), 98. It is also earlier than Carrion's collation. At 4. 30. 5 Livineius reports the reading of the 16th-c. correction as coming from P ('dissita distantiaque P, diis sit adstantia quae L' (= Bruxellenis); P originally read diis sit adstantiaquae). Carrion already found the correction when he collated the manuscript.	81 See n. 79 above.
82 He wrote on the manuscript: `Iohannes Liuineius, cathedralis Antwerp. Can(oni)cus et Cantor, aliquot pagellis perturbatum codicem in ordinem componebat. M.D.XCVIII.': cf. Le Bonniec, Arnobe (as inn. 80), 99; Y.-M. Duval, `Sur la biographic et les manuscrits d'Arnobe de Sicca', Latomus, 45 (1986), 69—99 at 86.
83 For the story of the manuscript, cf. Lehmann, Modius (as in n. 50), 130—1 and Le Bonniec, Arnobe (as in n. 80), 100.
84 Reifferscheid, Adversus nationes (as in n. 80), p. viii; Duval, `Biographic' (as in n. 82), 79—80; 85—9.
85 See the cases listed in Minucius Felix, Octavius, ed. J. Beaujeu (Paris, 1964), pp. xcix—cii; Le Bonniec, Arnobe (as in n. 80), 100. Le Bonniec, 99 (with bibliography) dates B to the 11th c., Lehmann, Modius (as in n. 50), 131 to the 12th. P is dated to the 9th c. Sabaeus, Adversus gentes (as in n. 71) sig. a ii'' stated `iure belli meus est Arnobius, quem e media barbaric non sine dispendio, et discrimine eripuerim'. This means (Reifferscheid, Adversus nationes (as in n. 80), p. vii) that the manuscript came from Switzerland or Germany; B, a copy of P, was in Luneburg, and it is likely that P was in Germany too, when Sabaeus found it (Lehmann, ibid.). B. Bischoff (apud Duval, 'Biographic' (as in n. 82), 84) states that P is written in a north Italian hand.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	89
The `editio Romana' (R) probably corresponds to that published by Ursinus in 1583.86 I consider it certain that Livineius used Ursinus' edition. He reports a large number of conjectures that are also found in the margins of Ursinus, marking them with the siglum `p.'.87 He makes no explicit reference to Ursinus, but it is unlikely that such a large number of identical conjectures could have been proposed independently.88 Sixteenth-century scholars were not aware that P was the manuscript used by Sabaeus for the editio princeps.89 Livineius relied on Carrion's collation of P, and realized that it was important to record the differences of R against Gelenius, as the text of P was likely to be the same as that of R, if Carrion recorded no variant readings.
3.2 Conjectures

On the first page of his annotated Arnobius, Livineius tells us that `p. conjecturas notat'.90 The symbol 'p.' also appears in the notes on Sophocles, Euripides, and Silius Italicus. Lloyd-Jones and Wilson assumed that he meant `conjecture' in the modern sense of the word.91
86 Arnobii disputationum adversus gentes libri septem, M Minucii Felicis Octavius, Romana editio posterior et emendatior [ed. F. Ursinus ] (Rome: D. Basa, 1583).
87 See e.g. 2. 7. 1 primum aeque ipsi, 2. 10. 1 patres sectarum, 2. 10. 1 numeros coire, 2. 11. 2 Vos Plotino, vos Cronio, 2. 11. 7 scitis etpraeceptionibus, 2. 12. 1 argutiasprofertis, 2. 16. 13 corporibus exemptae, 2. 17. 5 excudederent navitate. Et tamen. I would also like to draw attention to Min. Fell 8. 3 consulte] inconsulte, a conjecture which is ignored by modern editors: the speaker is contrasting Protagoras, who is only `ill-advised', with the atheists Theodorus and Diagoras, who are impious.
as The main text of Ursinus is very similar to that of Sabaeus' editio princeps (1543) (as in n. 71), and it is possible, but less likely, that Carrion had used Sabaeus for his collation. Ursinus occasionally prints conjectures in his main text (cf. below, §5.1), but I have not found cases where Livineius reports a reading of R that is compatible only with the text of Sabaeus. In some cases, Livineius reports the conjectural reading of the main text of Ursinus with the siglum `p.', rather than with R (2. 15. 1 deo, rerum principi, 2. 16. 13 animantia dicimur, 6. 13.2 Cratinae meretricis), but he may simply have forgotten to add the siglum R.
89 Scaliger collated P and knew that it had been given to Francois I by the Pope, but apparently did not realize that P had been used for the editio princeps. Cf. Scaliger, Scaligeriana (as in n. 66), 33: `Arnobii MS Sancti non boni. Unus Regius quem Papa misit, alter Romae, sed Romana editio est optima . . . . Le plus bel exemplaire est celuy que le Pape donna a Francois Primier.' Note that Sabaeus' 1543 edition (as in n. 71) is dedicated to Francois I: `Arnobius ad to Rex Regum Maxime accedere festinat . . . qualem enim docti viri e manibus meis vix extorsere, sponte, et lubens maiestati tuae . . . dedico et dono' (sig. air"). The binding proves that Henry II (king from 1547) owned the manuscript (Le Bonniec, Arnobe (as inn. 80), 96; Duval, 'Biographie' (as in n. 82), 78-9), but Scaliger's testimony would date the gift of the manuscript to the years 1543-6.
90 Similarly in his notes on Silius Italicus: Blass (as in n. 58), 199; Delz (as in n. 57), p. lxii; Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as in n. 12), 340.
91 Lloyd-Jones and Wilson, Sophoclea (as in n. 11), 275.
90	Luigi Battezzato
However, it can be shown that what Livineius meant by `conjecture' is in fact `reading to be adopted as correct'. The symbol is often used for readings which have manuscript support, according to Livineius' collations, and in places where it would have been very difficult to suspect a corruption and guess the correct reading.92 The abbreviation `p.' corresponds to `puto' or 'quad verum puto'. In his notes on Prop‑
ertius Livineius uses these formulae, along with the simple to approve either of a manuscript reading or of a conjecture by himself or other critics.93 Politian and other scholars used the abbreviations c( c°, ce (= corrigo, corrige) in their collations to mark a reading they approved of, irrespective of its origin or manuscript support.94
Livineius rarely records conjecturers' names but refers to scholars who made conjectures on Arnobius in miscellaneous works, e.g. Lipsius and Gulielmus.95 He leaves nameless a large number of conjectures found in Ursinus' edition. The same can be observed of his notes on Euripides. This was by no means unusual in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: if an emendation was printed in a previous edition, it was often considered unnecessary to record the name of its author.96
92 For all this see Battezzato, `Marginalia (as in n. 12), 339—43. Van Dam, `Coming' (as in n. 60), 520, examined the possibility that the notes marked with were readings taken from a manuscript or an early edition, but suggested as a `provisional conclusion' that "`p." means puto or praefero, and that the conjectures are his [= Livineius'] own'. This is close to the interpretation I consider correct. S. Gysens, in a personal communication, notes that `in another book which L. annotated during his stay in Rome, we find the same system: see Claudii Claudiani catmina recensuit T. Birt ... (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, 10; Berlin, 1892), p. lxxxv (this editor seems to consider the `p.' variant readings as taken from a manuscript). One already finds this kind of sigla in a manuscript where L. marked variant readings shortly after he graduated from Leuven University; see J. van den Gheyn, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique (Brussels, 1902), ii, no. 1197'.
93 See the examples collected in Battezzato, `Marginalia' (as inn. 12), 341 n. 79. Cf the instances of `puto legendum' collected by Rizzo, Lessico (as in n. 73), 157 and 273. In the notes on Propertius, Livineius also occasionally uses `placer or `non placer': see Battezzato, ibid., 342 n. 80.	° Rizzo, ibid., 274.
9' On Arnobius 7. 40. 3 Livineius refers to Tani Gulielmi Plautinarum Quaestionum Commentarius... (Paris: Ae. Beysius, 1583), 99. Sabaeus, Gelenius, and Ursinus (in the text) read surrepto but Ursinus has the conjecture subrecto in the margin. Livineius writes `surrecto p.'. He later added a reference to the Bruxellensis, writing above the line, and using a different ink, and adding `Idem Gulielmio visum Plautinis quaest. 99'. surrecto is in fact the reading of P. See `Wilhelm, Johann' (1555—84) in Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 429. This example shows that Livineius wrote his notes at different stages.
" Brink, `Lipsius' (as in n. 3), 35 has a similar observation about Lipsius' edition of Tacitus, even if he means it sarcastically: `a correct or probable emendation in an earlier edition as a rule helped to disqualify, rather than qualify, its author for mention'.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	91

4. APPARATUS CRITICI, CRITICAL TEXTS, AND
EARLY EDITIONS
What differentiates Renaissance editions from modern ones? Many modern editions of classical texts are designed for students or the general reader, and do not have the space or the need to inform on the sources of the text. Translators base their work on a critical edition, but occasionally depart from it, and do not always have a list of divergences. In this section, I will point out some of the ways in which modern editions resemble Renaissance ones, in spite of vast progress in methodology, accessibility of sources, and book production. Renaissance editions were in general quite reasonable and useful; what validates present-day non-scholarly editions is the reference to a true critical text—which is, however, a very rare event for many texts. In many cases the `critical text' is a century old, or more.
4.1 Stemma and the Selection of Manuscripts

If we look at recent editions of classical texts, we will find that editors base their choices between readings on style, metre, and sense rather than on the stemmatic position of the witnesses that carry them. In his Texts and Transmission L. D. Reynolds presents a survey of `134 separate traditions' of Latin authors (p. vii): the contributors offer only forty stemmata, plus one very tentative one,97 and some five others, suggested as alternatives.98 Even if we make allowance for traditions that have only one or two witnesses, and cases where a stemma is implied by what is said,99 very often stemmatic rules cannot be used to decide on a reading. G. B. Alberti has argued as much, showing that strict stemmatic rules apply to few manuscript traditions of Greek authors, and even fewer Latin ones.'°°
Not only that. Chance still plays a role in the selection of manuscripts. R. D. Dawe declares that his choice of manuscripts of Aeschylus to
97 L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 29.	98 Ibid. 155, 166, and 295-8.
99 Timpanaro, Genesi (as in n. 4), 69—73 pointed out that Lachmann's presentation of the manuscript tradition of Lucretius was partly inconsistent precisely because he omitted to draw the stemma.
10 G. B. Alberti, Problemi di critica testuale (Florence, 1979), esp. 92—4. For a spirited defence of an aspect of the stemmatic method see M. D. Reeve, `Eliminatio codicum descriptorum: A Methodological Problem' in J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts (New York, 1989), 1—35, and the bibliography in Reeve, `Cuius in usum?' (as in n. 6), 196 nn. 6-7.

92	Luigi Battezzato
collate was based `partly on logic ... but also partly on no more scientific principles than suspicion, caprice, and the attractiveness of the cities in which they were located'.lol The picture does not change for Sophocles. Out of circa 190 manuscripts only twenty or so have been collated in detail.102 Even if we have some information about the remaining 170,103 the importance of some neglected manuscripts has been recently made apparent,104 and there are at least ten other interesting ones that have never been collated in detail. `Here we are, 600 years after the Renaissance, and still so much to be done on a central author.'105 Contemporary editors, when faced with a large textual tradition, have to be pragmatic in their choices. In the Renaissance, chance played a larger part in the selection of manuscript sources, especially as many libraries did not give easy access to readers and almost no catalogues were available.1o6
What definitely differentiates contemporary `eclectic' editions from Renaissance ones is the method of selecting manuscripts. Exhaustive lists of manuscripts, library catalogues, precise dating of manuscripts by palaeographical and codicological methods, examination of colometry for poetic texts: these are some of the factors that allow editors to choose the `best' sources. Renaissance scholars were at the mercy of chance. If the manuscript used for the vulgate was `good', their work was so much more likely to be of lasting value, and vice versa. Renaissance editors are
101 R. D. Dawe, The Collation and Investigation of Manuscripts of Aeschylus (Cambridge, 1964), 16. See also J. Diggle, The Textual Tradition of Euripides' Orestes (Oxford, 1991), 66; Reeve, `Cuius in usum?' (as in n. 6), 201 and 203.
102 See mainly R. D. Dawe, Studies on the Text of Sophocles (Leiden 1973—8).
103 See A. Turyn, Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Sophocles (Urbana, Ill., 1952).
'04 See SophoclisFabulae, ed. H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson (Oxford, 1990), p. viii on the manuscript K, and my contribution to F. Ferrari et at, `In margine al testo di Sofocle', Rivista di filologia e istruzione classica, 120 (1992), 388—410, esp. 390—2; M. Papathomopoulos, `De quelques manuscrits de Sophocle revisites', in A. Machin and L. Pernee (eds.), Sophocle: Le texte, les personnages (Aix en Provence, 1993), 75—94; L. Battezzato, `I codici Laur. C. S. 66 + C. S. 139, Urb. Gr. 141 + Ambr. 441 (H 77 sup.) e la tradizione manoscritta di Sofocle', Prometheus, 22 (1996), 29—34; on related problems in Sophocles see M. Hecquet-Devienne, `Une alternative au debar entre "stemmatistes" et "contaminationnistes": L'analyse archeologique des textes dans les manuscrits grecs de reference', Lexis, 19 (2001), 133-40. On Latin authors, see Reeve, Cuius in usum?' (as in n. 6), 197 and 203.
10' M. L. West, `Tragica II', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 25 (1978), 106—22 at 108, with a list of unexplored manuscripts—mostly still unexplored.
106 Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 75—6; Canfora, Fozio (as in n. 7), 138. Grafton, `The Vatican Library' (as in n. 31), 38—42 stresses the positive role of the Vatican library. Canfora's book narrates in detail the difficulties 16th-c. editors had in gaining access to manuscripts: scholars knew that the codices of Photius in the Marciana were the best, but these manuscripts were rarely available, and only through copies.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	93
at their best when the textual tradition is very narrow. In these cases, progress made in later editions is largely due to conjectural emendations, the field where Renaissance scholars excelled. In the last two centuries, new successful conjectures were due to the ingenuity of exceptional scholars, but they were also made possible by new and better under-standing of metre and linguistics.107
For instance, Renaissance scholars made a greater contribution to the text of Euripides' Helen than to that of Phoenissae. Diggle, in the apparatus to Helen 1400, mentions 178 conjectures, eighteen of which were made before the eighteenth century (10%);108 in his apparatus to Phoenissae 1-400, the conjectures made before the eighteenth century are three out of 163 (2%).109 The Aldine text of the Helen was based on an apograph of the best (and probably unique) independent manuscript of the play.rlo Early editions of Phoenissae were based on faulty manuscripts,) r r and scholars had to work very hard to restore what was in fact transmitted by the `best' sources.112

17 On the number of likely or successful conjectural emendations in Aeschylus and their chronological distribution over the centuries see the remarks by V. Di Benedetto, `Sul testo dell'Agamennone di Eschilo', Rivista di flologia e istruzione classica, 120 (1992), 129–53 at 152–3. It is important to note that G. Hermann (1772–1848), one of the most successful conjecturers on tragic texts, did not have a clear concept of recensio, and based his work on the old-fashioned concepts of emendatio ope codicum and ope ingenii: Timpanaro, Genesi (as in n. 4), 35 and 42. On recensio and emendatio in Timpanaro's work, and on his evaluation of conjectures see the important remarks by Di Benedetto, `Filologia' (as in n. 4), 19–32.
108 See the following readings: Aldina 131, 179, 183, 283, 306; Hervagiana secunda 109; Commeliniana 282; Portus 48, 100; Muret 201; Scaliger 131, 277, 352; Sigonius 378; Stephanus 298, 302, 349, 389. Eleven of these conjectures are accepted by Diggle in his text. G. Hermann is mentioned four times.
'09 See Brodaeus 308, W. Canter 226, Hemsterhuys 370. Diggle prints the last two in his text. G. Hermann is mentioned twenty times.
10 Kannicht, Euripides, Helena, ed. R. K. (Heidelberg, 1969) i. 110 argues, with Kirchhoff, that the Aldine text of Helen was based on Par. gr. 2817, a copy of manuscript L. M. Magnani, La tradizione manoscritta degli Eraclidi di Euripide (Bologna, 2000), 207–33 argues that the Aldine was not based directly on Par. gr. 2817, but on a copy of it, now lost.
11 Paris. suppl. gr. 212 and 393, with readings from at least three other manuscripts in Phoenissae, at least two in the Orestes M. Sicherl, `Die Editio Princeps Aldina des Euripides and ihre Vorlagen', in Rheinisches Museum, 118 (1975), 205–25; Euripides, Phoenissae, ed. D. J. Mastronarde (Leipzig, 1988), pp. xviii–xx, and Diggle, Tradition (as in n. 101), 72–3 with bibliography; at p. 159 Diggle lists the manuscripts that more often preserved the truth.
112 Mastronarde (as in n. 111), pp. xix–xx, lists the names of the scholars who first corrected some peculiar readings of the Aldine. Barnes and King have a large share of merit, primarily because they had access to new manuscript evidence. K. Matthiessen, Studien zur Textiiberlieferungder Hekabe des Euripides (Heidelberg, 1974), 119 provides a similar, if more selective, list for Hecuba. Conjecturing what is transmitted is likelier when the manuscripts are very numerous, but it happens also in a very narrow manuscript tradition: cf. e.g. Brink, `Lipsius' (as in n. 3), 37 n. 30.

94	Luigi Battezzato
4.2 The Veneration for the editio princeps
If a Renaissance editor printed a large number of conjectures in the text, his work found less favour with subsequent editors. Arnobius is a case in point. Gelenius' heavily emended text made sense in many passages where the vulgate did not, but other scholars preferred the editio princeps. Only Rene Laurent de la Barre and Dirk Canter used Gelenius as the basis for an edition.113 With hindsight, we can say that sticking to the editio princeps was eminently sensible in this case. From the perspective of sixteenth-century scholars, it was not absurd to do the same in the case of other writers too. It was reasonable to assume that editiones principes, especially Italian editions, were based on good manuscripts. Italy had (and still has) the best or only manuscripts of many important classical works, for instance Aeschylus and Euripides, the Digest, Cicero's Brutus, De oratore, Ad familiares, and Tacitus.114 In the fifteenth century, scholars from northern Europe were dependent on Italian editions.115 Greek manuscripts arrived from Byzantium in Italy, and were difficult to find elsewhere in Europe.116 Aldus Manutius `was responsible for the first printing of nearly all the Greek authors'.11' Note also that for some Greek and Latin authors the editio princeps is still the only witness, as all manuscripts have disappeared.18 In the case of Arnobius, even Reifferscheid, the best modern editor along with Marchesi, gives all the readings of the princeps in the apparatus, because he thought there was some small chance that the princeps was based on a lost manuscript.119
113 See Opera Tertulliani et Arnobii ...studio ... Renati Laurenti de la Barre (Paris: G. Iulianus, 1580), 133—232 (second pagination). For D. Canter's edn. see n. 80 above.
114 See e.g. R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini egreci ne'secoliX[V eXV (Florence, 1905), 183—213; Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes (as in n. 70), 137—9; Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 87; Lipsius as reported in Brink, `Lipsius' (as in n. 3), 33 n. 9. Many of these important manuscripts came from libraries outside Italy (see e.g. Sabbadini, 211—13).
"5 Cf. R. Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450—1550 (Wiesbaden, 1967), 138—40 and 144, repr. in A. Petrucci (ed.), Libri, editori epubblico nell'Europa moderna (Bari, 1977), 25—7 and 34; see also J. M. Dureau, `Les premiers ateliers francais', in H.-J. Martin, R. Chartier, and J. P. Vivet (eds.), Histoire de l'edition francaise, is Le livre conquirant (Paris, 1982), 163—75 at 174; M. D. Feld, `The Early Evolution of the Authoritative Text', Harvard Library Bulletin, 26 (1978), 81—111 at 89.
116 See in general N. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (London, 1992); M. Cortesi, `Umanesimo greco', in Cavallo, Leonardi, and Menesto (as in n. 72), 457—507 at 484—503.
117 Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes, (as in n. 70), 155.
"$ Pasquali (as in n. 7), 98—101.
119 Arnobius, Adversus nationes 1. vii, ed. C. Marchesi (2nd edn., Turin, 1953). B. Amata bases his very useful annotated translation on a Latin text he has made available online, revising Marchesi's edition: see Arnobio, Difesa della vera religione, ed. and trans.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	95
This was especially the practice of scholars in France, Germany, and the Low Countries, regions which in the sixteenth century rivalled Italy and eventually surpassed it in the number of books published.120 First editions, we now know, were `printed from current humanist copies, the text of which represented a chance mixture of traditional readings with conjectural emendations',121 but most scholars then had no means of acquiring information on the age of the manuscripts used for first editions, and assumed they were old and reliable. Renaissance scholars, not unreasonably, were very cautious in rejecting readings that had found their way into an editio princeps in favour of those in some other manuscript.122
The vulgate method had practical reasons too. When Scaliger pre-pared his first edition of Manilius (1579), he gave the printer a corrected copy of the edition by Nicolaus Prdckner (published in 1533); for the second edition (1600), he corrected a copy of his own first edition.123 This procedure was common, and was probably meant to avoid the mistakes that would have occurred if the editor himself prepared a new manuscript copy of the text to be printed. Scaliger's edition was vastly superior to Pruckner's, but his editorial technique was not original.
4.3 The Critical Text
As Kenney notes, `until an appropriate vehicle, with its own style and idiom, could be devised for reporting the readings of the MSS—for

B. Amata (Rome, 2000), and http://geocities.com/arnobius/index.html.3. Amata 's translation includes an updated bibliography. I follow his paragraph division.
120 See in general L. Febvre and H.-J. Martin, L'Apparition du livre (2nd edn., Paris, 1971), 258–81; H.-J. Martin, `Renouvellements et concurrence', in Martin, Chartier, and Vivet (as in n. 115), 379–404 at 396; H.-J. Martin, `Classements et conjonctures', ibid. 429–57 at 444.
12' So e.g. Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 4.
122 A notable case where the princeps was superseded by a subsequent edition is Aeschylus. The 1557 edition by Victorius and Stephanus offered new material (a complete text of the Agamemnon), and a text based on `better' manuscripts: see J. A. Gruys, The Early Printed Editions (1518–1664) ofAeschylus (The Hague, 1981), 77–96 and 229; Mund-Dopchie, Survie (as in n. 17), 124	49 and 425. On a similar process for Vergil,
see M. Venier, Per una storia del testo di Virgilio nella prima eta del libro a stampa (1469–1519) (Udine, 2001), 134-6.
123 See M. Manilii Astronomic-on libri quinque, J. Scaliger recensuit ac pristino ordini suo restituit. Ejusdem J Scaligeri commentarius in eosdem libros et castigationum explications (Paris: M. Patisson and R. Stephanus, 1579) and M. D. Reeve, `Scaliger and Manilius', Mnemosyne, 33 (1980), 177–9 at 177. E. Stagni suggests tome that this choice, and the style of presentation of this edition, was determined by the typographer, M. Patisson, who also published Pithou's editions of Petronius (see below, n. 165), and Scaliger's Festus.

96	Luigi Battezzato
communicating systematically the evidence on which the text rested—confusion and obscurity were inevitable.'124 The concept of apparatus criticus, however, involves two things: a set of conventions for presenting data about manuscripts and conjectures (sigla, abbreviations, references to other scholars) and the concept of a critical text. Modern editors aim at `ascertaining as exactly as possible what the authors wrote and defining the areas of uncertainty'.125 I am not sure that every Renaissance editor had this aim. They thought in more practical terms, and aimed at offering a readable text, with minimal corrections of `obvious' mistakes, and notes enabling the reader to judge the more controversial cases. Editors knew that the `areas of uncertainty' were very large: many passages were not clear. Oporinus admits that he had to print a number of unintelligible passages in his edition of Euripides: `nonnulla etiam in medio relinquere, melioris uidelicet exemplaris ope destitutos oportuit'.126 Feld notes that Aldus felt secure in his command of Latin texts, but expressed doubts about the absolute correctness of his Greek editions.127 Editors constantly complain about the lack of `good manuscripts', and this is not a rhetorical topos: new manuscripts were being found all the time, and a truly definitive edition was not possible with what was available.
Even now few scholars aim at printing `what the author wrote', and `limiting the areas of uncertainty'. Those who publish classical texts in series other than Teubner, Buck, or OCT often have aims similar to those of Renaissance scholars. Take, for instance, David Kovacs's Loeb edition of Euripides. Kovacs is well aware that he is not always printing what Euripides wrote, and that he is not defining all the areas of uncertainty. His aim has been `to produce a text that is continuously readable, even in places where we cannot be absolutely certain of the precise wording'. He fills extensive lacunae, knowing that he might at best be conveying the gist of the lost passage; he also avoids obeloi, and tacitly prints a number of conjectures where the change `is very slight'. Still, Kovacs's edition pre-supposes the existence of a truly critical edition for more exigent readers to fall back on:128 Diggle's edition functions as some sort of
124 Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 68.
125 M. L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts (Stuttgart, 1973), 8.
126 See Euripidis tragoediae octodecim (Basle: apud I. Hervagium, 1544), prefatory letter, fo. 3'.
1'7 See Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115), 92 and 94. Some editors used an asterisk to mark corrupted passages: see W. Canter's editions of Euripides (1571) and Aeschylus (1580); Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 155 and n. 2.
128 That is Diggle's edition: see Euripides, Cyclops, Aclestis, Medea, ed. D. Kovacs (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), 38.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	97
vulgate text. The same criteria are used in Goold's Loeb edition of Manilius. Goold presupposes Housman's text, does not print conjecturers' names, and does not note in the apparatus `minute and obviously correct conjectures, made not later than the sixteenth century and universally accepted'.129 The same can be said of other series that publish classical texts with facing translations.
`Upon opening a book, we can almost immediately classify it as a popular, student, or advanced text, solely on the basis of its typography and layout.'13o This is less obvious for Renaissance editions, but there are some clues. Editors sometimes draw attention to what sort of text they are trying to produce. Gelenius, for instance, has no textual notes, and states on the front page of his Arnobius that the book contains `the Case against the Pagans by Arnobius, in eight books, now finally [printed] with such diligent care that scholars can get to know them without offence and with greater profit in the reading'.131 To achieve this goal, Gelenius emended the text very heavily. The editio princeps was very close to the manuscript P, and its text was often unintelligible. Gelenius wanted to provide readers with a text they could make sense of. It was more like a Loeb than an OCT. Scholars who wanted to work on the text of Arnobius consulted the editio princeps (D. Canter, G. Stewech, D. Heraldus), or at least tried to do so (J. Meursius) (see below, 05.1).
4.4 The Invention of the Critical apparatus

Dirk Canter tried to make a scholarly edition using Gelenius' edition as base-text.132 Here is a sample of his critical notes:133

34 Et in gratiam cum hominibus remissis onsionibus redire opinatis. ] Temere hunc locum corrupit Gelenius, homo alioqui doctissimus, sed in emendando nimium quantum sibi licentiae sumens. Alio enim et longe meliori verborum
'29 Manilius, Astronomica, ed. G. P. Goold (Cambridge, Mass. etc., 1977), p. cxii; `obviously correct conjectures' include a number of very clever and non-obvious suggestions made by Scaliger.	730 Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115), 84.
131 Arnobii Disputationum aduersus gentes libri VIII. nunc demum sic accurati, ut ab eruditis sine ulla offensatione et cum maiore lectionis operae pretio cognosci possint. Note that Gelenius worked in printing firms correcting proofs: A. Grafton, `Corrector-es corruptores? Notes on the Social History of Editing', in G. Most (ed.), Editing Texts. Texte edieren (Gottingen, 1998), 54—76 at 61-3. Gelenius' words can often be paralleled: most editions claim to be `more accurate', `more correct', or `fuller' than earlier ones. Still, other editors are more cautious: see the titles of the editions by Ursinus (as inn. 86) and D. Heraldus: Arnobii disputationum adversus gentes libri septem, M Minucij Fe/it-is Octavius, editio noua, ad editionem Romanam expressa, quibusdam tamen in locis e ms. Reg. aucta et emendata, Desiderii Heraldi ad Arnobii libros VII animadversiones et castigationes (Paris: M. Orry, 1605).
132 See n. 80 above.	133 D. Canter, Arnobii (as in n. 80), 284—5.

98	Luigi Battezzato
ordine hic locus exaratus legitur in Romano codice, hoc modo: Et in gratiam cum hominibus remini offensionibus redire sopitis [7. 36. 3]
37 Uti ad consules suaderetpraesulem sibi displicuisse. ] Recte Lipsius noster ad consules vaderet [7. 39. 3]
38 Est cur ignoscere debeamus. ] Melius in Romano, est ut ignoscere debeamus [7. 42. 2]
39 Auersabili corpora foeditate deoneratis. ] In Romano codice est, deonerans; quam scripturam sequor [7. 45. 1]

If we look at Livineius' collations, made against Gelenius' edition, we find a much more concise presentation of the same evidence. Livineius underlines the letters for which he has a variant reading. We find:
TEXT	MARGIN
remissis offensionibus redire opinatis	mini	sopi RL 
	egregium nec video cur mutatur.
suaderet	ua, p. P Idem Lipsio uisum Epist. Quaest. iii epist. xv.
cur	ut R L
deoneratis	tans p. R L
Livineius includes information about manuscripts L (= Bruxellensis) and P (from Carrion's collation), and about Ursinus 1583 (R).134 The collation is analytical, extensive, and concisely presented. These conventions appear to have been in use since the time of Politian.135 Had they been printed, these collations would have looked like an apparatus criticus. This style of presentation, however, is extremely uncommon in sixteenth- or seventeenth-century editions. This is so for both cultural and typographical reasons. Many Renaissance scholars perceived sigla and line numbers as inelegant in published books.136 They preferred less concise systems of reference. In most cases, humanistic notes were printed as endnotes, and were not confined to reporting manuscript readings or conjectures. They often constituted a cross-breed of scholarly genres: collations, philological letters, treatises about grammar and
134 The notes are from pp. 272, 275, 277, 281. It is an easy inference that MS P agrees with R when Carrion/Livineius do not report a reading for P. This is the case for the readings of R reported above. Livineius is apparently careful in reporting R, not P, in these cases. The explicit report of P's reading at 7. 39. 3 is, however, wrong: P reads suaderet.	735 See §3.1, and Delatour, Livres (as in n. 62), 73.
136 Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 152-7.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	99
mythology. Hostility against an `algebraic' system of reference was very pronounced in genres such as `philological letters', the equivalent of modern articles and reviews.137 The rules of classical letter-writing dictated a certain disdain for minutiae, equated with elegance by Renaissance scholars. Some Plantin editions came very close to reproducing the appearance of collations138 but could not make full use of the margins, for reasons of space and typographical convenience. The mise en page of the editions was different from that of the collations. The `algebraic' system of reference is not very practical unless the notes are printed on the same page as the text, and later editions, especially variorum editions, abandoned it. Endnotes were less practical for information in a compact form, while they gave scope for miscellaneous matter.

5. THE EARLY EDITIONS OF ARNOBIUS AND THE
TYPOLOGY OF EARLY EDITIONS
5.1 Editions of Arnobius
We can see the different phases in the formation of an apparatus criticus if we look at the editions of Arnobius between 1543 and 1651.
1.	Faustus Sabaeus publishes the editio princeps in 1543.139 He prints a text based on manuscript P. The editor states that he has corrected some passages with the help of H. Ferrarius and F. Priscianensis. Sabaeus did not include notes, but printed a list of errata.
For the following editions, editors had no access to new manuscript evidence:
2.	In 1546 Sigismundus Gelenius (Zikmund Hruby z Jeleni) prints a `reading' text, with some rewriting ope ingenii, to make difficult passages intelligible.14o He does not include textual notes of any sort, and inserts his conjectures directly in the text. The edition by La Barre141 is an in-folio reprint of Gelenius' text, with some exegetical notes at the bottom of the page, but no comment on the text.
3.	In 1582 Dirk Canter reprints Gelenius' text with some modifications, inserting readings from the editio princeps.l42 His textual and exegetical notes appear as endnotes. Marginal numbers signal the
137 Pasquali, Storia (as inn. 7), 76-7.	'38 Feld, `Evolution' (as inn. 115), 104-8.
139 See n. 71 above.	140 See n. 71 above.	141 See n. 113 above. 
142 See n. 80 above.

100	Luigi Battezzato
presence of a note. Canter claims not to have inserted any conjectures in the text. In his notes he draws attention to passages where his text departs from that of Gelenius.
4.	Ursinus (Fulvio Orsini) based his 1583 text on the editio princeps, but used unpublished notes of other scholars, especially Pedro Chacon (1527-81),143 for conjectural emendations. He explains that he accepted in his text only the emendations `quae et multorum judicio probatae et sine ulla controversia verae visae essent',144 relegating to the margins those that looked `non ita certae'. He does not give any indication about the authors of specific conjectures. Ursinus records far more suggestions than Canter. He also prints parallel passages in the margins.
5.	In 1603 Elmenhorst (Geverhardus Elmenhorstius) prints the text of the princeps, `rarely' (his word, in the preface) inserting readings from published collations or conjectures. He adds exegetical notes after the text, and then a section of variae lectiones. He gives sources for each reading (e.g. `R.C.' = Romanus Codex = the
editio princeps; Gelenius') .145
For the following editions, the editors had access to new manuscript evidence, either directly, or through unpublished collations:
6.	Stewech (Godescalchus Stewechius) had access to MS B.146 In the margins of his text he prints variant readings from it (siglum M.S.), and conjectural readings accompanied by scholars' names (Ste(wech), Ursinus). He justifies his choices in a series of end-notes, reproduced in Salmasius' edition (see below).
7.	In 1605 Desiderius Heraldus makes it clear from the title that he is reproducing the text of the editio princeps, corrected with the help of readings from the Paris manuscript. Heraldus does not seem to have had direct access to the manuscript itself.147
143 Ursinus (as in n. 86). On Chacon see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in
n. 13), 112.
'44 Ursinus (as in n. 86): sig. a4l'; Nolhac, Bibliothique (as in n. 13), 48.
145 See Arnobii disputationum adversus gentes libri septem, quibus accedit eiusdem argumenti dialogus M. Minutii Felicis Octavius, G. Elmenhorst recensuit et notis illustravit
(Hanau: Wechel, 1603).
146 Arnobii Disputationum aduersusgentes libri septem. Cum Godescalci Stewechii electis (Antwerp: I. Trognaesius, 1604). Stewech finished his edition in 1587, but the book was not published until after his death.
147 See n. 131 above. On Heraldus (Didier Herault, 1575-c.1649), see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 232.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	101
After a period of competing editions, a summa of most of the important material published appeared:
8.	Claudius Salmasius published a variorum edition in 1651. It includes a new text, and the notes of all the important commentators.148

Adversaria also appeared:
9.	Some collections of textual notes were based on new manuscript evidence, and appeared in a miscellany.149 The first part of Joannes Meursius' Criticus Arnobianus is a collection of textual notes, but it is not based on new manuscript evidence.150 In his Appendix, Meursius reports an extensive collation of manuscript P, with discussion of the text-critical implications of the new readings. The collation was made by Scaliger.151
5.2 Systems of Reference

We can see that many early editions of classical texts correspond to one or other of the types listed above. If we look at some other examples, we will see how accuracy in reporting variants is influenced by typographical conventions. The main problem was how to make precise reference to a word in the text.152 Prose texts were especially difficult. One possibility was to divide the text into small sections. This system was used for the
14s Arnobii Afri adversus Gentes libri VZL Cum recensione viri celeberrimi [i.e. Claude de Saumaise], &integris omnium commentariis [ed. Antonius Thysius] (Leiden: I. Maire, 1651). On Salmasius (1588—1653) see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 382.
149 See e.g. Carrion, Emendationum fiber secundus (as in n. 58), 38 and 52.
150 See loannis Meursii Criticus Arnobianus tributus in libros septem, item Hypocriticus Minutianus et excerpta Ms. Regii Parisiensis (Leiden: ex officina L. Elzeviri, 1598); see also the `editio altera et melior' (1599), with the same title. On Joannes Meursius (Jan de Meurs, 1579—1639) see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as inn. 13), 304; V. Brown, `Cato, Marcus Porcius', Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, iv (1980), 223—47 at 240; C. Ampolo, Storiegreche (Turin, 1997), 21—2. On the scholarly genre adversaria and its vogue after the publication of Turnebe's 1564 Adversaria see J.-M. Chatelain, `Les Recueils d'adversaria aux XVIe et XVIIC siecles: Des pratiques de la lecture savante au style de l'erudition', in F. Barbier et al. (eds.), Le livre et l'historien: Etudes offertes en l'honneur du Professeur Henri Jean Martin (Geneva, 1997), 169—86.
151 From the 1609 auction catalogue of books owned by Scaliger we know that he annotated a copy of Gelenius' 1546 edition: cf. R. Smitskamps, The Scaliger Collection . . . Supplement: Joseph Scaliger: A Bibliography 1850—1993, by A. Grafton and H. J. de Jonge (Leiden, 1993), 104. See also The Scaliger Collection, 19: Scaliger owned a copy of Elmenhorst's edition (as inn. 145). See J. Bernays, Joseph Justus Scaliger (Berlin, 1855), 187 on the quarrel between Elmenhorst and Wower on Arnobius.
152 On reference systems in modern editions see Reeve, `Cuius in usum?' (as in n. 6), 202.

102	Luigi Battezzato
Bible, and for legal and theological texts in the Middle Ages.153 Aldus Manutius started the habit of leaving `white spaces' in mid-line to mark sections in prose texts, a habit which later developed into paragraph divisions, especially under the influence of the editions published by Plantin.154 Aldus also experimented with a number of systems of reference for indexes and errata in his editions at a time when page numbering was not standard.155 In the sixteenth century, references to page and line number became standard, even for verse.156 This, however, meant that an editor preparing a manuscript for the press had no easy way of cross-referencing: in his 1554 edition of Catullus, Muret did not number the poems, or the lines, and had no way of referring to parallel passages, except by quotation, leaving it to the reader to locate the line.157
In the second half of the sixteenth century, the Plantin printing firm was at the forefront of innovation, introducing newer and more efficient systems of reference. There was an important field where a precise reference system was essential: censorship. The Index, published by Plantin in 1571,155 gives page references for the passages that are to be erased or blackened in printed books. If more than one edition of a book has appeared, the Index gives page numbers for all of them. It also transcribes the passage to be omitted, or, if this is too long, its incipit and explicit. The Plantin press was apparently the first to print continuous line

153 P. Stein, Regulae Iuris (Edinburgh, 1966), 115—16; M. A. and R. H. Rouse, `La Naissance des index', in Martin, Chartier, and Vivet (as in n. 115), 77—85 at 80, and Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame, Ind., 1991), 192—201 and 222—46; A. Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (London, 1997), 30 n. 58; H.-J. Martin, Mise en page et mise en texte du livre francais: La naissance du livre moderne (XIT/'—XVIF siecles) (Paris, 2000), 104—6.
154 See the important discussion in Martin, Mise en page (as in n. 153), 301—11.
155 Cf. C. Vecce, `Aldo e 1'invenzione dell'indice', in D. S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renaissance Culture: Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy (Florence, 1998), 109—41 with bibliography on early indexing techniques; p. 121 for indications of variant readings.
156 e.g. ibid. 123 on the index to Ovid. Scaliger (or his typographer, M. Patisson) uses this system in his edition of Manilius (1579: see n. 123 above).
'57 Catullus et in eum commentarius M. Antonii Mureti (Venice: P. Manutius, 1554). Muret prints his notes at the end of each poem; this is rather inconvenient for the longer poems in the collection. See Gaisser, `Catullus' (as in n. 4), 260—5 and Catullus (as in n. 7), 155-68.
15s Index expurgatorius librorum qui hoc seculo prodierunt... (Antwerp: Plantin, 1571) reprinted in J. M. De Bujanda (ed.), Index des livres interdits, vii: Index d'Anvers 1569, 1570, 1571 (Sherbrooke, 1988), 711—834. Arias Montano, the editor of Plantin's polyglot Bible, was the head of the censorship committee (see Bujanda, p. 89). On the Plantin press see C. Clair, Christopher Plantin (London, 1960) and L. Voet and J. Voet-Grisolle, The Plantin Press (1555—1589) (Amsterdam, 1980-3).

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	103
numbering in books of poetry: Kenney refers to an Ovid edition of 1575.159 The better the reference system, the easier it is to record variant readings and conjectures,160 or to indicate what is to be censored.
5.3 Types of Editions and Systems of Reference 5.3.1 The Bare Text
The earliest type corresponds to what we see in the editio princeps of Arnobius, and in Gelenius' edition: there are no textual notes indicating divergences from the manuscript(s) used, or from an earlier edition. This type is very common in the first part of the sixteenth century: no edition of Euripides until that of Gasparus Stiblinus (Caspar Stiblin) in 1562 has textual notes, even if there were instances of emendation by conjecture.161 In the preface to his edition of Silius, Franciscus Asulanus162 states that he added eighty-four lines `in principio octaui libri',163 but does not think it useful to indicate which these, or any he may have emended, are. He has no notes of any sort. Examples can easily be multiplied.
5.3.2 Textual Endnotes
Dirk Canter printed a relatively small number of critical notes at the end of his edition of Arnobius: little more than one per page (297 notes for 249 pages of text). The same system, with a similarly small number of notes, had been used by his brother Willem Canter.164 The editions of Petronius published by Pierre Pithou (1539–96) in 1577 and 1587 are
159 Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 153.
160 The standardization of line numbers and paragraphs is a consequence of the cultural status of a given text, as reflected by the number of editions. It was Ovid, a widely read author, who was one of the first to be honoured by `continuous' numbers; the Gospels were divided into verses from as early as 1551: Kenney (as inn. 1), 152; Martin, Mise en page (as in n. 153), 298. A relatively obscure writer like Arnobius does not have a standard division into sub-paragraphs, unlike e.g. Tacitus or Herodotus.
161 See the list in Kannicht, Euripides (as in n. 110), i. 112—14; Euripides poeta ... in latinum sermonem conuersus, adiecto e regione textu Graeco. cum annotationibus et praefationibus in omnes eius tragoedias, autore Gasparo Stiblino, accedunt...Ioannis Brodaei... annotationes... (Basle: I. Oporinus, 1562).
162 i.e. Giovan Francesco Torresani (c.1480—c.1557): Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 408.
163 Silii Italici De Bello Punico libri septemdecim (Lyon: S. Gryphius, 1547), 3.
164 For instance, in Aeschyli tragoediae vii ... opera G. Canteri . . . (Antwerp: Plantin, 1580), the reader finds forty-nine textual notes (mostly conjectures) on Agamemnon, only five on Prometheus, eight on Persians, and so on. Canter's edition of Euripides is similar in this respect.

104	Luigi Battezzato
notable for their reasonably systematic use of sigla in reporting variant readings. Pithou uses endnotes, keyed to the page, and includes a lemma. The manuscripts are designated by abbreviations, which get shortened from time to time (e.g. Autissiodurensis can be Autis or Aut.).165 The 1587 edition has an appendix with notes by other scholars, keyed to page and line.
Scaliger's 1579 edition of Manilius is a more elaborate version of this type. He did not look for new manuscript evidence,166 but emended a large number of passages by conjecture. He numbered the lines in each page and keyed his Commentarius (which was provided with its own line numbers as well) to page and line of the text. What is interesting is that in the Commentarius he gave as lemma the vulgate reading (Pruckner's edition), and then added his emendation.167 This correction of Pruckner's text was not always thorough, and in some cases the emendation is only found in the commentary,168 but the system is applied with reasonable consistency. This looks like an inversion of the system used in most modern apparatus, where the text printed by the editor comes as lemma, and is followed by the reading of the manuscript. The style of presentation chosen by Scaliger is counterintuitive, and impractical if several manuscript sources are used: which reading should be selected as lemma? Scaliger aimed at maximizing the impact of his innovations by referring to a generic vulgate text. No wonder that very few scholars dared follow his example. In his edition, `text and commentary are coupled in two distinct, equal, and concurrent editions, each with its title page and colophon, and each with a congruent system of marginal notation'; `the contribution of the critic is presented on terms of equality with the actual text'.169
5.3.3 Textual Notes in the Margin
A more modest, and more concise, style of presentation consists in printing variant readings in the margin. There are drawbacks: little space
165 See Petronii Arbitri Satyrica, ex veteribus libris emendatius... [ed. P. Pithou] (Paris: M. Patisson, 1577) and Petronii Arbitri Satyricon .... Cum notis doctorum virorum [ed. P. Pithou] (Paris: M. Patisson, 1587). Both editions have a section of varietal lectionum, after the text, and with separate pagination. The readings are keyed to the page, but not to the line. On these editions see Muller (as in n. 8), 397—8 and Richardson (as in n. 7), 40—62.
'66 See Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 190—2.
i67 See e.g. the Commentarius in Scaliger's Manilius (as in n. 123), p. 140, discussing p. 65 of the text, 1. `15 Omniaque infantum) Lege infantum' (=Man. 3. 133). For another example, see Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115), pl. VII.
168 For instance the Commentarius in Scaliger's Manilius (as in n. 123), 19, on Man. 1. 228 (Scaliger's Manilius, p. 8 of the text, I. 15).
169 Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115), 102—3.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	105
is left for explaining the origin of the readings. Ursinus' edition of Arnobius is still noteworthy for the conjectures it includes, but we do not know which of the scholars he names in the preface suggested which conjecture. The result, flattering to Ursinus' fame, is that the conjectures all go by his name in modern apparatus. The marginal notes are keyed to the text by symbols or numbers. The technique used in Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, Cornelius Gallus (Lyon: A. Gryphius, 1573) was a little better.17o The editors (V. Giselinus and T. Pulmannus) printed variant readings in the margins, using asterisks to mark the corresponding word in the text. The readings are attributed to scholars, referred to by abbreviations (for instance Stat. = Achilles Statius, Car. = L. Carrion). The notes rarely make it clear whether the readings were found in manuscripts or are conjectural. In the Propertius section the editors give only W. Canter's notes, without sigla, and do not even differentiate between variant readings and explicative glosses, a confusing presentation.171 Marginal notes do cause confusion, but this system forced editors and printers to unusual conciseness, and to resort to sigla.
5.3.4 Textual Notes in the Margin and at the End
In the preface to his 1566 edition of Plautus,172 C. Plantin explains to the reader that marginal readings accompanied by the siglum `S.' indicate `Sambuci lectiones';173 the siglum means that the manuscript of Langius agrees with `S.'. This rudimentary apparatus is supplemented by an appendix which lists all the readings of Langius' manuscript, and the observations of other scholars. The main text has

vo This edition is little more than a reprint, in a compact format, of the notes of famous scholars. Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115) shows that editors with no scholarly pretensions often resort to more effective ways of presenting the evidence.
'71 In Latino-Attici Oratores sive Panegyrici diversorum, cum veterum, turn recentiorum scriptorum (Douai: B. Bellerus, 1595), variant readings are printed in the margins accompanied by al., videtur legendum, opinor legendum, melius, forte, without explanation as to their origins.
v2 M. Accii Plauti Comoediae viginti,... opera...Ioannis Sambuci..., aliquot eruditae C. Langij, Adr. Turnebi, Hadr. Iunij, et aliorum doctorum virorum, partim margini adscriptae, partim in calcem reiectae, observationes (Antwerp: Plantin, 1566). The line numbers start from 1 on each page. In Petronii Arbitri Massiliensis Satyrici fiagmenta, restituta et aucta, e Bibliotheca Iohannis Sambuci (Antwerp: Plantin, 1565), marginal notes report variant readings taken from an edition (Paris 1520: `vulg(ata)') and a manuscript (`v.c.', now Vindob. lat. 3198): Muller, Petronius (as in n. 8), 389.
173 The manuscript used by Sambucus (Janos Zsamboki, 1531—84: Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as in n. 13), 436) is Vindob. lat. 3168: see F. Ritschl, Opuscula philologica (Leipzig, 1868), ii. 27 and 155—6; C. Questa, Parerga plautina: Struttura e tradizione manoscritta delle commedie (Urbino, 1985), 234—6.

106	Luigi Battezzato
line numbers starting on each page, and the endnotes refer to these numbers. The readings of Langius are printed at the end `quod ora libri eas non caperet' (the book is in 16°). This is as close as we get to the admission, by a scholarly printer, that an apparatus criticus was typo-graphically impossible. Plantin was doing his best to give all the relevant data to his readers in the most compact format. It also shows that in many cases it was up to the printer to decide how to present textual notes.
Some editors did not like having endnotes. In his 1575 edition of Petronius, Tornaesius had to resort to endnotes to report readings because he received an interesting manuscript (the lost Cuiacianus) too late, when pages 1–67 (approximately) had already been composed (prioribus foliis iam formis excusis). For the remaining pages he incorporated some of its readings in the main text, and others in marginal notes, making it difficult to discriminate the Cuiacianus from the other sources, to the frustration of Petronian scholars.174 It is clear that he preferred marginal notes, and used endnotes in an emergency, at the cost of exactness and clarity.
The limits of the marginal note system were soon apparent: if the sources were too numerous, there was not enough space for them. Stewech, in the edition of Vegetius that he completed in 1584,175 made use of nine sources (editions, manuscripts, or collations). He prints summary information about variant readings in the margin of his text: e.g. at p. 4 (Veg. 1. 3) in his marginal note to parco victu utantur he writes `omnes optimi libri, parvo'. If we look at the commentary on the same passage (p. 8) the picture changes dramatically: `parco victu utantur, et rustico] in aliis exemplaribus M(anu). S(criptis). N. H. et Susij, reperi parvo victu.' A list of abbreviations (sig. f 4') explains what these sigla refer to.176 The marginalia simply draw attention to
'74 Petronii arbitri Satyricon (Lyon: I. Tornaesius, 1575): see Muller, Petronius (as in n. 8), 396; Richardson, Reading (as in n. 7), 24—39 and 122—5; Stagni, `Ricerche' (as in n. 7), 207—11 and 218—23.
17 See Flavi Vegeti Renati De re militari libri quatuor ... ope veterum librorum correcti, a Godescalco Stewechio Heusdano.... Accessit seorsum eiusdem G. Stewechi in Fl. Vegetium Commentarius... (Leiden: F. Raphelengius, 1592). Cf. J. A. Wisman, `Flavius Renatus Vegetius', Corpus translationum et commentariorum, vi (Washington, DC, 1986), 175—84 at 183.
176 In the list we see the problems an early editor faced: most of the manuscripts were owned by private individuals, including Stewech himself, and it would have been difficult to trace them after a generation. Modern editors have not been able to identify them all; see Flavi Vegeti Renati epitoma rei militaris, ed. C. Lang (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1885), p. xlvi. In the 17th c., Heinsius could refer to catalogue numbers for Vatican manuscripts: see Munari, `Manoscritti' (as inn. 73); Reeve, `Cuius in usum?' (as in n. 6), 201 on problems with shelfmark changes in modern libraries.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	107
a problem, and make use of sigla, but most of the evidence is to be found in the commentary. Stewech uses a coherent system of sigla, and the text is divided into small chapters, so that it is easy to find the reference.177
The Plantin press did better with Livineius' edition of the Panegyrici Latini.178 Livineius (p. 6) lists six sources (manuscripts, collations, and editions) for his text and gives them sigla. He then prints the variant readings in the margins, accompanied by sigla, and marks his conjectures by `f' (=fortasse). Extensive endnotes supplement the information given in the margins, and explain his reasoning and textual choices. Endnotes are keyed to the text by reference to page and line number. It is characteristic of the age that Livineius does not always print in the text the reading he considers right.179 However, the format of the edition is similar to that of a modern book: critical edition of the text with information on the manuscript evidence, followed by notes which discuss textual problems in detail and offer comments on difficult pas-sages. It is interesting to note that the system of marginal notes with sigla reproduces the format of Livineius' collations. Marginal notes were used in the seventeenth century too (for instance in Barnes's edition of Euripides), but they were not the solution and had to be abandoned.
5.3.5 Variorum Editions
A variorum edition presupposes the existence of many previous editions. Variorum editions of widely read works such as Ovid's Heroides appeared as early as 1501. Arnobius had to wait until 1651. These early variorum editions are inconvenient to use. The difficult problem is the synchronization of text and several commentaries. In the 1501 Heroides,180 the text is centred, flush with the internal margin, with commentaries on the remaining three sides.' 81 The margins are used
Stewech combined marginal notes and endnotes in his edition of Arnobius too, but here he only had one manuscript source (`M.S.' = the Bruxellensis).
178 See above, nn. 62—3, for references.	179 See e.g. crimen p. 16 = 1. 11. 1.
-° Epistole Heroides Ovidii diligenti castigatio(n)e... figuris ornate. Commentantibus Antonio Uolsco Ubertino Crescentinate et Omnibono ... (Venice: I. Tacuinus de Tridino, 1501).
181 This corresponds to Powitz, type 2: G. Powitz, Textus cum commento', Codices manuscripti, 5, H. 3 (1979), 80—9. Powitz primarily discussed medieval manuscripts and incunabula. See now L. Holtz, `Glosse e commenti', in Cavallo, Leonardi, and Menesto (as in n. 72), 59—111. For the transition to the printed book see A. Labarre, `Les incunables: La presentation du livre', in Martin, Chartier, and Vivet (as in n. 115), 195—215 at 200—1; R. Laufer, `L'espace visuel du livre ancien', ibid. 479—97 at 495—6; Martin, Mire en page (as in n. 153), 219, 245 (with illustrations from Lyon editions of Ovid and Sallust of 1519 and 1526), and 292 (R. Stephanus 1545 Latin Bible). See also Kenney, Text (as in n. 1), 63—4.

108	Luigi Battezzato
for giving the names of the commentators, who mostly deal with mythological questions, and gloss difficult words. The 1554 variorum of Cicero's letters182 has the text centred with commentaries all round it.183 The text section also includes resumes of each letter, and other introductory material. Variant readings are printed in the margins of this internal section. The external margins of the commentary are used for indicating the author of each section of the commentary. The notes of each commentator on each letter are printed together. Some commentators, for instance Pier Vettori, discuss variant readings. The book includes commentaries by about twenty scholars. Finding what each commentator had to say about a particular passage is not very difficult if the letters are short, but it becomes problematic when the letters are many pages long. The complex typographical presentation chosen by the printer loses its meaning when the commentary is not level with the text. The book looks like a manuscript with scholia written in wide margins, but in manuscripts scholia refer to what is contained in the page. They assemble what commentators have to say on a particular passage, usually without individual attributions, though there may be indications that different sources have been used. In the Cicero variorum the printer rightly decided that it was important to identify such authors. However, he did not reorganize the commentary into small sections, nor could he use page and line numbers to refer to the text. This problem could only be solved by printing the commentary either as endnotes or as footnotes.
Printing critical notes at the bottom of the page was difficult. It could be done for texts that were expected to sell very well. Robertus Stephanus' 1557 edition of the Latin Bible reports the Variae interpretum lectiones cum hebraismorum explicatione at the bottom of the page,184 which looks neat and clear. In the seventeenth century we find footnotes in variorum editions of classical authors: a 1669 edition of Petronius has footnotes keyed to passages in the text by means of numbers.185 Pieter Burman the elder's Petronius adopts a different solution: the amount of text per page is so small and the notes so extensive that the lemmata are enough to identify the passage.

182 Marci Tullii Ciceronis Epistolarum Familiarium libri XVI, cum commentariis Iodoci Badii Ascensii ... et aliorum . . . annotationibus ... (Venice: H. Scotus, 1554).
183 This corresponds to Powitz, type 4 (as in n. 181).
184 See Martin, Mise en page (as in n. 153), 280.
185 Titi Petronii Arbitri . . . Satyricon, cum Fragments nuper Tragurii reperto ... amnia commentariis, et notis Doctorum virorum illustrata, concinnante M. Hadrianide (Amster-dam: J. Blaeu, 1669).

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	109
The longer collections of notes printed at the end of the text are only keyed to chapter and lemma, not to page and line.186
Other systems were impractical. Numbering endnotes would be confusing if different sets of notes had to be referred to. Endnotes were easier for poetry, as it was possible (even if by no means standard) to refer to continuous line numbers. This gave rise to a more or less standard system of reference,18i which made it easier to assemble the various notes. In the Stephanus variorum of Euripides, the editor converted Stiblinus' marginal notes into endnotes by adding line numbers.188 In the 1821 variorum edition of Euripides189 the editors conveniently assembled the observations of the most important scholars, and printed them as footnotes. Why this was not done by Stephanus is apparent as soon as we look at the Greek text in his edition. Stephanus had trouble paginating the main section so as to keep the Greek text, the Latin translation, and the relevant scholia together. He could not fill the pages evenly and had to leave blanks.
6. CONCLUSION
Einseitigkeit in Ubung der Krafte fiihrt zwar das Individuum unausbleiblich zum Irrtum, aber die Gattung zur Wahrheit. (F. Schiller) 190
Textual criticism, like most other sciences, is an aristocratic affair, not communicable to all men, nor to most men. A. E. Housman)191
In the past, historians and philosophers of science have attributed much of the growth of science to the work of the average scientist who, it is suggested, has
186 Titi Petronii Arbitri Satyricon quae supersunt cum integris doctorum virorum commentariis... curante P. Burmanno (Utrecht: G. vande Water, 1709).
187 Not always: in the case of Greek tragedy, lyric passages could be divided by editors into lines in a number of different ways. It is only since the 19th c. that editors adopt standard line numbers regardless of changes in the colometry of lyric passages.
188 Euripidis tragoediae quae extant cum latina G. Canteri interpretatione, Scholia doctorum virorum in septem Euripidis tragoedias, ex antiquis exemplaribus ab Arsenio Monembasiae archiepiscopo collector. Accedunt...I. Brodaei, G. Canteri, G. Stiblini, Ae. Porti in Euripidem annotationes ([Geneva]: P. Stephanus, 1602), taking over Stiblinus (as in n. 161).
189 Euripidis opera omnia, ex editionibus praestantissimis fideliter recusa ... (Glasgow and London, 1821).
190 Uber die asthetische Erziehung der Menschen in einer Reihe von Briefen (1794), in F. Schiller, Werke in drei Banden, ed. H. H. Gopfert (Munich, 1966), ii. 445—520 at 458 (letter 6).
191 A. E. Housman, `The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism' (1922), in id., Classical Papers (Cambridge, 1972), iii. 1058—69 at 1059.

110	Luigi Battezzato
paved the way with his `small' discoveries for the men of genius—the great discoverers. Q. R. and S. Cole)192

J. R. and S. Cole argue that the more widely cited scientists form an elite, and that they are more likely to cite other elite scientists; non-elite scientists are largely `redundant' to scientific progress.193 Housman's point is very similar. It appears to be vindicated when we look at the splendid achievement of Scaliger, whose editions still strike readers by their self-confidence and their ability to make sense, by way of conjectural emendation, of the countless absurd readings printed by his predecessors, which he unmercifully reprints and criticizes. Housman's aristocratic view is also vindicated if we look at how frequently Scaliger is cited in modern apparatus critici, in comparison with other scholars of his age. However, this is true only for some authors: Euripides, Catullus, Propertius, Festus, Manilius, and a few others—not countless authors. Moreover, Scaliger was not always so patient with manuscripts. In Mynors's edition of Catullus, the much less famous Achilles Statius194 scores a higher number of successful emendations (17 against 14).195 How did this happen? Statius `presented careful collations of large numbers of manuscripts'196 and `put his manuscripts to good use'.197 Meursius' name is not famous, but he restored countless corrupt pas-sages in Arnobius, using only D. Canter's edition: Scaliger did not make a big contribution to the text of Arnobius, even if he collated the only source for this text.
Classical texts are too numerous, and `elite' philologists too few. More modest, but competent scholars can make important contributions193 and `lead the species to truth' thanks to their collective effort and specialized competence. Scaliger praised the least creative and most informative editions of Arnobius: `Arnobius Heraldi est bon'; `celuy qui a fait sur Arnobe . . . c'est Elmenerst [sic]'.199 Livineius too, `cui judicii
192 J. R. Cole and S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science (Chicago, 1973), 216.
193 They call the opposite view the `Ortega Hypothesis', from a passage by Ortega y Gasset. H. L. Hoerman and C. E. Nowicke, `Secondary and Tertiary Citing: A Study of Referencing Behavior in the Literature of Citation Analysis Deriving from the Ortega Hypothesis of Cole and Cole', Library Quarterly, 65 (1995), 415—34 show that (ironically) Cole and Cole misinterpreted and miscited Ortega y Gasset.
194 On Aquiles Estaco (1524—81) see Maillard, Kecskemeti, and Portalier (as inn. 13),
173 and Gaisser, `Catullus' (as in n. 4), 265—7 and Catullus (as in n. 7), 168-78.
195 See Goold, `Text' (as in n. 19), 99.	196 Grafton, Scaliger (as in n. 2), 95.
197 Gaisser, Catullus (as in n. 7), 175.
198 Feld, `Evolution' (as in n. 115), 107 and Grafton, `Correctores corruptores?' (as in n. 131), 54 discuss the importance of `invisible technicians', printers, and correctors in the history of scholarship.	199 Scaliger, Scaligerana (as in n. 66), 33 and 265.

Renaissance Philology: Livineius	111
plus quam ingenii praesto erat',200 made a very valuable contribution to the text of Arnobius. His edition of the Panegyrici was another useful piece of work. He simply had his collations reproduced in printed form, giving marginal notes with sigla. This did not become standard for a number of practical reasons that were already apparent in the edition of Stewech (Vegetius) and Sambucus (the 1566 Plantin Plautus), but this system was the closest thing to a true apparatus criticus. The effort of these scholars and printers was important for the progress of classical editions. After these attempts, standards of accuracy improved. Variorum editions became common in the seventeenth century, and they had to match the best standards found in the editions they reprinted and conflated. References to page and line number became standard. Scaliger's system of reference, giving the vulgate reading as lemma, followed by his correction, could not work in editions that made use of several manuscript witnesses, or that were based on the work of several scholars. It was designed for following a single printed vulgate. It was a clever system, invented by a very clever man, but it was not designed to include other people's contributions: Scaliger, the would-be aristocrat and exceptional scholar, aimed at the sharpest contrast with all previous editors, but did not manage to impose his referencing system on the republic of colleagues.

zoo Sex. Aurelii Propertii Carmina, ed. C. Lachmann (Leipzig, 1816), p. xvii.