Engelberg: Benedictine Monastery
2
(62v-66 Ind)
XII
[Note to the online edition: note should appear against one of these mss.]
Editions.
The earlier editions of the Vita Augustini in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were not printed separately but were regularly included in volumes containing works of Augustine. They are catalogued in part in the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina 785 and in the British Museum Catalogue under Possidius. The most important older edition not printed separately but included with the works of Augustine is in the Benedictine edition printed at Paris, 1679-1700.
It was based on previous editions and, if we may judge from the readings given, on a very |33 cursory examination of six MSS., FLMNOP. It appears to have made but few alterations in the traditional printed text. Some criticism of the Benedictine and earlier editions is found in the edition by Salinas, printed at Rome in 1731, pp. V-VIII.
This edition by Salinas is the first separate edition of the Vita. It is based on an examination of certain earlier editions, chiefly the Benedictine, and MSS. BCHJ and Vatican MS. 1188 at first hand. The edition is divided into two parts, the first containing the text of the Vita with critical and explanatory notes and the second a dissertation by Salinas De Vita et Rebus Gestis S. Possidii. His scanty citations of readings from the small group of MSS. he used, as tested by an examination of photostatic copies, are generally accurate, but several errors occur. He gives no classification or estimate of their relative value, though he seems to have a preference for C. His text, on the whole, differs very little from that of the Benedictine edition. His choice or change of readings, when explained at all, is based not on manuscript evidence, but rather on extraneous suggestions, generally of a historical nature.
The explanatory notes in the edition of Salinas are not very frequent. Nevertheless they give full and even superfluous information, consisting largely of quotations from Augustine, the Acts of Councils and other illustrations from church history. The main fault of the notes is that they are often burdened with unnecessary matter and are not proportioned to the importance of the subject explained. Salinas also added the chapter headings, which do not appear in the earlier editions. These have been retained in the present edition as providing convenient summaries of each chapter. |34
The work of Salinas, however, has a distinct value. Apart from the earlier Benedictine edition, it is the first edition which attempts to be critical. Its general review of the text, though not made by scientific method, represents a certain advance over anything done before, and the information in the notes is usually reliable.
There are three other editions which deserve brief notice. The Migne edition (1865) is merely a reprint of the Benedictine edition with a comparison of Salinas and the addition of his critical notes. The text in the Acta Sanctorum (Paris, 1866) is a reprint of the text of Salinas with variant readings from Q. There is also an edition by Hurter in Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Selecta, Innsbruck 1895. The source of the text is not evident, as it agrees neither with the Benedictine nor Salinas edition, but seems to result from a capricious alteration of both. It abounds in errors of omission, transpositions and even has insertions which appear nowhere else, either in the ten MSS. used or in the editions. However it contains some valuable comments and a few selections from the critical notes of Salinas.
The text.
The textus receptus evidently dates back to the early editions, at least to the Lou vain edition of 1564. Many liberties have been taken in altering the text, chiefly to fit the rules of classical grammar or to make it read more smoothly. Instances are the substitution of the accusative for the ablative, in ipsas montium silvas et cavernas petrarum et speluncas confugientes: XXVIII; the subjunctive for the indicative, praedicaret: IX ; the imperfect for the pluperfect subjunctive, denegaret: XIV; a change to a more suitable conjunction, sed for et: XIV; petitus iret for petitum ire: XXVII, to avoid an abrupt change of construction; astantem for assistentem: XXVII, for no reason at all apparently; the unnecessary insertion of debeo: Praef., to complete the sentence; the omission of nam and insertion of autem: XXXI, and the substitution of the ablative absolute for the accusative, eisque compertis for eaque |35 comperta: IX, because the parenthetical remarks were somewhat obscured; oppropinquaret for propinquaret: IV, and elevata for levata: V; the substitution of spectaret for speraret: IV, evidently because the common meaning of spero did not fit; factus ergo for factusque: V; iuste for intuit; XIII; latebras for latera: XV; probata for prolata: XVII; suos for suis : XXV; inobediensve for inobediensque: XXVIII; the insertion of quod after credo: XV; the addition, by Salinas, of conversus ad Deum: II, and verbum Dei: V; the numerous substitutions of its for his which appears consistently in all the MSS. In some of these instances the readings of the editions perhaps may find support in MSS. not available for this edition, but the changes are altogether too numerous and too nice to be anything but an attempt at wholesale text-improvement. This text was unquestioningly adopted by later editions, without so much as an indication of the manuscript readings at many such places. Nevertheless, despite the alterations made by editors, the main body of the text is clear in all the manuscripts consulted, and the area of disputable readings, significant or insignificant, is only about eight hundred words out of a total of over twelve thousand.
In basing the text on AB, the best group of the MSS. A-K, it becomes clear that while there are no difficulties in the form of lacunae or corrupt passages of extended length, there are many readings, principally of individual words, which need exact determination. All these readings have been minutely examined and tested by the weight of the manuscript evidence available and a comparison of the usage of Possidius in other instances. Such alterations in the text as have been made without manuscript authority in previous editions have been |36 largely subjective and have tended to obscure the language and style of Possidius. The purpose of this edition is to present a revision of previous editions in the light of fuller evidence from a larger number of MSS. and to arrive at a text which reproduces as nearly as possible what Possidius wrote, rather than what he should have written. While the result is a text written in a manner somewhat more uncouth, abrupt and awkward than is found in the editions where the text abounds in smooth corrections of editors, it is nevertheless evidently the truer text. |37
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IN THE APPARATUS CRITICUS
A
Chartres 112.
B
Vatican 1025.
C
Vatican 541.
D
Paris 2076.
E