by Bart Huelsenbeck, with the assistance of Dan Plekhov
R Paris, BnF lat. 7311. 9th cent. Ars amatoria; Remedia amoris; Amores Epigr., 1.1.3–1.2.19, 1.2.25–50)
P Paris, BnF lat. 8242. 9th cent. (Heroides [incomplete], Amores1.2.51–3.12.26, 3.14.3–3.15.8)
S St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 864. 11th cent. (Amores Epigr.–1.6.45, 1.8.75–3.9.10)
Y Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 471. 11th cent. (Ars amatoria, Remedia amoris, Amores)
The manuscript witnesses to the Amores fall into two groups: the four earlier manuscripts (vetustiores) listed above, and an abundance of later manuscripts, referred to collectively as recentiores and dating to the 12th century and after. Franco Munari (1951) and E. J. Kenney (1961), who produced the first modern critical editions of the Amores, regarded these two groups of manuscripts (older and more recent) as representative of two independent lines of transmission. The dates of the manuscripts seemed to correspond closely with two separate pedigrees: the vetustiores were traced back to a now lost hyparchetype, called α, and the recentiores to a second lost hyparchetype, called β. (The independence of the β manuscripts is guaranteed by the presence of verses [1.13.11–14; 2.2.18–22, 25–27] that are absent from α manuscripts.)
- Non-α (formerly β) is not a single textual family: the tradition is not bifid.
- In the stemma α and non-α are not shown to connect because non-α represents multiple families with intertangled connections. How and when α and non-α connect are unknowns.
- R, P, Y, and S are independent witnesses to α, though S draws some of its text from non-α.
- The copying dates of R and P are close.