On the art of correcting manuscripts, etc.

From Alessandro Torri’s preface to the first volume of L’Ottimo Commento as edited by himself and others of the Accademia della Crusca (1827):

Nessuno scrupolo parimente ci femmo di correggere le sconcordanze grammaticali d’ogni sorte, quando erano palpabili; indicando però nelle Note o nelle Appendici la lezione del Testo. Nè dal così fare ci rattenne l’esser privi dell’appoggio autorevole di altri Codici; poichè ne confortarono le dottrine de’ Critici più distinti, è segnatamente d’un uomo fra’ più sommi in ogni genere di sapere, vogliam dire dell’immortale nostro concittadino Scipione Maffei, il quale firmò questa massima, «che a mal partito sarebber le buone lettere, se non si potessero emendar mai gli autori antichi se non per manuscritti».

That is,

We had no qualms about correcting grammatical discrepancies of any sort when they were palpable; indicating, however, in the Notes or Appendices the original reading. Nor did we hesitate merely because our emendation lacked the authoritative support of other codices; for we were supported by the doctrines of best critics, and especially by our immortal fellow-citizen Scipione Maffei, who once wrote that “the belles lettres would be in a bad way if one could never correct ancient authors except according to their manuscripts.”

The Maffei quotation comes from his Verona Illustrata (1732), in which he wrote:

[…] il leggersi nelle stampe di Tito Livio, ch’essi ristettero, e si allogarono, ove a tempo di quell’Autore eran le Città di Brescia, e di Verona. Ma egli è certissimo, che chiunque alle autorità sopraddotte vorrà por mente, e sopra le cose da noi finora esposte farà considerazione, vedrà più chiaro del mezogiorno, che in vece di Brixia ac Verona va letto Brixia ac Cremona. Non ci fu mai emendazion più infallibile, nè più manifesta. […] Or se Livio avesse qui scritto Verona, avrebbe contradetto a se stesso […] E’ dunque indubitato, ch’error de’ trascrittori, e non dell’ Istorico è in questo luogo Verona; e chi volesse persistere in attribuirlo a lui, indiscretezza gli userebbe, ch’ei non usò con altri, quando trovando numeri, e somma inverisimile ne’ libri di Valerio Anziate, disse, voler più torto credere error nel copista, che bugia nell’Autore.

Coloro che vinti dalle ragioni per impegno non pertanto ripugnar vogliono, millanteranno qui i manuscritti, e il non aver noi tratta quest’emendazione da nissun codice. Ma qual bisogno v’è mai di codici, dove tant’evidenza risplenda? non per autorità d’esemplari gli antichi Critici rigettavano quel verso d’Omero in proposito di Salamina, ma perchè contenea sentimento falso, e ripugnante ad altri luoghi del Poeta medesimo. A mal partito sarebber le buone lettere, se non si potessero emendar mai gli Autori antichi, se non per manuscritti.

That is:

[…] one reads in Livy (5.35.1–2) that they stopped and settled where in Livy’s time were the cities of Brescia and Verona. But anyone who minds the above authorities and considers what we’ve said so far will see as clear as noontime that “Brixia ac Verona” should have read “Brixia ac Cremona.” No emendation was ever more infallible or more manifest. […] If Livius had in fact written “Verona,” he would have been contradicting himself […] It is thus indubitable that “Verona” here is an error of the transcriber and not of the Historian, and that anyone who persists in attributing the error to Livy would commit an offense which Livy himself did not commit upon others — such as when (in 38.55.8), finding in Valerius Antias improbable calculations, he said he preferred to infer “an error of the copyist, rather than a lie of the Author.”

Those who, overcome by reasoning, nevertheless wish to resist, will here boast of the manuscripts, and that we have not drawn this emendation from any codex. But what need is there of codices, where such evidence shines forth? it was not by the authority of exemplars that the ancient Critics rejected that Homeric verse regarding Salamis, but because it contained sentiments repugnant to other of the Poet’s own passages. Belles-lettres would be in a bad way if one could never correct ancient authors except according to the manuscripts.

When Livy blames Antias’ copyist in 38.55.8, that seems to be a rare case of damning with faint praise — as in, “even Antias couldn’t have been that wrong.” In general, Livy “speaks of [Antias] as the most lying of all the annalists, and seldom mentions his name without terms of reproach” (DGRBM).

For “Homer’s verse on Salamis” see Strabo’s Geography, 9.1.10:

They say that it was Peisistratus or Solon who inserted into the Catalogue of Ships immediately after the verse “and Ajax brought twelve ships from Salamis” (Il. 2.557) the verse “and halted them where the Athenians were stationed,” and then used Homer as a witness that Salamis had belonged to the Athenians from the beginning [rather than to the Megarians]. But the critics do not accept this interpretation, because many of Homer’s verses bear witness to the contrary. For why is Ajax found in the ship-camp (13.681) not with the Athenians but with the Thessalians? And in the visitation of the troops, Agamemnon “found Menestheus of Athens; and near by, Odysseus and the Cephallenians” (4.327), but when he came to Ajax and the Salaminians (4.273), near them was “Idomeneus [of Crete]” (3.230), not Menestheus.