Recensions of the Great Stemma

Notes

As documents were transmitted from Antiquity by copyists, they were, from time to time, more thoroughly edited and brought up to date.[*]Als Vorlagen zum Abschreiben dienten meist junge Handschriften, die eigens dafür bearbeitet wurden: hier entstanden die eigentlichen Lesarten und Textmischungen, nicht beim Abschreiben selbst. Für diese Bearbeitung besorgte man sich manchmal Texte aus wichtigen Zentren, gelegentlich auch alte Handscriften. (Fischer). Textual critics term these "editions" recensions.

In Les Feuillets Liminaires, Zaluska proposed that there were five different recensions of the Great Stemma. She gave these the sigla Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Sigma. Later, another recension, which I call Epsilon, emerged. The following is a simple stemma codicum to show how the main recensions relate to one another:

Ur-Stemma on a large single sheet, Late Antique, separates the genealogy from the accompanying timeline	Spanish archetype, which muddles the Southern Kingdom wives, omits the central section of the timeline, divides the stemma into codex pages, and becomes associated with the Ordo Annorum Mundi	Epsilon, omits more sections of the timeline, adds Gog and Magog legend, but remains closest to archetype
		Lost Delta parent, radically reformats the stemma but keeps the text largely intact bar some interpolations	Delta One (Ac), retains most parent features, reformats the stemma but keeps the text intact
			Delta Two (Ca) converts to a Vulgate text, says Zaluska
		lost Isidorean model, with interpolations from the Vulgate Old Testament and the works of Isidore including the mappamundi, plainly drafted well after Isidore's death in 636	Alpha, consistently in 14 pages
			Beta, mostly 14 pages, but also includes the 10-page Le manuscript
		lost Gamma parent, with material from Jerome, occasional Vulgate emendations	Gamma

Sigma does not figure in this scheme for reasons explained below. The characteristics of the recensions are:

No Zaluska siglum, but I propose Epsilon (ε) [*][Il] se révèle un témoin important de la tradition antérieure aux textes alpha et bêta; le Beatus d'Urgel et de la Bible de Madrid s'attachent, chacun par le biais d'une recension différente, à cette même tradition (Zaluska, Composition).: a single manuscript, now in the Plutei collection, shelf-mark Plut.20.54, in Florence. There is a brief description by Mommsen, but it has never received intensive scholarly analysis before now. This stemma contains roughly as much text as the Delta recension below, and considerably less text than the alpha and beta recensions below, but it also contains one long section of text, on Gog and Magog, which does not appear elsewhere. It seems to be the best witness to the original graphic structure. Online. This manuscript's predecessor probably served as a model for the stemma in the Codex Amiatinus III. Bandini dated the Plutei manuscript to the 11th century.[*]Bandini, Angelo Maria. Catalogus codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae sub auspiciis Pet Florentiae. Florence, 1774. Tomus I, 661. Rostagno, in a handwritten note on the Laurenziana's copy of the catalog, preferred the 10th, Ullman (The Humanism, 142-143) suggests 11th-12th, Martin (Te.Tra 3) the 11th, Bernhard Bischoff (in Fischer-Menzell) the 11th, and Mommsen the 11th. It is bound in a codex with the Liber Genealogus and works by Junilius Africanus and Isidore. Zaluska had not collated this 16-plate version when she compiled her first article, but later commented in a published note that it may be the key witness to the period in the tradition before alpha and beta divided.
Delta (δ) [*]Recension δ1 transmise par la Bible Ac, et δ2 conservée dans la Bible Ca. Le premier texte est probablement celui qui reflète le plus fidèlement la tradition de la Vieille Latine; le texte de Ca en revanche suit généralement la Vulgate, à partir d'Abraham; des interpolations communes dans la première partie du texte. Les deux généalogies sont disposées de façon proche mais non identique; les deux manuscrits ne sont pas copiés l'un sur l'autre (Zaluska, Feuillets, 242).: found in two Vulgate bibles, this contains a reliable witness (in the Madrid bible, Ac, Online) to the most ancient text, but is the worst transmitter of the original stemma's graphic character. This recension contains the greatest number of both uncanonical and canonical Vetus Latina biblical names. Ac is especially precious because it keeps the Ordo Annorum Mundi and other appendices clearly separated from the main body of the stemma. Graphically, Delta marks a completely new generation in the stemma's development, having been reformatted to fit on just seven pages, eliminating the chronography as an integrated graphic feature. Delta is demonstrably the work of a later recensor, since its Judaean Kings section has not only been first corrupted in the same way as Epsilon, Alpha and Beta, but the result has been reshuffled.
Gamma (γ).[*]Recension γ transmise par U (Beatus de la branche IIa) et par la Bible Ma (le premier manuscrit est incomplet du début, le deuxième de la fin); texte ne montrant que des retouches occasionnelles d'après la Vulgate; partie caractéristique à la page des Juges; plusieurs omissions. Les deux manuscrits ne dépendent pas l'un de l'autre et doivent remonter à un modèle commun. En dehors de la parenté textuelle, ils montrent plusieurs ressemblances dans l'organisation des médaillons et dans le traitement iconographique (portraits dans des médaillons, absence de scènes). Il faut toutefois remarquer que les relations entre ces deux manuscrits sont beaucoup moins serrées que celles que l'on observe parmi les témoins du texte α ou du texte β (Zaluska, Feuillets, 241).: in one bible and one Beatus that resemble one another in the arrangement of clipei and the iconography, containing a text that is predominantly Vetus Latina. Its editor has supplemented it with a distinctive genealogy of Samuel that was proposed by Jerome in Against Jovinianus, including the unusual name Sub, along with a one-paragraph quote from that tract. Both manuscripts also have a characteristic error, Soffir Elifaz filius dux, where the two middle words have been transposed. The graphic arrangement of the stemma is badly disordered, sometimes with roundels joined into lattices. The folios of Urgell prior to Ragau filius Falech have disappeared. Urgell also has many empty roundels. As assumption that parts of the text are therefore missing would be incorrect however: the artist seems to have worked in unplanned fashion, drawing far more circles than were ultimately needed. Not online, but a facsimile edition of Urgell has been published with a commentary by Peter Klein.
Alpha (α).[*]Recension α transmise par les Beatus de la branche IIb (T, G, Tu, R, Pc, H) et par un manuscrit de type chronographique (sigle Ro); texte mixte, en général très corrompu, disposé toujours sur quatorze tables; à partir d'Abraham (table VI), n'a presque pas été retouché sur la Vulgate. Ro paraît en être le meilleur manuscrit, bien qu'il soit loin d'être correct et il est important de noter qu'il ne semble dépendre d'aucun Beatus aujourd'hui connu (Zaluska, Feuillets, 241).: a consistently 14-page arrangement which is the second-best witness to the original graphic structure. Its editor has amended it in places with Vulgate names in place of Vetus Latina forms, there are many corruptions, and large insertions from Isidore, including the passage headed "Recapitulo" and the Table of Nations, fill the section preceding Abraham. Online in the form of the Roda manuscript, which Zaluska includes in this group, though Roda differs somewhat from the other manuscripts. Neuss variously describes this as the "IIb" group, or sometimes terms it G-R.
Beta (β).[*]Recension β transmise par deux Beatus de la branche IIa (M et J), par la Bible de 960 (sigle Le), très certainement par celle de 1162 et par les fragments Fi; texte corrigé d'après la Vulgate, néanmoins dans l'ensemble assez corrompu, et fortement interpolé, en grande partie, semble-t-il, à l'aide des Etymologies d'Isidore; peut être commodément désigné comme une recension longue. Ce texte a été disposé sur quatorze tables en M, en J et sans doute en Fi (dans ce dernier manuscrit de façon différente que dans les deux premiers), et sur dix tables en Le. M et J sont pratiquement identiques; Le est très proche; Fi accumule plusieurs omissions (Zaluska, Feuillets, 241).: usually 14 pages, adds further interpolations from Isidore about Abraham and his family, making it the longest text. It is the most corrupted recension. Its identifying feature is the attempt to rework the genealogy of the people of Mount Seir to conform with the Vulgate. Neuss called this the M-J-U or M-J-Leg. group.[*]Schon ein oberflächlicher Vergleich ergibt: Die Tabellen von M J U bilden eine unter sich ganz einheitliche und mit den wieder unter sich ebenso einheitlichen von G Tu R Pc eng verwandte Gruppe... Textlich ist M im allgemeinen am vollständigsten 2); aber an anderen Stellen hat es Lücken, die durch S und G, oder durch eine der beiden Hss. ausgefüllt werden. Zaluska confirms the compacted 10-page Leon Bible stemma as a member of this group: despite some changes in its layout, mainly to compress it into the smaller space, it is clearly modelled on the Beta, 14-page arrangement. Online in the form of the Facundus manuscript (J). Most of the unique features of this text are clearly interpolations from works by other authors, but in a couple of instances one wonders if it has not by some strange accident been the sole transmitter of certain very ancient stemma features. One of these is the leftwards radiation of the lines to David's sons. Another is a puzzling, much corrupted gloss on Joshua which is absent from the Vulgate, but is found in both the Liber Genealogus and the Vetus Latina. The passage, found in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew bible, relates that the flint knives which Joshua had used to circumcize the sons of Israel at Galgala were laid in his tomb with him.

[Beta:] rex prefuit Israheli unigeniti septem annis ... et posuerant cum eo in monumento gladior petrineos de quibus circumcidit filios Israhel in Galgalis

[Liber Genealogus, recension G:] iudicavit Israel annis XXVII ... et posuerunt cum eo in monumento cultellos petrinos circumcisionis Israhel, devictis XXIIII regibus

[Vetus Latina (Lyons):] ibi posuerunt cum illo in monumento in quo saepellierunt illum gladios petrineos de quibus circumcidit filios Israhel

Sigma (σ).[*]Recension σ transmise par le Beatus de Saint-Sever (S), apparaissant pour l'essentiel comme un texte de type a corrigé d'après la Vulgate, mais fournissant quand même des textes qui lui sont propres; disposition sur quatorze tables (Zaluska, Feuillets, 242).: extant in only one manuscript (Saint-Sever), seemingly modelled mostly on Alpha but notable for its many careful alterations to the old text, drawing on the Vulgate Bible. A late fork,[*]Neuss offered a theory that it is the best representation of the original form of the Great Stemma: Daß S die beste Vorstellung von der ursprünglichen Anlage und dem ursprünglichen künstlerischen Charakter der Tabellen vermittelt, scheint mir gleichfalls sicher zu sein. This is no longer tenable. which is useful because it constitutes a medieval critical treatment of the Great Stemma tradition, Sigma is best treated as a derivative work, since it inserts extra material (the siblings of David and the 30 champion-warriors of David). S is not online in high resolution yet, but accessible in a printed facsimile edition.
Before she paid closer attention to Epsilon, Zaluska suggested that the stemmata in the Bible of Burgos and the Bible of Floreffe be considered a "sixth recension".[*]Zaluska, Bibliques, 144, n.8, also quoted by Rouse.. In my view this is not tenable, and I prefer to call that document the "Lesser Stemma".
A chart in the Codex Amiatinus III in Florence is also a derivative work, modelled on the Great Stemma but with names of rulers added up to the 10th century.

The points of difference among the manuscripts are so numerous that they can only be comprehensively understood through line-by-line study of the tabular transcription. A few salient features that distinguish the recensions from one another include:

The people of Mount Seir are subjected to a distinctively different treatment in each recension. This is tabulated on a separate page.
Inflation of the descendants of Benjanim from 10 to 17 persons through repetition: an exclusive feature of Beta. Benjamin's six grandsons and one great-grandson were listed by the Great Stemma author in accord with the Septuagint Genesis. A recensor has noticed that Jerome considered all seven to be sons of Benjamin himself (the Vulgate awards Benjamin 10 sons in all) and has altered the data, at the same time changing the names from their Vetus Latina to their Vulgate forms, with Adar for example becoming Gera. Subsequently, the beta recensor, working with both the previous recensions, has become confused as he tries to reconcile them. Instead of recognizing the duplication, he wrongly guesses that both recensions must have omitted something, and therefore reproduces both lines. The result: he gives a similar set of names for both the second generation from Benjamin (these are sons, according to the Vulgate Genesis) and the third and fourth generations (grandsons and one great-grandson, according to the Septuagint), thus conflating 7 persons to 14. The three elder sons remain unchanged in all the recensions.

[to be continued]

Back to History Table of Contents

Back to Macro-Typography on the Web