CITRO OR CEDRO REFICIT? ON AN EMENDATION TO A FRAGMENT OF VARRO'S DE BIBLIOTHECIS (FR. 54 GRF FUNAIOLI)

Abstract

This paper discusses an earlier emendation to fr. 54 GRF Funaioli from Varro's De bibliothecis and argues that, while the text et citro refers to cedar oil, it should not be emended to et cedro. A comparison with a passage from Pliny the Elder (HN 13.86) is used to support the view presented in the article.

The passage examined in this contribution (GRF Funaioli fr. 54 page 208 apud Charisius in Gramm. Lat. 1.87.22–88.4 Keil = 110.11–19 Barwick) has previously been the object of close analysis by T. Hendrickson who presented highly convincing evidence for an emendation of the fragment.¹ In a previous contribution I tried to reconstruct the De bibliothecis using Varronian material found in other authors, such as Pliny the Elder, and comparing it with chapters 3, 5 and 9–14 of the sixth book of Isidore of Seville's Origines, in order to present what can be said about this work.²

GRF Funaioli fr. 54 reads: qua declinatione usus est et Varro De bibliothecis dicens ‘glutine et citro reficit’ (Charisius in Gramm. Lat. 1.87.22–88.4 Keil = 110.12 Barwick).³ The emendation proposed by Hendrickson modified the quotation to glutine et cedro reficit.⁴ He showed that a reference to citron wood, used to produce bookcases, with parallels in Seneca the Younger and other authors, would be unexplainable and inappropriate in this passage. He argues instead that the presence of gluten would suggest a ‘book-roll production and repair’ context,⁵ since the oil used in this manufacture was cedar oil. This hypothesis seems extremely likely.⁶ Hendrickson, however, goes on to say: ‘In his TLL entry for citrum (TLL 3.1207), faced with the fragment of Varro in question, Stadler suggested that in this case citrum perhaps referred to cedar, yet such a usage would be entirely unparalleled. Rather, this is a mistake that should be corrected.’⁷

Some parallels from other authors on papyrus-related matters could, however, suggest that the ancients could mistake citrus for cedrus and therefore that the text, even if—as Hendrickson correctly showed—it refers to cedar oil, should not be emended from citrus to cedro and that the lectio of the manuscripts should be preserved.

In a passage from the Natural History that mentions Varro's and L. Cassius Hemina's opinions on the discovery of the lost Books of Numa,⁸ Pliny the Elder describes the exceptional state of conservation of these books which can be explained by the fact that they were soaked with cedar oil. Pliny (HN 13.86) writes, quoting Hemina:⁹ et libros citratos fuisse; propterea arbitrarier tineas non tetigisse; thus, he uses the surprising citratos, given by all the manuscripts, instead of the expected cedratos.¹⁰ If one looks at TLL 3.1205.80–1 s.v. citratus, one reads the following: ‘Hemina hist. 37 (Plin. nat. 13, 86) libros 1205.81 -os codd. pro cedratos, v. p. 734, 59 sqq.’ and TLL 3.734.59–65 s.v. cedratus ‘Plin. nat. 13, 86 et libros -os (citratos codd., correxi, nisi confusionis auctor iam Plin. ipse fuit) fuisse, propterea arbitrarier tineas non tetigisse’. One can easily notice that there is some confusion between one form and the other in this passage.¹¹ Augustine (De ciu. D. 7.34) also says that the discovery of the Books of Numa was narrated by Varro in his Antiquitates rerum humanarum. If Pliny mistakes the name of the cedar with that of citron wood, as suggested in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, he could have done so because of Varro's influence. Varro wrote, according to Charisius, glutine et citro reficit, where, as Hendrickson showed, we would have expected cedro; Pliny writes et libros citratos fuisse, where we would have expected cedratos, and he does so not far from a passage he ascribes to Varro: ipse Varro humanarum antiquitatum vii … (Plin. HN 13.87).

From this comparison, one could draw three possible conclusions, the first of which is incompatible with the other two. 1) The text given by the manuscripts is corrupted in both occurrences, and we should therefore emend it to cedro and cedratos, which the editors of Pliny did not do. 2) If citratos is genuine, this passage seems to prove that the confusion between the two words—and not between the trees, as shown by Hendrickson—is already attested in antiquity, which weakens the need for an emendation, since we do not know whether the confusion is due to Varro or to a copyist. 3) One could argue that, if citratos is genuine, the mistake one finds in Pliny is due to the Varronian usus that influenced Pliny. Indeed, he uses it near a passage from the Antiquitates, and since Varro mistook citrus and cedrus, as shown by the fragment of the De bibliothecis, neither of the two texts should, therefore, be emended.

If one accepts proposition 2) or 3), the text of the fragment should remain glutine et citro reficit. Moreover, hypothesis 3) suggests that Pliny could have read the De bibliothecis. The usus of naming the cedar citrus, found in the De bibliothecis—we do not know if this form was used also in the Antiquitates Pliny quotes—could be described as Varronian. If so, the entire passage on the history of papyrus (Plin. HN 13.68–70), where Varro, explicitly quoted at the beginning and at the end of the digression,¹² likely mentioned cedar oil as related to roll-making, could be ascribed to the De bibliothecis.¹³ Therefore, maintaining, for both Charisius and Pliny, the text transmitted by the manuscripts could be not only a matter of textual criticism but also a way of proving that Pliny had read the De bibliothecis, thus giving modern scholars some means to develop a better understanding of this lost treatise.