?
Двойные оглавления в рукописной традиции Плиния Старшего: предварительная гипотеза
The article reconsiders the problem of stemmatic classification of Plinian manuscripts in book 1 of the Natural history, which consists of indices to the following 36 books. Many manuscripts include double texts of the indices, placed correspondingly in book 1 and before the indexed book itself, and a separate stemma is required for this expanded set of witnesses to edit the indices. Detlefsen 1869 attempted to settle the issue by postulating an early duplication of the indices and a double stemma opposing the tradition of book 1 to the ante librum tradition for each index, but the views of the manuscript relations he based his argument on are now seriously outdated, especially after the publication of Reeve 2021, and already in Mayhoff’s (1906) apparatus readings abound that seem to contradict Detlefsen’s stemma, although the editor did not propose an alternative description of the tradition of book 1. The author of the present article proposes a new hypothesis based on his study of the manuscript evidence in the indices of books 7 and 37. It is suggested that Detlefsen’s views are basically right as regards the most important manuscripts containing these indices (viz., BCDEFPRadq), but in L (a descendant of d, which itself omits the ante librum indices) and in the two families dependent on Berlin, Hamilton 517 the ante librum indices were created anew from the text of the book 1 indices. In several cases additional details complicate the picture: the ante librum index of book 7 in E bears signs of a probable correction from the book 1 tradition; the ante librum index of book 37 in F gives some readings from the book 1 tradition, but they correspond to earlier stages of the development of errors than those reconstructible in the lost book 1 index of D and thus probably derive from corrections in the lost ante librum index in V (the source of F) taken from the book 1 index of the source of D+V; the ante librum index of book 37 in a gives some readings from the book 1 tradition close to those attested in PL2. L retains some value due to the corrections of L2 related to the book 1
indices in P; sometimes the readings of L2 preserve the original readings of the family of P better than P, and it is argued from a reading in book 7 (7.30 Taprobane] Taprotane L2: Tabrotane Prague XXIV A 115) that L2 is
independent of the common source of P and Florence Edili 165, now partially extant as Dresden R 52x + Prague XXIV A 115. The indices in the family of Leiden, Voss. Lat. F 1 and c have been severely rearranged, but they are based on the book 1 indices of Hamilton 517 (itself a descendant of E) with some corrections from a further source; at least in one passage the true reading, which is hardly recoverable by conjecture, is only preserved in this family and its descendants (1.7.53 elati). The indices in what Reeve terms “a large Italian family” are a further reworking of the indices in the former family, and it does not seem likely that any additional source of valuable readings was used in the process. The index of book 7 should therefore be edited from CDPdq and both indices in R, taking into account the readings of L2 and those recoverable from the family of Leiden, Voss. Lat. F 1 and c, and the index of book 37 should be edited from BCPL2ad and both indices in F. Further investigations are needed to check if the hypothesis works in the other indices and if Detlefsen’s model is applicable to the indices in AMO pal.Chat.; the evidence adduced by Reeve leaves the impression that at least the latter manuscript is connected with the book 1 tradition, not the ante librum tradition, in the ante librum index of book 9.