the case that one or more early modern scholars added marks and notes to the Vetus and marks (but few notes) to the Decurtatus. Bandini 2014 attributes all of them in the Decurtatus to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, but in oral discussion of this paper in 2018, Ulrich Schlegelmilch opined that only the marks in red, and not the others, were from CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ hand. A lack of competence prevents me from deciding, and still less do I know about the marks and notes in the Vetus. If a skilled palaeographer will compare them to the notes HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von made in his own manuscripts, then the case could be made that FabriciusFabricius, Georg meant the Vetus, and we now know its origin.
I doubt it, however, and for two reasons. First, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim had had the Vetus since 1525 and had been publishing partial editions based on its variants for years. He said so explicitly in the 1545 edition (note 21 above) and by 1549, it is impossible that FabriciusFabricius, Georg did not know that.
Of course, if FabriciusFabricius, Georg (wrongly) believed Sturnus’ MS was still in HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s Library, then he could never have connected the two. Hence everything hinges on the second point, namely, FabriciusFabricius, Georg calls the manuscript a partial one (aliquot fabularum). That does not suit the Vetus – which is a two-humped camel – but it does describe the Decurtatus, our one-humped camel. It is time to return to it.
7. The Czeckered past of the Decurtatus
Recall that the Decurtatus had once belonged to Freising Abbey (ch. 4 above), but many of its manuscripts were carried off and dispersed in the 14th and 15th centuries.1 Because that is precisely the time HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von began amassing his collection, it is plausible to suppose – though it cannot be proven – that HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von acquired it there and then. And as I will now explain, it is also plausible to suppose CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim had, quite coincidentally, acquired the Decurtatus only shortly before FabriciusFabricius, Georg wrote him about it.
Consider the timing. In my view, the “new edition” (recentis editionis tuae) FabriciusFabricius, Georg refers to must be CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ 1549 partial edition of Plautus rather than his 1545 partial edition of Plautus. I say that because it begins with a preface dated August 24, 1549 – that is, only six weeks and a couple days before FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter of October 7.2 In it, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim writes (pp. 12–13):
[…] et nunc post priores quinque fabulas Plautinas […] nunc has alteras sex tradidimus exprimendas Valentino nostro […]. Sed ad operis perfectionem opus erit quasi Zephyri flatu quodam pacis et ocii […].
And now, after the first five comedies of Plautus […] I’ve now sent off this second batch of six to our friend Valentin [sc. Papa/Bapst, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ printer in Leipzig] to print […]. But to finish the job, I’m going to need a certain breeze of peace and quiet, as if from Zephyr.
In my view, FabriciusFabricius, Georg is echoing the words ad operis perfectionem, “to finish the job,” in writing totum illud opus […] cum videaris quam primum absolvere velle, “since you seem eager to finish the whole job off as soon as you can.”
Given the tight timeframe between CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ preface and FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter – just six weeks – it would be natural to assume that FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter is what prompted CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim to discover and go obtain the Decurtatus from the HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von library. It would also be natural to fix that moment between October 8, 1549, and 1552, when his Basel edition first appeared. That is what I assumed at first, and it is nearly what other scholars had assumed even without knowing about FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter. As noted above (n. 24), Zangemeister thought the 1552 edition was the first time CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim ever mentioned the Decurtatus. And Bandini writes,
CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim seems to cite both codices for the first time in the introduction to the 1552 edition […]. In the preface of the 1545 partial work, by contrast, he only cited B. This suggests CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim already had possession of the Vetus codex and that it was only after that date that he also had C in his hands.3
Nevertheless, as Marion Gindhart pointed out to me, our assumption is wrong, and the reality more complicated.
In truth, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim first alludes to the Decurtatus in ten endnotes in his 1549 edition – that is, the same edition that prompted FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter.4 He refers to it, vaguely, as “the other book” or “in one copy,” but the readings he cites match or fit those of the Decurtatus. He does not cite it in his EpidicusEpidicus or BacchidesBacchides, which are the first two plays in the book, and he says nothing descriptive about it at any point.
This situation suggests CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim edited the plays in the traditional order and did not revise his work after completing them. It also suggests that in 1548 or 1549 CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim must have quietly gotten the Decurtatus from someone while he was editing MercatorMercator. I suspect FabriciusFabricius, Georg simply overlooked these endnotes or did not understand them, and, by sheer coincidence, sent CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim to go find the very same manuscript he’d already taken possession of a year or two earlier.
How did CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim get the Decurtatus? In my view, the scant use to which he put it suggests it was an unwanted gift. By 1548, he had been editing Plautus for 23 years and publishing partial results. It would not be surprising if he closed his eyes to a “white elephant” at the eleventh hour. Who would want to redo everything at that point?
Invito data, redditur albus res elephantus.
The second letter I discovered in 2017 supports that impression.
8. CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ Confession
Esse ego ne nimius videar Camerariomastix,
conspice quod latuit saecula, lector, opus.
As promised above (ch. 4), I can now explain the reference to “the book of Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg” that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim mentions in the preface to his 1552 Basel-HervagiusHervagius, Johannes edition.
The year after that edition appeared, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim published a little pamphlet, not in Basel with HervagiusHervagius, Johannes, but with Valentin Papa (Bapst) in Leipzig, the same local printer that had printed his 1545 and 1549 Plautuses. Its title is Indicationes multorum quae ad lectionem fabularum Plauti nonnihil momenti afferre possint. Quae collegit Georgius FabriciusFabricius, Georg Chemnicensis. Emendationes editi exempli Plautini (i.e. his printed 1552 copy) a Ioachimo CamerarioCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, de recognitione ipsius (i.e. by CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim himself, not FabriciusFabricius, Georg). The formatting of the title makes it hard to understand that this pamphlet contains two different works:
(1) CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ own corrections to his 1552 Basel text, and
(2) FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ collection of the fragments of Plautus.
Hence, although the positioning of FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ name at the top of the title page makes it look like he is the author of everything (and has been so catalogued), the book belongs to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim.
The sole copy to survive to modern times is held in the Dresden library. The last person to look at it was Ritschl, who wrote a short notice of it.1 He describes its contents, quotes a few lines from its prefatory letter to the printer, and then adds, “This pamphlet cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to get to know CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ true opinion and intention.”2 The context that FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 letter now gives us makes it clear that Ritschl was even more prophetic than he realized, for this uknown pamphlet was intended to supplement CamerariusCamerarius