Which protohistory of the text can be grasped from Carolingian manuscripts? The case of Cicero’s De natura deorum (Clara Auvray-Assayas)

Num. 40 (n.s.) – Dicembre 2022 – Fasc. 2

“…There are nevertheless some voices opposed to the traditional view: after Schramm 1890 -already rejected by Beeson 1945, 215-16 and by Schmidt 1974, 112-14 -Zelzer 2001 sees in F and H descendants of a late-antique branch (at home in Cassino for H) independent of the older Carolingian manuscripts. Partly following Zelzer 2001, 212, Auvray-Assayas 2013, 2016a, 2016b and 2018 also supports the existence of this branch issuing from an (anthological) source ("K et F sont deux témoins indépendants d'une tradition dont on trouve également trace dans certaines corrections apportées à A et B", Auvray-Assayas 2018, 332), a point untenable for K at least in fat., parad., leg., top., De oratore and Luc. : see respectively Bayer 1963, 103;106;Badalì 1968, 28-9;Schmidt 1974, 140-52;Reinhardt 2002;Renting (2011; 4 It is common knowledge that 2,86-156 is placed after 2,15/16, as a result of the reversal of two quires, however with marked and odd differences, at the points of junction, between the oldest version, represented by B, and y, relics of different layers of correction in the common archetype: see infra fnn.…”