Sie sind hier: Startseite / Accademia / The Accademia Project [HTML Version] / 3.2 Philological overview and comparison of the known versions of Vitruvius’s text

3.2 Philological overview and comparison of the known versions of Vitruvius’s text

erstellt von Kulawik Veröffentlicht 05.06.2019 20:47, zuletzt verändert: 05.06.2019 20:47

E perche i testi di Vitruvio son molto varii, cosi gli stampati, come gli scritti a penna; onde spesso nasce confusione, e oscurezza: però si farà una opera d’annotazioni de la diversità de testi, massime ne le varietà notabili, e di qualche importanza, con le risoluzioni di qual lettura sia piu piaciuta, e per quali ragioni […] [Tolomei 1547, 81v]

And because the text [versions] of Vitruvius are very different, the printed as well as those written in manuscript, this creates some confusion and obscurity. Therefore, a work of annotations about the diversity of the texts will be made, especially regarding the notable differences, and of some importance with resolutions which lecture [= interpretation] would be the most appropriate, and for which reasons.

The second book of the project would compare the known manuscripts as well as the already printed editions of Vitruvius’s Ten Books to establish and in preparation of a reliable text. A book corresponding to this description could be seen in the republication of Philandrier’s Annotationes of 1552 uniting it with the complete text of Vitruvius’s Ten Books in a corrected version, as its subtitle reads:

omnibus omnium editionibus longè emendatiores, collatis veteribus exemplis  [Vitruvius / Philandrier 1552]

carefully corrected according to all old editions [i. e. prints and, presumably, also manuscripts] and following the oldest examples [obviously of manuscripts].

It is obvious that the resulting book would establish something like a phillogical foundation for a new edition by creating some sort of an «Urtext», i. e. a text version that eliminates as many mistakes like scribes’ errors as possible and establishes a text that would be as close as possible to the presumed original. Though it is known today that all of the surviving medieval and Early modern manuscripts of Vitruvius’s Ten Books seem to go back to one caroligian example, such a comparative study as well as a reliable text based on it still seem to be missing.

Philandrier’s editions have been the object of studies and editions by Frédérique Lemerle [Lemerle 1994Lemerle 2000/2011Lemerle 2009]. She has mentioned several manuscripts owned by Cervini and others in Rome that were or may have been used by Philandrier. But even though she knows about the activities of the Roman academy around Tolomei and Philandrier’s personal relation to many of its members, she does not see his work as related to the program described by Tolomei or other possible results.