Review of
Morresi, Ilaria, ed. 2022. Cassiodorus. Institutiones humanarum litterarum. Textus Ί Î. Turnhout: Brepols (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 99A). 512 p. ISBN 978-2-503-59589-4.
Publisherâs website
Anne Grondeux
Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, CNRS,
Laboratoire d’histoire des thĂ©ories linguistiques, F-75013 Paris, France
The Institutiones by Cassiodorus (â c. 580) is a major work for the diffusion of knowledge in the medieval West (on Cassiodorus, one can learn much from the excellent chapter by MaĂŻeul Cappuyns in Baudrillard 1949, and from the noteworthy synthesis by James O’Donnell 1979). This work circulated in several versions, one of which was authentic, i.e. in the form intended by Cassiodorus himself (tradition Ω, grouping together the Divine Institutions, Book I, and the Secular Institutions, Book II), the other two being interpolated, Ί and Î, which only convey Book II. What justifies the new edition of the Ί and Î versions by Ilaria Morresi (henceforth IM) is the fact that these texts, whose enrichments met the expectations of Carolingian scholars (p. 146*), were distributed incomparably more widely than the authentic version, preserved in nine manuscripts (compared with around sixty for Book I when it circulated alone, twelve for the Ί witnesses, and twenty-three for the Î). The history of the Institutiones is well known since the work of Pierre Courcelle, who showed that the divergences of Ί and Î from Ω could be explained by the fact that these texts went back to a state prior to Ω, the famous draft described in his 1942 article, “Histoire d’un brouillon cassiodorien”. This intuition was made possible by the excellent edition by Roger A.B. Mynors published in 1937, who, having identified the three traditions, produced the edition of the authentic form Ω, on the basis of the three ancient manuscripts B (Bamberg, Staatbibl. Patr. 61), U (Vatican, BAV, Urb. Lat. 67), M (Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 660), while giving access to the other two, Ί and Î. Since then, research on Cassiodorus and the various versions of the text has continued to develop (see in particular Holtz 1984). The article by Ilaria Morresi 2018, from which we borrow the family tree on page 217, is also worth consulting:




