The Transmission of Florus and the Periochae Again

• Published in: Classical quarterly 1991-01, Vol.41 (2), p.453-483
• Main Author: Reeve, M. D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accidents; Archbishops; Cataloging; Collectanea; Copyediting; Descendants; Florus, Publius Annius; Interpolation; Libraries; Literary criticism; Livy (59 BC-AD 17); Numeration; Scribes
• ISSN: 0009-8388; 1471-6844
• DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800004602

In a recent article I tried to disperse the fog in which modern editions envelop the transmission of the Livian Periochae and Floras' Epitoma de Tito Liuio. Working from editions and catalogues, and without looking at more than a few readily accessible manuscripts, I argued that the Periochae reached the Middle Ages in the company of Floras and nothing else; that the mainstream of the medieval tradition, which probably issued from the region south-west of Paris, derived first from a manuscript that presented Florus and only 1–7 of the 142 Periochae, Λ, and then from one that presented Florus alone, e; that after appearing for several centuries only in N (s. ix1) and P (s. xii2) the complete text of Florus and the Periochae saw a revival in the Italian Renaissance, probably thanks to Petrarch and Boccaccio; and that most Italian manuscripts contaminate the text of e with the complete text. Pending visits to libraries, I left open several questions: whether Λ derived from the source of NP; whether e derived from Λ; whether the Italian manuscripts of the complete text all derive from one source; whether, if so, it was P; whether any of them have escaped contamination in Florus; and whether contamination had already begun in France.