No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
Some reviewers of my little book, Vitruvius and later Roman building manuals (VLMB), express the wish that I had produced my own text of the Treatise De Diversis Fabricis Architectonicae, which can now be assigned to Marcus Cetius Faventinus, instead of just reprinting the text given by Valentin Rose in his Editio Major of Vitruvius (Leipzig 1867).
On the whole, I agree with them; and having learnt about the texts of Vitruvius and Faventinus, I feel I can briefly list the handful of alterations that I would now make in the latter. The list is so short, that perhaps it could be pasted on an endpaper of my booklet.
Since 1867, as I noted, the only direct addition to our knowledge of the little treatise has come from the manuscript S, discovered at Schlettstadt in Alsace in 1871 and now put in its proper place among Vitruvian manuscripts as a fairly late copy of the text that served also as the archetype for H and for the common source (also vanished) of E and G. S not only gives us the name of the author – the only known manuscript to do so – but also the only uncial text down to a point in the thirteenth chapter corresponding to p.298, line 19 of Rose. All the manuscripts of Faventinus known to Rose in 1867 were, by contrast, in minuscule.
1. e.g. Fensterbusch, Curt in Gnomon 47 (1975) 421Google Scholar and Soubiran, Jean in Latomus 35 (1976) 152Google Scholar.
2. By Ruffel, Pierre and Soubiran, Jean in Pallas 9 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See especially their stemma on p. 109 and the conclusions that follow it.