The Letters of Cassiodorus
originally sprang.
CHAPTER V.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
[Sidenote: Editiones Principes.]
The Ecclesiastical History ('Historia Tripartita') seems to have been
the first of the works of Cassiodorus to attract the notice of
printers at the revival of learning. The Editio Princeps of this book
(folio) was printed by Johann Schuszler, at Augsburg, in 1472[184].
[Footnote 184: This edition is described by Dibdin (Bibliotheca
Spenceriana iii. 244-5).]
The Editio Princeps of the 'Chronicon' is contained in a collection of
Chronicles published at Basel in 1529 by Joannes Sichardus (printer,
Henricus Petrus). The contribution of Cassiodorus is prefaced by an
appropriate Epistle Dedicatory to Sir Thos. More, in which a parallel
is suggested between the lives of these two literary statesmen.
Next followed the Editio Princeps of the 'Variae,' published at
Augsburg in 1533, by Mariangelus Accurtius.
In 1553, Joannes Cuspinianus, a counsellor of the Emperor Maximilian,
published at Basel a series of Chronicles with which he interwove the
Chronicle of Cassiodorus, and to which he prefixed a short life of our
author.
[Sidenote: Edition of Nivellius.]
The Editio Princeps of the collected works of Cassiodorus was
published at Paris in 1579 by Sebastianus Nivellius; and other
editions by the same publisher followed in 1584 and 1589. This edition
does not contain the Tripartite History, the Exposition of the
Psalter, or the 'Complexiones' on the Epistles. Some notes, not
without merit, are added, which were compiled in 1578 by 'Gulielmus
Fornerius, Parisiensis, Regius apud Aurelianenses Consiliarius et
Antecessor.' The annotator says[185] that these notes had gradually
accumulated on the margin of his copy of Cassiodorus, an author who
had been a favourite of his from youth, and whom he had often quoted
in his forensic speeches.
[Footnote 185: p. 492.]
The edition of Nivellius, which is evidently prepared with a view to
aid the historical rather than the theological study of the writings
of Cassiodorus, contains also the Gothic history of Jordanus (sic),
the 'Edictum Theoderici,' the letter of Sidonius describing the Court
of Theodoric II _the Visigoth_ (453-466), and the Panegyric of
Ennodius on Theodoric the Great. The letter of Sidonius is evidently
inserted owing to a confusion between the two Theodorics; and this
error has led many later commentators astray. But the reprint of the
'Edictum Theoderici' is of great interest and value, because the MS.
from which it was taken has since disappeared, and none other is known
to be in existence. A letter is prefixed to the 'Edictum,' written by
Pierre Pithou to Edouard Mole, Dec. 31, 1578, and describing his
reasons for sending this document to the publisher who was printing
the works of Cassiodorus. At the same time, 'that the West might not
have cause to envy the East,' he sent a MS. of the 'Leges
Wisigothorum,' with illustrative extracts from Isidore and Procopius,
which is printed at the end of Nivellius' edition.
I express no opinion about the text of this edition; but it possesses
the advantage of an Index to the 'Variae' only, which will be found at
the end of the Panegyric of Ennodius. Garet's Index, which is in
itself not so full, has the additional disadvantage of being muddled
up with the utterly alien matter of the Tripartite History.
In 1588 appeared an edition in 4to. of the works of Cassiodorus (still
excluding the Tripartite History and the Biblical Commentaries),
published at Paris by Marc Orry. This was republished in 1600 in two
volumes 12mo.
The 'Variae' and 'Chronicon' only, in 12mo. were published at Lyons by
Jacques Chouet in 1595, and again by Pierre and Jacques Chouet at
Geneva in 1609, and by their successors in 1650. These editions
contain the notes of Pierre Brosse, Jurisconsult, as well as those of
Fornerius.
[Sidenote: Edition of Garet.]
In 1679 appeared, in two volumes folio, the great Rouen edition by
Francois Jean Garet (of the Congregation of S. Maur), which has ever
since been the standard edition of the works of Cassiodorus. Garet
speaks of collating several MSS. of various ages for the text of this
edition, especially mentioning 'Codex S. Audoeni' (deficient for Books
5, 6, and 7 of the 'Variae'), 'et antiquissimae membranae S. Remigii
Remensis' (containing only the first four books of the same
collection). A codex which once belonged to the jurist Cujacius, and
which had been collated with Accurtius' text in 1575 by a certain
Claude Grulart, seems to have given Garet some valuable readings by
means of Grulart's notes, though the codex itself had disappeared.
Garet's edition was re-issued at Venice in 1729, and more recently in
Migne's 'Patrologia' (Paris, 1865), of which it forms vols. 69 and 70.
[Sidenote: Forthcoming Edition by Meyer.]
There can be little doubt, however, that all these editions will be
rendered obsolete by the new edition which is expected to appear as a
volume of the 'Auctores Antiquissimi' in the _Monumenta Germaniae
Historica_. The editor is Professor Wilhelm Meyer, of Munich. The work
has been for some years announced as near completion, but I have not
been able to ascertain how soon it may be expected to appear.
[Sidenote: Supposed fragment of orations.]
Finally, I must not omit to notice the fragments of an oration
published by Baudi de Vesme in the Transactions of the Royal Academy
of Sciences at Turin (1846). Those fragments, which were found in a
palimpsest MS. of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, were first
published in 1822 by Angelo Mai, who was then disposed to attribute
them to Symmachus (the elder), and to assign them to the early part of
the fifth century. On reflection, however, he came to the conclusion
that they were probably the work of Cassiodorus, and formed part of a
panegyric addressed to Theodoric. This theory appears now to meet with
general approval. The style is certainly very similar to that of
Cassiodorus; but, as will be inferred from the doubt as to their
origin, there is little or nothing in these scanty fragments which
adds anything to our knowledge of the history of Theodoric.
[Sidenote: Life by Garet.]
To the literature relating to Cassiodorus the most important
contribution till recent times was the life by Garet prefixed to his
edition of 1679. I cannot speak of this from a very minute
investigation, but it seems to be a creditable performance, the work
of one who had carefully studied the 'Variae,' but unfortunately quite
misleading as to the whole framework of the life of Cassiodorus, from
the confusion which it makes between him and his father, an error
which Garet has probably done more than any other author to
perpetuate.
[Sidenote: Life by St. Marthe.]
The life by Garet was paraphrased in French by Denys de _Ste. Marthe_
('Vie de Cassiodore,' Paris, 1695), whose work has enjoyed a
reputation to which it was not entitled on the ground either of
originality or accuracy, but which was probably due to the fact that
the handy octavo volume written in French was accessible to a wider
circle of readers than Garet's unwieldy folio in Latin. A more
original performance was that of _Count Buat_ (in the 'Abhandlungen
der Kurfuerstlichen Bairischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,' Munich,
1763); but this author, though he pointed out the cardinal error of
Garet, his confusion between Senator and his father, introduced some
further gratuitous entanglements of his own into the family history of
the Cassiodori.
[Sidenote: Modern monographs.]
All these works, however, are rendered entirely obsolete by three
excellent monographs which have recently been published in Germany on
the life and writings of Cassiodorus. These are--
[Sidenote: Thorbecke.]
August _Thorbecke's_ 'Cassiodorus Senator' (Heidelberg, 1867);
[Sidenote: Franz.]
Adolph _Franz's_ 'M. Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator' (Breslau, 1872);
and
[Sidenote: Usener.]
Hermann _Usener's_ 'Anecdoton Holderi' (Bonn, 1877), described in the
second chapter of this introduction.
Thorbecke discusses the political, and Franz the religious and
literary aspects of the life of their common hero, and between them
they leave no point of importance in obscurity. Usener, as we have
already seen, brings an important contribution to our knowledge of the
subject in presenting us with Holder's fragment; and his Commentary
(of eighty pages) on this fragment is a model of patient and
exhaustive research. It seems probable that these three authors have
really said pretty nearly the last word about the life and writings of
Cassiodorus. In addition to these authors many writers of historical
works in Germany have of late years incidentally contributed to a more
accurate understanding of the life and times of Cassiodorus.
_Dahn_, in the third section of his 'Koenige der Germanen' (Wuerzburg,
1866), has written a treatise on the political system of the
Ostrogoths which is almost a continuous commentary on the 'Variae,'
and from which I have derived the greatest possible assistance.
_Koepke_, in his 'Anfaenge des Koenigthums bei den Gothen' (Berlin,
1859), has condensed into a small compass a large amount of useful
disquisition on Cassiodorus and his copyist Jordanes. The relation
between these two writers was also elaborately discussed by _von
Sybel_ in his thesis 'De Fontibus Libri Jordanis' (Berlin, 1838), and
by _Schirren_, in his monograph 'De Ratione quae inter Jordanem et
Cassiodorum intercedat' (Dorpat, 1885). The latter, though upon the
whole a creditable performance, is disfigured by one or two strange
blunders, and not improved by some displays of irrelevant learning.
_Von Schubert_, in his 'Unterwerfung der Alamannen unter die Franken'
(Strassburg, 1884), throws some useful light on the question of the
date of the early letters in the 'Variae;' and _Binding_, in his
'Geschichte des Burgundisch-Romanischen Koenigreichs' (Leipzig, 1868),
discusses the relations between Theodoric and the Sovereigns of Gaul,
as disclosed by the same collection of letters, in a manner which I
must admit to be forcible, though I do not accept all his conclusions.
_Mommsen_, in his paper 'Die Chronik des Cassiodorus Senator' (Vol.
viii. of the 'Abhandlungen der Koeniglich Saechsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften;' Leipzig, 1861), has said all that is to be said
concerning the unfortunate 'Chronicon' of Cassiodorus, which he
handles with merciless severity.
To say that _Ebert_, in his 'Allgemeine Geschichte der Litteratur des
Mittelalters im Abendlande' (Leipzig, 1874), and _Wattenbach_, in his
'Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter,' tell us with fullness
and accuracy just what the student ought to wish to know concerning
Cassiodorus as an author, is only to say that they are Ebert and
Wattenbach. Every one who has had occasion to refer to these two books
knows their merits.
Passing from German literature, I regret that I am prevented by
ignorance of the Dutch language from forming an opinion as to the work
of _Thijm_ ('Iets over M.A. Cassiodorus en zijne eeuw;' Amsterdam,
1857), which is frequently quoted by my German authorities.
_Gibbon_ of course quotes from the 'Variae,' and though he did not
know them intimately, he has with his usual sagacity apprehended the
true character of the book and of its author. But the best account of
the 'Various Letters' in English, as far as I know, is unfortunately
entombed in the pages of a periodical, being an article by Dean
_Church_, contributed in July, 1880, to the 'Church Quarterly Review.'
There is also a very good though necessarily brief notice of
Cassiodorus in _Ugo Balzani's_ little volume on the 'Early Chroniclers
of Italy,' published by the Christian Knowledge Society in 1883.
CHAPTER VI.
CHRONOLOGY.