d.Ä., Joachim called this “his” manuscript or what year he got it in, though it is clear that this [1545 prefatory] letter is his first mention of it. He chose to say nothing of its origins.6
A few years ago, Giorgia Bandini echoed him: “We cannot know how and when, once he had also gotten hold of C, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim compared the two manuscripts.” We have thus made no progress since Ritschl, who wrote in 1848 “By what vicissitudes it reached CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, is unknown,” and who ended an essay shortly before his death, “Anyone who can shed light on this mystery will be most appreciated.”7
I’m pleased to say the first letter I found in 2017 might finally shed light on this mystery.
5. FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ Letter of 1549
FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 letter to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Clm 10431(1, Nr. 183 (fol. 201r))
In the Bavarian State Library in Munich there is a random collection of manuscript letters to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim and others from various scholars.1 Among them is one about editing Plautus from the humanist Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg of Chemnitz (1516–1571). This is the same FabriciusFabricius, Georg that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim thanks in the 1552 preface (the two corresponded frequently over the years). FabriciusFabricius, Georg sent the letter on October 7, 1549, when he was rector of the Saint Afra school in Meißen (Saxony). The first two thirds are of great interest for the history of Plautine scholarship:
Plautinas aliquot comoedias recentis editionis tuae, cum Aldino et Parisiense exemplo contuli, et cum in lectione veteri, tum in carminum ratione restituenda, magnam diligentiam et planè singulare iudicium animadverti. Vellem totum illud opus nos integrum habere, quod cum videaris quam primum absolvere velle, minime eges hortatore.
Collegi scholasticum libellum ex illius poetae comoediis ad cotidiani sermonis usum, sed illum tam diu apud me retinebo, donec tuo labore frui possim.
Extitit aliquot fabularum exemplum antiquum in Hassensteniana bibliotheca, quo olim Sturnus usus est, eius si nondum vidisti credo tibi potestatem fieri posse. Successus huius operae maxime in bonis exemplaribus positus est, et manuscripta non raro sunt impressis meliora, propter correctorum quorundam imperitiam et temeritatem.
I compared the text of some of Plautus’ comedies in your new edition [sc. of 1549; ch. 7 below] to those in the Aldine and Paris editions. The pains you took and the good judgment you exercised were obvious in both the critical text and in fixing the meter of the polymetric cantica. I wish we had the complete edition! But since you seem eager to finish it off as soon as you can, you certainly don’t need me to cheer you on.
I’ve finished assembling a textbook of extracts from the comedies of Plautus to teach students how to speak everyday Latin, but I’m going to hang on to it until I can have you take a look at it.2
There is an ancient copy of some plays in HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library; Sturnus used it once. If you haven’t seen it yet, I believe you can get access to it. The success of this effort rests mostly on using good model texts, and manuscripts are often better than printed books, because of the inexperience and thoughtlessness of certain “correctors.”
My heart skipped a beat when I came across this letter; I assumed the third paragraph describes a new, unknown, and ancient manuscript of Plautus, still sitting unexploited on some shelf in “HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library.” Upon investigation, I have concluded the manuscript described must be one of CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ two camels, probably the Decurtatus. My case is only circumstantial, but if I’m right, then the mystery of that manuscript’s origin is partially solved. Here is my reasoning.
6. One Hump or Two?
“HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library” refers to the Lobkowicz Library, a private library still in existence 35 km north of Prague. It was founded by the Bohemian aristocrat and humanist Bohuslaus von HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von (1461–1510) in Hasištejn castle, near Meißen and Chemnitz, where FabriciusFabricius, Georg lived, and not far from Leipzig. In his time, HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von amassed a huge library of more than 650 volumes. The library still possesses many of its manuscripts but it does not have one of Plautus, and has not since before 1520.1 According to Kamil Boldan, the Plautus manuscript “must have been taken away in the first years after Bohuslav’s death (1510) because the catalogue of the HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von library, which dates back to 1520, no longer lists it.”2 As I will explain, FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 statement affirming its existence in the library must, therefore, be based on out-of-date hearsay and memory, not autopsy, and it arouses the suspicion that FabriciusFabricius, Georg could be referring to the Vetus. I would like to raise that possibility only to dismiss it.
One of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s close friends was the humanist Johannes Sturnus of Schmalkalden. He is the man FabriciusFabricius, Georg says once “used” (usus est) the manuscript. Sturnus is an obscure figure. He apparently wrote little and even his dates are unknown.3 Originally from Chomutov near the German border in Bohemia, he was a flatterer-turned-friend that hung around HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library and taught school there; HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s works are filled with scores of affectionate poems to and from him.4 After HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von died in 1510, Sturnus went to Leipzig. In his biography of EobanusHessus, Eobanus HessusHessus, Eobanus, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim mentions Sturnus respectfully alongside Veit WerlerWerler, Veit.5
Sturnus next taught humaniora in a private school in Annaberg, Germany, near the Czech border. He was an old man by then,6 and between 1532–1535, a teenaged Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg met him there.7 The two apparently never met again, and when FabriciusFabricius, Georg wrote the preface to a collection of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s writings many years later, he gives the impression that he traveled rarely, that he had not been especially well-connected to Sturnus, and that he perhaps knew more of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s Library by reputation than direct experience.8
The simple solution, therefore, is to assume that Sturnus told FabriciusFabricius, Georg about the Plautus manuscript on that occasion in 1532–1535, and hence FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ seemingly authoritative statement to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim in 1549 – 15 years later – about Sturnus having once (olim) used the book, is based on nothing but that memory. In other words, FabriciusFabricius, Georg had not seen the manuscript he was telling Camerarius Camerarius d.Ä., Joachimto go get access to; it had been gone for three decades or more, and he was wrong to assume it was still there.
After HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s death in 1510, many books were loaned or donated and never recovered.9 At the same time, a number of scholars visited to borrow his books; on a visit between 1513–1518, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim received a Greek manuscript as a gift.10 Now, if FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ “old manuscript” (exemplum antiquum) went missing between 1510 and 1520, it raises the obvious suspicion that it could have been the Vetus. Recall the tangled history of that manuscript (ch. 4):
Its first owner was Martin PollichPollich, Martin (1455–1513).
In 1512, PollichPollich, Martin gave it Veit WerlerWerler, Veit.
In 1525, Michael RotingRoting, Michael took and gave it to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim.
Where did PollichPollich, Martin get it? No one knows, but one might easily imagine Sturnus – who seems to have been a bit of a drifter – quietly removing the manuscript as he departed HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s court in 1510 and giving it to him. The timing is perfect, and another point one could make in favor of this hypothesis are the markings in the Vetus.
HassensteinHassenstein,