Plautus in der Frühen Neuzeit

4. The Camels’ Origin

CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ 1552 edition begins with a preface explaining why his new text of Plautus is important:1

Adminicula quaedam habuimus duorum librorum veterum quidem illorum sed quos librariorum inscitia et futilitas foede depravasset. Horum alteram nacti fuimus de bibliotheca praestantis dignitate et doctrina viri Viti Werleri Franci, cui pleraque debemus eorum quae a nobis fuerunt correcta.

Georgii autem Fabricii candor eximius et benevolentia summa erga nos, de incredibili studio diligentiae suae, communicavit nobiscum nuper suum quoque librum, in quem congesserat quicquid perquirere legendo potuit, quod ad Plautinarum fabularum tam emendationem quam explicationem aliquid momenti haberet.

Caetera sunt considerationis et curae ac studii nostri.

I got a certain amount of help from two books. They’re both old but scandalously disfigured by the idiocy and laziness of the scribes who copied them out. I got one of them from the library of Veit WerlerWerler, Veit of Franconia, who is both a scholar and a gentleman. I owe quite a few of my textual corrections to it.

Moreover, Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ outstanding candor and kindness toward me, from the incredible enthusiasm of his diligence, recently shared his book with me, which he’d packed with whatever he could find out in his reading that had some bearing on emending and elucidating Plautus’ plays.

I alone am responsible for everything else in this book.

Because the 1552 text is printed as a single block, my paragraphing here is meant to clarify that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim is not talking about two books, but three. The first is the Vetus, but the second is not, as is sometimes thought, “Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ book.” FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ book is a third book, a collection of fragments that was supposed to be reprinted in CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ edition but accidentally got left out; I will come back to it in ch. 8.2 The point to grasp here is that the “two books” CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim says he got help from are camels B and C – that is, the Vetus and the Decurtatus.

We know a lot about the origins of the Vetus because CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim had written in greater detail about it in the preface to the 1545 partial edition of Plautus he’d published in Leipzig.3 As he explains there, once upon a time Martin PollichPollich, Martin (1455–1513), the first rector of Wittenberg University, had owned it. In 1512, PollichPollich, Martin gave it Veit WerlerWerler, Veit, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ former professor at Leipzig mentioned above, and in 1525 the humanist Michael RotingRoting, Michael (1494–1588), WerlerWerler, Veit’s nephew, took it from WerlerWerler, Veit’s bookcase and gave it to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim. By 1552, therefore, when CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim published his complete Plautus in Basel, he had had the manuscript in his possession for 27 years.4

The situation with the Decurtatus is entirely different. CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim claims he got “help” (adminicula) from both manuscripts, but his claim does not match the evidence. As Ritschl puts it,

A glance at any page of my edition of BacchidesBacchides or at the notes in TaubmannTaubmann, Friedrich, GruterGruter, Jan, and PareusPareus, Johann Philipp on any scene at all in any one of Plautus’ twenty comedies can show that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim didn’t mention 1 % of its manuscript variants.

The editor of Ritschl’s Kleine Schriften interjects, “No kidding – not even 0.1%!”5

Equally strange is where and when CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim got the Decurtatus in the first place. Thanks to a subscription written on its first page, we know that the manuscript had once belonged to the library of the St. Corbinian abbey at Freising (Bavaria). But CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim does not say that or anything else about how it came into his possession. In his facsimile edition of the Decurtatus, Zangemeister complained,

I’ve completely failed to find out by what rights CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim called this “his” manuscript or what year he got it in, though it is clear that this [1545 prefatory] letter is his first mention of it. He chose to say nothing of its origins.6

A few years ago, Giorgia Bandini echoed him: “We cannot know how and when, once he had also gotten hold of C, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim compared the two manuscripts.” We have thus made no progress since Ritschl, who wrote in 1848 “By what vicissitudes it reached CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, is unknown,” and who ended an essay shortly before his death, “Anyone who can shed light on this mystery will be most appreciated.”7

I’m pleased to say the first letter I found in 2017 might finally shed light on this mystery.

5. FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ Letter of 1549

FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 letter to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Clm 10431(1, Nr. 183 (fol. 201r))

In the Bavarian State Library in Munich there is a random collection of manuscript letters to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim and others from various scholars.1 Among them is one about editing Plautus from the humanist Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg of Chemnitz (1516–1571). This is the same FabriciusFabricius, Georg that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim thanks in the 1552 preface (the two corresponded frequently over the years). FabriciusFabricius, Georg sent the letter on October 7, 1549, when he was rector of the Saint Afra school in Meißen (Saxony). The first two thirds are of great interest for the history of Plautine scholarship:

Plautinas aliquot comoedias recentis editionis tuae, cum Aldino et Parisiense exemplo contuli, et cum in lectione veteri, tum in carminum ratione restituenda, magnam diligentiam et planè singulare iudicium animadverti. Vellem totum illud opus nos integrum habere, quod cum videaris quam primum absolvere velle, minime eges hortatore.

Collegi scholasticum libellum ex illius poetae comoediis ad cotidiani sermonis usum, sed illum tam diu apud me retinebo, donec tuo labore frui possim.

Extitit aliquot fabularum exemplum antiquum in Hassensteniana bibliotheca, quo olim Sturnus usus est, eius si nondum vidisti credo tibi potestatem fieri posse. Successus huius operae maxime in bonis exemplaribus positus est, et manuscripta non raro sunt impressis meliora, propter correctorum quorundam imperitiam et temeritatem.

I compared the text of some of Plautus’ comedies in your new edition [sc. of 1549; ch. 7 below] to those in the Aldine and Paris editions. The pains you took and the good judgment you exercised were obvious in both the critical text and in fixing the meter of the polymetric cantica. I wish we had the complete edition! But since you seem eager to finish it off as soon as you can, you certainly don’t need me to cheer you on.

I’ve finished assembling a textbook of extracts from the comedies of Plautus to teach students how to speak everyday Latin, but I’m going to hang on to it until I can have you take a look at it.2

There is an ancient copy of some plays in HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library; Sturnus used it once. If you haven’t seen it yet, I believe you can get access to it. The success of this effort rests mostly on using good model texts, and manuscripts are often better than printed books, because of the inexperience and thoughtlessness of certain “correctors.”

My heart skipped a beat when I came across this letter; I assumed the third paragraph describes a new, unknown, and ancient manuscript of Plautus, still sitting unexploited on some shelf in “HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library.” Upon investigation, I have concluded the manuscript described must be one of CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ two camels, probably the Decurtatus. My case is only circumstantial, but if I’m right, then the mystery of that manuscript’s origin is partially solved. Here is my reasoning.

6. One Hump or Two?

“HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library” refers to the Lobkowicz Library, a private library still in existence 35 km north of Prague. It was founded by the Bohemian aristocrat and humanist Bohuslaus von HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von (1461–1510) in Hasištejn castle, near Meißen and Chemnitz, where FabriciusFabricius, Georg lived, and not far from Leipzig. In his time, HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von amassed a huge library of more than 650 volumes. The library still possesses many of its manuscripts but it does not have one of Plautus, and has not since before 1520.1 According to Kamil Boldan, the Plautus manuscript “must have been taken away in the first years after Bohuslav’s death (1510) because the catalogue of the HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von library, which dates back to 1520, no longer lists it.”2 As I will explain, FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 statement affirming its existence in the library must, therefore, be based on out-of-date hearsay and memory, not autopsy, and it arouses the suspicion that FabriciusFabricius, Georg could be referring to the Vetus. I would like to raise that possibility only to dismiss it.

One of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s close friends was the humanist Johannes Sturnus of Schmalkalden. He is the man FabriciusFabricius, Georg says once “used” (usus est) the manuscript. Sturnus is an obscure figure. He apparently wrote little and even his dates are unknown.3 Originally from Chomutov near the German border in Bohemia, he was a flatterer-turned-friend that hung around HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s library and taught school there; HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s works are filled with scores of affectionate poems to and from him.4 After HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von died in 1510, Sturnus went to Leipzig. In his biography of EobanusHessus, Eobanus HessusHessus, Eobanus, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim mentions Sturnus respectfully alongside Veit WerlerWerler, Veit.5

Sturnus next taught humaniora in a private school in Annaberg, Germany, near the Czech border. He was an old man by then,6 and between 1532–1535, a teenaged Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg met him there.7 The two apparently never met again, and when FabriciusFabricius, Georg wrote the preface to a collection of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s writings many years later, he gives the impression that he traveled rarely, that he had not been especially well-connected to Sturnus, and that he perhaps knew more of HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s Library by reputation than direct experience.8

The simple solution, therefore, is to assume that Sturnus told FabriciusFabricius, Georg about the Plautus manuscript on that occasion in 1532–1535, and hence FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ seemingly authoritative statement to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim in 1549 – 15 years later – about Sturnus having once (olim) used the book, is based on nothing but that memory. In other words, FabriciusFabricius, Georg had not seen the manuscript he was telling Camerarius Camerarius d.Ä., Joachimto go get access to; it had been gone for three decades or more, and he was wrong to assume it was still there.

After HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s death in 1510, many books were loaned or donated and never recovered.9 At the same time, a number of scholars visited to borrow his books; on a visit between 1513–1518, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim received a Greek manuscript as a gift.10 Now, if FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ “old manuscript” (exemplum antiquum) went missing between 1510 and 1520, it raises the obvious suspicion that it could have been the Vetus. Recall the tangled history of that manuscript (ch. 4):

 Its first owner was Martin PollichPollich, Martin (1455–1513).

 In 1512, PollichPollich, Martin gave it Veit WerlerWerler, Veit.

 In 1525, Michael RotingRoting, Michael took and gave it to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim.

Where did PollichPollich, Martin get it? No one knows, but one might easily imagine Sturnus – who seems to have been a bit of a drifter – quietly removing the manuscript as he departed HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s court in 1510 and giving it to him. The timing is perfect, and another point one could make in favor of this hypothesis are the markings in the Vetus.

HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von did not use marks of provenance, but in his early years he did write some marginal notes in his books. Now, it is also the case that one or more early modern scholars added marks and notes to the Vetus and marks (but few notes) to the Decurtatus. Bandini 2014 attributes all of them in the Decurtatus to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, but in oral discussion of this paper in 2018, Ulrich Schlegelmilch opined that only the marks in red, and not the others, were from CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ hand. A lack of competence prevents me from deciding, and still less do I know about the marks and notes in the Vetus. If a skilled palaeographer will compare them to the notes HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von made in his own manuscripts, then the case could be made that FabriciusFabricius, Georg meant the Vetus, and we now know its origin.

I doubt it, however, and for two reasons. First, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim had had the Vetus since 1525 and had been publishing partial editions based on its variants for years. He said so explicitly in the 1545 edition (note 21 above) and by 1549, it is impossible that FabriciusFabricius, Georg did not know that.

Of course, if FabriciusFabricius, Georg (wrongly) believed Sturnus’ MS was still in HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von’s Library, then he could never have connected the two. Hence everything hinges on the second point, namely, FabriciusFabricius, Georg calls the manuscript a partial one (aliquot fabularum). That does not suit the Vetus – which is a two-humped camel – but it does describe the Decurtatus, our one-humped camel. It is time to return to it.

7. The Czeckered past of the Decurtatus

Recall that the Decurtatus had once belonged to Freising Abbey (ch. 4 above), but many of its manuscripts were carried off and dispersed in the 14th and 15th centuries.1 Because that is precisely the time HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von began amassing his collection, it is plausible to suppose – though it cannot be proven – that HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von acquired it there and then. And as I will now explain, it is also plausible to suppose CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim had, quite coincidentally, acquired the Decurtatus only shortly before FabriciusFabricius, Georg wrote him about it.

Consider the timing. In my view, the “new edition” (recentis editionis tuae) FabriciusFabricius, Georg refers to must be CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ 1549 partial edition of Plautus rather than his 1545 partial edition of Plautus. I say that because it begins with a preface dated August 24, 1549 – that is, only six weeks and a couple days before FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter of October 7.2 In it, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim writes (pp. 12–13):

[…] et nunc post priores quinque fabulas Plautinas […] nunc has alteras sex tradidimus exprimendas Valentino nostro […]. Sed ad operis perfectionem opus erit quasi Zephyri flatu quodam pacis et ocii […].

And now, after the first five comedies of Plautus […] I’ve now sent off this second batch of six to our friend Valentin [sc. Papa/Bapst, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ printer in Leipzig] to print […]. But to finish the job, I’m going to need a certain breeze of peace and quiet, as if from Zephyr.

In my view, FabriciusFabricius, Georg is echoing the words ad operis perfectionem, “to finish the job,” in writing totum illud opus […] cum videaris quam primum absolvere velle, “since you seem eager to finish the whole job off as soon as you can.”

Given the tight timeframe between CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ preface and FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter – just six weeks – it would be natural to assume that FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter is what prompted CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim to discover and go obtain the Decurtatus from the HassensteinHassenstein, Bohuslaus von library. It would also be natural to fix that moment between October 8, 1549, and 1552, when his Basel edition first appeared. That is what I assumed at first, and it is nearly what other scholars had assumed even without knowing about FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter. As noted above (n. 24), Zangemeister thought the 1552 edition was the first time CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim ever mentioned the Decurtatus. And Bandini writes,

CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim seems to cite both codices for the first time in the introduction to the 1552 edition […]. In the preface of the 1545 partial work, by contrast, he only cited B. This suggests CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim already had possession of the Vetus codex and that it was only after that date that he also had C in his hands.3

Nevertheless, as Marion Gindhart pointed out to me, our assumption is wrong, and the reality more complicated.

In truth, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim first alludes to the Decurtatus in ten endnotes in his 1549 edition – that is, the same edition that prompted FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ letter.4 He refers to it, vaguely, as “the other book” or “in one copy,” but the readings he cites match or fit those of the Decurtatus. He does not cite it in his EpidicusEpidicus or BacchidesBacchides, which are the first two plays in the book, and he says nothing descriptive about it at any point.

This situation suggests CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim edited the plays in the traditional order and did not revise his work after completing them. It also suggests that in 1548 or 1549 CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim must have quietly gotten the Decurtatus from someone while he was editing MercatorMercator. I suspect FabriciusFabricius, Georg simply overlooked these endnotes or did not understand them, and, by sheer coincidence, sent CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim to go find the very same manuscript he’d already taken possession of a year or two earlier.

How did CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim get the Decurtatus? In my view, the scant use to which he put it suggests it was an unwanted gift. By 1548, he had been editing Plautus for 23 years and publishing partial results. It would not be surprising if he closed his eyes to a “white elephant” at the eleventh hour. Who would want to redo everything at that point?

Invito data, redditur albus res elephantus.

The second letter I discovered in 2017 supports that impression.

8. CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ Confession

Esse ego ne nimius videar Camerariomastix,

conspice quod latuit saecula, lector, opus.

As promised above (ch. 4), I can now explain the reference to “the book of Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg” that CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim mentions in the preface to his 1552 Basel-HervagiusHervagius, Johannes edition.

The year after that edition appeared, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim published a little pamphlet, not in Basel with HervagiusHervagius, Johannes, but with Valentin Papa (Bapst) in Leipzig, the same local printer that had printed his 1545 and 1549 Plautuses. Its title is Indicationes multorum quae ad lectionem fabularum Plauti nonnihil momenti afferre possint. Quae collegit Georgius FabriciusFabricius, Georg Chemnicensis. Emendationes editi exempli Plautini (i.e. his printed 1552 copy) a Ioachimo CamerarioCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim, de recognitione ipsius (i.e. by CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim himself, not FabriciusFabricius, Georg). The formatting of the title makes it hard to understand that this pamphlet contains two different works:

 (1) CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ own corrections to his 1552 Basel text, and

 (2) FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ collection of the fragments of Plautus.

Hence, although the positioning of FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ name at the top of the title page makes it look like he is the author of everything (and has been so catalogued), the book belongs to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim.

The sole copy to survive to modern times is held in the Dresden library. The last person to look at it was Ritschl, who wrote a short notice of it.1 He describes its contents, quotes a few lines from its prefatory letter to the printer, and then adds, “This pamphlet cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to get to know CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ true opinion and intention.”2 The context that FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ 1549 letter now gives us makes it clear that Ritschl was even more prophetic than he realized, for this uknown pamphlet was intended to supplement CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ 1552 Basel edition of Plautus. It consists of:

 (1) a 1553 letter from CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim to Joannes HervagiusHervagius, Johannes, his printer in Basel,

 (2) a 1550 letter from FabriciusFabricius, Georg to CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim consisting of a single paragraph; it is a cover letter to

 (3) FabriciusFabricius, Georg’ collection of the fragments of Plautus, and

 (4) CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ corrections and new notes to his 1552 Basel edition.

When HervagiusHervagius, Johannes reprinted CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim’ 1552 edition in 1558, he treated these four sections differently:

 He silently disassembled and incorporated (4) ad locum in their entirety.

 He reprinted (2) and (3) in their entirety.3

 He suppressed (1) without saying a word.

It is, of course, (1) that is of greatest interest today, because in it, CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim confesses that he had been too lazy to proofread his manuscript before mailing it to HervagiusHervagius, Johannes (or less likely, that he was too lazy to check the galley proofs HervagiusHervagius, Johannes had sent him):4

Ioachimus CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim Pabeperg. Iohanni HervagioHervagius, Johannes Bibliopolae Basiliensi S.D.

Cum nuper ad te misissem absolutum tandem opus emendatarum5 Plauti fabularum, ut tua industria ederetur ad lectionem utilem studiosorum linguae Latinae, statim postea subiit vereri id quod expressis exemplis accidisse depraehendi, ne mendosius illae6 publicarentur. Cum enim multum temporis et cogitationum mearum in illius autoris scriptis recognoscendis posuissem, et non modo taedium iam quoddam in labore diuturniore, sed nonnunquam etiam dubitationes oborirentur, nunquid talis occupationis et profanitatem offensuram esse divinum numen, et tenuitatem contemtum iri a doctis, videretur esse pertimescendum, operam tum dedimus, ut illud quasi pensum, quod mihi mea voluntas dedisset quamprimum absolveretur, et mihi a molestia cum operae tum curae acquiescere liceret.

Etsi autem et mihi ipsi et aliis probasse me confido rationes consilii et facti mei, tamen tum accidit ut illud opus correctionum nostrarum, neque diligenter in fastidio, neque plane in festinatione, neque explicate inter multiplicia negotia quae tum mihi offerebantur, confectum ad te mitteremus.

Itaque, ut dixi supra, postea cogitans verebar, ne mendosius publicarentur exempla, cum mihi et meae negligentiae et incuriae operarum vestrarum in mentem veniret.

To Johannes HervagiusHervagius, Johannes, bookseller in Basel,

Joachim CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim of Bamberg sends greetings

Not long ago, right after I sent you the book of Plautine plays I’d finally finished emending, qualms crept in. I’d sent you those plays so you could carefully publish them for the benefit of Latin scholars, but I was worried those comedies would come out riddled with mistakes when they were published (I’ve seen it happen in printed copies).7 You see, I’d devoted a lot of time and energy to checking and rechecking Plautus’ writings, and I was getting a little sick and tired of the neverending work. And not only that, I also began doubting from time to time whether I should be afraid that God would get offended at the profanity of what I was working on, and/or that scholars would regard it as frivolous and turn their noses up at it.8

Because of that, I started doing everything I could to finish the job (which I’d given myself of my own free choice), to finish it as fast as I could so that I could get away from the toil and the anxiety and get back to normal.

Moreover, although I’m confident that the reasons of my work product have won me the esteem of myself and others (?), the fact of the matter is, I did send you a book of corrections I’d made that wasn’t completed carefully (because I was so sick of it), nor clearly (because I was rushing the job), nor as plainly as it could be (because many other matters kept getting in my way when I was trying to work on it).

And so as I said, as I was thinking about it afterwards, and every time that my own laziness and your proofreaders’ carelessness would come to mind, I kept getting anxious that copies of my edition would be published full of mistakes.

CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim goes on to say that the more he thought about it, the more he decided his work on Plautus was not blasphemous; on the contrary, it would prove useful, even necessary, for scholars to become acquainted with Plautus’ writings if they wanted to truly understand Latin. Confident in that belief, therefore, he adds:

[…] quod credibile esset te aliquando Plautina nostra exempla de officina tua denuo esse emissurum, sepositis aliis rebus, annotavi ea quae perperam expressa essent, ut altera editio tua esset inculpatior. Haec publice hic edi volui, ideo, ut qui iam exempla illa9 comparassent, de nostra subiectione errata possent corrigere, nam omnino decrevimus hoc quasi cumulo studii nostri extremam manum imponere ei labori, quem huic autori impendimus.10 Ne tamen nimis exilis et parvus esset hic libellus si nihil nisi correctiones erratorum in officina complecteretur, addidimus et Georgii Fabricii eruditiss. viri summi nostri, incredibilis diligentiae praeclariss. studio conquisita quaedam, habitura momenti et adiumenti allatura plurimum ad Plautinarum fabularum fructuosam lectionem. Quae mitto ad te et peto ut secundum illa ubi iterum edere Plauti fabularum nostrarum exempla volueris, libros corrigi, et, nisi tibi non videatur, hunc etiam libellum istic iam exprimi cures. [The rest of the letter is general flattery.]

Because it seemed likely you’d eventually republish my edition of Plautus, I put other business aside and drew up a list of things that had been printed mistakenly, so that your second printing would be less open to criticism. I wanted the list to be published here so that people who have already bought the first edition could use this appendix to correct the mistakes. You see, I have firmly decided that with this mass (as it were) of my attention [i.e. the list or appendix], to put my finishing stroke on the effort I’m giving to Plautus. Still, so that this pamphlet won’t be too small or insubstantial if all it contains is a list of typos, I’ve also added a number of things hunted down by Georg FabriciusFabricius, Georg. They will make a tremendous impact and offer a ton of help for reading Plautus’ plays properly. I’m sending them to you, and I ask than when you do want to reprint my edition of Plautus’ plays, you use it to correct them; and unless you don’t think it’s a good idea, I ask that you soon have this pamphlet printed there in Basel, too.

But HervagiusHervagius, Johannes ignored that last request. As the title page announces, the pamphlet was printed not in Basel but in Leipzig, where CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim lived. It is impossible to say whether HervagiusHervagius, Johannes took offense at what now looks like an “open letter to HervagiusHervagius, Johannes,” in which CamerariusCamerarius d.Ä., Joachim waffles between accepting and rejecting blame for “mistakes” in the text, but it would be reasonable.