This article aims to explain and clarify the controversial textual issue over which manuscripts should be preferred in an edition of Sulpicius Severus’ Martinellus. In particular, Ruggiero examines the case of the Letters. Firstly, he shows that there is only one contaminated textual tradition, as proven by the numerous adiaphoristic variants. Secondly, he shows that the manuscripts from the French-German area are superior to those from the Italic peninsula and some insular areas, as they provide a much more elegant and (...) correct text. This is consistent with our knowledge of Sulpicius Severus’ higher literary education. In publishing the Martinellus, it is therefore advisable to follow the variants of the French-German manuscripts, whereas the ones of the Italian manuscripts are to be taken into account only in the case of obvious errors. Consequently, Ruggiero maintains that the editions that predate Halm’s should be rated much more highly than they are. (shrink)

The author of this article discusses several passages from Πρὸς Διόγνητον and in particular he suggests a new reading of five problematical loci of the work. In 2, 3, the addition of καί before the words ἔτι καὶ νῦν makes the reading καὶ ἔτι καὶ νῦν more suitable for the style of the entire clause. In 3, 5, a very economical change – τὸ δὲ δοκεῖ[ν] τινά παρέχειν τῷ μηδενὸς προσδεομένῳ – gives the correct meaning to a widely discussed sentence. (...) In 7, 4, the clause ὡς βασιλεὺς πέμπων υἱὸν βασιλέα ἔπεμψεν, ὡς ϑεὸς πέμπων πρὸς ἀνϑρώπους ἔπεμψεν, ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν is probably the correct reading, taking into account both the author’s theology and the rhythm of the three anaphoric sentences. In 8, 11, the words of the manuscript tradition ἰδεῖν καὶ ποιῆσαι are out of context; ; ἰδιοποιῆσαι, a conjectural emendation, plausibly restores to the revised clause καὶ μετασχεῖν τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰδιοποιῆσαι its correct sense. In 10, 1, the very economical conjectural emendation καταλάβῃς for the καὶ λάβῃς of the manuscript tradition offers both a correct reading for the revised passage ταύτην καὶ σὺ τὴν πίστιν ἐὰν ποϑήσῃς, καταλάβῃς πρῶτον μὲν ἐπίγνωσιν πατρός and a good connection to the following clause. (shrink)

This short article is intended to contribute to the solution of a known locus desperatus of the Augustinian Confessions. The Author proposes that 8, 2, 3 should be read spirabat paululum iam instead of spirabat † popilios iam †. The conjecture is reminiscent of Catil. 61, 4 paululum etian spirans concerning Catilina’s death. Catilina’s death is a metaphor for the fall of Roman paganism, and for Marius Victorinus’s and Augustine's personal lives as well as their conversions. Ruggiero adds further evidence (...) to Manlio Simonetti’s arguments as shown in the «Nota al Testo» preceding his edition of Confessiones for the Italian collection “Lorenzo Valla”: common mistakes such as popilios iam were already in the edition’s manuscript. (shrink)