THE MANUSCRIPT VATICANUS REGINAE2077 AND ITS ATTRIBUTION WITH THE 445 AD EDITION OF CHRONICLE BY PROSPER OF AQUITAINE

The article examines the editorial affi liation of the manuscript Vaticanus Reginae 2077 (V) of Prosper of Aquitaine’s Chronicle and argues for its assignment to the 445 edition. The aim is to show that the set of readings in V accords with the 445 edition, whereas Theodor Mommsen’s notion of “minimal” diff erences between the 445 and 455 editions is not borne out. The study relies on comparison of V with the AOR group and Paris. 4871, as well as with MYLHC and Fris.; it takes into account the critical apparatus of Mommsen’s MGH edition and the material of consular annals preserved in the codex itself, which extend the record of consuls to 467. It is shown that the entries for 450-455 in V (e. g., Moritur Theodosius levatur Marcianus; Pugnatur tunc Gallis Attila et Aetius; Aetius et Boetius occisi sunt; Valentinianus occiditur… Gesiricus intrat Romam ) do not reproduce the text of the last authorial edition but constitute annalistic extracts: the lexicon and composition diverge from Prosper’s usual manner; the verb levare is used in the sense “to raise [to the throne],” which does not occur in Prosper; the consular pairs for 452-453 are specifi ed more precisely; the unique record Aquileia fracta est is present; the margins note anni a passione Domini , characteristic of the 445 tradition; and ecclesiastical material for 445-455 is absent from V . The continuation to 467 is accounted for by the use of consular lists rather than authorial reworking. In the historiographical context, the positions of O. Holder-E gger, S. Muhlberger, J.-M. Kötter, and D. Brooks are considered. It is clarifi ed that Chronicon integrum and Chronicon vulgatum serve to denote the structure of the transmitted texts and do not replace the question of the editions. On the evidence of V , it is shown that the diff erences between the 445 and 455 editions are systematic and can be fi xed by formal elements and the sequence of entries. The conclusion is that V goes back to the 445 edition, which requires that its testimony be taken into account in reconstructing that text and that the long-standing interpretation of diff erences stemming from Mommsen be adjusted.