Logo DBNL
De Gulden Passer. Jaargang 83 (2005)

De Gulden Passer. Jaargang 83

(2005)– [tijdschrift] Gulden Passer, De–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige Volgende

Steven Gysens & Jeanine de Landtsheer
Autor quem tantopere quaerebam...
Johannes Livineius as a student of Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae



illustratie

Ever since the sixteenth century students of Antiquity have been fascinated by the rich and varied source material they found in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus.1 Although some humanists, like Johannes Reuchlin, owned a manuscript of this work,2 it was undoubtedly the editio princeps (1514) prepared by Musurus and published by Aldo Manuzio3 that made this work more easily accessible to a wider audience. Among the many readers of this Aldine edition one also finds Erasmus who took a keen interest in this work, using it, e.g., as an important source for the third edition of his Adagia.4 After this editio princeps a number of other editions or translations were published during the sixteenth century, the most widely used being the Bedrot-Herlin edition issued in Basle in 1535.5 This was in turn used by the French scholar Isaac Casaubon while preparing his new edition of the Deipnosophistae which

eventually was published in 1597/1598, to be followed by a separate volume of Animadversiones in 1600.6 And although both of Casaubon's works were reprinted a number of times,7 the quest for new manuscripts continued well into the eighteenth century.8

This paper will focus on Joannes Livineius (Lievens) (1546/47-1599),9 a somewhat forgotten humanist from the Low Countries, who is, however, not unfamiliar to students of Casaubon's Athenaeus edition.10 In the appendix will be published a hitherto unedited letter Livineius wrote to Casaubon11 in which he gives an overview of his studies on Athenaeus. As Livineius also recounts his quest for Athenaeus manuscripts in Roman libraries, we thought it useful to start with a general overview of his manuscript research during his stay in Rome. The next section intends to give a more systematic overview of Livineius's studies of Athenaeus, on the basis of the information given in the said letter. But before doing so, the somewhat peculiar method Livineius used to send letters to the great French scholar should be discussed more in detail.

For the reconstruction of the contacts between Casaubon and Livineius, the only source available is precisely this letter. Closer analysis makes it, however, possible to try and establish how both scholars seem to have got in contact. As Livineius is thanking Casaubon both at the beginning (ll. 4-6) and at the end (ll. 55-57) of his letter for his liberalitas with regard to Panegyrici tui, one might suppose that he had asked Casaubon for a copy of his edition of Pliny's Letters, which also had the text of the xii Panegyrici Latini. This seems not unlike-

ly in the light of a detail from the correspondence of Livineius's friend, Justus Lipsius. There one sees Livineius, who is working on an edition of the complete series of the xii Panegyrici, enquiring with Lipsius about a new commented edition Casaubon had published of the xii Panegyrici. As Lipsius had to admit, the edition concerned was Casaubon's edition of Pliny's Letters, to which were annexed the text of Pliny's Panegyric together with the other Panegyrics.12 In return, Livineius sent Casaubon some material concerning the Deipnosophistae (ll. 7-9) and promised even more, including an unknown fragment from book xi (ll. 44-46). What is peculiar about this letter is the fact that Livineius is writing indirectly to Casaubon, as he addresses this letter to Marcus Welserus. As Livineius, himself being the cantor (one of the senior canons) of the chapter of Antwerp Cathedral, acknowledges in his letter he thought it too dangerous to write directly to Casaubon, because both men belonged to two different religious camps.13 So he used the Augsburg Catholic scholar Marcus Welserus (1558-1614) as a go-between. It's not quite clear when Livineius's contacts with Welserus started, but the few sources available seem to imply that it was precisely in the late fifteen-nineties that both men got acquainted with each other. Livineius's letter ‘to Casaubon’ at the same time appears to be the sole extant letter exchanged between Livineius and Welserus.14 (But, as this letter is also indicating, there must have been other, indirect contacts through a mutual acquaintance of theirs, the famous Antwerp cartographer Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598).15) Livineius had at least on two other occasions had contacts with the

Bavarian scholar. In September 1598 Welserus sent Livineius a copy of one of the Greek manuscripts from his personal library.16 Furthermore, there were some contacts in this period with regard to Livineius's work on an edition of the xii Panegyrici Latini, which also happens to be one of the two main themes of Livineius's letter to Casaubon.17

1. Livineius's manuscript research during his stay in Rome (c. 1579-1582)18

After graduating from Leuven University, Livineius had first continued his research in Leuven before finally establishing himself in the autumn of 1576 in Liège, where his uncle Laevinus Torrentius (1525-1595), a leading humanist in the Low Countries at that time, had become one of the senior collaborators of the Liège prince-bishop. Torrentius's nephew was not to stay in Liège for long, for soon afterwards (at the latest in 157919) he was to leave for Rome, to return to the Low Countries only in the early summer of 1582. Although the precise purpose of Livineius's sojourn in Rome is not known, one, if not the most important of his occupations there was undoubtedly the study of manuscripts containing the works of classical and patristic authors. Unfortunately, most of his manuscript research can only be reconstructed indirectly, on the basis of information from such diverse sources as text editions in which Livineius incorporated the results of his research, or marginal notes he made in some of the books belonging to his personal library. He also seems to have been involved in the preparation of the new edition of the Septuagint (which would eventually be published in 1586/87 [Rome, F. Zannetti], after Livineius had left Rome) and even got a subsidy for his work on various editions and/or translations of previously unpublished

patristic texts. Further details about his research during his sojourn in Rome are unfortunately missing, except for the letter published here, which allows us a glimpse of the scholarly activities of young Livineius in Rome.

The first of these sources are two posthumous ‘editions’ that seem almost certainly to date back to Livineius's stay in Rome. His Latin translation of the Sermones catechetici of the Byzantine abbot Theodorus Studita (759-826) was based on two manuscripts from the private library of cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514-1585) and on a third from the Vatican Library.20 Livineius had started work on this translation during his stay in Rome, probably as part of the ambitious editorial program of pope Gregory xiii to publish a number of editions which should offer Catholic readers more ‘reliable’ texts of the Fathers of the Church than the widely spread ‘Protestant’ editions.21 Although the preparation on this edition had well advanced, it was only published in 1602, some years after Livineius's death (1599).22 Another work of Livineius's, a Latin translation of a late-Byzantine anti-Jewish polemical dialogue by Andronicus Comnenus,23 appears also to have been prepared during this same stay in Rome.24

Livineius did not only study manuscripts in view of publishing a Latin translation of the texts that were to be found in them, he also copied at least two manuscripts of Greek authors preserved in the Vatican Library. For his friend Ortelius, he made a copy of a Vatican manuscript of the Geography of Ptolemy.25 Early 1582 Livineius had nearly finished copying this manuscript, but unfortunately this copy never reached Antwerp, as it got lost en route to the Low Countries.26 Another text Livineius copied in the Vatican Library was part of the polemical treatise saint Gregory of Nyssa had written against the Arrian theologian Eunomius (c. 335-394).27 Further evidence of Livineius's manuscript research during his stay in Rome is to be found in a posthumous publication of his critical notes on Latin elegiae poets, which

was in part based on the collation of a Propertius manuscript in the Vatican Library.28

The last, but undoubtedly the most interesting source for Livineius's scholarly activities in Rome are the variant readings he noted down in the margins of a number of editions belonging to his personal library. To distinguish the various sources of these readings (manuscripts or conjectures) he used a relatively sophisticated system of sigla, which has only been studied in detail during recent years.29 What the precise purpose of these marginalia was remains yet to be established: were they to be used for a future edition and/or translation30 or were they, what seems to be more likely, simply intended to further his philological skills? Thus far there are traces of about a dozen of such editions which were (more or less) extensively annotated by Livineius (some of which are now lost,31 while others still need to be examined more in detail). This section will focus on those annotated editions which offer evidence for Livineius's manuscript research during his stay in Rome.32 The only edition of a Latin author he annotated in this period is an Aldine edition (1523) of the late fourth-century poet Claudian where our young scholar indicated a codex Vaticanus as one of the sources for the variant readings he noted in margine.33 Recently, two other Aldine edi-

tions containing Livineius's notes on the plays of Sophocles and Euripides were studied more in detail. His copy of the editio princeps of Sophocles (1502), now kept in Trinity College Cambridge, was studied by Lloyd and Wilson34 who were able to demonstrate that among the manuscripts Livineius consulted while writing these notes, must certainly have been ms. Vat. gr. 910 (s. xiv) which, as Livineius's biography also makes it clear, he can only have studied during his stay in Rome. The same also goes for a copy of the editio princeps of the tragedies of Euripides (1503), which is now in the British Library. In a meticulous analysis of the notes in this copy Battezzato identified a number of manuscripts from the Vatican Library Livineius must have studied, among them ms. Vat. gr. 909 (c.1250/1280), one of the major manuscripts of the Euripidean plays which was long forgotten, only to be rediscovered in the early 19th century.35 To the marginalia in these two Aldines should now also be added the ones in yet another Euripides edition (Basle, J. Hervagius, 1537), now in Ghent University Library.36 In this copy only the text of Rhesus in the second volume has been annotated throughout, while for other plays the notes are limited to some verses or to a particular section.37 Nevertheless, a comparison of these notes with the modern edition by

Diggle38 confirms the findings of Battezzato, i.e. that the ms. Vat. gr. 909 must have been among the manuscripts consulted by Livineius.39 On the other hand, the system of sigla is used sparingly in this copy.40

2. Livineius's studies of Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae

After this introduction on Livineius's manuscript research during his stay in Rome we must now focus our attention on his work on Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae, especially in the light of his letter to Casaubon. Previously, one had, just as for most of the other unpublished notes of Livineius, to piece together the shreds of evidence in an effort to reconstruct his studies on this author.41 In this letter, however, Livineius offers an ‘eyewitness account’ of his work on Athenaeus which started in the fifteen-seventies, during his stay in Leuven.42

Livineius recounts in fact how he first studied the text of Athenaeus in a manuscript he had obtained, through the influence of his uncle Torrentius (l. 8). Although he does not give the name of the owner, he must almost certainly be meaning Joannes Wamesius (Wamèse) (1524-1590), law professor at Leuven University.43 This eminent lawyer was, indeed, an

acquaintance of Livineius's uncle, as is for instance clear from the latter's correspondance where he calls Wamesius his ‘vetus amicus’.44 Moreover, we know from other manuscript notes by Livineius that in the fifteen seventies, after graduating from Leuven University, he studied the text of a number of sermons by saint John Chrysostom in two manuscripts belonging to Wamesius.45 This identification of Wamesius as the owner of the manuscript is confirmed by the fact that, before its destruction during World War i, Leuven University Library kept an edition where Livineius had noted down the variant readings he had found in Wamesius's manuscript of the Deipnosophistae.46 Although Livineius's annotated edition is now lost, Wamesius's Athenaeus manuscript at least survives: it was recently identified as the ms. Paris. Suppl. gr. 841 (ms. C in modern editions), copied by the Italo-Grecian scribe Demetrios Damilas from a (now lost) manuscript in the Vatican Library during the winter of 1502-1503.47 This identification seems to be confirmed by a number of elements Livineius gives in this letter to Casaubon: he says it was an ‘old manuscript’ (l. 7) (a description always to be interpreted with due caution) and that it contained only an epitome omnium librorum (l. 20). He also gives two more specific details (ll. 44-46): the manuscript had the text of the lacuna in book xi (781d-784b) and it contained at the end a De Nili incremento, just like this Paris manuscript.48

Before leaving for Rome, Livineius probably also had studied the fragment of book xv (674a-696a) his friend Guilielmus Canterus (Canter, 1542-1575), or ‘Canterus noster’ as he calls him in this letter (l. 37), had published. In 1564 Canterus had, with the help of Scaliger, edited this fragment in his collection of Novae lectiones.49 While studying with the French humanist Jean Dorat in Paris (1560-1562), he had received this fragment from Marc-Antoine Muret who, during his stay in Rome, had obtained this text that was to be found in a (now lost) Athenaeus manuscript in the Farnesian Library.50 On the basis of this information Livineius must have had good hopes to be able to study this and other manuscripts of the Deipnosophistae in Rome himself, especially manuscripts that would have a more complete text at least from book three on (cf. ll. 24-25). This would soon prove to be an illusion.

Since Canterus had indicated that the fragment from book xv was taken e codice Vaticano manuscripto (which in a later edition he ‘corrected’ into fragmentum ex Italiae bibliothecis),51 the obvious place for Livineius to start his quest for manuscripts was the Vatican Library. There he came across a iustum volumen containing an index Bibliothecae Vaticanae with libri omnes per pluteos descripti (ll. 26-29). This catalogue mentioned an Athenaeus manuscript, but Livineius had not noted the shelf-mark, so it proved impossible to find the manuscript in question which had gone astray. Livineius is referring here to a famous Vatican manuscript containing (an epitome of) the Deipnosophistae, the so-called codex deperditus x. This manuscript from the Vatican Library is still mentioned in late fifteenth- and early-

sixteenth-century inventories and loan registers of the Vatican Library,52 but then it disappeared, most likely during the sacco di Roma (1527).53 Before its disappearance, however, it had been copied a number of times, one of these copies being the actual ms. Paris. Suppl. gr. 841, the manuscript once belonging to Wamesius. So even if Livineius would have been able to locate this Vatican manuscript, he only would have found... the original manuscript from which the manuscript he had studied in Leuven had been copied.

Not having come across an Athenaeus manuscript in the Vatican Library, he then tried to get access to the Farnese manuscript from which Canterus had published the fragment from book xv54 and which was said to have a complete text. Even though he found some friends who obtained a permit for him to use the Farnese manuscript (ll. 29-33), he was barred access by Fulvio Orsini, the zealous (but sometimes overzealous) guardian of the library's treasures. Orsini did not even allow a mere inspectio of the manuscript. It's not quite clear why Orsini refused to give the young scholar access to this precious manuscript, especially when one considers that, apart from the fragment published by Canterus on the basis of the Farnesinus, a number of other sixteenth-century scholars are known to have had access to this manuscript, either directly or through copies or notes.55 This blunt refusal is even stranger when one knows Livineius's uncle Torrentius who was an old friend of Orsini's,56 had sent a copy of one of his nephew's first editions (the treatise De virginitate by saint Gregory of Nyssa) to Orsini in 1573, apparently as a way of introducing his nephew.57 Finally,

Livineius also mentions he had met the French scholar Janus Curterius (Courtier) (c. 1546 - after 1583)58 in Rome,59 who had gathered readings from five Athenaeus manuscripts (ll. 9-12). Traces of Curterius's work on Athenaeus survive in an annotated copy of the Basle edition, now in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris.60

So when Livineius had to return to the Low Countries in the early summer of 1582,61 he must have been disappointed, not having found in Rome any Athenaeus manuscript he had so hoped for. In the meanwhile, however, he had started translating the Deipnosophistae and the text of book i was nearly finished (ll. 21-24). But then, in 1583, a Latin translation was published by the Lyons physician Jacques Dalechamps (1513-1588),62 which, as this letter to Casaubon makes clear, did not quite satisfy Livineius (ll. 35-37). This publication does not seem to have dissuaded Livineius from continuing his work on Athenaeus. Indeed, in a letter his uncle Torrentius wrote in 1584, he mentions that his nephew is working on the Greek text of the Deipnosophistae.63 It is not clear how much progress Livineius had made in this field since that date, but his remarks in this letter to Casaubon (ll. 39-41) seem to imply that, although he had gone through the entire text, he had concentrated himself on the first two books. This is also confirmed when one studies the Animadversiones Casaubon published in 1600 as a companion volume to his 1597/1598 edition. All of Livineius's conjectures or

variant readings that are mentioned in that volume, concern book ii of the Deipnosophistae.64 Apart from these notes, Livineius sent Casaubon (through Welserus, it seems) also the unknown fragment from book xi he is referring to in this letter; this fragment is published in the Animadversiones as well.65 At the same time, these few elements are the sole tangible evidence remaining of Livineius's studies on the Deipnosophistae which once started in the fifteen-seventies.

But the story does not end here. Casaubon must have valued Livineius's work, because some years later, Livineius's manuscript notes on Athenaeus are one of the subjects in Casaubon's correspondence with the Antwerp Jesuit Andreas Schottus, who had been trying to find a good use for Livineius's unpublished notes ever since the death of his friend.66 In May 1603 Schottus assured Casaubon he would be sending him Livineius's notes as soon as he had found a reliable messenger.67 In the letter he writes the next month he says he cannot copy Livineius's notes out himself, but that he is willing to send Casaubon the material on the condition that he will get it back. Apparently Schottus had to act at the unknown of Livineius's heirs to allow other scholars access to these notes.68 Schottus returns to this subject in two further letters, in July 160369 and in October 1603. In this last letter he announces that his amanuensis is bringing Livineius's notes to Casaubon.70 Did Casaubon actually

receive the notes (or did he return them afterwards)? It is hard to say.71 In any case, when cheddng the 1611 edition of Casaubon's Animadversiones, one does not find any material from Livineius that was not already in the edition of 1600.72 Finally, Schottus would, some years later, himself publish in his Observationes humanae (1615)73 a number of minor fragments from the Deipnosophistae he had found in a ‘vetus codex’ owned by Gerardus Corselius, a Leuven University law professor.74 But as Corselius was the nephew of Wamesius (the owner of the Athenaeus manuscript studied by Livineius) and also seems to have acquired (at least part of) his uncle's library,75 Schottus must almost certainly have used the same manuscript Livineius had had at his disposal, the ms. Paris. Suppl, gr. 841.76

Appendix: Jan Lievens (Antwerp) via Marcus Welser [Augsburg] to Isaac Casaubon

27 March 1598

 

o: London, British Library, ms. Burn. 365, ff. 159-160 [olim ff. 124-125].

 

1Generose et Clarissime Domine,

2Litteras quas ad me iv Non [as] Mart[ias] dedisti, superioribus aliquot diebus mihi reddidit Ortelius 3noster, quae me hercle plurimis de causis fuere gratissimae. Scriptae enim eleganter et plenae amoris. 4Merito autem amico illi tuo ad ea quae scribis succedaneus fuisti beneque de mea erga te benevolentia 5et observatione sensisti, quod verecundiam ei ac pudorem remisisti. Quid enim non vicissim tibi 6gratificer, qui tam prolixe et liberaliter Panegyricos tuos ignoto et ab omni in te officio imparato obtulisti? 7Quare habe tu vero quicquid hoc est, quod in Athenaeum ante annos plus xx e vetere membrana, quam 8Clar[issi]mi viri avunculi mei favore impetraveram, conieci. Mitto nunc duntaxat fragmenta, et obiter 9emendationes quasdam in duos primores, quae illi tuo non poterant non esse acceptissima. Memini 10cum Romae essem, Ianum Curterium Gallum, qui Procopium in Esaiam Graecum repraesentavit, inter10 11cetera mihi fateri esse apud se Athenaeum cum quinque codicibus comparatum, nihil tamen, aut non 12nisi perpauca quaedam in primum ac secundum habere. Hoeschelius quoque tuus (quem peramanter 13pro eius erga litteras et ecclesiasticos scriptores studio salvere iubeo) appendice quae adiuncta Damasceni13-14 14sermoni εἰς μεταμόρΦωσιν Athenaei quaedam ex epitoma sua m[anu]s[cripta] qua corrigens, qua 15explens quos iam dicebam libros praeteriit. Equidem vellem plus otii fuisset ut ipsam Casauboni nuperam 16editionem ad excerpta mea conferre, et iusta opera defungi licuisset. Nunc habeo eam duntaxat, et 17conferendi laborem seposueram dum prodirent eiusdem notae. Scis ac fateris impedimenta mea, cum 18praefaris in tuis parcere te occupationibus meis, et si dubites, fideiubebit tibi exceptione omni maior 19Andreas Schottus noster, qui hic praesens et αὐτόπτης. Sed redeo ad Athenaeum. In quo illexerant me 20quae etiam tum adolescens observaram e codice quem dixi (is epitome solum erat omnium librorum) 21in optimum scriptorem, ut versionem cogitarem. Et adeo iam inde a secessu meo Romano, id est, annis 22plus minus xvi, totum paene primum confeci, meo animo, non infeliciter. In quo et versus (quorum22-23 23nota genera) totidem Latinis mutati, quod non esse nihili, aestimare te, Velsere, quam ex me audire

24malo. Sperabam cum inibi essem, fore ut aliud exemplar integri Athenaei saltem a libro tertio (nam 25priores duo desperati) nanciscer, et hic etiam dum agenti venerat in manus index Bibliothecae Vaticanae, 26iustum volumen, in quo libri omnes // per pluteos descripti, et inter alios autor quem tantopere 27quaerebam, sed cum de eo praesens percunctarer, perierat e Musaeo illo nescio cuius fraude seu potius 28furto; non reperiri potuit et casu ex indice illo pluteum non exscripseram, tantum memineram lectum 29mihi in illo Atheanaei nomen. Tentavi igitur, quod proximum erat, Cardinalem Farnesium, qui integrum 30servare ferebatur, unde ingens illud fragmentum libro extremo descriptum ab elegantissimo Mureto, 31quod olim Canterus noster vulgavit. Et amicos inveneram qui meo nomine a Car[dina]le obtinuerant 32ut utendus mihi codex praeberetur, sed scelere (dicam enim quod res est) et invidia Fulvii Ursini, qui 33Car[dina]lis Bibliotheca praefectus, ne inspectionem quidem impetravi. Interea me avunculus in patriam33-35 34redire iubet, invitum, et autoris quem dixi spe reluctantem, sed tamen non potui quin ei pro sanguinis 35reverentia et in me summis beneficiis obsequerer. Prodiit deinde aliquot post annis Dalechampii labor, 36viri (quod ingenue fatendum est) diligentis et eruditi, sed qui contendenda interpretatione mea pluries 37mihi notatus parum expressisse Graeca, addo etiam offendisse. Sed de hac eius opera omnino Casauboni 38tui iudicium esto, cuius mihi et doctrina et accuratio perspecta, vel e solo Strabone, ut alia eius opuscula38 39mittam, quae hactenus vidi. Itaque (ut semel dicam) do, ut aiebam, quae excerpta mihi duntaxat in 40duos primos, quae ipsa nescio bona fide an non occupata. Neque enim potui vacare ut inspicerem 41propius. Utcunque erit, confido usui futura. Erant et alia, primo praesertim, de quibus admonerem, 42sed quae ab illo tuo sperem tractari in notis. Reliquis quoque libris sparsim suppleta quaedam quae in 43editis omissa, sed excerpere negotia vetant, et ferrum Casauboni in igni esse, ut non patiatur moram,43-44 44confirmas. Iubeo tamen cum prima occasione plus aliquid a me expectare, in iis fragmentum egregium 45et insigne quod lib[er] xi desideratur de poculis in universum, et eorum nomenclaturis quae ab α usque 46ad γραμματικὸν ποτήριον, itemque πϵρὶ ἀναβάσϵως Νϵίλου, quod in extremo codice illo asscriptum.

47Atque haec Casaubonum amicitiae tuae tribuere et imputare volo, ita tamen, ut per omnia sacra Musarum 48atque litterarum a me stipulare ne quid immiserat in Ethnico scriptore quod nostrorum aures offendere 49merito possit, quale quid excidisse ei in Strabonem doleo, cum L[udovici] Francisci vitam impetit et irridet.49 50Scio nostrorum fastidia et nasum, neque ignarus sum esse eum in diversis castris. Itaque nolim apud nostros 51in suspicionem vel levissime venire, ipse hic positus in aliqua dignitate, aut si haec eum scabies possedit, 52ipsa haec quae mitto et porro mittam, in donata sunto aut omnino per quem profecerit // sileto. 53Scripsissem ad eum ipse, sed causae graves cur abstineam, tibi quod stipulatus sum, mi Velsere, committo. 54Panegyricos nostros brevi habebis: iam enim sum in describendis notis ad nonum, ut supersint omnino54 55quatuor. Tibi eum laborem nostrum visum dedicare si tu patieris. Non enim habeo quo liberalitatem 56tuam iustius compensem. Spero te pro humanitate tua hanc voluntatem meam in meliorem partem 57accepturum. Vale, generose et clarissime Domine, meque in amicis, si tanti sumus, habere dignare. 58Antverpia, vi Cal[endas] April[es] m.d.xcviii. Amplitudinis vestrae observantissimus Johannes Livineius, 59Cath[edra]lis Antverp[iensis] Canonicus et Cantor.

 

3 Script[um]ae 8 dun[d]taxat 15 expl[et]ens 17 s[po]eposueram 21 a [sp] secessu 34 dixi spe[m] reluctantem 37 mihi [putatur] notatus 39 dun[d]taxat 44 tamen... egregium et: add. in marg. alt. man. 49 excidisse [et] ei 51 haec [tum] eum 54 supers[u]int

Samenvatting

Vanaf de vroege zestiende eeuw is de Griekse humanistenwereld in de ban geweest van Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae, met zijn overvloed aan bronnenmateriaal uit de antieke Oudheid. De editio princeps, in 1514 bij Manutius verschenen, deed die belangstelling alleen toenemen. Tegen het einde van de eeuw bracht Isaac Casaubon een nieuwe editie op de markt (1597-98), enkele jaren later gevolgd door een deel Annotationes (1600). In de Zuidelijke Nederlanden werkte Johannes Livineius al een tijd rond Athenaeus; hij overleed echter voor zijn geplande editie/vertaling was voltooid. Uitgangspunt van dit artikel is een tot op heden ongepubliceerde brief (zie appendix) waarin Livineius via een curieuze omweg (Marcus Welser in Augsburg) met zijn collega in Parijs zijn onderzoek bespreekt. Eerst wordt aandacht besteed aan de handschriften die hij tijdens zijn verblijf in Rome raadpleegde, om vervolgens in te gaan op zijn aanpak van deze editie.

Résumé

Dès le début du seizième siècle, les hellénistes étaient fascinés par la richesse et la diversité des sources antiques que l'on trouve dans les Deipnosophistae d'Athénée. L'édition princeps publiée par Alde Manuce (Venise, 1514) avait encore encouragé cet intérêt. Vers la fin du siècle, le célèbre humaniste français Isaac Casaubon donna une nouvelle édition (1597-98), suivie par un commentaire quelques années plus tard (1600). Presqu'en même temps, Johannes Livineius, un jeune humaniste des Pays-Bas espagnols, se sentait, lui aussi, attiré par l'oeuvre curieuse d'Athénée. Malheureusement, il mourut assez jeune, sans avoir pu mener à bien ses travaux en vue d'une édition ou d'une traduction. Cet article prend comme point de départ une lettre inédite de Livineius (qui est publiée en appendice). Dans cette lettre qui, par un détour assez curieux, avait été envoyée à Marcus Welser (à Augsbourg), il discute avec Casaubon de ses études d'Athénée. Dans un premier temps, les auteurs présentent ici les recherches de Livineius dans les bibliothèques romaines et sa quête du Farnesinus et du codex deperditus x. Ensuite, ils étudient comment il continuait, après son retour de Rome, ses recherches à propos d'Athénée.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs


datums