DOI: 10.53084/4241.2025.82.43.004

M.V. Shumilin
Textological innovations in a new edition of Pliny the Elder. An approach to conjectural intervention

Abstract: In the article, the question of the approach to conjectural intervention is discussed in the context of the new edition of Pliny the Elder. It is suggested that conjectural approach should not be automatically rejected but that in each case a balanced judgement is in order as to whether the transmitted text can stand and whether a conjecture is needed. Two places are discussed in particular in which it is argued that conjectures should be accepted in Pliny the Elder against the standard text of the editions: Plin. NH 8.89, where, instead of anseres, the reading of the archetype of Pliny’s manuscripts, it is proposed to print C. Salmasius’ conjecture anseris, and 7.116, where, instead of the transmitted tantum… electis, it is proposed to print F. Pintianus’ conjecture tanti… electum.

Keywords: textual criticism, conjecture, Pliny the Elder, ecdotics, editorial method

To cite this article: Shumilin M.V. Textological innovations in a new edition of Pliny the Elder. An approach to conjectural intervention. Aristeas XXXII (2025): 54–66.

References:
Agosto M. 2016: Sophoclis Oedipus Rex. Moscow.
Brunck R.F.P. 1788: Sophoclis Tragoediae septem… T. I. Strasbourg.
Dawe R.D. 2006: Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Cambridge.
Ernout A. 1952: Pline l’Ancien. Histoire naturelle. Livre VIII. Paris.
Finglass P. 2018: Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Cambridge.
Jan L., Mayhoff C. 1909: C. Plini Secundi Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Vol. II. Leipzig. Kenney E.J. 1974: The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London.
Liberman G. 2010: Stace. Silves. Paris.
Lloyd-Jones H., Wilson N. 1990: Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxford.
Pintianus F. 1593: In C. Plinii Historiae naturalis libros omnes, Fredenandi Pintiani, utriusque linguae in Academia Salmanticensi professoris, obseruationes eruditissimae.
Rackham H. 1942: Pliny. Natural History. Vol. II. London.
Ramsey J.T. 2019: Did Cicero ‘Proscribe’ Marcus Antonius? Classical Quarterly 69: 793–800.
Salmasius C. 1689: Claudii Salmasii Plinianae exercitationes in Caji Julii Solini Polyhistora… Utrecht.
Salvadore M. 2005: Una recensione inutile. Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 133: 478–483.
Schilling R. 1977: Pline l’Ancien. Histoire naturelle. Livre VII. Paris. Shabaga I., Shumilin M. 2025: Pliniy Starshiy. Estestvennaya istoriya [Pliny the Elder. Natural History]. Vol. 5. Moscow.
Плиний Старший. Естественная история. Т. V. Пер. и комм. И.Ю. Шабага, лат. текст М.В. Шумилина. М., 2025.
Shumilin M. 2020: Oshibka protiv varianta: “novaya filologiya”, latinistika i “plokhoy yasyk” [Error vs Variant: The “New Philology”, Latin Studies, and the “Bad Language”]. Vox Medii Aevi 1–2 (6–7): 28–75.
Шумилин М.В. Ошибка против варианта: «новая филология», латинистика и «плохой язык». Vox Medii Aevi 1–2 (6–7) (2020): 28–75.
Shumilin M. (forthcoming): Olybrius or an Unknown Neronian Poet? The Date and Authorship of the Einsiedeln Eclogues Reconsidered. Materiali e discussioni.
Tarrant R. 2016: Texts, Editors, and Readers: Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism. Cambridge.
Timpanaro S. 2003: La genesi del metodo del Lachmann. Torino.
Stover J. 2015: Olybrius and the Einsiedeln Eclogues. The Journal of Roman Studies 105: 288–321.
Welzhofer K. 1878: Ein Beitrag zur Handschriftenkunde des Naturalis Historia des Plinius. München.

Author:

Mikhail V. Shumilin