The Consolation of Philosophy

Boethius is joined with Sedulius, 185 sq. and with Persius. Olga Dobiaš, a most kind woman, testifies that a codex, which had been transferred to Moscow (Reichsarchiv State Archive) through the work of a certain Froehlich, cannot be found there; we are taught by E. Thraemer (Auf der Suche nach der Bibl. Iwans des Schrecklichen. Allgem. Zeitung 1892, 2, Beil. 1 p. 4; 4, Beil. 2 p. 1) that it contained a commentary by a certain rector of Sélestat.

Now let us briefly summarize what can be established regarding the archetype (X) after examining the individual codices. It was of good quality, written in uncial script, and distinguished by having poems written in capital letters. It was written either during Boethius' time or not long after, and it was moved from Italy to Gaul. I do not know whether it can be concluded from the codices P and the Tours manuscript that Boethius' writings were arranged according to the order of his books (Arithmetic [connected with Music], Consolation). P is of great value, as the genuine reading of codex T, which was obliterated by corrections, can be retrieved from it. Just like T, the codices Aur(elianensis) and L combine the Opuscula sacra Sacred Works with the Consolatio, which seemed to be of a Christian nature, and it is proven by the readings themselves that book V belongs to the same family. Because Rand (Jahrbb. Suppl. XXVI 1901, 412 sq.) established four families of codices that exhibit the Opuscula sacra—the Corbie, Dionysian, Fleury, and Tours families—and assigned the codices LT to the Tours family, I am content to note on page VIII of the edition, which we will mention below, that he says the fate of the Opuscula sacra was the same as that of the Consolatio. I note that A coheres with the Fleury family, V (its twin, with Irish-script glosses added) coheres with the Laon codex, and it is probable that Lupus, whose oldest example of Boethius' meters survives in the F apograph of codex T, devoted his efforts to the Boethian text; I have already mentioned the Tours codex. In other codices, which are reasonably thought to be further from the archetype (Cantabr. Gg V 35, Einsidl. 302, Harl. 2685, 3095, Trev. 1464), the Consolatio is combined with the writings of Christian poets such as Arator, Fulgentius, Prosper, and Sedulius.

Although it is not permitted to discern which codices were reading the words of the archetype at the same time, which were copied successively from the same source, and which were corrected or corrupted by being compared with one another, yet I am confident that anyone who examines the passages I shall immediately present will judge that, besides LPTV and certain others that approach them closely—I mean Bernensis 179 (K) and the Bonnensis (D) and Laudunensis (both mutilated)—the rest are of almost no value. These are the passages:

11, 26 eccuius T¹ haec cuius L¹PT² and so on (in margin T) rest.

15, 21 oriundo A¹LPT¹V Par. 14380¹, Tur., Valent., Rehd. S I 4, 3 (no. 82), oriundus rest.

66, 25 sq. ab suerius Laud.¹, ab seuerius Laud.² P and perhaps V¹ ab se(u.) Bern. om. L¹T¹ hac T² ipsa L² Bodl. Auct. F 1, 15 V².

96, 13 rebus gerendis E, F in margin, Met.², Monac. 14324, rebus regendis W (Klussmann), rege *** dis V, reg ** endis Laud. (in the archetype it seems reb. gerendis existed, but b and er seemed hardly readable; one may think the scribes of Laud. and V used the archetype again), regendis rest.

106, 19 pressurus KL² Carnot., Harl. 3095², Met., Bodl. Auct. F 1, 15, Par. 1154, 6401 A, 17814, Valent., compressus T²E Harl. 3095¹, pressus rest.

44, 14 (where T is missing) Desine Cease is interpolated in all codices except FLPV¹ Aur., Cant., Carnot., Laud., Bodl. Auct. F 1, 15, Par. 6401, 6639, 8039, 12961, 17814, Nouv. acquis. 1478, Tur.

LPT, due to certain errors explained by the use of minuscule script, seem to have flowed not from X, but from a minuscule archetype Z created in the 8th century, a script of the kind in which a and cc are distinguished with great difficulty (95, 26 suarescant P). For L and T were written, if not in the 8th century, then at least at the beginning of the 9th. Z seems to have had scholia commentaries and explanations (not always agreeing with Lupus); cf. 7, 23 and what we noted above regarding codex P. I am persuaded that the words read at 91, 5—9 were handed down in their proper place in Z. Regarding the glosses of codex V that point to a different text, cf. 100, 10.

Since things were as they were, I did not hesitate to follow the consensus of PT first; in the lacuna of codex T, where L and F agree, there is no doubt regarding the reading of codex T, and rarely any where they disagree. There were times when, for the lacunose codex T...