The Early Textual History of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura by David Butterfield
James E. G. Zetzel
Reviewed by: The Early Textual History of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura by David Butterfield James E. G. Zetzel Butterfield, David. Natura. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: University Press, 2014. xii + 342 pp. 4 black-and-white ills., 8 figs., plates. Cloth, $110. Butterfield’s monograph (a version his 2010 doctoral dissertation) is neither the beginning nor end Lucretian studies. bibliography already lists some twenty articles, and he announces (x–xi) that book to be followed a thesaurus modern emendations, replacement (much needed) for Cyril Bailey’s OCT full commentary on It was nearly fifty years between first (1898) (1947); will more expeditious. not really history; evidence too sparse narrative. consists five studies transmission: in successive chapters, discusses (1) relationship among manuscripts; (2) text supplied quotations (indirect transmission apparent fragments found direct transmission); (3) correctors O [=Oblongus, Leiden, Voss. Lat. F. 30]; (4) capitula (5) annotations Q [=Quadratus, Q. 94]. Five appendices offer details, as do further detailed online corrections (www.cambridge.org/butterfield). last chapters are relatively unimportant: account manuscripts is, makes clear, original mainly its presentation, evidence, explored chapter 5 matter little or history. In three central however, supplies an immense amount much it new. 2, after examining every quotation Lucretius from antiquity tenth century terms accuracy, authenticity, possible sources, argues there reliable outside manuscript transmission, although concedes few signs indirect tradition suggest access authentic two just might genuine, placed lacunae extant text. After (headings within and, Books 4–6, separate indices at each book), concludes they began marginal summaries, probably written late antiquity, were later inserted into headings, have no textual importance. And extraordinarily analysis made ninth centuries (Charlemagne’s astronomer courtier Dungal most assiduous; other important ones O2, corrector century, O3, who added glosses century), attempts show alone use another manuscript, this case which itself copied, but (and times) emended conjecture rather than collation. He these arguments except ancient [End Page 369] ninth-century manuscripts: closed, quite corrupt, establishment therefore very up editor. Since himself about edit text, since with advice future editor, one may reasonably conclude intention give free hand when turns edition itself. research essential would-be editors: reports painstaking examination themselves well reference poet’s time until century. Its value reader different: allows us...
American Journal of Philology