Marginal scholarship and textual deviance : the Commentum Cornuti and the early scholia on Persius

/MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE THE COMMENTUM CORNUTI AND THE EARLY SCHOLIA ON PERSIUS

JAMES E. G. ZETZEL -~

I

/'

INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

2005

The cover shows part of Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden MS Bibl. Pub. Lat. 82 fol. 1 v. Reproduced by kind permission of Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden .

...

cir?/~/:)_/ J. ) ,Lr\ !

r)~

/

U -:;J :) lp

, ;-> L/ 'i1 :2 () 0 .2)

BICS SUPPLEMENT 84 ISBN 0 900587 96 2

First published in 2005 by the Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London WClE 7HU. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. © J. E. G. Zetze12005 The right of J. E. G. Zetzel to be identified as the author of the work published here has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and computer typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies Printed by Remous Limited, Milborne Port, Sherborne, Dorset DT95EP

For Wendell Clausen

CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgments

ix

Illustrations

xii

Sigla

xiii

I. Scholia and Stelmnatics 1. Some preliminaries 2. Terminology and codicology 3. A sketch of the evidence

1 1

4 8

II. The Major Manuscripts of the Commentum 1. The four witnesses 2. The character of R 3. The system of lemmata and the construction of the Commentum 4. The lost beginning

10 10 27 36

III. The Later Tradition of the Commentum 1. The character of T and B 2. Stemmatic questions 3. Additions in the later tradition 4. The early printed editions 5. A final red herring

49 50 52 54 56 63

IV. The Shaping of the Commentum 1. Lemmata quid faciunt? 2. Doublets 3. Variorum commentary 4. Combination and confusion 5. Construction

65 65

44

69 75 78 84

V. Marginal Scholarship 1. The scholia in 0 and W 2. The scholia in K and Q: the so-called B Tradition 3. Mixed manuscripts: P and N 4. Six manuscripts in search of a text

vii

86 88 103 122 124

viii

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

VI. The Origins of the Commentum 1. Ancient sources 2. Isidore and 'Cornutus' 3. Quis ille? 4. Cornutus, Heiric, and Remigius

127 127 129

VII. Textual Deviance 1. Scribes, authors, editors 2. A text of what? 3. Sola fides, sola scriptura

144 144 148

136 137

..

157

Appendix I: Pierre Pithou and the Commentum Corn uti

162

Appendix II: The Commentary of Remigius of Auxerre

180

Appendix III: Additional Scholia to Persius

193

List of Warks Cited

229

Index of Texts Cited

235

General Index

239

Classification probably sounds like a dry concept, but it is not. Rather, it provides a skeleton on which to hang all other information. In making classifications, one also learns that one such system of order reveals a universe filled with parallel systems: there is a sensible logic to all we ever know. Jack Lenor Larsen, A Weaver’s Memoir

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I first encountered the Commenturn Cornuti, the most coherent version of the medieval adaptations of ancient commentary on Persius, in working on my dissertation in 1971; shortly after that, Wendell Clausen and I agreed to collaborate on completing the edition of the Commenturn for which he had transcribed and collated three of the major witnesses in preparing the edition of Persius which he published in 1956. We did not complete our edition until 2004, delayed both by other interests and by some of the inherent difficulties in the project, difficulties which are the source and subject of the present work. In certain respects, these difficulties were occasioned by the publication in 1976 of the survey of commentarieson Persius in the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariomm. That invaluable article-and the criticism of some of its details which appears below does not diminish my debt to it-made it clear that the four major manuscripts of the Commentum had to be seen in combination with a cloud of other witnesses, some of them abridgments, some variant versions, some simply overlapping in some notes. In various drafts, the apparatus of our edition swelled to include at first one, then two, then more of those witnesses-and then, as we reconsidered the nature of the relationships among them, it shrank again to the four manuscripts with which we had begun, supplemented at times by a few very close relatives. The study of the marginal witnesses-marginal in every sense-was a part of my share of the edition, and hence this monograph bears my name alone, although all the textual decisions about the Commentum that underlie what is written here were taken jointly. The present study is intended to serve several overlapping functions. In Chapters 2 and 3, I have attempted to explain in traditional terms the stemmatic relationship among the manuscripts of the Commentum Cornuti. In the chapters which follow (4-6), I have tried to place the Commenturn in its contexts: to explain how it was composed and from what kinds of models, to examine its relationship to the various sets of marginalia containing comparable annotations, and to discuss its sources, authorship and context in ninth-century France. Finally, in the concluding chapter, I attempt to draw together some of the editorial and theoretical issues raised by the hstory of Carolingian exegesis of Persius and to use them to ix

X

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

discuss the uses and limitations of the dominant theory of classical textual criticism, the socalled ‘Method of Lachmann.’ Much of this book consists of detailed analysis of some dozen manuscripts in one particular scholarly tradition, but I hope to provide some broader sense of the problems faced by editorial theory in dealing with texts less clearly defined than the classical works of high literature. If the first part of the book employs the traditional methods and assumptions of textual criticism, the conclusion is intended to question the ways and the contexts in which those methods and assumptions can legitimately be employed. As will be immediately apparent to readers more expert than I, I am neither a medievalist nor, except in the sense that I can read and roughly date medieval bookhands, a palaeographer. I have no doubt that others will find gaps in my descriptions or arguments-and I hope that they will be able to correct them. Aside from my interest as an editor in this particular scholiastic tradition, my interest is in the history of texts and of the editing of texts and in the transmission of ancient learning. How do we talk about, evaluate, and edit the manuscripts that in some fashion preserve the remains of ancient literary, textual, and historical scholarship? If these manuscripts preserve texts, just what is it that they are texts of! In some respects, the argument presented here is an elaboration and extension (chronologically and in the type of text discussed) of arguments I have made previously: I have long believed that we (students of the ancient world) tend to have too much trust in the fides of the long chains of evidence on which we depend. We have, it is true, little alternative; but recognition of the limits of our knowledge is not without its own value. The fundamental issue that interests me, however, more than pure skepticism about the evidence for ancient texts, is (to adapt a question associated with the name of Quentin Skinner) what work texts (and manuscripts) are doing. Over a very long period, this project has not surprisingly changed and evolved; and since part of my subject is the way in which texts change and evolve, it is appropriate as well as a pleasure to acknowledge at least some of the debts I have incurred and the help I have received. I first encountered some of the questions discussed here in Harold Gotoff‘s seminar on Lucan in 1968, in which I first learned about Carolingian manuscripts and first read Sebastiano Timpanaro’s remarkable book on the method of Lachmann. A year later, I read it again in preparing for a session on Madvig led by Robert Ogilvie in Arnaldo Momigliano’s seminar at the Warburg Institute. That year of study in London, primarily at the Institute of Classical Studies, changed me from a prospective historian of fourth-century Greece to a student of the history of texts and the history of scholarship: studying Greek and Latin palaeography with Robert Browning and Julian Brown, listening to the discussions in Momigliano’s seminar, and simply reading manuscripts and early works of scholarship in the British Museum was an extraordinary education. I am grateful that the Institute of Classical Studies is willing to publish this monograph: without my year there, I could not have written it. I first collated some of the manuscripts described here more than thirty years ago, and wrote drafts of some chapters of this book in 1977-78 during a leave from Princeton University funded by the American Council of Learned Societies. I revised and almost completed it on a sabbatical and research leave from Columbia University in 2002-03. My wife Susanna has offered suggestions, advice, and encouragement to finish a project that I began before we met. Bruce Frier, Anthony Grafton, and Giuseppe Ramires have helped on

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xi

specific questions; Glenn Most and Gareth Williams commented on my first and last chapters. Some of those who helped me I can, unfortunately, no longer thank in person: the late J. P. Elder gave me his photographs of Vat. Reg. Lat. 1560 together with his detailed description of it; the late F. Edward Cranz, then editor of the Catalogus Translationurn et Cornrnentariorurn,gave me a microfilm of what turned out to be Scaliger’s autograph of the Glossae Veteres. The Electronic Text Service of Columbia University Library helped digitize my microfilms, making collation far easier. I am grateful to those libraries whose manuscripts I have used; formal acknowledgment of permission to reproduce photographs appears in the list of illustrations. Preparation of the final manuscript was aided by a subvention from the Lodge Fund of the Department of Classics at Columbia. I am grateful also to Richard Simpson, Managing Editor of the Institute of Classical Studies, for his advice. I am indebted above all to Carlotta Dionisotti, the Institute’s reader, who went through the entire manuscript supplying references ancient and modern and questioning my arguments, my English, and my Latin. Her advice has improved this book immeasurably, leading me to rethink and rewrite large portions of it. I have not always followed her suggestions, many of which might have led to a very different (and probably better) book, but where I have resisted them, I have done so very hesitantly. There are many fewer errors in this book because of her precision, learning, and generosity; those that remain are my own responsibility. Throughout this book, the reader will find both singular and plural forms of the firstperson pronoun, and that is deliberate. Over the course of a collaboration that has lasted for more than thirty years, I have learned more than I can now identify securely from Wendell Clausen. I have collated all manuscripts myself-but I have also used his collations and profited from his notes on them. We have each composed multiple drafts of the text of the Cornrnenturn, and all decisions about variant readings and presentation were made jointly. Clausen has also read and commented on the chapters of this monograph concerning the manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn. When I use ‘we’ it refers to collaborative work; when I use ‘I’ it refers to what I believe I have done on my own. I alone have written this book; but it is also part of a long and amicable joint enterprise. Clausen’s name could well have appeared on the title page; instead it appears in the dedication, as an indication of my gratitude for forty years of teaching and friendship.

Elizabethtown, NY July 14,2004

ILLUSTRATIONS 1. p. 26: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 23577 (M), fol. 128' excerpt. Reprinted by permission of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich. 2. p. 28: British Library Regius. 15.B.XIX (R), fol. 164" excerpt. Reprinted by permission of The British Library, London. 3. p. 72: Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden BPL 78 (L), fol. 17' excerpt. Reprinted by permission of Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. 4. p. 72: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 14482 (U), fol. 140' excerpt. Reprinted by permission of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

5. p.91: Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek Cod. Ms. 131 (W), fol. 4' bottom half. Reprinted by permission of Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. 6. p.92: Bodleian Library MS. Auct. F. 1. 15 (0),fol. 83'top half. Reprinted by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. 7. p.109: KEivoklBt, Castle Library I D 31 (K), fol. 17' bottom half. Reprinted by permission of National Library, Prague. 8 . p. 110: Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden Voss. Lat. Q. 18 (Q), fol.. 80' top half. Reprinted by permission of Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden.

xii

SIGLA B= Bern, Burgerbibliothek 223 F=Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek Bibl. pub. lat. 82 K=KfivoklBt, Castle Library I D 3 1

L= Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek Bibl. pub. lat. 78 M= Munich, Bayerische StaatsbibliothekCLM 23577 N= Paris, Bibliothbque nationale de France MS Lat. 8049 O= Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 1. 15

P= Paris, Bibliothbque nationale de France MS Lat. 8272 Q= Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek Vossianus Latinus Q. 18

R= London, British Library Regius 15 B XIX ROW=vetus codex Roussati apud Vinet 1601 S= Paris, Bibliothbque nationale de France Dupuy 394 (ter) T= Munich, Bayerische StaatsbibliothekCLM19489

U= Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 14482 V=Vatican, Reg. lat. 1560 Vin= ed. Vinet, 1563

W= Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 131

...

Xlll

1. SCHOLIA AND STEMMATICS 1. Some preliminaries

When I read Persius, I need a commentary, and I am not alone. Persius is a difficult author, and in the Middle Ages he was a popular one; as a result, there are a great many manuscripts of Persius and many of them contain some form of exegesis, ranging from simple occasional glosses to full-scale commentary. The article on Persius in the Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum makes a rough division of the mass of anonymous medieval exegesis into five traditions, based partly on content and partly on date.’ A more careful and comprehensive analysis might well distinguish dozens of different, but related, sets of annotations: much-needed commentary on a popular author is borrowed, adapted, transformed, improved, and depraved constantly, and in patterns that it is probably not worth trying to identify in detail except in so far as a given manuscript may illuminate the scholarly and scribal practices of a particular scholar or a particular school. The patterns of variation within one tradition, however, may cast some light on broader variations in the concepts of textual authority and of ‘text’ itself.2 What follows here is an attempt to explain the textual history and origins of one important and relatively clearly defined element of the medieval tradition and to place it in context within the less clearly defined penumbra of exegesis that surrounds it. In certain respects, this volume is a companion to the critical edition of the Commentum Cornuti that Wendell Clausen and I have recently p~blished:~ it is meant to justify editorial assessment and choice of manuscripts and of readings in a fuller fashion, and for a slightly larger audience, than the austere conventions of the Latin preface permit. Chapter 2 , therefore, contains long lists of collations, attempting to demonstrate that the relationship among the major witnesses is in fact what we believe it to be; the reader who chooses to trust our judgment-or who has no interest in the grim details of the argument-should feel no qualms about skipping them. But this book also has a larger goal: to raise, and perhaps in part to solve, a number of questions about the transmission, history, and shape of the remains of ancient scholarship on Latin poetry, using detailed examination of some ninth- and tenth-century exegesis of Persius as a model, and through these questions to consider more broadly the twin processes of textual transmission and textual criticism in general.

’

Dorothy M. Robathan and F. Edward Cranz, ‘A. Persius Flaccus’, in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries 3, ed. F. E. Cranz (Washington 1976) 215-32. This article will be referred to henceforth as CTC. For more on the idea of ‘text’, see Chapter 7 below. W. V. Clausen and J. E. G. Zetzel, eds., Commentum Conuti in Persiurn (Munich and Leipzig 2004). This will be referred to henceforth as ‘Clausen-Zetzel’.

2

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

When I first encountered the manuscripts of the Cornmenturn Cornuti I was looking for discussions of variant readings in the text of Persius itself? But as I moved from looking at the remnants of earlier scholarship in the Cornmenturn to looking at the shape of the Commenturn itself and trying to construct a critical text, the coherence and composition of the text began to dissolve, and I began to realize how problematic it is to speak of a commentary as a text at all. A further realization comes from reading completely this text, or indeed any significant mass of ancient exegesis: not only does the unity of the text dissolve, but traditional text-critical concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘error’ also become questionable. By this, I do not mean simply that the Cornmenturn contains, like much of what is found in Servius on Virgil or Donatus on Terence or Ps.-Acro on Horace, a great deal that is nonsense. In all these texts, history, fact, names, etymologies and the like are frequently garbled: in the Commenturn, for instance, we find that the person over whom Dionysius dangled a sword was Democritus, not Damocles (3.39(1)); that the name attached to the puteal was Licinius Scribo, not Scribonius Lib0 (4.47(9)); that Solon added the last two tables of the Twelve Tables (3.78(1)); that the great jurist Masurius had the cognomen Albinus, not Sabinus (5.88(4)); that the brave Roman who was assisted in battle by a crow was Aurelius Corvinus, not Valerius Corvinus (2.71(4)). Errors of fact like this are not unusual, and are not limited to medieval scholiasts; indeed, it will become clear they should not be considered as ‘errors’ at all for the purposes of establishing textual affiliations. More commonly, medieval exegetes offer some interpretations of the words or thoughts of the authors they are supposed to explain which do not in any way match our own interpretations; and much of what they say can be demonstrated on philological or historical grounds to be objectively wrong. What is more difficult for an editor is that their grammar and diction are often peculiar and internally inconsistent-as well as being inconsistent with the grammar and diction of classical Latin. If one tries rigorously to avoid imposing classical canons of grammar on a text-to pick only the most obvious issue-then how, as an editor, is one to use shared errors to determine stemmatic affiliations if one can not securely identify what an ‘error’ is? Faced with two or more equally (in)coherent and (un)grammatical versions of the same note, how can one determine which is ‘right’? How, in editing such a text, can one decide which reading to place in the text and which to banish to the apparatus? That is not to say that genuine and identifiable errors in transmission do not exist; physical damage, clearly, can reveal the stemmatic relationship of two manuscripts beyond any doubt, and at times the misinterpretation or misreading of a confusing arrangement of words and corrections can have a similar value. But within the verbal text itself, ‘error’ is remarkably difficult to define: if, as is clear for all these commentaries, the words in the extant manuscripts represent an alluvial accretion of generations of notes, then there is no necessary unity of sense, style, diction, or syntax. A classicizing writer of the Carolingian period might try to ‘improve’ on the Latinity of sixth-century marginalia, and as a result might either

For the exiguous results, see J. E. G. Zetzel, b i n Textual Criricisrn in Antiquity (New York 1981) 192-95.

1. SCHOLIA AND STEMMATICS

3

compose passable classical Latin, or entirely destroy the sense of the note which he was trying to improve-or both. It is worth pausing briefly on the nature of error, since the difficulty of defining error calls into question one of the fundamental principles of stemmatic recension, that it is only agreement in shared error that determines affiliation among manuscripts. In theory, of course, that is true; and, as noted in the previous paragraph, there are certain types of damage and error-one thinks of G. Zuntz’s famous fleck of straw in the manuscripts of Euripides-that are absolutely probative. But the idea of error is also dependent on an idea of truth that is, for many classes of text, simply wrong. The clearest statement of this unhappy fact is that of Hermann Kantorowicz, whose superb introduction to textual criticism based on his experience in editing Albertus de Gandino appeared six years before Maas’s more famous and less useful work. Kantorowicz pointed out that, in the confused state of tralatitious legal texts, a reading in a quoted passage in Gandinus might be, in an absolute sense, gibberish-but it is gibberish that Gandinus wrote: ‘Ja sogar, wo eine Lesart sachlich oder sprachlich geradezu unsinnig ist, darf sie nicht ohne weiteres als unrichtig verworfen ~ e r d e n . ’ ~ The issues raised here are not limited either to commentaries or to the world of medieval scribes, but they are particularly acute in this area.6 Commentaries were rarely accorded the respect that is attached to the literary texts which they purport to explain; they have a practical function, to elucidate the words of an ancient author. And when that explanation seemed wrong, or insufficient, there was no reason for a scribe, or even an owner, not to improve on it. Add to that the fact that the physical format of commentaries was in constant flux (to be discussed in the next section), and it becomes clear that, far more than most texts, exegetical works experienced a great deal of variation. If the kinds of issue adumbrated in the previous paragraph bear a certain resemblance to post-modemist issues concerning textuality, that is not entirely coincidental. For medieval exegesis is one of the kinds of text-ancient legal writing is another-in which even a pre-modernist may legitimately question the stability of the concept of ‘text’ itself there is, as the following pages will attempt to show, no original that one is trying to reconstruct; there is no firm division between ‘genuine’ and ‘interpolated’ texts; there is no one author. There is only change, variety, and a broad range of mutually exclusive but

’

H. Kantorowicz, Einfiihrung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkritischen Grundsatze jiir Philologen und Juristen (Leipzig 1921) 41; the emphasis is his. It is perhaps worth noting that while Kantorowicz’s work is listed with approval in the bibliography of the original (1927) edition of Maas, it is not to be found in the English translation (P. Maas, Textual Criticism, trans. B. Flower (Oxford 1958) 55) or in any other recent discussion of textual criticism in English that I know, other than E. J . Kenney, The Classical Text (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974). Kenney also has a clear discussion (134-36) of the problem of error with reference to the theories of Quentin, arguing that caution in defining ‘error’ is more appropriate in dealing with medieval texts than with classical ones. For some sensible observations on the problem of defining ‘error’ in editing medieval texts, see R. B. C. Huygens, Ars edendi: A practical introduction to editing medieval Latin texts (Turnhout 2000) 40-48. It is worth noting, moreover, that the same text can be simultaneously right and wrong: A. Perutelli, Frustula poetarum (Bologna 2002) 24-26 adduces a fragment of Caecilius Statius preserved by Nonius in which the reading that is correct as Nonius’ lemma is clearly incorrect as part of the text of Caecilius. For further discussion of textual ‘truth’, see Chapter 7 below. It should be noted that the questions raised here are not unknown to Maas, who is careful to specify error as ‘peculiar error’ and define it as deviation from an exemplar (Textual Criticism 5).

4

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

complementary truths. Most of this book will dwell on details, but they have a larger context. What makes a commentary a commentary, a text a text? And are there any principles that can legitimately be employed in defining and editing such thing^?^

2 . Terminology and codicology First and foremost, it is necessary to be clear about terminology. The terms I have most frequently used so far to describe the type of writing with which I am concerned are ‘exegesis’ and ‘annotation’, deliberately vague words meaning only that the text is meant to explain another text. In form and substance, it can range from a single synonym written above a single word to a full-blown explanation of an entire work of literature occupying many pages. For the purposes of this study, however, there are two primary shapes. One is what will be called commentary: a set of notes on a text constructed as continuous prose and presented separately from the text itself. Of such works, the most familiar is Servius’ commentary on Virgil: while it is dependent on the text of Virgil for the order and topics it contains, it can be read independently and each note or set of notes is constructed as a coherent unit introduced by a lemma (a quotation from the text) and itself consists of individually comprehensible phrases or sentences. The range of explanation within this general rubric is, of course, large, from the simple lexical gloss at one end to very lengthy discussions such as the extended essay on natural philosophy attached by Ps.-Probus to Virgil, Eel. 6.31 on the other. Within the tradition of exegesis of Persius, the earliest extant commentary-the one explored here-is the Comrnentum Cornuti, but there are many others, and there is no major formal difference between the Comrnentum and commentaries printed last week: they are independent texts which take their structure from another text and which must somehow be keyed to it. The other form of exegesis is what will here be called scholia: notes placed in the margins of a literary text, generally keyed to the text by proximity or by reference signs. The individual scholia may or may not include lemmata. Such manuscripts include the Verona scholia on Virgil or the Bembine scholia on Terence; in the Persius tradition they include not only manuscripts closely related in content to the Commenturn such as W, but also rather different collections such as that contained in the Kfivoklat manuscript K, the most important manuscript in what the Catalogus describes as the ‘B tradition’.8 Scholiastic manuscripts generally contain not only marginal notes but interlinear ones, often no more than a single word, that are linked to the text by placement alone; they will be called glosses here.

’ For broader discussion of modern textual theory, see below, Chapter 7. It should be noted that in the past few

years there has been a proliferation of conferences (and the resulting volumes) devoted to the commentary, including (but not limited to) G. Most, ed., Commentaries-Kommentare (Gottingen 1999); M. 0. Goulet-Caz6, ed., Lc Commentuire entre tradition et innovation (Paris 2000); and R. K. Gibson and C. S. Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, T7zeoty (Leiden 2002). Most of the articles in these volumes deal with issues of substance, reader, intention, and context rather than with the formal issues or indeed the type of texts (late antique and Carolingian exegesis of Latin poetry) examined here, with the notable exception of L. Holtz, ‘Le RBle des commentaires d’auteurs classiques dans 1’6mergence d’une mise en page associant texte et commentaire’, in Goulet-Cad, Le Commenraire 101-1 17. * CTC 220-24. For identification of sigh, see p. xiii; on W and K, see below, Chapter 5 .

1. SCHOLIA AND STEMMATICS

5

To divide exegesis into two mutually exclusive categories, however, vastly oversimplifies the evidence. The Commenturn itself, for instance, is found in four relatively early manuscripts, and three of them present it separately from the text of Persius. The fourth manuscript, however-which is, if not the best, at least the most carefully written (L)-presents the Commentum on the same pages as the text of Persius, but in separate columns. That same arrangement (text and commentary independently on the same pages) is found in some manuscripts of Servius as well, just as it is, for instance, in Conington-Nettleship on Virgil.’ But this hybrid form does not, in general, affect the nature of the text contained: it is as if two related works were written in parallel columns: each is fixed, but each reflects the other. On the other side, it is also clear that some sets of marginal scholia have their own lemmata, even though a text of the author being explained is also present. The principal witness for the older scholia on Juvenal, Montpellier 125, has the text of Juvenal surrounded by scholia in either margin; but the scholia have their own lemmata which, remarkably, often give the nearest words of Juvenal rather than the appropriate ones: scholia in the left-hand margin tend to be introduced by lemmata from the first half of the line, scholia in the right-hand margin by lemmata from the end of the line. Thus, at Juvenal 12.109 (‘horum maiores ac dorso ferre cohortis’) the scholium in the left hand margin reads ‘elephantis nam pugnabant’ and clearly refers to the end of the verse, but its lemma is ‘horum maiores.”’ The most important manuscript of the commentary of Ps.-Acro on Horace’s Odes (Par. Lat. 7900A) has text and scholia on the same page, but again, provides the notes with lemmata.’’ It should also be noted that there is more than one type of lemma, and the tendency, even in manuscripts of commentary, to abbreviate part of the lemma to the initial letters of words makes it hard to imagine reading the commentary without a copy of the text itself to hand. In a sense, of course, commentary and scholia as defined here are ideal types which do, in fact, sometimes exist in reality. The exact shapes that sets of annotations take vary across a wide spectrum, and there can be little doubt that the form any given collection of notes takes is influenced by more than formal considerations. It is clear, for instance, that the transition from independent commentary to marginal abridgement that took place frequently in late antiquity has several causes: the increasing use of the parchment codex; the shape and format of books; the convenience for readers or owners of combining text and annotation. Just possibly, the importance of marginal abridgments for the preservation of a version of ancient commentary reflects the types of manuscript that

’

With the difference that medieval commentaries are side-by-side with the text, while modern convention places commentary below the text. Among the recent discussions of commentary (above, note 7), in addition to Holtz, ‘Le rBle des commentaires’ see also F. Budelmann ‘Classical Commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on Ancient Greek Literature’, in Gibson and Kraus, The Classical Commentary 143-48 on the format of Tzetzes’ commentaries. C. S. Kraus, ‘Reading Commentaries/Commentaries as Reading’, in Gibson and Kraus, The Classical Commenfury 6 11.21, points out the importance of the issue of format and gives further bibliography. lo For this phenomenon, see P. Wessner, ed., Scholia in Iuvenalem Vetustiora (Leipzig 1931) viii-xx. It is not consistent, and the lemmatization of the commentary deserves further study. I ’ On the lemmata in Par.Lat. 7900A. see G. Noske, Quaestioncs Pseudoacroneue (Diss. Munich, 1969) 25-39.

6

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

survive(d): large, elegant and expensive codices from an aristocratic milieu rather than books written by and for teachers and students. Fuller forms of scholarly commentary may have existed-but not written in manuscripts to be treasured for their beauty. So too, the re-creation of fuller commentaries in the ninth century may reflect the educational structure of monastic l i f e - o r perhaps an increasing availability of writing materials. What is certainly the case is that no single format remained consistently dominant, and the physical structure of annotation will have been affected both by larger social and economic contexts and by the particular needs or desires of an individual scribe or reader. Here, however, my interest is in the two ideal formal types, because they do imply substantive differences in the nature of the texts themselves. Contamination of the formal types, indeed, provides useful indications about the history of the text. The fact that the Juvenal scholia are equipped with lemmata-and the wrong lemmata at that-implies that they were taken from a continuous commentary which had in turn been created from marginal scholia.” The extensive and incomprehensible abbreviation of the lemmata in the manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn clearly points ahead towards its re-marginalization as scholia. The constant formal flux remains within these two extremes of commentary and scholia. A commentary has an independent existence: it may be a second-order text (dependent for its meaning and usefulness on the work which it purports to explain), but it is a text; and in many cases (Servius, Cornutus) it has an author, pseudepigraphic or not. Within its own tradition, it is almost as fixed as a literary text-and hence arises the possibility of establishing the text of a commentary. But while manuscripts of a literary text in general beget only other manuscripts of the same literary text, that is clearly not true of commentary manuscripts. The material found in Servius or Comutus may retain its shape in subsequent copyingsor it may be borrowed, excerpted, reorganized, and reshaped in a manuscript of Virgil or Persius with marginalia. Furthermore, although commentary is relatively stable while it remains commentary, it can become something very different through the choices made by a scribe or a reader about what annotations to place in the margins of a text. It is equally true, moreover, that scholia can be stabilized in the form of commentary: one or more sets of marginalia may be used, possibly in combination with other sources, to shape a new independent exegetical text. That is, in fact, the origin of the Cornrnenturn itself as will be shown in detail below, it is based on at least two sets of marginal scholia combined with other late-antique scholarly sources. The difference between commentary and scholia is the difference between a single relatively fixed and ordered work and a set of individual notes. Whilc scholia have a stable order in relationship to the text to which they are attached, they have no internal order: while notes written at the top of the page generally refer to lines earlier than notes written at the sides, there is no fixed order after that: in some manuscripts, notes proceed

’* Wessner, Sclzolia in luvenulem xvi does not draw this conclusion, but it seems likely: extensive lemmata are normally characteristic of a continuous commentary; but lemmata drawn from adjacent words rather than the right ones indicate the presence of a text of Juvenal and thus that the notes were marginal. Hence margin to text to margin at a surprisingly early stage in the tradition. It may not be so simple; the . ~ c h ~ ~ueferu / i a may in fact have as complicated an origin as the marginal scholia to Persius examined in Chapter 5 .

1. SCHOLIA AND STEMMATICS

7

with equal progress down both margins; in others, only one margin is used for the major notes, and only a few afterthoughts (or beforethoughts?--one can often not tell) appear in the other margin. Rarely, as in parts of Q, notes proceed down the left margin and then down the right. What is the relatidnship between glosses and scholia? In some cases they derive from different sources, and thus overlap considerably; in others they complement one another and clearly come from the same source. But then the question arises about what that source was: was it a manuscript similar in form to the extant one, with scholia and glosses, or was it a continuous commentary that was excerpted into two different areas of the same manuscript? Some notes in the Cornmenturn Cornuti are fuller forms of the interlinear glosses found in various manuscripts; what is not always clear is whether the fuller note was abbreviated or the gloss expanded to make a sentence. Both processes are possible-and it is often impossible to determine which is occurring in any given note. Furthermore, while it is an obvious truism that no two manuscripts, even of major literary texts, are identical to one another, it is also true that the degree of difference among continuous texts is very different from that among marginal scholia. A commentary does have a fixed order and a fixed form: while errors occur, omissions happen, and extra notes intrude in any given manuscript, the manuscripts of Servius or of Cornutus are substantially alike: their divergences may be defined as errors or interpolations, differences in degree, but not in kind. With marginalia, the case is very different. What determines whether a given scribe includes a given scholium? Surely it is considerations of space and need as much as the pressure of a tradition. When a commentary had to be fitted into the margins of a literary text, it might have to be abridged or rearranged, and there was no harm in that; conversely, when a marginal commentary was given separate pages of its own, there was room to enlarge it, to add fuller explanations, to make the style somewhat more elegant or at least less telegraphic. Even the commentary of Servius on Virgil, the secondary work that most closely approaches the character and reputation of a literary text itself, was not immune to alterations: we have clear evidence not only in the existence of Servius Auctus, but in the various abridged and altered versions, such as Parisinus 1750 and Vaticanus 3317. Indeed the manuscripts of the enlarged Servius offer a striking example of the variability of marginal scholia: the origin of Servius Auctus is clearly in marginalia added to a continuous text of Servius, and it is perhaps no coincidence either that most manuscripts of the extended commentary are themselves marginal scholia or that there is very clearly no single version of Servius Auctus: it is a convenient modern name for the reconstruction of a text of which no two manuscripts contain the same notes in the same form. A scholiastic manuscript is not a single text, but a set of separate notes that happen to appear together: each scholium may have its own textual history, and there is no guarantee at all that because notes A, B, and C all occur together in manuscript X, they were similarly grouped in X’s ‘parent’-if ‘parent’ is as valid a term to describe the descent of marginalia as it is to describe the descent of the text in the margins of which they are found.

8

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

3. A sketch of the evidence. The tradition of exegesis on ancient Latin literature extends from antiquity to the present. Virgil began to be the object of academic study (at least in grammar schools) perhaps while he was still alive; and it is certainly the case that commentary and interpretation of many authors began not long after their deaths. But with the exception of the surviving portion of Asconius' commentary on Cicero's speeches, we possess very little of the earliest stages of exegesis of any author and we rarely, if ever, possess a sample of every stage of any one tradition. In formal terms, the history of Latin commentary is fairly clear: from independent text to marginalia in late antiquity, from marginalia back to independent text in the Carolingian period or slightly later; and then a bewildering proliferation of transformations down to the era of printed books-when a whole new set of formal problems arises." Given the difficulty of Persius' Satires, it would be very surprising if at least a rudimentary commentary, or a set of glosses, had not been composed soon after the poet's death; indeed, the names of Persius' friend Caesius Bassus, of his tutor Annaeus Cornutus and of the great first-century scholar Valerius Probus are all connected to various parts of the exegetical tradition. Even if these attributions are false, the chronology makes sense: some aid to understanding Persius has always been necessary. Not much trace of that putative ur-exegesis survives, however. By late antiquity, Jerome knew a commentary on Persius,14 and some notes in the extant medieval commentaries clearly go back to the fourth century or so; Johannes Lydus, in the sixth century, knew Persius through a commentary that makes some of the same mistakes that are found in the Commentum." But there is a very large gap between the few clearly ancient notes in the Commenturn and the Commenturn itself. Comparison with the tradition of scholia on Juvenal is useful, as the two poets are so frequently transmitted together. In the first place, there exists in a Bobbio manuscript (Vat. Lat. 5750) a fragment of an ancient palimpsest of the satirists, one folium containing Juvenal (14.32315.43) and the other Persius (1.53-104). But while the fragment of Juvenal contains scholia that are closely related to those known from ninth-century manuscripts, the margins of the corresponding leaves of Persius are distressingly blank.I6 So too, the text of Persius in Montpellier 125, which preserves the fullest form of the ancient scholia on Juvenal, is equipped with very few early notes, and most of the scholia in it are late and w~rthless.'~ To discover what ancient scholarship on Persius was like, one must reconstruct-and reconstruct with the recognition that an accurate restoration is impossible, Nevertheless, the medieval commentaries contain both information and l 3 On the formal stages of the transmission of ancient commentaries, see J. E. G. Zetzel, 'On the History of Latin Scholia', HSCP 79 (1975) 335-54 and 'On the History of Latin Scholia 11: The Commentum Cornuti in the Ninth Century', Medievaliu et Humunisticu 10 (1981) 19-31. l 4 Jerome, Adv. Rujinum I 16. Is For a fuller account of the putative ancient origins of the Commentum, see below, Chapter 6 . l6 On the relationship between the ancient notes on Juvenal and their Carolingian descendants, see Wessner, Sclzolia in Iuvenulem xxxvi-xlii. On the scholia to Persius in Montpellier 125, see Appendix I .

1 . SCHOLIA AND STEMMATICS

9

misinformation with a clear ancient pedigree, including fragments of Varro and other ancient scholars, observations on custom, cult, and habit, and even, occasionally, valuable interpretations of the text. Hence the project is worthwhile, if inevitably frustrating. Editing any ancient text generally involves an attempt to move backward from extant medieval manuscripts to missing originals: in that sense, editing a commentary is no different from editing Virgil. But there are obvious differences as well-and not just in the literary merits of the texts. The basic question, to be considered in some detail in later chapters, is whether the exegetical material found in a medieval manuscript is in fact a representation of an ancient text, or is simply a text in itself was there ever an ‘original’ of a commentary? Some of the material in the medieval manuscripts is ancient, but the wording often is not, and the substance has often been altered almost beyond recognition. Nor indeed is it likely that there is a clear mapping of one work of ancient scholarship onto a single medieval manuscript or group of manuscripts. The tradition of a medieval commentary is a set of manuscripts (or groups of manuscripts) which are witnesses simultaneously to a common tradition of exegesis and to the unique activity of each individual scribe or owner. To follow the latter aspect would make it impossible ever to create an edition based on more than a single manuscript; to follow the former would flatten and harmonize differences that are worth recognizing. In the tradition of Persius, however (as in that of Juvenal), there exists in at least part of the exegetical tradition enough coherence to allow for the use of multiple manuscripts to make a single text without excessive distortion of the uniqueness of each witness. That part is the Commentum Cornuti; the goal of the succeeding chapters is first to establish the relationship among the major witnesses, then to discuss the nature of the tradition of the Commentum itself, and finally to place its tradition within the framework of ancient learning and medieval exegesis-to show how the Commentum came into being, and what happened when it was altered into other exegetical shapes.

2. THE MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENWM 1. The four witnesses

Although three of the four most important witnesses for the Commenturn Cornuti have been known for over a century and the fourth, although not identified as such until 1959, was probably used in the edition of 1601, the relationship among them has never been adequately explained.’ The purpose of this chapter is to do so, and in so doing to raise the issue of the relationship between scribal acts and editorial acts which will occupy much of the remainder of this book. The four manuscripts to be discussed here are:

M = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 23577, of the eleventh or twelfth century. It contains the Cornmenturn as an independent text on foll. 96-146, and is the only one of the major witnesses not to identify the author as ‘Cornutus’ in either title or subscription. It was first described by Liebl in 1883.’ I have used Clausen’s collation, checked against photographs of the manuscript. For a photograph of M, see p. 26. L = Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibl. pub. Iat. 78, of the first half of the eleventh century. It contains on foll. 1-26 the vita followed by the text of Persius and of the Cornmenturn, written in parallel columns (the text far narrower than the Comrnentum). L was first described in detail by Kissel in 1848; it was incorrectly dated to the tenth (or even the late ninth) century until B. Bischoff redated it from photographs in 1972.3I have used Clausen’s apograph checked against photographs of the man~script.~ For a photograph of L, see p. 72. U = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 14482, of the early twelfth century. It contains the Commentum as an independent text on foll. 118-150; it was first described in detail by Liebl in 1883.5 I have used Clausen’s collation, checked against photographs of the manuscript. For a photograph of U, see p. 72.

’ On R and the manuscript of Jean Roussat used in the edition of 1601, see below, pp. 59-63. ’ H. Liebl, Beitruge zu den Persius-Scholien (Straubing 1883). See also P. Scarcia Piacentini, Suggio di un censimento dei manoscrifti contenenti il testo di Persio e gli scoli e i commenti a1 testo, Studi su Persio e la scoliastica Persiana 3.1 (Rome 1973) no. 300; CTC 218; B. Munk Olsen, L’Etude cfes uufeurs clus.siques lurins uux XIe et XIIe s i k l e s 2 (Paris 1985) 203, Persius no. 54 (cited henceforth as Munk Olsen). CTC dates M to the eleventh century, Munk Olsen to the early twelfth, possibly from Northern Italy. A. Kissel, Specimen criticum continens Auli Persii Flucci Codicum MSS. Leidensium Collutionem (ZaltBoemel 1848). See also Scarcia Piacentini, Censimenro no. 201 (still dating it to the tenth century); CTC 21617; Munk Olsen 196-97, Persius no. 33, citing Bischoff‘s date as tenth to eleventh century, possibly German. See W. V. Clausen, ed., A. Persi Flucci Suturarum Liber (Oxford 1956) xiv. Liebl, Beirruge zu den Persius-Scholien; see also Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 288; CTC 218; Munk Olsen 216, Persius commentary no. 8.

’

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENWM

11

R = London, British Library, Regius 15 B xix, of the tenth century, from Reims. It contains the Cornmenturn written as an independent text on foll. 127-195; it gives the name of Cornutus only in a title found after the notes on the Prologue. It was first described for the Commentum in detail by Jannaccone in 1959.6I have collated R from photographs and have inspected the manuscript several times. For a photograph of R., see p. 28. The importance of the first three of these manuscripts (MLU) was signalled in 1917 by Paul Wessner. He never completed his projected edition of the Cornmenturn, nor does his article make entirely clear what he thought the relationship of MLU to be; it appears, however, both from his article and from his notes, that he considered all three to be of approximately equal value.7 Silvia Jannaccone, who first drew attention in 1959 to the value of R (her Q) for the Commentum, considered U to be a copy of M (and thus of no editorial value) and MLR to be of equal importance.’ Both these scholars value L too highly, as will be seen below; in part, that is because L was the first of the manuscripts to be described in any detail, and the Commentum is therefore sometimes referred to as the Cornmenturn Leidense; in part, because of the mistaken early dating of L.9 Even CTC, which expresses no opinion about the relationship of the manuscripts, uses L as the basis for the description of the Commenturn. But while L is far the most carefully written of the four major witnesses and has the smallest number of peculiar errors, it is probably the least useful of the four for an editor. More recently Jean PrCaux elevated R to the status of ‘best manuscript’ followed by L as second best, and also proposed that U was a copy of L.” In fact, all four manuscripts are independent of one another, and their precise relationship can be established beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, however, it is necessary to consider more carefully the issue of ‘error’ in determining the relationships among manuscripts. A fundamental principle of the logic of stemmatics is that agreement in error-in fact, in a set of substantial errors-is an indication of shared descent, while agreement in the correct reading is not significant. Even in dealing with the tradition of a classical author, this rule is mildly problematic, since ‘error’ in this context can only be defined contextually as ‘divergence from the reading in the copy the scribe was using’, and there are many cases in which textual truth is stemmatic error (i.e. a scribe changes a false reading to a true one, whether by luck, contamination, or conjecture).” In dealing with exegetical texts, however, the problem of defining error is a major one. Not only, as mentioned above (Chapter 1), are there factual S. Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici nella tradizione degli scolii a Persio’, GIF 12 (1959) 198-213; see also Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 244; CTC 218; Munk Olsen 198-99, Persius no. 41. P. Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’, WKPh 34 (1917) 473-80,496-502. Wessner’s notes and draft exist in the library of the University of Jena, NachlaB Wessner, Mappe 6. I have used a microfilm of this material. * Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici.’ The manuscript was not unknown; Clausen, Persi Safurarum Liber, used it (siglum 1) in his edition of the ancient Vita of Persius. For the date and origin of L, see above, n. 3. lo Jean PrCaux,.’Propositions sur I’histoire des textes des Satires de Perse et du Commenturn Comuti’, in H o m g e s h Andrk Boutemy (Collection Latomus 145). ed. G. Cambier (Brussels. 1976) 302-03. He also offers the unlikely suggestion that M is a product of contamination between R and L. I’ On the theory of stemmatic error, see above, Chapter 1, n. 5-6, and below, Chapter 7.

’

’

12

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

errors that are correctly transmitted, but scribal alteration of the transmitted text is a regular occurrence, and in many, if not most, of the divergences among manuscripts or groups of manuscripts, both readings may be valid and neither can, on the basis of sense, style, or syntax, be proven to be an ‘error’. Every manuscript of the Cornmenturn rearranges words, some rarely, some frequently. Every manuscript adds or omits conjunctions and pronouns: the presence or absence of words such as sic, autern, and et probably constitutes the single largest class of variants in the Cornmenturn. On a larger scale, whole sentences or even whole notes are added or omitted by the various scribes; and since there is no rational way to determine whether or not the extra notes were original-given the fact that there is no ‘original’-they can not easily be described as either ‘omissions’ or ‘interpolations.”’ The range of variations is particularly large in the case of the major division of the manuscripts, between MLU on the one hand and R on the other. This problem will be discussed in more detail after the formal relationship of the manuscripts has been established, but a sample of some types of variation in the commentary on Satire 2 will serve to illustrate the problem.13 2.2(3) labentes non est annorum epitheton, sed ad calculos redige. labentes--redige om.RTB

To point out that labentes is more appropriate to pebbles than to years is reasonable, but is not present in one side of the tradition of the Cornrnenturn. Is it an erroneous omission, or an addition from another source? 2.41(9) 8 CORPVSQVE FIDELE id est ualidum quod sustineat senectam, quae morbis omnibus abundat. id est RBVin : om. MLU

There is no rational choice to be made between the presence or absence o€ id est, and although the fuller form is more commonly present in R than in MLU, there is not complete consistency. 2.36(6) metri causa fecit sineresin nominis, et a nomine cognomen disiunxit

..

metri MLUTB : metri uero RVin I sineresin RTBVin : dieresin MLU I nomine cognomen MLUVin : cognomine nomen R T B

’’

I distinxit RTB : deiunxit Vin

It may be objected that the content of some notes guarantees their antiquity, and hence they can not be considered as ninth-century additions. But in fact (see Chapter 6 ) ancient material about Persius reached the Carolingian period through many routes, and while the antiquity of the content of a given note may be clear, its provenance often is not. l 3 The critical apparatus and reports of variants to the Cornmenrum presented in this volume are consistent with, but not always identical to, the apparatus given in Clausen-Zetzel. The evidence necessary to demonstrate the relationships among manuscripts is not identical to that needed to support the printed text. For the identification of other witnesses, see the list of sigla, p. xiii; for discussion of the lesser witnesses to the Crimmenfum, see below, Chapter 3.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

13

The verse in question is ‘nunc Licini in campos, nunc Crassi mittit in aedis,’ and the issue in several parts of this long note is whether ‘Licini’ and ‘Crassi’ refer to one person or two. This sentence is in favor of its being the one person Licinius Crassus, the emblem of riches in Rome. With some hesitation we have adopted readings from both sides of the tradition. There is nothing to choose between the presence or absence of uero or between nomine cognomen or cognomine nomen, and hence we have printed the reading of what we believe to be the more generally reliable side of the tradition; but both sineresin and dieresin make sense, in different ways: sineresin refers to the shortening Licini for Licinii, dieresin refers to the separation of the nomen from the cognomen. In fact, the reading of R here makes more sense, but if it did not exist, the reading of MLU would be perfectly acceptable scholiastic reasoning, even though metri causa would then make much less sense. 2.61(1) exoleuisse dicit in terris spiritum diuinum de hominibus natura eis inditum. exoleuisse M L U : om.RTBVin I d e M L U : om.RTBVin I eis M L U : esse RBVin : om.T

R’s text, dicit in terris spiritum diuinum hominibus natura esse inditum makes perfect sense, although less so in context; but inappropriateness is not always an argument for error in texts like this. Both readings are valid, if not equally true; one is almost certainly a revision of the other. Without other evidence, it is not possible to say which is ‘original.’ The instances here are only a small sample of the hundreds of similar divergences between R and MLU: slight changes of wording, amplification or abridgement of phrases or of whole notes, rewriting that alters the sense without destroying all sense. There are also other differences of form and content: R presents the lemmata differently from MLU, and has almost none of the lemma-signs characteristic of those manuscripts; R also lacks the first of the two sets of notes, the ‘doublet’ on Satires 1.10-23.14In some cases of divergence (including the doublet and the different lemmata) it is possible to show which the original form is; but in many cases each side of the tradition presents a reasonable text-either reasonable as representing the transmitted text of the comment, or reasonable as an explanation of Persius. Despite the fact that many of the divergences among the manuscripts-and that applies not only to the divergences between R and MLU, but to other groupings as well, in lesser degree-are not easily classifiable in terms of truth and error, there remains a significant number of passages in which errors can indeed be plausibly identified: places where there is gibberish; lacunae in the text; passages where one reading is, on grounds of sense or grammar, clearly superior to the other-although in some cases I have perhaps defined ‘sense’ and ‘grammar’ too rigidly for a text of this sort. In order to minimize the effect of contamination and horizontal transmission, the following lists of variants omit variations in lemmata and quotations from Persius or other authors; they l4

These topics will be discussed later in this chapter.

14

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

also exclude purely orthographic variations, even when (e.g. querilquaeri) they affect the sense. For the sake of clarity, I omit citation of the readings of witnesses other than MLUR. It should, however, be noted that in the lists of errors in R, no passage is cited unless R's reading is supported by at least one of its later relatives, TBVin (on which see below, Chapter 3), in order to avoid lengthy citations of R's individual idiosyncracies. In all lists the reading accepted in Clausen-Zetzel is given first. I . The following errors common to all four manuscripts imply descent from a common archetype.

a) Omissions: 1.67(3) in mores dicit Zetzel : om. MLUR 2.63(2) causa Jahn : om. MLUR 3.1 (7) uni BVin : om. MLUR 5.58(4) morbus TBVin : om. MLUR 5.17.5( 1) lacuna post trahatur MLUR 6.43( 1 ) a Vin : om. MLUR 6.67(1) lacuna ante qui MLUR Additionally, aside from the shared factual errors noted above, all four manuscripts share mistakes in various proper names; all omit a quotation from Pythagoras at 5.22(3), cited anonymously by Porphyrio on Horace, Carm. 1.3.8; all agree in giving the numbcr of urban tribes as 25 rather than 35 at 1.114( 10). b) Dislocations of groups of words or clauses:'5 1.32(2) post celebrentur (3 1( I )) MLUR

3.26(1) ideo cultrix foci diciturpost feruntur MLUR 3.3.5(3) uel-rem post feruenti (35(4)) MLUR 5.45(2) quasi-Cornuti post colloquimur (5.44(2)) MLUR c) Errors: Adn. (4) scribendi Clausen : scribendum MLUR 1.1 ( I ) iuuentutis Jahn : uiuenti MLUR : iuuentuti Vin I , I4(5) rumpimur Wessner : rumpitur MLUR 1.32(3) putide Clausen : putida MLUR 1.59(2) imitantur Jahn : imitantes MLUR 1.89(2) qui Vin : quia qui MLUR 1.92(4) tarcaismosi MLUR 1.95(6) epicorum Scaliger : epicureorum MLR : hcroicorum U 1.99(7) zfis Rous : tu MLUR

I . 108(6) sonat del. Jahn 1.134(7) alienum Clauseti : alienum dem MLR : alienum do U 2.1(7) effectum BVin : affectum MLUR 2.6(4) humiles del. Clauseti 2. I3(4) stipendiis Jahii : sopiendis MLUR 2.26(2) impctrationc Vin : impcratione LUR : inparatione M 2.46(5) iuniores Wessrzer.: iunioribus MLUR 2.48(6) tamen Vin : tantum MLUR 2.68(7) at Juhn : ut MLUR

''Note that this list does not include the disordering of whole notes, which will be discussed in connection with thc composition of the Conmenturn itself in Chapter 4.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM 2.74(1) honestate K, Cluusen : honestatis MLUR 3.10(5) ambigua TBVin : ambiguitas MLUR 3.15(2) ut Juhn : et MLUR 3.21(7) actiue Vin : acriter MLUR 3.28(2) genealogis Wessner : genealogiis MLUR : genealogo TBVin 3.44(5) et-sustinent del. Zetzel 3.49(1) canicula* TBVin : caniculam MLUR 3.56(4) docebat Cluusen : dicebat MLUR 3.80(1) obstipo Vin : obstupefacto MLUR 3.99(3) corruptum del. Cluusen 3.113(3) aut del. Wessner 4.13(2) theta Vin : thetam MLUR 4.20(1) dinomaches BVin : dinomachis MLUR 5.4(2) parthos del. Zetzel

15

5.19(2) pullatas Vin : pullas MLUR 5.20(3) fumo Cluusen : fumum MLUR 5.50(3) quid Vin : quod MLUR 5.67(1) tolerabile Wessner : tolerabilem MLUR 5.70( 1) consequitur Vin : sequitur MLUR 5.80(2) dignus is est Juhn : dignus enim id est MLUR(idem) 5.95(2) alto' TBVin : altum MLUR 5.182(2) ostendens Vin : ostendit MLUR 5.1 82(3) thynni Clausen : tinnum MLUR 6.1(3) huic Juhn : hunc MLUR 6.27( 1) cum magno sumptu Cluusen : eum magnum sumptum MLUR 6.32(1) ut TBVin : et MLUR 6.33(1) ne Juhn : nec MLU

ii. R and MLU clearly descend independently from their common ancestor, as they offer different readings in hundreds of places, of which the following lists are only a selection, including only some of those in which it is relatively clear which side of the tradition is in error. Since R is both the principal representative of one branch of the tradition and a single manuscript with idiosyncratic errors, the following list of errors in R includes only those places in which one or more of TBVin, subsidiary witnesses (to be discussed in Chapter 3) which generally agree with R, share the same error.

a) R (with at least one of its congeners) omits the following words: 1.20(17) effeminate 3.8 8(3) libenter 1.29(9) ludi 4.17(3) ironicos 1.48(9) tuum 4.25(9) alio 1.61(2) non 4.32(1) saltem 1.63(5) oportere 4.36(2) posuit I . 116(3) minuere 4.37(6) fortes 2.35(2) recte 5.17(1) de 2.50(1) quae erat dum 5.24(2) sit 3.14(2) hoc et illud 5.30(2) se 3.50(2) collo 5.189(1) centum 3.66(1) ut Virgilius 6.27( 1) amico 3.76(1) sic 6.45( 1) ut b) R (with at least one of its congeners) also has the following errors: Prol. 5( 1) detergunt MLU : tergunt R 1.24(3) rumpit MLU : corrumpit R 1.14(5) quem proferentes MLU : qui 1.63(2) contextus MLU : textus R proferendo R 1.63(5) uideant MLU : uideatur R 1.22(8) debes MLU : debet R

16

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE 1.67(5) tragoedias MLU : in tragoedias R 1.71(3) necessario MLU : necessaria R 1.77(7) dimiserunt MLU : miserunt R 1.79(1) sequendi MLU : sequendo R 1.85(7) qui MLU : quo R 1.88(2) mendicantes MLU : mendicant et R 1.92(3) cibus MLU : uersus R 1.92(5) clausulatos LU(-la M) : claudentibus R I .93( I) eorum MLU : suorum R 1.95(9) duobus MLU : dactilis et R 1.116(2) praecepta MLU : praecepto R 1.125(2) praefulgent ML(pro- U) : perfulgent R 2.1(4) annos MLU : annis R 2.3(3) uotum MLU : uotum deorum R 2.13( 1) uideat et MLU : faciant R 2.24(2) poena MLU : poenam R 2.36(6) metri MLU : metri uero R 2.36(6) disiunxit MLU : distinxit R 2.44(8) uitulas MLU : uitulos R 2.48(6) deus non MLU : deum R 2.50(1) non MLU : in eo R 2.54(3) natum MLU : innatum R 2.57(4) quibus MLU : quibus aliis modis R 2.62(1) ex humano corpore MLU : humana corpora R 2.68(1) utuntur MLU : non utuntur R 2.73(2) si MLU : cum R 3.9(2) primum MLU : plurimum R

3.33( 1) in MLU : ab R 3.33(1) facie MLU : fauce R 3.53( 1) Persen MLU : Porsenna R 3.56(5) litteram MLU : littera R 3.67(1) nos sequi MLU : n o s e quemque R 3.77(1) quod MLU : ut R 3.82(2) phisicorum MLU : philosophorum R 4.17(6) socraten MLU : socrates R 4.25(8) sint MLU : sunt R 4.25(8) bibant MLU : libant R 4.28(2) finita MLU : pro R 4.37(7) curantur MLU : curantibus R 4.47(1) inflammantur MLU : inflantur R 5.9(6) antequam MLU : cum R 5.14(3) aptatis MLU : captatis R 5.14(3) sale MLU : facile R 5.19(2) quia MLU : quam R 5.28(1) intimo MLU : infimo R 5.61(1) eos MLU : eius R 5.82(2) ut MLU : et R 5.102( 1) exclamet MLU : exclamat R 5.132(2) excitatus MLU : excitat R 5.154(2) uexari MLU : uexare R 6.1(7) eis MLU : eis se R 6.19(4) comparasset MLU : dicit comparasse R 6.51(2) facias MLU : non facias R 6.56(6) uultus MLU : cultus R 6.68(3) prae MLU : pro R 6.76(2) dicerentur MLU : dicerent R 6.80(2) crescat MLU : crescit R

c) There are a great many places were MLU agree in error where R is correct. Obviously erroneous omissions shared by MLU include the following: I .6(5) in 2.36(1) fuit 1.13(10) qui 2.41(8) hoc 2.56( 1) 1. [numeral] 1.20(17) solet 1.24(10) plus 2.68(1) ab 1.29(4) laudis 2.71(3) dicit 1.45(7-8) similiter unde 3.15(1) quiz 1.63(1) dictionis 3.25(2) salinum 1.70(3) fecisse 3.55(2) debere 3.60(1) uitae 1.106(1) prae 2.5(3) ut 3.64(3) prodest 2.5(4) aut acerra 3.64(4) medicus

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENWM 3.82(5) quod 3.107(5) inuehitur 4.18( 1) curata2-nam 4.25(4-5) praedia-loci

17

5.5( 1) tuorum 5.34(3) in 5.186(4) tam 6.16(2) se

d) The following shared errors in MLU should also be noted: 3.13( 1) fuligine R : figulinis MLU Prol. 8(1) coguntur R : cogantur MLU 1.1(3) eloquentiae ex fauore R : ex 3.15(5) cur a nutrice iussus R : non fauore eloquentiae MLU nutricis iussu MLU 1.6(4) lignum R : h u m MLU 3.20(5) deciperis R : deperis MLU 1.14(5) recitatione R : recitationem 3.21(10) rota R : rotam MLU 3.23(2) nec R : et MLU MLU 3.31(1) perditum R : imperitum MLU 1.43(2) salsamentum R : salsum MLU 3.56(2) uitia sunt R : uitiosa MLU 1.45(8) doctissimum R : notissimum 3.56(4) per uitia R : pueritiam MLU MLU 3.99(2) qui R : quod MLU 1.48(5) scribendi R : scribere MLU 3.11l(6) habentem R : habentibus 1.48(8) recti R : id est MLU MLU 1.58(1) agunt R : ait MLU 3.113(4) ulcus R : uulgos MLU 1.58(2) intelligit R : intelligere MLU 1.60(2) Midam R : Midae MLU 4.1(3) puta R : putas MLU 1.99(7) dictae R : dicti MLU 4.3(1) praesumis R : praesumptus MLU 1.112(7) pingerent R : pingebant 4.6(4) magna R : magni MLU MLU 4.17(5) fine R : finem MLU 2.1(2) nam R : quod MLU 4.20(2) ementes R : uendentis MLU 2.9(5) expirare R : ex(s)pirasse MLU 4.20(7) Romae R : Roma MLU 2.9(8) uapor R : uaporabilis MU : 4.23(6) quam R : quae MLU uaporalis L 4.28(7) diuerticula R : diuerticuli 2.12(1) est R : est effecerat MLU MLU 2.14(2) nerius R : nerio MLU 4.39(1) extricantur R : extricat MLU 2.17(1) ne R : non MLU 5.7(1) locuturis R : locuturi MLU 2.21(1) inuocabit R : inuocauit MLU 5.1 l(2) murmurat R : murmurant 2.21(5) ait R : exit MLU 2.24(1) iouem R : ioue MLU MLU 5.19(1) contentus sum R : contentum 2.24(1) petitioni R : petitionis MLU 2.32(4) liberantibus R : liberatoriis me MLU 5.20(3) ponderosissimis R : MLU 2.36(6) sineresin R : dieresin MLU ponderissimis MLU 2.36(8) macram R : uehementem 5.37(1) ut R : quod MLU 5.47(1) diuersas R : diuersa MLU MLU 5.48(4) hoc R : in hoc MLU 2.39(3) audiat R : audias MLU 5.63(3) instituis R : institues MLU 2.39(4) optari R : optare MLU 5.69( 1) aliud R : illud MLU 2.48(7) exhaurit R : exhauriat MLU 5.70 (1) temone R : tempore MLU 2.62(1) esse R : esse credere MLU 5.100(4) temperare R : temptare MLU 2.71(4) maximus R : maxime MLU 2.73(1) cogitationem R : cogitationem 5.147(1) possis R : poscis MLU secretam MLU 5.164(2) perfundere R : profundere MLU 2.73(1) iusz R : pro MLU 5.183( 1) plena R : plenum MLU 3.3(4) possint R : possunt MLU 3.10(3) accusas R : accuses MLU 5.189( 1) nummos R : nummis MLU

18

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE 6.1 9(2) quod R : quem MLU 6.19(3) est R : et MLU 6.27( 1) praecipit R : praecepit MLU 6.43(2) genii R : genium MLU

6.52(1) cognatione R : cogitatione MLU 6.57(3) abauum R : abauum proauum MLU 6.80(1) soriten R : siroten MLU

There are more than 500 places where R and MLU differ, by far the largest group of variants in the tradition. It is not, as I have suggested, always possible to determine on the basis of sense alone which one is correct; I will try later to characterize the differences between them. iii. The relationship among MLU is, if not as dramatically evident as that between MLU and R, easily demonstrable. Each of the three manuscripts has a considerable number of individual errors (excluding orthography and the like): about 500 in U, over 300 in M, and nearly 200 in L (which is, as noted before, by far the most carefully written of the three). Since U is the latest of the four witnesses-and since no one has suggested that any other manuscript is descended from it-I give no list of its individual errors. a) The following errors, among others, are peculiar to M: 4.10(3) decliui post pondus LUR : 1.9(2) poetas LUR : poeta M decliui aliter et curtam . . . stilum 1.20(17) recitatum om. M post pondus M 1.63(2) quid LUR : quod M 4.10(7) uara LUR : uaria M 1.77(5) educati LUR : educti M 4.20(2) modulatione LUR : modulatio 1.99(1) grecissationibus LUR : grecis sermonibus rationibus M M 4.28( 1 ) seriolam uini LUR : ad 1.127(3) inuehitur LUR : inuenitur M seriolam uinum M 1.134(3) indocti LUR : docti M 4.46( 1) iudicio LUR : uitio M 2.3 l(5) superstitiones LUR : super 5.3(2) earum LUR : eorum M obseruationes uel culturas 5.16(2) cautus LUR : catus M stitiones M 5.19(2) tragoedi om. M 2.46(3) iunicum LUR : iudicium M 5.62(1) pallorem om. M 2.54(3) trepidabis LUR : trepidabilis 5.85(2) uiuat LUR : uiuit M M 5.1 13(1) dico LUR : dextro M 2.56(3) regem om. M 6.17( 1) admouendo LUR : amouendo 3.21(6) maligne LUR : magne M M 3.44(8) et uim LUR : enim M 6.37(1) me tua morte LUR : tuam 3.46(2) iudicio om. M mortem M 3.56(3) sexto om. M 6.69( 1) stupris om. M 3.70(1) largitatem LUR : largientem 6.76(3) catasta LUR : castra M M 3.1 15(1) in iram LUR : intra M b) The following errors, among others, are peculiar to L: 1.73(4) dictaturam MUR : dictatorem 1.10(1) depositis MUR : relictis L L 1.1l(2) fratrum MUR : frumen L 1.79(1) permanasse MUR : 1.28(3) quarto MUR : quinto L permansisse L 1.40(3) soluto MUR : solito L 1.88(2) ducta MUR : dicta L 1.45(8) quamuis MUR : quamuis 1.96( 1) uirgiliana MUR : uulgaria L quiuis L 1.119(6) eius MUR : eum L 1.60(2) habuisse MUR : habuisset L

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM 2.8(3) aestimationi MUR : aestimatione L 2.9(9) fata MUR : facta L 2.36(8) crassus om. L 2.41(8) optationibus MUR : orationibus L 2.74(2) propitio MUR : proprio L 3.1O ( 5 ) bicoloris MUR : bicolor est L 3.20(5) te MUR : tale L 3.35(1) eos om. L 3.56(5) qua MUR : quia L 3.75(2) moneant MUR : moueant L 4.6( 1) sedare MUR : reserare L 4.19(2) quaelibet MUR : quilibet L 4.25(9) poeta om. L

19

4.28(9) seruatum MUR : reseruatum L 4.42( 1) quo MUR : quod L 5.19(5) palliatis MUR : pilleatis L 5.35(1) cogitatione om. L 5.67(2) otiosum MUR : uitiosum L 5.88(1) cur MUR : cum L 5.102(2) enim MUR : esse L 5.1 13(2) conditione MUR : conditio L 5.120( 1) capitur MUR : capiatur L 5.163(2) affinibus MUR : a finibus L 6.1(1) praediis MUR : praesidiis L 6.9(2) intus MUR : inter L 6.13(1) sitz om. L 6.22(1) hac re MUR : aere L 6.80(2) auaritiae MUR : auaritiam L

c) Although MLU are independent of one another, it is also clear that LU are more closely related to each other than either of them is to M. There are over 200 shared errors of LU, of which the following are a sample: 1.19(3) auditorio MR : adiutorio LU 3.23(2) udum MR : ut dum LU 1.38(5) in MR : om. LU 3.28(5) pater MR : pater filius LU 3.82(4) oculis MR : oculos LU 1.5l(4) principum MR : principium LU 3.82(6) gigni MR : om. LU 1.54(3) iniuste MR : iuste LU 4.16(6) quod MR : quia LU 4.23(2) alterutra MR : alterius LU 1.58(2) quomodo MR : quoniam LU 1.77(5) sunt MR : om. LU 4.25(9) cuius MR : cuium LU 1.78(1) miseriis MR : miseris LU 4.28(7)omne MR:omnes LU 1.85(4) obiecti MR : obiecta LU 4.33(3) sputo MR : put0 LU 1.121(4) occultus MR : occultos LU 5.9(5) sesterciis MR : se stercus LU 2.1(6) ideo quod MR : ideoque LU 5.32(1) domino MR : om. LU 2.18(3) inter notissimos MR : 5.32(3) libere MR : bibere LU internotissimus LU 5.64(1) discite MR : dicite LU 2.18(5) quis M R : qui LU 5.73(4) factus MR : om. LU 2.32(3) ultimus MR : uel ultimus LU 5.147(1) potare MR : portare LU 2.32(4) puerum MR : puerorum LU 5.157(3) canis MR : om. LU 2.56(1) fuerunt MR : fuerint LU 6.32(1) eorum MR : eius LU 2.57(1) somniant M R : somnient LU 6.43(2) praeparo MR : postpare LU 2.62(1) prodest MR : om. LU 6.51(4) metamorphoseon MR : 2.65(4) tonderentur MR : tunderentur metapho(r)seon LU LU 6.55(1) quia MR : qui LU 2.71(2) pura conscientia MR : puram 6.80(1) adiectionem MR : additionem conscientiam LU LU 3.1(2) uino MR : uitio LU LU also very frequently agree in presenting a different word order from that found in MR.

20

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

iv. The evidence of shared errors, then, suggests the following stemma for MLUR: (original)

I

R

M

L'

U

If the stemma given here were to be a complete characterization of the relationship among the four manuscripts, we would expect to find shared errors in LU, but none in MR; there should also be no shared readings at all of RL against MU or UR against ML, and no shared errors of MLR, MUR or LUR. This expectation is violated in a certain number of cases, suggesting a small degree of contamination. It is not always possible, as noted above, to distinguish truth and error on internal grounds; but I give as complete a list as possible of those places where we have chosen to print non-stemmatic readings from MLUR (excluding, as always, readings in lemmata and quotations).

a) correct readings preserved in LU: 1.15(5) iudicat LU : iudicant MR 1.16(4) recitans LU : recitantes MR 1.16(9) natali LU : natalis MR 1.16(10) quibus LU : quas M R 1.33(3) uitio LU : initio MR 1 . 3 31) cantilenam LU : cantilena MR 1SO(4) se LU : om. MR 1.63(3) tenore LU : tenero MR 1.73(5) serranus LU : seranus MR I .87(1) non LU : om. MR 1.92(5) clausulatos LU : clausula M : claudentibus R 1.1 12(7) submouere LU : om. MR 2.41 (2) qui LU : quia M : in R 2.46(4) excesserunt LU : cesserunt MR

3.15(3) instituunt LU(instruunt) : esse instituunt MR 3.21(1) sapientia LU : sapientiae MR 3.60(2) tempus ut LU : ut tempus M : ut R 3.67(1) nos sequi LU : nosse qui M : n o s e quemque R 3.76(1) quae* LU : quam R : quod M 3.113(4) hinc LU : et hinc R : hic M 5.9(6) demisso LU : dimisso MR 5.47(2) libra LU : libram MR 5.164(2) noctem LU : om. MR 5.185(3) dies LU : dii MR 5.189(7) liceri LU : licire R : licere M 6.1(2) secesserat LU : necesse erat M : necessario transibat R 6.33(1) impendat LU : impediat M : impendet R

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM 6.33(2) apparare LU : apparere MR 6.43( 1) quemadmodum--impediri LU : om. MR b) agreement of LR and/or MU (in truth or error): 1.1l(3) celium LR (i.e. Caelium) : celum MU 1.15(7) enim MU : om. LR 1.58(2) pinsit MU : pinxit LR 1.71(1) ignorantes scribere MU : om. LR 1.93(3) sonat LR : sonet MU 1.110(1) quod M : quid LR : U non liquet 1.112(2) audeo MU : audio LR 1.127(4) risu LR : risui M : risus U 2.32(5) urunt LR : urent M : ruunt U 2.56(3) macedoniae regem LR : macedoniae M : regem macedoniae U 2.62(1) uel3 LR : id est MU 3.15(3) diducto M : deduct0 LR : adducto U 3.24(3) metonimicos LR : metonomicos MU 3.28(3) trabeatus M : trabeatum LR : trabea U 3.28(5) partiuntur LR : patiuntur MU c) agreement of UR and/or ML (in truth or error): Adn. (1) cum sanna BVin : sanna UR : sana ML Prol. 2(2) parnasos M : parnassos L : parnasus UR Prol. 8(3) naturale U R : naturalem ML 1.4(2) aut ML : autem UR 1.22(9) capiatur auribus imperitis U R : capiat auribus imperitus ML 1.24(8) quia ML : qui U : cum R 1.29(3) si U R : sic ML 1.56(3) uentri UR : tempori ML 1.73(7) et araret ML : exararet R : araret U 1.106(1) fricitum ML : frictum U : factum R 1.106(2) intenduntur ML : intendunt UR I . 108(6) si uis UR : suis ML

21

6.51(3) adeo LU : audeo MR

3.44(2) puenles LR : puerilis MU 3.46(2) qui LR : quid M : quod U 3.48(2) dextrum MU : dexterum RL 3.108(2) nil2 LR : nihil MU 4.20(2) uendit LR : uendet MU 4.39(3) demollitas LR : demolitas M : emollitas U 4.47( 14) merere LR : metere U : mori M 5.9(2) quod LR : quia M : qui U 5.1l(7) succinis LR : siccinis M : siccis U 5.26(6) cura tui MU : tui cura RL 5.83(1) licet MU : libet LR 5.122(5) stulto LR : stultos MU 5.179(2) qui LR : quia MU ut uid. 5.185(2) quandam M : quasdam LR : q. u 6.6( 1) sisenniam M : sisinniam U : sisennam LR 6.6(3) uacat LR : uocat MU 6.25(3) bubus MU : bobus LR

1.121(1) iliada ML : iliadas R : iliaden U 1.125(2) praefulgent ML : perfulgent R : profulgent U 1.134(3) do UR : idem M : id est L 2.12(3) foras* ML : foris UR 2.17(1) quod* U R : quia ML 2.21(1) comesor UR : comessor ML 2.36(1) licinius ML : licinus U R 2.36(1) cognominatus ML : cognominatur UR 2.39(3) fuerit UR : fueris ML 2.62( 1) carnalibus ML :carnibus U R 3.15(6) nolint ML : nolunt UR 3.24(3) improbas UR : improba ML 3.44(2) praeponimus ML : proponimus UR 3.11 l(3) purgari ML : purgare R : pugnari U

22

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE 4.1(6) mortem absolutus UR : mortem absolutius M : morte absoJutus L 4.3(2) tutela UR : sub tutela ML 4.18( 1) colorarii UR : id est colorarii ML 4.18( 1) contracta ML : contacta UR 4.32(2) uappa UR : mappa ML 4.33(2) pectat ML : peccat U R 4.33(2) balanino L : balbanino M : balano UR 5.25(1) hominum ML : omnium UR 5.36(3) morali U R : mortali ML 5.47(3-4) desine--uirgilius UR : om. ML

5.50(1) iouis stellam ML : stellam iouis UR 5.88(4) masurius UR : maurius L : mansurus M 5.1 19(3) postulabant ML : postulant UR 5.161(4) accersor ML : accessor UR 6.1(3) ut nos : et ut UR : et utrum L : ut utrum M 6.5(2) de chordis UR : discordis ML 6.51(4) non ML : nam UR 6.56(6) mannium UR : mannuum ML 6.56(6) dicuntur UR : dicantur ML 6.57(1) hic UR : ita hic ML 6.64(2) at ML : aut UR

d) correct reading preserved in M alone of the four major manuscripts: Prol. 2(3) uidisse se M : se uidisse R : 3.62(3) cogat M : non cogat LUR uidisse LU 3.73(2) putescant M : putrescunt R : Prol. 14(1) pegaseium M : pegaseum putrescant L : putrescunt U LUR 3.82(5) athomos M : atomis LUR 1.4(7) priamique M : priamusque 5.58(1) tubercula M : tabernacula LUR LUR 1.45(8) producant M : producunt LUR 5.64(1) ducite M : discite LUR 5.117(2) decipiendum M : 1.73(4) atili M : attiline LU : taci R 1.99(1) cum nescio qua M : nescio decipiendam LUR cum qua LUR 5.147(1,2) ueientanum M : 1.112(3) quam M : tamquam LUR uegentanum LUR 3.14(2) reprehendisse se significat M : 5.154(2) alterutri M : alterutris LUR 5.185(2) quandam M : quasdam LR : reprehendit se significat U : reprehendit se L : reprehendis 9. u eum R 6.1(1) cesium M : cessium LUR 3.15(3) diducto M : deduct0 LR : 6.6( 1) sisenniam M : sisinniam U : adducto U sisenniam LR 3.28(3) trabeatus M : trabeatum LR : 6.41(2) cinere M : cinere est LUR 6.56(3) neptunum M : a neptuno LUR trabea U 3.32(1) incalluit M : incaluit LUR e) correct reading preserved in L alone of the four major manuscripts: 1.23(5) quem L : qui MU : deest R 1.63(6) anormitate L : anormate MU : norma R 2.64( 1) copia L : copiam MU : deest R 4.33(2) balanino L : balbanino M : balano UR 4.44(2) a gladiatoribus L : gladiatoribus MU : gladiatoris R 5.189(3) si diceret L : diceret R : dicere M : om. U f) correct reading preserved in U alone of the four major manuscripts:

1.73(8) serranus U : seranus MLR 1.103(2) omitteremus U : amitteremus ML : admitteremus R 1.116(2) uersarentur U : uersentur ML : uersabantur R

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

23

1.119(8) ex qua nata est canna U : om. MLR 2.64(2) casiam U : casia ML : deest R 4.23(7) autem U : aut MLR 4.33(2) sinat U : non sinat MLR 5.47(2) unum U : om. MLR 6.25(3) satione facta U : satio facta M : sationem factam R : sationem factis L 6.38(1) contigit U : contingit MLR 6.56(1) qua U : quia L : qui MR 6.80(2) in U : om. MLR

If one examines the readings that violate the basic structure of the stemma, it seems likely that there is some contamination (or simply the inclusion of variants in a hyparchetype), but not a great deal. It is clear that some words omitted from MR turn up in one or both of LU; it is also clear that, in U in particular, valuable readings are preserved that could not have been transmitted in the direct line. Such readings, however, are few. If one examines the good readings preserved in only one of the three manuscripts MLU, it is apparent, first, that L alone does not preserve a single good reading against the agreement of MUR, and very few unique readings at all. M has rather more unique readings, but only two of them are non-trivial, Priamique at 1.4(7) and tubercula at 5.58(1). The unique readings of U are not much more interesting, with the single exception of 1.119(8), where U alone preserves the necessary phrase ex quu nata est canna. The text is difficult here, and the scribe of U is inventive; it is possible that he created it himself. A slightly different form of the words, ibique canna nata est, is provided by K, and the provenance of U’s phrase is uncertain. The majority of stemmatically anomalous readings, however, are relatively unimportant. Many are purely orthographic variants, and some of them are conditioned by context: an -s dropped before a word beginning with s-, a phrase omitted by homoeoteleuton, and the like. In several cases, moreover, the manuscripts are divided in such a way that the apparent anomaly is not in fact stemmatically irregular. The small core of genuinely anomalous readings is very small, and neither disproves the stemma proposed above nor provides evidence for wholesale contamination. At most, it seems likely that the common ancestor of LU received some correction from a manuscript related to R, with some genuine readings not in R; U accepted rather more of these corrections than did L. Many of these apparently anomalous readings, moreover, are also found in other manuscripts, suggesting (what is in any case likely) that there was a certain amount of horizontal transmission. One should put the individual good readings of MLU in perspective, however: there are nearly 400 idiosyncratic readings of M, over 550 of U, about 200 of L, but no more than 26 correct readings uniquely preserved in any one manuscript (M). L, with the fewest individual errors of any manuscript, is (as Wessner and others have believed) the ‘best’ manuscript-but in the relative infrequency of idiosyncratic errors rather than the frequency of preserving unique truth.

24

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

v. In order to give some sense of the character of the manuscripts and of the variations among them, I offer brief discussions of some passages in which the progress of corruption (or of emendation) is reasonably clear. Some of them are included more briefly in the lists given above. 1.24(3) et tractum a ferment0 et a caprifico: sicut enim fermentum massam rumpit et caprificus saxa, ita ingenium pectus. (4) fermentum enim intra modium plus una hora non potest contineri. 24(3) tractum U : tractum hoc L : tractum metafora MR : tracta metafora TBVin I a* om. RTBVin I cormmpit RTBVin I24(4) enim urn. U I modium LU : domum M : massam RTBVin

In all probability, the archetype of MLUR had tractum, to which the gloss metafora had been added. MR insert the gloss into the text, making it ungrammatical; the later witnesses to the R tradition ‘correct’ tractum to tracta. It is possible that hoc belongs, but it too has the look of a gloss. The variation in 24(4) is less straightforward. In all probability the phrase is drawn from Isidore 20.2.18: ‘Fermentum a feruore nuncupatum, quod plus prima hora non potest contineri, crescendo enim excedit.’ Isidore has none of the alternatives; it is likely that R’s massam is drawn from the previous sentence, possibly to correct a nonsensical domum in the archetype; or it may be that the common ancestor contained both domum and a correction rnodium. 1.99(5) Calandrus Illyricorum rex ad Macedoniam cum exercitu uenit. (6) illi cum paruum exercitum haberent, plurimas mulieres coturnis et thirsis ornauerunt in modum Baccharum; illi credentes exercitum aduentare discesserunt. 99(6) illi M : illyrici LU : macedones RBVin : sed T I paruum exercitum RTBVin : partem exercitus M : partem magnam (magnam partem U) exercitus non LU

Here Illirici is clearly a faulty expansion of illi, which must have been the reading transmitted to MLU.” Macedones in R is either originally a gloss on illi, or an interpolation by the R tradition for the sake of clarity. As is often the case, the reading of M holds a balance between the corruptions or conjectures of R on the one hand and of LU on the other; even when it is wrong, it often holds the key to a solution. The second variant in this passage also demonstrates the inventiveness of LU: of the three readings, that of M is alone impossible, and L and U have improved on it; presumably rnagnam and non were added between the lines in their common hyparchetype, and they inserted the words differently. The reading of R is clearly the original one; it was corrupted to partem in the ancestor of MLU. 1.109(2) nam canes lacessiti uidentur, si hirriunt, r litteram minitabundi exprimere. l6

On this passage see also below, p.134-35. the repetition of illi, the first illi may conceal ei or hi. In any case, a pronoun is expected.

” Given

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

25

uidentur, si hiniunt, r Wessner : uidentur surruuntur M : si ciniunt uidentur LU : conantur r RTBVin : sic hirriunt u t uideantur r F. Murn ad Lucil. fr. 2 The rare word hirriunt must have been corrupted early: the editio princeps cited by Jahn read sic irruunt, which Jahn correctly understood as hirriunt-although he continued to print the text he found in ~Vinet.The early scribes were clearly perplexed, and R’s version simply avoids the problem by simplification. That M is closer than LU to the truth is shown by the form surruuntur, of which the passive ending is the remnant of the original ‘r’, which ought to precede litteram. LU in any case have a tendency to rearrange words. 2.71(3) hic autem Cottam Messalinum dicit, qui tam uitiosos oculos in senectute habuit ut palpebrae eius in exteriorem partem uerterentur; fuit enim et multis deditus uitiis. exteriorem UVin : dexteriorem ML : deteriorem RTB Either dexteriorem or exteriorem gives acceptable sense, and on stemmatic grounds one would accept dexteriorem, if exteriorem partem did not match the ophthalmological diction of Celsus. What is not clear, of course, is whether ‘Cornutus’ had the medically correct term, or whether a later scribelowner introduced it. R’s deteriorem is clearly a mistake for an inherited dexteriorem. 3.14 5 FISTVLA GVTTAS fistula pro cannali calamo exquisite dixit. (2) tum reprehendisse se significat quod querendo hoc et illud tempus perdit nec proficit. 14(2) reprehendisse se significat M : reprehendit se significat U : reprehendit se L : reprehendis eum R : reprehendit eum TB : eum reprehendit Vin

The long train of variations shows two possibly true readings, that of M and that of TB. The easiest explanation of the direction of change, however, is to start from M; once reprehendisse se has become reprehendis se through haplography, it is not difficult for the various changes found in LUR to take place, nor for the later representatives of the R tradition to change the nonsensical reprehendis to reprehendit. It would be easier to recognize the correctness of M’s reading if in fact the lemma for the note were correct: it should quote querimur, which is what is being explained by reprehendisse se. 3.44(6) quasi deuexus sensus a superioribus est; sed eo respondet a pueritia nos auersum ab eruditione habere animum. deuexus (deuexus est T) sensus a superioribus (superibus R) RTB : deuexus sensus superioribus M (s.1. pendens a superioribus) L : dependens a superioribus ues sensus superioribus U : diuisus sensus a superioribus Vin The text here is not in doubt, but the gloss in M illustrates the process of textual change. The gloss must represent a variant present in the common ancestor of MLU. M kept both variants (deuexus a superioribus and dependens a superioribus), one as a gloss, and losing the preposition a in the text. U has somehow incorporated both alternatives in the

26

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

text, with ues representing a corrector’s abbreviation of deuexus. By the time this reached Vinet’s edition, the text had been simplified and falsely corrected. 4.10(1) hoc per ironiam dicit: re uera scis iustitiam in lance pensare et ipsius dubiae lancis rectitudinem calles discernere, et regula momentanae ubi inter cuma subit pede uaro cognoscis. ( 2 ) regulam dicit ipsum momentanae stilum. (3) uaro pede torto, hoc est decliui post pondus. l O ( 1 ) regula ROS : curua regula RTB : curuam regulam Vin : curtam regulam LU ethic M; uide (3) infru I IO(1-2) momentanaeregulam om. LU et hic M; uide (3) infra I inter curua Vin : inter RTB et M (3) I lO(3) decliui aliter et curtam regulam momentanae ubi inter subit pede uaro cognoscis regulam dicit ipsum momentanae stilum post pondus M

1. M, fol . 128” (excerpt) on Persius 4.10. The aliter note begins in line 5. MLU omit momentanae-regulam because of the repetition of regulam (see apparatus), but it is clear that the omission was recognized in the common ancestor, and a correction, introduced by aliter, placed in the margin. M inserted it in the wrong place with a few extra words, and LU simply omitted it. The addendum in M does show that the ancestor of MLU read curtam regulam for R s curua regula. Curtam is clearly wrong, but all the manuscripts err in making curua/curta agree with regula rather than being a neuter plural. Vinet (or one of his manuscripts) got it right. The scholium mirrors the language and the word order (if not the meaning) of the text of Persius, and the complexity of the thought combined with repetition of words led to progressive corruption and simplification. 4.25(4) Vectidium autem quendam dicit in Sabinis possidentem praedia non pauca. (5) Curibus, quod est nomen loci, unde et Iuno Curitis dicitur, quia ibi uehementer colitur.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM 25(4) uetidium LU I autem om. R : uero B I dicit quendam LU I sanibis M I

27 25(4-5)

praedia-loci RTBVin : om. MLU I 25(5) est nomen R : nomen est TB I et RTVin : om. MLU I curitis TBVin : curites R : curritis M : accurritis LU I qui U Again MLU omit a necessary phrase, and it has led to further corruption. The lost clause was necessary to explain the cult title of Juno; without it Curitis made no sense. M‘s curritis is nonsense, but it is the smallest change that makes a Latin word.I8 LU’s accurritis is simply a further elaboration-consonant with their improvement of the spelling of Ve(c)tidium and the rearrangement of quendam dicit. The true reading is in fact preserved only in the later witnesses to the R tradition (on which see below), but R’s corruption is relatively trivial. 6.1(2) hic ergo dum uiueret de Roma ad Sabinos secesserat, ubi hiemali tempore in calido loco carmina scribebat. secesserat LU : necesse erat M : necessario transibat R In this case it seems probable that all three readings are conjectural, but the correctness of LU is shown by the parallel phrase (with no variant readings) at 6.2(1), ‘qui de urbe ad Sabinos secesserat.’ The transmitted reading was apparently necesserat. M made the minimal correction to produce Latin words, while R s conjecture is both far more elaborate and without apparent justification: nowhere in the text of Persius or elsewhere in the commentary is there any indication that Bassus was in the Sabine country out of any necessity. Examples such as these give some sense of the possibilities: that either side of the tradition can preserve the truth; that either side is capable of intelligent (or at least inventive) emendation; that words are rearranged and sense altered with some degree of regularity. In the cases illustrated here, however, the direction of change is generally clear; and it is usually possible to identify which reading is derived from which. But that, unfortunately, is by no means always the case. And while it is possible to identify instances of innovation in each manuscript or subgroup of manuscripts, it is immediately evident that in many cases MLU and R provide coherently different sets of readings, either of which is potentially ‘correct’. It is, however, possible to distinguish between their methods, and R in particular has a distinctive character that can be described with some degree of confidence. 2. The character of R As is clear from the stemmatic discussion above, R is not only the earliest manuscript of the Commentum, but it also offers, for the most part, a coherent and plausible text. While it has its share of errors, it is clearly right in many passages where MLU are wrong. What is more, in a great many passages both R and MLU offer what is-particularly given the fairly loose standard of ‘truth’ that applies in evaluating manuscripts of commentaries-a There is a similar corruption of Curitis to curretis in some manuscripts of Servius on Aen. 1.8.

28

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

plausible text, and one that, through the intermediary of the 1601 revision of Vinet's edition, was largely accepted by Jahn in 1843 and remains standard. And yet, although R's text is plausible, it will be the purpose of this section to demonstrate that its plausibility is often the result of deliberate alteration rather than preservation of a transmitted text: that is to say, while MLU have their share of errors and misunderstandings, many of the changes in R seem to be intentional. Even the few passages discussed above demonstrate that R is capable of modifying the text, and closer examination of some important differences between R and MLU can illuminate the character of R while also casting light on the nature and structure of the Cornmenturn as a whole. The argument advanced here involves several collections of details: in the first place, differences in content and in style between R and MLU. After that, I will examine the most striking difference between MLU and R, the second set of notes ('doublet') on 1.1 123 that is present in MLU but missing in R. This doublet is often taken to indicate that R preserves a purer form of the text, into which extra notes have been interpolated in MLU; in fact, it will be shown, R has omitted a set of notes that was certainly in the shared ancestor of MLUR, if not in the original Cornmenturn itself. Finally, I will examine the single largest difference between R and MLU, the deployment of the system of lemmata: it not only explains a great deal about R's manipulation of the Commenturn, but also leads to the examination of the structure and composition of the Commenturn itself.

2. R, fol. 164v (excerpt), including note on 3.63.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

29

i. Differences in content

To illustrate the ways in which MLU and R present different texts, I offer examples from the commentary on the Prologue and Satire 1 of words and phrases that appear in one side of the tradition but not the other.lg a) Extra words in R : Prol. 6(3) pagani dicuntur rustici qui non nouerunt urbem. urbem apo toy pagos id est a uilla R

R’s addition bears some resemblance to a note on the same line in KQ (see Appendix 3): Pagosus dicitur apotu pige, id est a fonte. pagos enim uilla, pige fons. unde et pagani dicuntur quasi ex uno fonte potantes. Prol. 8(1) hoc dicit, quod non omnes natura sua sunt poetae, sed uentris et egestatis necessitate coguntur. coguntur RTBVin : cogantur MLU I coguntur dum se (semet TBVin) studendo fame et (fame et om. TBVin) uigiliis cruciant alioquin (alioqui Vin) omnes essent sine labore poetae RmZgTBVin

The fact that this is in R only in the margin shows clearly that it is an addition; it is, however, found in TBVin (with minor variations), showing the process of infiltration of extra notes very clearly. 1.18(7) ) et est ypallage, [ut: ‘pictus acu clamidem’,] quod fieri solet non tantum ablatiuo caw, uerum etiam accusatiuo, ut: ‘pictus acu clamidem’ (Aen. 9, 582) et ‘nuda genu’ (Aen. I , 320). ut-clamidem del. Clausen I caw ut pictus acu clamidem uerum etiam accusatiuo ut nuda genu R

The scholiast is explaining the construction patranti ji-actus ocello and explains that hypallage can appear with either the ablative case (as here) or the accusative. The phrase pictus acu clamidem migrated to an incorrect position in all manuscripts (and was deleted by Clausen); in R the phrase was misunderstood (as if it were acu that was the hypallage rather than chlamydem) and a mistaken amplification added. 1.24(8) item hic autem est schema antipophora keparaprosdocia, quia per suam transit in illius poetae uocem quem compiebat nec tamen recessit a sua persona.

l9 This list is not complete; in particular, MLU and R offer such different versions of the commentary on 1.2-3 that a list of differences would be unclear and unhelpful.

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE hic autem] hoc RBVin : om. T I kepara prosdocia R : cepara (cepera LU) prosdocia MLU : om. TBVin I prosdocia (om.TBVin) id est a se in alium RTBVin I quia] qui U : cum RTBVin

In this case it is clear that R has added a gloss to try to explain the Greek (dv.Veu.nocpop& not written in Greek letters in the Cornrnenturn),albeit not entirely successfully. The later witnesses in the R tradition have eliminated the unfamiliar part of the Greek. There are also some minor instances of the small differences that frequently separate R from MLU. K a i xapaxpoo6oda-probably

1.26(7) scire tuum haec periodos apud Lucilium posita est: ‘ut me scire uolo dicimus mimi conscius sum, ne damnum faciam’ (1344-45 M.). (8) scire hoc se nescit nisi alios id scire scierit. nescit RTB : nesciat MLU I nisi-scierit

RTBVin : om. MLU

The text is clearly corrupt, and it is unclear whether (8) is meant to be part of the quotation or (as we have taken it) as a separate paraphrase of Persius himself. In any case, MLU simply omit the last phrase (whether deliberately or through homoeoteleuton), while R is-within the limits of a corrupt text-closer to being right than are the other manuscripts, and it is also right in giving the indicative rather than the subjunctive.

1.29(3) si Persius dicit, ita est intelligendum: cur non debes laetari? certe maxima est gloria laudari a centum cirratis. ita est intelligendum RTBVin : om. MLU The sentence reads more easily with the extra phrase in R, but in scholiastic Latin it is hardly necessary. 1.36(2) uerba adulantium per irrisionem: cinis poetae felix est quotiens de mortuis bene loquimur. quotiens] et reprehensibile notat quotiens RTBVin I bene MLU : etiam si bene RTB The addition of et reprehensibile notat is clearly a comment on Persius’ irony; presumably etiam si is part of the same comment.

1.76(10) . . . duae sunt statuae, una hirsuta quae dicebatur Brisei, altera lenis quae dicebatur Lenei. lenis id est sine pilis RBVin In this case, helpful but scarcely necessary; almost certainly a gloss.

1.77(6) quos postquam mater Antiopa cognouit iniuriam matris Dircis supplicio uindicauemnt.

.

.

.

Licum interfecerunt et

matris antiopae dirces R : antiopae matris dirces BVin The addition of Antiope’s name is again not necessary; another gloss/clarification.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

31

1.106(2) nam qui cum cura scribunt ita intenduntur animo ut pulpitum uel tabulam feriant, interdum etiam ungues corrodant. . . . (3) quorum nihil faciunt leuium carminum auctores. I06(3) nihil faciunt MLUVin : nihil id est ungues non rodunt nec pluteum caedunt nec ut bene faciant laborant faciunt RTB

R’s addendum is clearly an intrusive gloss, derived from what is said in 106(2). The insertion between nihil and faciunt marks it as an interlinear annotation wrongly inserted. b) Extra words in MLU: 1.6( 1) 3 ELEVET altum faciat laudando uel incuset. uel incuset om. RTB

The fact that uel incuset is probably not the correct interpretation of Persius does not mean that it is wrong. It is not clear whether MLU wrongly added it or R (a more intelligent reader than the source of MLU) deleted it. 1.13(10) item pede liber orator qui prosaicam orationem componit, quamquam Cicero praecipiat prosaicam quoque orationem ita componendam esse ut certis quibusdam pedibus et fiat et terminetur; cui praecepto iudicium aurium et naturalem orationis cursum facili enuntiatione multi non sine causa praetulerunt. cui-praetulerunt om. RTBVin I cui Wessner : cum MLU I iudicium M : iudicio L (s.L uel urn) U (s.L uel um) I non Wessner : nomen MLU I praetulerunt Wessner : pertulerunt ML : protulerunt U

The note contains the kind of irrelevant learning that scholiasts often display; the last half of the sentence is no less germane than the first, and there is little reason to think it spurious. On the other hand, without Wessner’s emendations it makes very little sense, and it is quite possible that the scribe of R (or of its model) deleted what he could not understand, as he often seems to do: cf. l S l ( l ) , 1.77(9), 1.118(1) below. 1.20(13) sinecdochicos autem Titos scholasticos, quod sint uagi neque uno magistro contenti et in libidinem proni sicuti aues quibus comparantur. sicut aues quibus comparantur om. RTB

Titi as a vulgar word for palumbes or columbae appears in Servius, some glossaries, and some manuscripts of Isidore-where they are described as particularly chaste.” Either R recognized that this note got the sexual habits of the bird wrong and deleted it, or someone else added a misplaced bird to the common source of MLU. 1.29(7) item cirratorum dicit puerorum propter lunae cursum uitandum pueris; cirri consecrati certis numinibus dicebantur. For references, see testimonia to this passage of the Commenrum.

32

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE item-dicebantur om. R

R omits the whole note, whether by accident or deliberately; as ever, it could also be an addendum in MLU. Its meaning is not altogether clear in any case.

1.51 NON SIQVA ELEGIDIA CRVDI D. P. K quae crudi proceres soliti sunt facere.

C ~ KOLVOO: Z ~ non

sunt hic elegidia

KOLVOO Wessner : cata cynii MLU : om. R : id est B : cacotami id est Vin : K F. Morel1 Kat&

~ K O ~ ~ O I

Wessner’s emendation is clearly correct. In several of these passages, various manuscripts omit the corrupted Greek words; that is presumably what has happened here as well. 1.77(9) Pacuuius, et ipse poeta tragicus, legitur ab eis maxime qui quondam ingenio eius quamuis horrido delectati sunt; cuius est Antiopa quam uerrucosam Persius dixit, quae apud Dircen seruitio oppressa in squaiore fuit sic: ‘illuuie corporis et coma promissa impexa conglomerata atque horrida’ (Pacuu., Antiopa fr. XV R3. est antiopa quam] esse antiopam RTBVin I sic-horrida

om.

RTBVin

The omission of a corrupt and difficult quotation matches what we have seen of R’s practice. The rewriting of est Antiopa quam is also typical. 1.83(2) hoc est, ut illa quae inepta sunt et sine uiribus liceat te fauoraliter audire? (3) nomen fictum respondet. 83(3) nomen fictum respondet om. RTBVin

Again, either addition or deletion is possible. 1 .1 18(1) $ CALLIDVS EXCVSSO POPVLVM SVSPENDERE NASO sciens populum secundum arbitrium suum tractare tuelut imo stabili sedet.

uelut imo (immobilis U) stabili (stabile LU) sede MLU : om. RTBVin This would appear to be one of R’s deletions of corrupt or incomprehensible text. 1.123(2) Cratinus, Eupolis, et Aristophanes Atticarum comoediarum auctores fuerunt, ut meminit Horatius: ‘Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae’ (Serm. I , 4, I ) . atticarum Wessner : arcearum M : artarum L : thenarum U : graecarum Juhn : om. RTBVin In this case, what is missing is a single word, but again it is a very corrupt one. Wessner’s emendation seems the most probable solution; R’s is to remove what he does not understand. Although in any given passage where there is a significant difference of length between R and MLU it is rarely possible to state absolutely which text is correct, there is

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

33

a pattern in the whole group given here. In the first place, R tends to omit text that is, for whatever reason, corrupt or difficult to understand: quotations from archaic texts, Greek, obscure phrases. What R has that MLU do not is sometimes a phrase or clause that clearly belongs and has been lost in the ancestor of MLU, but more often it is explanatory material-and often (as at 1.24(8) and 1.76(10))it is explaining not Persius but the text of the Commenturn itself. ii. Stylistic differences a) Connectives: As noted above (p. 12) R and MLU frequently differ on such things as the use of id est, connection between sentences, and similar small variations; in almost none of these is there any linguistic or substantive reason for preferring one reading over the other. As a general rule, however, R has a great many more connectives and minor words which serve only to make the links between scholia smoother. They may have been interlinear additions in the common ancestor; they may have been added by R; or they may have been dropped by MLU. In the commentary on Prol. and Satire 1, I note the following: et in R, not in MLU: Prol. 1(1), 5(1); 1.34(3),45(3), 79(1), 94(3), 95(5), 104(2), 114(6), 116(2), 121(1). et in MLU, not in R 1.12(11), 1.45(6), 1.67(5) id est in R, not in MLU: 1.4(1) [est LU, om. MI, 1.35(1), 1.85(1), 1.102(1), 1.105(3), 1.108(3), 1.108(4). id est in MLU, not in R: 1.58(3), 1.78(1). 1.95(1) est in R, not in MLU: Prol. 4(1), 1.15(10), 1.44(3) [et est] enim in R, not in MLU: 1.58(4), 1.76(4), 1.95(7) uel in R, not in MLU: 1.70(1), 1.76(8), 1.131(5) uel in MLU, not in R: 1.71(7) etiam in R, not in MLU: 1.16(8), 1.95(6), 1.106(2). Similarly, R has, and MLU omits, ergo at 1.2(6) and 1.77(10); hoc est at 1.6(3); igitur at 1.95(9) and 1.134(2); and autem at 1.119(7).MLU have, and R omits, uero at 1.44(5), sed at 1.48(2),and ideo at 1.114(10).21There are also variations in small words: 1.11(12) pro MLU : s R; 1.50(7) et MLU : nam R; 1.99(7) et MLU : autem R; 1.108(1) aut certe MLU : uel R. Again, there is a clear, if not absolutely uniform pattern: R’s text is smoother, and tends to supply connectives, while that of MLU is often more abrupt.

’’ It should be observed that the Commenturn is not the only text to exhibit similar divergences in small words. I note that, in the commentary on the first 300 verses of Aeneid 7, DS adds a great many connectives: id est at 7.40, 119, 202, 222, 262; aufern at 7.76, 190; enim at 7.135 (so also M of Servius); scilicet at 7.182; hoc est at 7.185, 293; mod0 at 7.269. DS also omits sane at 7.37, and substitutes dicit for signflcat at 7.131 (so also M); the manuscripts RLHM of Servius omit id est at 7.297.

34

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) Moods: One of the more striking areas of variation between R and MLU is in the moods of verbs.22

R subjunctive1 MLU indicative: 1.42(2) habeatur R : habetur MLU 1.48(2) intendat R : intendit MLU 1.90(2) fingat R : fingit MLU 1.95(10) affectent R : affectant MLU 1.1 12(9) pingerent R : pingebant MLU 1.114(9) accrescant R : accrescunt MLU 1.116(2) reputarent R : reputabant MLU R indicative/ MLU subiunctive: Prol. 8(1) coguntur R : cogantur MLU 1.4(4) fuit R : fuerit LU (fierit M) 1.45(2) exhibetur R : exhiberetur MLU 1.59(3) protendunt R : protendant MLU 1.63(2) dicit R : dicat MLU 1.89(2) flectet R : flectat MLU 1.95(5) dicuntur R : dicantur MLU 1.95(9) terminatur R : terminetur MLU 1.116(2) uersabantur R : (subjunctive MLU) 1.119(6) prohibebat R : prohiberet MLU In many of these instances, either mood is acceptable; but in the ten cases in which parallelism or clear rules of syntax generally followed even in this text guarantee one mood or the other, R is apparently correct in eight (four subjunctive, four indicative). iii. The double commentary on Satire 1’’ The single most striking difference between R and MLU is that the latter group of manuscripts contains two sets of notes on part of the opening of Sat. 1, while R has only one. The obvious interpretation of this fact is that followed by Jannaccone and the Catalogus: that an extra page has been inserted into the common ancestor of MLU, and that R thus preserves the pristine shape of the Commentum in this passage. In fact, however, nothing could be further from the case, and it is not difficult to prove that R has omitted a section that was in the common ancestor of all four manuscripts rather than that MLU have added a ‘doublet’. That there is a doublet in MLU there can be no doubt, although its limits need to be defined more precisely than the Catalogus article manages to do. The section omitted by R is that described in the Catalogus, beginning at 1.12(1) ‘9 QVID FACIAM quasi non possit risum tenere,’ and concluding at 1.1l(11) ‘tunc tunc iteratum accipitur.’ The difficulty with this is that the ‘doublet’ does not begin at 1.12, but at 1.9, as can easily be The two most common problems are assimilation or attraction (cf. Kiihner-Stegmann 2.201-3 and E. Liifstedt, Syntactica (ed. 2, Lund 1956) 11 117-34) and the variability of mood after causal quad (cf. Hofmann-Szantyr 575 and the index of Clausen-Zetzel S.V. quod). 21 My discussion here repeats to some extent that in Zetzel, ‘History of Latin Scholia 11’.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENWM

35

seen from the last note on 1.23 in the section omitted by R, which in our edition we have necessarily divided into two different notes on two different lines:

23 (4) 5 OHE interiectio cum admiratione percuntantis. (5) et est responsio contra Persium ab eo quem uituperauit. 9 (4) . . . cum uenero ad grauitatem omissis nucibus quibus pueri ludunt. What is clear is that the last partial sentence is the end of a note on Persius 1.9-10: Tum cum ad canitiem et nostrum istud uiuere triste Aspexi ac nucibus facimus quaecumque relictis. It is also comparable to the note found in all four manuscripts earlier, on 1.10:

10 0 NVCIBVS RELICTIS ludis puerilibus depositis. This division of notes is confirmed by the fact that the next note (still omitted by R) has a lemma from 1.1 1:

11 ( 5 ) Q CVM SAPIMVS PATRVOS patruos dicit seueros. Five sentences still remain before R reappears. It is thus clear that the section omitted by R begins after the true ‘doublet’ begins, and ends after it ends: the ‘doublet’ runs from 1.10 to 1.23, with the following text resuming at 1.9, while R omits from 1.12 to 1.1 1. If the ‘doublet’ were an additional page stuffed into the ancestor of MLU, then why did it begin at 1.12, go up to 1.23, and then go back to 1.9 again? That makes no sense. R, or R’s exemplar, omitted a set of notes that were repeated in the common ancestor of all four manuscripts: an intelligent choice, but not made with great accuracy. One conclusion and one question follow. The conclusion is that R is, in this as in much else, an intelligent interpolator: R changes wording, adds and removes phrases and even whole notes, smooths over or omits passages that he cannot understand, puts in conjunctions-and eliminates what he rightly felt to be repetitive and u n n e c e ~ s a r yBut .~~ that means only that in the case of the ‘doublet’ as in all else, one must look at R’s text with considerable suspicion: even though it is often better Latin and sometimes offers better sense and coherence, it is often not faithful to the transmitted text. The question raised by R’s treatment of the ‘doublet’ concerns not so much R as the condition of the opening of the Cornrnenturn itself. For while it is very easy to find the end of the ‘doublet’ at 1.23, it is not possible to find a clearly defined beginning. And in fact, what will emerge is that the repetition of notes in the opening of the Cornrnenturn is not the result of the insertion of a page of extra notes, but of a much more radical change: the ‘doublet’ arose when someone added notes at the opening of the Cornrnenturn to replace a whole set of pages that had been lost. The Commenturn has no genuine beginning. But in order to demonstrate that fact, it is necessary first to consider in some Here, as elsewhere, my personification of R (or of other manuscripts) is simply a convenient shorthand for ‘the copyist or editor of R or of its exemplar.’

24

36

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

detail the system of lemmata that the Cornrnenturn employs with great consistencyexcept in the notes on the Prologus and the first set of notes on the first 23 lines of the first Satire. 3. The system of lemmata and the construction of the Cornmenturn

Up to this point, I have not made use of lemmata in discussing the affiliations of the manuscripts, because they are not significant stemmatically: as part of thc text of Persius rather than of the Cornrnenturn, they are subject to contamination and interpolation far more than the body of the Comrnenturn and are therefore not useful evidence. But if the verbal text of the lemmata is not signficant, the presence, shape, and use of lemmata are very important parts of the Cornrnenturn, and in fact represent one of the major original contributions of the person who composed this commentary. The role of lemmata in distinguishing different types of exegesis was discussed briefly in Chapter I , but it needs further consideration. While a commentary may contain material worth reading on its own, its primary function-to explain another text-is dependent on the user’s being able to connect the commentary with the text being explained. Modem systems of line-numbering (in poetic texts) or section and sentence numbering (in prose texts) supply a quick and generally recognized means of finding the appropriate passage of the text; before the introduction of such aids, however, the process was less immediately o b v i ~ u s . ’In ~ manuscripts of scholia, in which discrete notes are found on the same page as the text, there is little difficulty, and three methods (sometimes all at once) are readily available: to place the note adjacent to the text to which it refers, to use a catchword or short lemma to indicate the connection between note and text, or to use a signe de renvoi to link the two. In continuous commentary, however, the first of these resources is obviously unavailable, and the third does not seem to be employed even when the commentary is written in columns on the same folia as the text itself. Instead, the commentators rely solely on quotations from the text, lemmata, to introduce their notes. And while the ability to connect text and commentary with relative ease and clarity is dependent on the commentator’s strict adherence to the verbal order of the text, that is a relatively minor demand on the attention of the reader who has both text and commentary at hand. The Cornrnenturn,however, employs an elaborate system of lemmata for which, to the best of my knowledge, there is no parallel or model in any commentary or set of scholia on a classical Latin text. In the best preserved of all Roman commentaries, Servius’ on Virgil, the lemmata tend to be brief and discontinuous: they do not preserve more than a small portion of the text of the Aeneid, nor do those of Ps.-Acro or Porphyrio on Horace, or Donatus on Terence. As noted in Chapter 1, the lemmata in the scholia on Juvenal are extensive-but they are clearly a secondary accretion, and they do not correspond to the notes to which they are attached. In the Cornmenturn, by contrast, there is not one level of lemmata, but two: a minor set, in which notes on particular words are introduced by the 25

On the introduction of chapter and verse numeration, see Kenney, Ckussic:ul Text 152-54.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE! COMMENTVM

37

quotation of those words (or groups of words) alone, and a major set, providing a rubric under which shorter notes are grouped, in which most of Persius is quoted or abbreviated, and in which each word of Persius was intended to appear once and only once.26Thus, of the 640 lines of Persius beginning at 1.11 (i.e. after the ‘doublet’, on which see further below), 85% are quoted fully in the major lemmata, and another 12% are partially quoted. Only 3%-20 verses-are entirely absent from the system of lemmata. These major lemmata are also marked by a distinctive sign that appears to be an angular form of SS (approximately 55).27 It is presumably an abbreviation for ‘section’ and is indicated here and in our edition by 0 ; it appears with great regularity in MLU and with even more regularity is omitted by R. The appearance of this sign is a clear indication to the reader that a quotation from Persius himself follows; it articulates the Cornrnenturn into sets of notes (some, but not all, of which are introduced by briefer quotations from Persius) which deal with particular problems raised by the text quoted in the major lemmata. The presence of this system of lemmata is highly significant: it indicates, more decisively than any other feature of the Cornrnenturn, that it is a composed work, arranged by a single editor; it shows that the Cornrnenturn was, almost certainly, designed to be read without the need to refer to a separate text of Persius; and, not unimportant for the editor of the Cornrnenturn, it provides a valuable tool for recognizing and restoring the organization of the Cornrnenturn. As this last point will suggest, however, the system of lemmata in the Cornrnenturn is not perfectly preserved: there are inconsistencies even among MLU; there are violations of the pattern described above; there are places where a lemma-sign is added where it should not be or omitted where it should be. In order to demonstrate the existence and function of this system, it is necessary to consider these divagations from the system in some detail, dealing with two related problems: the use and misuse of the lemma-sign, and omissions or duplications in the words of Persius in the lemmata introduced by them. There is inevitably a degree of circularity and artificiality in separating these two categories, but it is to be hoped that the two portions of the argument will reinforce one another. It should be noted that in the following lists, material from the opening of the Cornrnenturn up to the end of the ‘doublet’ (Adn. (1) to 1.23(5)) is excluded; as was suggested at the end of the previous section (and will be demonstrated in more detail at the end of this one), the entire opening is a replacement for a lost section, and the rules governing lemmata in the bulk of the Cornrnenturn do not apply here.

” This is not completely true of the extant Commenfum, as will be shown here in detail. On parallels for this system of lemmatization in biblical commentaries, see below, p.65. ” The same sign appears in some manuscripts of the y tradition of Servius’ commentary on Virgil. See C.E. Murgia, Prolegomena to Servius 5: The Manuscripts (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1975) 118, who describes it as ‘a pair of sinuous Lines.’ Examples of it are (barely) visible in Murgia’s plates 10-12. For more information about its use in Servius manuscripts, I am grateful to Dr. Giuseppe Ramires. The normal form of the lemma sign may be seen in lines 2 and 9 of the photograph of M on p.26 and the next-to-last line of the photograph of L on p.72. One scribe in U, who takes over in the middle of fol. 128’ and continues to the foot of fol. 139” (the end of a gathering), makes the lemma sign much more rounded, as in a normal Roman SS: see lines 1.7, and 14 of the photograph on p.72.

38

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

The following omissions of the lemma sign are not stemmatically significant, and with a few exceptions will not be discussed.

M alone omits 22 lemmasigns at: 1.11(5), 1.11(9), 1.12(7), 1.13(4), 1.13(8), 1.14(3), 1.15(5), 1.15(6), 1.16(4), 1.17(9), 1.18(4), 1.19(2), 1.19(5), 1.22(5), 1.31(1), 1.47(2), 1.76(1), 1.126(1); 3.58(2), 3.59(1); 4.8(1), 4.47(1) L alone omits 15 lemma signs at: 1.26(5), 1.71(1) (U non liquet), 1.79(1);3.27(2), 3.32(1), 3.60(1), 3.69(2), 3.71(1), 3.104(1); 5.26(4); 5.43(1), 5.62(1), 5.182(1), 5.183(I), 5.189(1) U aloneomits 21 lemma signs at: 1.52(1), 1.53(1), 1.98(1), 1.119(5); 2.2(1), 2.66(1), 2.71(1), 2.73(1), 2.75(1); 3.1(9), 3.55(1), 3.63(1), 3.1 13(1); 4.43(1); 5.19(1), 5.21(2), 5.76(1), 5.137(1), 5.187(1); 6.18(2), 6.37(2) LU omit 24 lemma signs at: 1.62(1); 2.46(1); 3.47(1), 3.62(1), 3.86(1), 3.97(3), 3.111(1); 4.30(1); 5.41(1), 5.47(3), 5.55(1), 5.67(1), 5.75(1), 5.78(1), 5.93(1). 5.11 1(1), 5.151(3), 5.154(1), 5.155(1), 5.157(1), 5.175(1); 6.33(1), 6.51(2), 6.61(1) In certain instances, it is clear that dislocations in the marking of lemmata are interconnected or come in groups. Thus, M omits thirteen lemma signs in a row, beginning at l.ll(5); it is surely not a coincidence that these are thc first lcmrnata after the end of the ‘doublet’, when something was clearly wrong with the common ancestor of MLU. Similarly, LU omit three lemma signs in a row, beginning at 5.154(1), and thc majority of missing signs in that pair of manuscripts (and a large number of those in L and U separately) come in Satire 5 . As far as individual cases are concerned, it is worth noting that, when LU omit the sign at 1.62(1) POSTICAE OCCVRRITE SANNAE, M has an extra lemma sign at 1.62(3), a minor lemma introduced by posticae. At 3.58-63, there is a striking collocation of violations of the system in one manuscript or another. At 3.58(2), all four manuscripts give the wrong lemma, STERTIS ADHVC, which repeats the lemma of 58( 1); the proper lemma, LAXVMQVE CAPVT COMPAGE SOLVTA, is found in Vinet’s edition. At 58(2), M omits the lemma sign. At 60(1), L omits the lemma sign; at 62(1) LU omit it, but it is given not only by M but by R-one of two places in R where the lemma sign is found (the other is at 5.47(1); see below). This lemma is also a doublet, as it repeats the last words of the previous major lemma. Finally, at 63(1) U omits the lemma sign. It is not hard to infer from this collection that there was some disorder in the archetype at this point; perhaps a page was damaged, or there was sloppiness in the composition of the Cornrnenturn itself. Finally, among these minor errors, it should be noted that at 3.71(1) L writes S.S. instead of the lemma sign, and at 3.113(1) U writes series in place of the lemma sign. Just as missing lemma signs in one manuscript or in LU need not suggest that the sign was missing in the common ancestor, so too extra lemma signs often are also not stemmatically significant. With very few exceptions, they are found before a minor lemma.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

39

M alone has 6 extra lemma signs at: 1.20(11), 1.45(7), 1.56(5), 1.62(3), 1.112(4); 5.45(2)

L has 4 extra lemma signs at: 1.54(4); 3.82(1); 5.57(2); 6.52(4) U has 4 extra lemma signs at: 1.16(8); 2.64(2); 5.24(1), 5.183(2)

LU have 13 extra lemma signs at: 1.15(9), 1.16(10);2.29(1), 2.41(4); 3.73(2), 3.88(3); 5.167(1), 5.186(4); 6.52(2), 6.52(4), 6.52(5), 6.52(6), 6.73(3) It should be noted that extra signs are far less common than missing ones: a scribe is likelier to forget a small symbol than to add it unnecessarily. It should also be noted that in the misuse of lemmata there are more errors in LU jointly than in any one of the three relevant manuscripts; that is consonant with the large number of shared errors in the text of LU. Apart from these non-significant errors in the system, there are thirteen passages where MLU (or, in one case, MU) omit a necessary lemma sign, and twelve where there are stemmatically significant extra lemma signs. In some passages, there is possible confusion between the absence of a lemma sign and the absence of words of the text from the system of lemmata, and between extra signs and repetition of words in the system of lemmata, as will become clear below. Lemma signs are omitted in error by MLU (unless otherwise noted) at: 1.14(5), 1.101(1) (MU); 2.35(1); 5.17(1), 5.66 (3), 5.177(1). The lemma signs at the opening of the commentary on Satires 5 and 6 are omitted (in the latter case ML also omit the initial letter), and the whole first line, including the lemma sign, is omitted at the opening of the commentary on Satire 2. A few other omissions deserve fuller comment: 1.58(1)<$>0 IANE A TERGO QVEM NVLLA CICONIA PINSIT 58(I)o-pinsit hic L : ante ianus (56(6))UBVin : om. MR

This is a complex problem in a passage that has serious textual difficulties. It is clear from the context that a lemma is needed, and that L has put it in the right place: the following notes concern the words in this line, while the preceding notes concern the previous lines. But MR have no lemma here at all, and U (with two later witnesses) places it in the middle of the previous sentence, presumably motivated by the first appearance of the name Zanus. It seems likely (on stemmatic grounds) that the lemma was in fact omitted, and was added in the margin by the ancestor of LU-but without any lemma sign. 3.92(1) <$>MODICE SITIENTE id est non ualde plena, quod non impleatur nisi usque ad collum. (2) [$] modice sitiente minus plena, uel quod uetustate decoquatur ac per hoc sese tamquam sitiens ebibat. 92(1) 0 om. MLU I 92(2) 0 modice MLU

40

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

5.20(1) DARE PONDVS IDONEA FVMO quae digna sint incendio. (2) idonea sublimia carmina. ( 3 ) allegoricos quidem fumo, res uanas et leues extollere uel uilissimas res pro ponderosissimis commendare. 20(4) Q DARE PONDVS I. F. 20(1) 0 om. MLU

In both these passages, it is clear that the lemma sign was placed wrongly, at the second occurrence of modice sitiente (and dare pondus idonea fumo) rather than the first. 4.17(6) Q VNCTA VIXISSE PATELLA traditur autem Socraten ita Alcibiadi ad aurem dixisse, sed turpe responsum est. (7) itaque sic subaudiendum est, nempe uncta uixisse patella.

18 SEMPER ET ASSIDVO CVRATA CVTICVLA S. curata scilicet a chromatiariis; nam chromatiarii dicuntur colorarii, qui toto die in harena sunt uel in sole, ut Iuuenalis: ‘nostra iuuat uernum contracta c. s. effugiatque togam’ (11, 203 sq.). 18(2) Q ET ASSIDVO C. C. SOLE antiqui enim ungebant se et in sole erant ut oleum corpus inbiberet. 18(1) $ om. MLU I semper et assiduo curata s. R : uncta uixisse p. s. et assiduo curata cuticula s. LU : uncta u. p. s. e. a. c. c. s. M

The passage is clearly confused (and has textual problems other than the lemmata). MLU omit the lemma sign at 18(1), and begin the lemma by repeating uncta uixisse patella from the end of the previous note. R has the correct lemma, but as ever omits the lemma sign. MLU then make up for the missing lemmdsign by placing a sign at 18(2). It should also be noted that the two notes, lS(1) and ( 2 ) are presumably two halves of the same original comment, and no major lemma ought to intervene. 5.47(1) Q VEL AEQUALI S. T. L. uel MLU : § uel R This passage is problematic in several respects. Not only does R have a lemma sign while MLU omit it, but the quotation should be a minor lemma, not a major one-and it is out of place.*’ The next lemma (5.47(3)) is fuller, and includes the initial word omitted in this one: nostra uel aequali s. t. 1. p. t. u.; the lemma sign before this one is omitted in LU. In fact, it seems likely that the two sections of the note have been reversed, and the lemma

** In order to produce the text which we believe the compiler meant to write, we would have had not only to delete the extra lemma sign but to rearrange the text rather more than has been our practice. Hence, we have let it stand as transmitted.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

41

sign omitted by LU in both places, by M in the earlier one (in the current order). Why R has a sign here and almost nowhere else is, at best, obscure. Minor lemmata are wrongly given lemma signs in the following passages (MLU unless otherwise noted): 2.59(2), 2.61(2); 4.6(2); 5.95(4) (ML). At 3.21(8) (ML) and 3.41(2), the minor lemma is not the first word of the sentence (allegoricas in one case, item in the other), but the extra lemma sign is still placed immediately before the first word of Persius, not the first word of the note. Two other passages deserve slightly fuller comment: 3.35(3) cum diru libido m. i. id est cum malignitas eorum et cupiditas praua surrexerit, uel prona uoluntas circa quamlibet rem. (4) feruenti tincta ueneno nunc animi uenenum ait, ideo feruenti. 35(3) 9 cum MU I 35(4)feruenti tincta ueneno Vin : feruenti t. u. BT(c.t.) : cum(§ cum U) dira libido LUR : Q cum d. 1. M

The lemma signs in MU in both sentences are in error, as neither quotation is a major lemma. What is noteworthy is that all four major manuscripts have the wrong minor lemma in 35(4), which MU treat as a major lemma. 5.32(4) umbo Q umbo ML

There is more than one error here, as the next lemma (32(6)) repeats the previous one at 32(2) and also includes the word umbo. That this is meant to be a minor lemma rather than a mistakenly repeated major one is shown by the fact that the minor lemma at 32(5), sparsisse oculos, is part of the major lemma above: in almost no case does a minor lemma include words that are not part of the major lemma governing it. 1.34 (6) <§>ET PLORABILE SIQVID et siquid flebile, quia amarissime cantant. et (om. Row) plorabile (prorabile Rous) siquid TBRous : om. MLURVin The lemma sign is omitted by MLU-but in fact the whole lemma is omitted by all four major manuscripts, and is supplied by the later witnesses to the R branch of the tradition (see next chapter). The correctness of the lemma is supported by the content of the note which follows it and by the fact that it fits into the system of lemmata perfectly. Three other anomalous passages also deserve mention: 2.41(1) POSCIS OPEM NERVIS CORFVSQVE F. S. EST0 AGE SED GRANDES PATINAE TVCCETAQVE CRASSA ANNVERE ID SVPEROS VETVERE I. Q. M. Q negato poscis U

Negato is the first word of the previous lemma (2.39(1)), and U clearly began the new lemma by looking back to the last one. 2.49(1)

IAM CRESCIT AGER intra se cogitationes eius refert.

42

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE iam crescit ager RTBVin : 0 nequiquam (nec quicquam MU) fundo suspiret nummus i. (I. M) i. iam crescit (crescet M) a. MLU

In this case, the lemma sign is correct but the lemma itself is correctly given only in R. What MLU present is the lemma sign, followed by 2.51 (nequiquam fundo suspiret nummus in imo) followed by the correct lemma. It is not at all clear what has happened here, but since 2.51 does not appear as a lemma (one of the twenty verses completely absent from the system of lemmata), it seems likely that a note-perhaps out of orderhas been lost before 2.49(1). 3.8( 1) 0 TVRGESCIT VITREA BILIS

0 turgescit] 0 ocius adsit huc aliquis surgentis turgescit U As at 2.41(1), U has looked back. Ocius adsit huc aliquis is the previous lemma (3.7(3)),

and surgentis the first word of the note following that lemma. When we turn from lemma signs to the text of the lemmata themselves, a similar broad consistency is found, marred by relatively few errors. Again, however, it should be noted that what is said here applied only to MLU: just as R omits the lemma signs, so too it omits a great many words from lemmata, and thus its system (which will be considered in more detail below) is far more incomplete than that of MLU. As far as the incompleteness of the lemma system is concerned, the general statistics were given at the beginning of this section: 85% of the verses in Persius are quoted in their entirety, and only 3% are completely absent. In some cases, it is clear that there has been confusion or corruption in the text: in the commentary on Satire 1, that is clear for the loss of uatum at 1.34 (see the discussion of 1.34(6) above); it is also very likely to be the case with the absence of 1.60 ‘nec linguae quantum sitiat canis Apula,’ several of the words of which are used as minor lemmata in the previous note, and the same is true of 1.86-87 ‘doctas posuisse figuras / laudatur.’ Some omissions fall in groups: thus there are two omissions (one of two lines) in the description of writing implements at 3.10-14 and half a dozen from the description of the protagonist’s final illness at the end of the same satire. The conversation between Avaritia and the protagonist at 5.132-148 is similarly damaged, with the single longest gap in the lemma-text at 5.140-42. In a number of passages, it is also clear that words appear in minor lemmata that are not now to be found in the system of major lemmata, again a suggestion that there is damage in the transmission. Thus 1.1l(10) nolo, 1.60 canis Apula (at 59(4)), 1.86-87 doctas posuisse figuras/laudutur (at 85(7)), 1.121 quis non habet (at 120(6)), 2.51 in imo (at 50(2)), 3.43 quod proxima nesciat uxor (at 39(2)), 3.93 Surrentina (at 90(2), 3.94-95 uideas tamen istuc, quidquid id est (at 94(4)), 3.96 at tu deterius palles, ne sis mihi tutor (at 94(5-6)), 4.8 Quirites (at 6(5)), 4.20 sufla (at 19(4)), 4.27 genioque sinistro (at 25(11)), 5.90 Masuri (at 88(4)), 6.21 ipse sacrum. . . piper (at 19(2)).29 A complete list of missing words: 1.11-12 nolo quid faciam, 1.34 uatum, 1.37 nunc inprimit ossa, 1.41 populi meruisse, I .43 Bnquere, 1.55 uerum mihi dicite de me, 1.60 nec linguae quantum sitiat canis Apula, I .7 1 nec rus, 1.80-81 quaerisne unde haec sartago loquendi / uenerit in linguas, 1.85 fur es, ait Pedio, 1.86-87 doctas *‘)

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

43

On the other side, there are also approximately fifty passages where words appear in two separate major lemmata, introduced by the lemma sign. A few of these have been discussed above (3.58(2), 5.20(4), 5.32(4)) because they involve confusions of lemma signs as well as of lemmata. In many cases, these double lemmata involve the repetition of a few words abbreviated at the end of a long lemma as a new lemma; in others, there is clear evidence of other disturbance in the text; and in others, the repetition between notes under each of the duplicated lemmata makes it clear that the doubling is the result of incomplete harmonizing of the two (at least) sets of notes that formed the basis of the Cornmenturnitself (see below, Chapter 4). By my count a total of 206 words appear twice in major lemmata, of which perhaps 150 were probably repeated in the original Commentum. That is a very small percentage of the text, and does not seriously affect the major conclusion (and the reason for the detail of this chapter): that the Cornmenturn was designed to have a system of lemmata marked by extensiveness and economy which would permit the reader to do without having another text of Persius to hand: that every word of the text was to appear once, and only once, in a major lemma, and that all the notes gathered by the compiler of the Cornmenturn from marginal scholia and other sources were to be subordinated within a hierarchical organization that would make immediately clear to the reader the context in which they were to be read.30 At this point, it is worth remembering that the system described above applies only to three of the four major manuscripts of the Cornmenturn:R contains only two lemma signs (at 3.62(1) and 5.47(1)), neither of which is correctly placed. Even more important is the fact that the lemmata themselves, as given by R, do not conform to the system described above: they are much shorter and they do not come close to supplying a complete text of posuisse figuras / laudatur, 1.111 nil moror, 1.1 11 omnes bene, mirae eritis res, 1.1 13-4 pueri, sacer est locus extra / meiite. discedo, 1.120-121 uidi, uidi ipse, libelle / auriculas asini quis non habet; 2.1 Hunc macrine diem numera meliore lapillo, 2.3 funde merum genio, 2.19-20 an scilicet haeres? / quis potior iudex puerisue quis aptior orbis, 2.37-8 puellae / hunc rapiant, 2.46 da pecus et gregibus fetum, 2.49 intendit, 2.49-50 iam crescit ouile, / iam dabitur, iam, iam, 2.5 1 nequiquam fundo suspiret nummus in imo, 2.58 sitque illis aurea barba; 3.8 nemon, 3.11-12 inque manus chartae nodosaque uenit harundo. / turn querimur crassus calamo quod pendeat umor, 3.14 dilutas querimur geminet quod, 3.18 m l [internal gap in lemma], 3.26 quid metuas, 3.42-3 et intus palleat infelix quod proxima nesciat uxor, 3.55 inuigilat, 3.58 laxumque caput compage soluta, 3.59 dissutis undique malis, 3.90 qui dicit medico, 3.92 de maiore domo, 3.92-3 lagena / lenia loturo sibi Surrentina rogabit, 3.94-5 uideas tamen istuc, quidquid id est, 3.96-7 at tu deterius palles, ne sis mihi tutor. / iam pridem hunc sepeli, 3.100 sed tremor inter uina subit, 3.101-2 dentes crepuere retecti / uncta cadunt laxis tunc pulmentaria labris, 3.108 nil calet hic; 4.8-9 Quirites, / hoc puta non iustum est, illud male, rectius illud, 4.16 desinis, 4.20 suffla, 4.27 hunc ais, hunc dis iratis genioque sinistro, 4.30 ingemit ‘hoc bene sit,’ 4.31 et farratam pueris plaudentibus ollam; 5.89-90 cur mibi non liceat, iussit quodcumque uoluntas, /except0 siquid Masuri rubrica uetabit, 5.109 es modicus uoh, presso lare, dulcis amicis, 5.119 peccas, 5.126-7 cessas nugator? seruitium acre / te nihil impellit, 5.133 ‘non queo.’ ‘surge,’ 5.135 stuppas, 5.135 tus, 5.140-42 iam pueris pellem succinctus et oenophorum aptas. / ocius ad nauem! nihil obstat quin trabe uaste / Aegaeum rapias, 5.143 quo deinde, insane, ruis, quo, 5.146-7 tu mare transilias? tibi torta cannabe fulto /cena sit in transtro, 5.153 hoc quod loquor inde est, 5.155 huncine an hunc sequeris, 5.176-7 ius habet ille sui, palpo quem ducit hiantem / cretata Ambitio [lemma lost in lacuna], 5.180-82 unctaque fenestra / dispositae pinguem nebulam uomuere lucernae/ portantes uiolas, 5.187 incussere deos; 6.21 ipse sacrum inrorans patinae piper, 6.28-9 remque omnem surdaque uota /condidit Ionio, 6.32 largire inopi, 6.48-9 dis igitur genioque ducis centum paria ob res / egregie gestas induco, 6.50 uae, 6.51 dic Clare, 6.52 age, 6.58 haut prompte dicam, 6.62 huc ego, 6.78 rem duplica. 3o It should be noted that in a very few passages MLU themselves disagree about the length of a lemma. Only one of them (1.63(3)) is stemmatically significant, where ML omit the words scit rendere uermrn from the middle of a long lemma.

44

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Persius. I have noted five passages in which the acceptance of R’s shorter lemma would remove a double lemma in MLU (lemmata at 1.104(1), 1.116(1), 5.34(1), 5.45(1), 6.6(1)), but that is very rare: the important distinction between R’s lemmata and those of MLU is that the latter make sense. Even though the extremely long lemmata of MLU often seem grotesque, R too preserves some of them completely, as at 3.111(1) and 4.33(1); that in itself makes it likely that the shorter ones were abridged. The short forms that R supplies, moreover, not only destroy the comprehensiveness of the system in MLU, but they are often nonsense in themselves. There is nothing to be said about lemmata that break off at the end of a verse, since that is itself a system of citation frequently used in ancient grammars and lexica; by my count it occurs at 58 of the 162 places where R’s lemmata are shorter. But some of the other short lemmata in R are clearly nonsense, and often break off in the middle of a phrase. Thus at 1.21(3), R omits ubi intima uersu; 1.30(1) dia poemata narrent, 1.39(1), uiolae, 1.54(1) trita donare lacerna, 2.57(1) mittant, 2.59(1) aera and the whole subsequent verse, 2.68(4) facit aurum and the whole subsequent verse (similarly at 2.71(1) and 3.28(1)); 3.10(1) capellas, 3.41( 1) sibi dicat, 3.52(1) mores, 4.4( 1) pilos-calles, 4.6( 1) fecisse-manus, 4.28(l)figit and many more. In some cases, it should be noted, the portion of the lemma that R omits begins with the same word as the minor lemma immediately following, at 1.85(1) where the lemma Pedius quid crimina rasis librat in antithetis is followed by the gloss ‘rasis’ expolitis; and R omits rasis--antithetis from the major lemma. This occurs at 1.101(6), 1.107(1), 1.129(1); 5.79(2), 5.81(1) and elsewhere. It should, finally, be clear that the system of lemmata as preserved (with some errors and inaccuracies) in MLU is the genuine one created in the Commenturn; and consequently that the version of the lemmata in R is a simplification of the original. That conclusion allows us to return at last to the question that begin this inquiry into the relationship among the manuscripts: whether R or MLU is the more reliable guide to the reconstruction of the Commenturn. And to this question there is one clear answer: that MLU, while not without their share of errors, are for the most part attempting to reproduce what they found in their source, while R (or its immediate ancestor) has made deliberate alterations: the removal of a version of the ‘doublet’; the simplification and shortening of the lemmata; the smoothing of the text by the addition of conjunctions and particles; the rewriting of various notes; the elimination of corrupt phrases. R’s text is a much more readable one, and at times a more comprehensible one than that in MLU; but in certain respects it offers a commentary on Persius that is no longer the Commentum. It is the earliest manuscript, and it preserves a great many valuable readings; but its readings are always and necessarily suspect. 4. The lost beginning That conclusion, finally, brings us back to the starting point of this inquiry: the nature and origin of the ‘doublet’ at 1.11-23. It was observed earlier that while the end of the ‘doublet’ is clear (the incomplete end of a sentence at 1.9(4)), its beginning is not; and it was suggested that in fact the entire opening of the Commenturn was lost and replaced

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

45

with notes that overlap with the genuine commentary, and that that overlapping section was, not quite correctly, deleted by R or its immediate ancestor. That R is prone to making bold changes has been demonstrated above; the system of lemmata provides clear evidence that the opening of the Cornmenturn (from Adn. (1) to 1.23(4)) comes from a different source from the rest of the text. In this respect, much the most important evidence is provided by the incompleteness of the lemmata in the opening. It was pointed out earlier (twice) that, for the body of the Cornmenturn, some 85% of the lines of Persius are completely quoted in the lemmata while only 3% are completely absent. In the opening, the statistics are quite different. Of the 37 lines of Persius covered by the opening (Prologus and 1.1-23), only nine are quoted completely; even if one adds to that 1.1 (of which the second o alone is missing) and 1.19 (where there is apparently a lacuna), that is still only 30%. The lemmata in the opening are also extremely brief only four (all in the Prologus) are a single verse, and fully 21 are a single word. Add to this the fact that in several cases (1.4(3, 5 ) Troiades; 1.6(5) castigare; 1.6(6) trutina; 1.20(2) Titos) minor lemmata are introduced by words not included in the major lemma governing them, and it becomes very clear that the opening of the Comrnenturn as it now stands has been patched together from marginalia. Because there is an overlap between the two sets of notes, from 1.10 to 1.23, it is possible to make some comparisons between the two, and it is clear that at least some of the notes in the opening are drawn from the same source as the Cornmenturn itself. The notes from the opening (unabridged) are in the left-hand column, and the corresponding notes of the Cornmenturn (where they exist) are on the right.

10 Q NVCIBVS RELICTIS ludis puerilibus depositis. 11 Q CVM SAPIMVS PATRVOS eleganter patruos, id est cum ueram seueritatem sapimus. (2) patrui autem seueri sunt circa fratrum filios. (3) sic Cicero obiurgauit Caelium ut ‘quidam patruus censor’ (Cael. 25). ll(4) Q TVNC TVNC IGNOSCITE NOLO TO EZIC dicere uel ridere. 12 Q QVID FACIAM quasi non possit risum tenere. 12 (2) Q SED SVM PETVLANTI SPLENE CACHINNO ordo: tunc tunc cachinno et cetera. (3) cachinnus est cum uoce risus, quem Graeci MC2POrEAC2TAC dicunt. 12 (4) Q PETVLANTI SPLENE quattuor partibus uenter continetur: splene, corde,

9 (4) . . . cum uenero ad grauitatem omissis nucibus quibus pueri ludunt. 1l(5) patruos dicit seueros.

11 (10) nolo autem interposito figura est, id est nolo ridere . . . 12(7) id est non me contineo, lasciuior fio risu. 12(15) cachinnus autem est risus lasciuior cum uoce.

12(9) et hoc secundum physicos dicit, qui

I dicunt homines splene ridere, felle irasci,

46

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

pulmone, felle. (5) ex quibus autem signa sunt: risus de splene, sapere de corde, irasci de felle, iactari de pulmone. (6) petulanti autem luxurioso, magno atque abundanti. 13 Q SCRIBIMVS INCLVSI includentes semet ipsos. (2) et eleganter suam quoque personam exposuit. 13 (3) Q PEDE LIBER prosa.

14 Q GRANDE ALIQVID secundum illorum iudicium qui scribunt dicit. 14 (2) QVO PVLMO ANIMAE PRAELARGVS ANHELET id est tumide et inflate a nimietate spiritus.

15 Q SCILICET HAEC POPVLO imperitis. ( 2 ) naso autem dicenda sunt; deridet enim populum qui stultus est.

15 (3) Q PEXVS compositus. 15 (4) Q RECENT1 aut noua aut recens curata. 16 Q NATALICIA SARDONICE sardonix genus gemmae pretiosae. (2) nutalicia uel quam illi propinqui aut parentes natali die ferunt, uel quia quicquid praeclarum habemus natalibus utimur.

16 (3) Q ALBVS aut pallidus pauore recitandi aut labore scribendi aut, ut ait Cornutus, ueste candida. 17 Q SEDE CELSA orchestram et pulpitum dixit. 17 (2) Q LIQVIDO CVM PLASMATE plasmate modulamine ac uocis sono. (3) liquido autem puro, molli ac delicato. (4) plasma est potio qua utuntur et bibunt musici et qui uocis affectant habere dulcedinem; solet enim uocem bene sonantem facere.

iecore amare, et corde sapere. (10) splene petulanti luxurioso pectore; uehementius enim splenetici ridere consueuerunt.

13(9) pede liber id orationem componens.

est

prosaicam

14(5) QVOD PVLMO ANIMAE P. A. id est sermone non humili, immo poetic0 spiritu, quem proferentes in recitatione paene rumpimur dum uolumus hoc quod scribimus inflatius pronuntiare. 15(5) Q SCILICET HAEC POPVLO quia talia scribis ut populi iudicio digna sint, qui numquam recte iudicat neque sapientius. 15(6) pexus pectinatus uel tonsus 15(9) toga recenti noua uel nitida ualde 16(10) sardonice gemmas pretiosas in anulis quibus in natalibus suis et ionsecratis diebus utuntur. (9) alia ambiguitas in nutalicia, utrum eam natali suo munere acceperit, an tantum eo lie gerere solebat, quia quidam habent mulos quos die tantum natali gerunt. 16(6) albus aut festiua ueste indutus aut :ogitandi pallore confectus. 16(4) . . .id est pulpit0 uel in rostris *ecitans. 111) uel plasma lenis cantilena, ueluti leficientis. 17(9) plasma dicitur medicamentum quo eecreantur fauces clamore sauciatae.

2. MAJOR MANUSCRIPTS OF THE COMMENTVM

18 COLLVERIS hoc est tenue ac leue cantabis. 17 (5) Q GVTTVR MOBILE quasi caput in pronuntiatione agitans. (6) melius: in uoce et in cantando mobile. (7) exquisite autem collueris, id est laueris et purum lubricumque reddideris. 18 (2) Q PATRANTI FRACTVS OCELLO patratio est extrema ueneris fundere et perficere, unde et pater dicitur. (3) patrunti ergo libidinoso, euerso, deficienti. 19 $ HIC NEQVE MORE PROBO . . . 19 (2) Q VOCE SERENA turbulenta et non pura. 20 $ TREPIDARE obstrepere. (2) Titos autem equites Romanos a Tito Tatio dictos rege Sabinorum socero Romuli. (3) aut Sabinos scholasticos qui studendi causam Romam ueniebant. (4) aut columbos agrestes ac per hoc rusticos dicit auditores.

47

17(12) guttur m. c. exquisito intellectu, tamquam eo laueris et purum reddideris guttur fletu femineo agitatum.

(5) patratio est rei ueneriae consummatio, unde et patres dicti, eo quod patratione peracta filios procreent, unde et Iuuenalis: ‘oculosque in fine trementes’ (7, 241).

20(6) ingentes autem Titos dicit aut generaliter Romanos senatores a Tatio Tito Sabinorum rege aut certe a membri uirilis longitudine dicti Titi. (13) sinecdochicos autem Titos scholasticos, quod sint uagi neque uno magistro contenti et in libidinem proni sicuti aues quibus comparantur. 20 (5) $ LVMBVM INTRANT quia sic in (16) dicitur enim libido lumbis immorari. laudatione lumbum solent mouere, ut qui (17) uel certe cum carmen effeminate libidinantur indictoris sonitu. (6) aut quia fuerit recitatum, repraesentare ipsos concubitus solet. ipsa uerba ipsorum libidinem continent. 21 Q TREMVLO uibranti et infracta 21(3) tremulo uersu id est fragili uoce cantat. compositione facto. 21 (2) $ SCALPVNTVR punguntur, titillantur. 22 Q TVN VETVLE mire conuersus est ad ipsum recitantem. (2) et bene uetule: supra enim ‘ad canitiem’ dixit. 22 (3) Q ESCAS delectationes. (4) et est 22(11) escas autem dicit fauorem uel duplex sensus: aut alienas auriculas pascis delectationem, id est aestimationem tibi aut alienis auriculis pasceris. concilias ex fauore imperitorum. 23 <$> AVRICVLIS QVIBVS id est 23(6) 5 AVRICVLIS QVIBVS id est imperitis uel spurcissimis. imperitis. (2) et est stomachosa admiratio. 23 (3) Q CVTE PERDITVS macie 23(7) Q ET DICAS CVTE PERDITVS studiorum consumptus, aut putris et OHE id est uigiliis et sollicitudine ad Acheronticus senex. tenuissimam cutem perductus. (8) aut certe cute perditus senectute pallidus, uel

48

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE manifeste cute perditus, ut uitium quod intrinsecus habes etiam in cute possis habere.

23 (4) 3 OHE interiectio cum admiratio percontantis. (5) et est responsio contra Persium ab eo quem uituperauit. The similarities between the two versions are very clear. They are rarely identical, but over and over they offer the same content in slightly different words.3’ Each version (and much of the full Cornmenturn has been omitted) has material not in the other, and each is, at times, fuller than the other. In general, however, the version of the opening commentary is briefer, and confirms that its origin is to be found in interlinear and marginal glosses. One further feature of the opening notes is striking, and occurs at 16(3):

16 (3) 8 ALBVS aut pallidus pauore recitandi aut labore scribendi aut, ut ait Cornutus, ueste candida. Veste candida is not the note found in the main body of the Commenturn, and yet it is ascribed to Cornutus. That name appears frequently throughout the medieval exegetical traditions on both Persius and Juvenal, but at least it suggests that the source of the opening notes was not one of the manuscripts from which the Cornmenturn was compiled, although it clearly had a great deal in common with the sources of the Commenturn. And, finally, one striking note in the opening commentary deserves comment. In glossing cute perditus, both versions offer old age as a source for disease, but only the opening commentary glosses uetule as putris et Acheronticus senex. Acheronticus is a rare word; it occurs in various medieval texts meaning ‘pertaining to the underworld’, but in classical Latin it seems to occur in only one author, Plautus, and twice it means ‘on the edge of death’ as in Mercator 290-91, ‘Acherunticus, senex uetus, decre~itus’.~’ Peculiarly Plautine vocabulary is not common in late antiquity; there is a slight suggestion in the scholiast’s diction that his source goes back rather further, to the second century. It is worth remembering both that Acro (early third century) is one of the few ancient scholarly sources cited by name in the Commenturn and that ancient learning survived to the Carolingian period in a larger number of channels than we are now in a position to recognize. As the opening commentary shows, the Cornmenturn is not the only representative of ancient scholarship on Persius. In later chapters, we will consider some of the other strands of the tradition.

” The anonymous reader draws my attention to the appearance of elegarifer (twice) and mire in the ‘doublet’; they occur elsewhere in the Commenturn at 2.9(9) (eleganfer)and 1.73(3) and 5.9(5) (mire). Neither occurrence of mire is the commentator’s direct evaluation of Persius’ language, as it is here. See also Miles 627 and, with a different meaning, Bacch. 198.

’’

3. THE LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENWM The main focus of this study is on the origins of the Cornrnenturn and the relationships among its major witnesses, but it is worth looking briefly at the later tradition of the text for three reasons. In the fiist place, the later evidence provides some control on the text provided in the major witnesses, since (as will become clear) the later manuscripts are in at least some respects independent of the four early manuscripts that survive. In the second place, the ways in which the later manuscripts alter and adapt the text of the Cornrnenturn provides a useful analogy to the process which led to the creation of the Comrnenturn itself. And, finally, some exploration of the origins of the early printed editions will explain some of the differences between our edition and previous ones. These goals are not identical-Vinet’s editio princeps needs to be considered both as a witness to the text and as a work of editorial construction-and the evidence presented here is not always relevant to all three; nevertheless, I hope that a clear pattern will emerge from this discussion. Although three of the four major witnesses (MLU) for the Comrnenturn are closely related and are relatively close to the original compilation, the other side of the tradition, represented by R, is far more widely known. That is true not merely because it is, ultimately, the principal source of two of the three printed editions (Vinet 1601 and Jahn), but because R’s text was the source of at least two later continuous versions of the Cornrnenturn, while MLU became the dominant source not for the continuous text of the Cornrnenturn, but for marginal scholia based on the Cornmenturn.I have not surveyed all the manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn tradition; as representatives of the continuous commentary (to be discussed in this chapter), I will consider here one relatively early version, one renaissance manuscript, and the two printed editions of 1563 and 1601.’ In our edition, we have cited these sources very sparingly: they rarely provide a true reading that is not found in MLUR, although they help to distinguish idiosyncratic readings of R from those that had a broader currency in that branch of the tradition. The sources to be considered here are:

T = Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek CLM 19489 from Tegernsee, written in the twelfth century.2 B = Bern, Burgerbibliothek 223, written in the fifteenth ~ e n t u r y . ~

’ For two other later witnesses, see below, pp. 65-66.

’ See also Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 298; Munk Olsen 202, Persius no. 52, describes it as south German from the second half of the twelfth century. CTC 220 dates T to s. xi-xii, but mistakenly lists it under fifteenth century manuscripts and gives the wrong foliation; the Commenrum is found on pp. 88-1 18, not foll. 65-68. For description, cf. CTC 219.

50

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Vin = Lucii Annaei Cornuti grammatici antiquissimi Commentum in Auli Persii Flacci satyras, nunc primum formis editum. Eliae Vineti Santonis praefatio in id commentarium, et annotationes in easdem Persii satyras. Pictavis apud Enguilbertum Mamefium, 1563.4 Rous = addenda from vetus codex Ioannis Roussati in the reprint of Vinet's edition (with other commentaries) published by Claude Morel in Paris in 1601.5 I. The character of T and B

T provides a text distorted by omissions, rewritings, and a great many superficial errors; it is also an extremely ugly manuscript, with uneven lines (and no ruling in its second half) and heavy abbreviation. It does, however, bear the name of Cornutus in the incipit and explicit (in the original hand embedded in the text at the end of the commentary, added in the upper margin at the opening possibly by another hand), and despite its flaws it is recognizably a manuscript of the same text as MLUR; its readings place it specifically in the tradition of R. B, on the other hand, is an elegant and well-written manuscript; but despite its appearance it too has many omissions and many errors, although it is closer in content to the earlier tradition than is T. It also bears the name of Cornutus and it is also demonstrably in the tradition of R. B is also important in another way, in that it was almost certainly one of the three manuscripts used by Elie Vinet in the preparation of the editio princeps; it thus provides some control not only (with T) for the readings of R, but also for the text of Vin. The individual errors of any one manuscript are not important, except as an indication of the carelessness of the scribe, or of the scribe of the manuscript from which it was copied. In the case of T, it is clear that at least one of these scribes was fairly careless, or ignorant, or both; that is not so clearly the case with B, although its individual errors are not few. To illustrate the nature of the text offerend by TB, I take illustrations from the commentary on the first ten lines of Satire 3. In this passage (83 lines of text in our edition), there are 93 places (ranging in length from a word to a sentence) other than the lemmata (almost invariably shortened in TBVin) where one or more of the later witnesses-and for the sake of the later discussion, I include readings found only in Vin-disagrees with the text of all the major witnesses. Of these 93 readings, two are correct: at 3.1(7) BVin give uni, omitted by MLURT, and at 3.10(5) TBVin give arnbigua where MLUR have ambiguitas. The latter, it should be noted, is a complicated and corrupt passage in MLUR. Other than that, we have reported isolated readings in the later tradition in only four passages in which one or two of TBVin agree in a variant with one of the earlier witnesses, and the reading of the others is reported only for the sake of completeness. Of the 91 errors in this passage in the later tradition, 34 are found only in T, 14 only in B, 11 only in Vin; TB agree in error 5 times, TVin once, BVin 7 times, and 8 are shared by all three. There are also 11 instances in which the later witnesses offer different errors in the same passage. For a full description and earlier bibliography, cf. CTC 234-36.

' Cf. CTC 212,236; a fuller account of Roussat and his manuscript below, pp. 59-63

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE C O M M E N W M

51

The large number of errors in T is indicative of its quality, and some of its mistakes produce nonsense, something relatively rare in BVin. Thus T gives pulpat for culpat at 1(5), expropriat for exprobrat at 1(7), bico for bicolor membrana at lO(5); B gives sciticorum for scilicet at 2(1); Vin dux for durum at 3(1). Other tendencies are more indicative of intention than of carelessness. T, for instance, is prone to omit phrases, clauses, and whole notes, and BVin do so as well, if less frequently. Thus at 1(4), TB omit ‘sed hoc inter sapientem stultumque interest quod se uitiis sapiens celerius euoluit ibidem merso atque inuoluto stu1to’-the entire second half of the sentence. At 5(1), T omits the introductory phrase ‘unum ex comitibus inducit castigantem tam diu dormientis desidiam et dicentem,’ leaving only the paraphrase of Persius’ words which follows. Similar omissions of phrases appear, for instance, at 1(12), where BVin omitfigurate . . . intrat; at 7(3), where T omits et clamantis. . . respondeant; at 8(1), where T omits quod . . . uultu; and at 8(2), where Vin omits ac . . . paret. A frequent type of alteration is the omission of quotations: at S(3) and 6(1) TBVin all omit the citations of Virgil, and such omissions are frequent throughout these manuscripts. Simplification is also a common feature, again particularly in T. At 1(2), ‘in hac satira in desidiam et intemperantiam hominum inuehitur’ is reduced to ‘in hac satira inuehitur in desidiam hominum’ in T. So too, at 9(2) the explanation of Arcadian asses is reduced from ‘quia primum in Archadia nati sunt’ to ‘qui ibi habundant.’ At 3(2-4), our text of the Cornmenturnreads: (2) sensus autem iste est: tam diu hestemo sopore deprimimur ut possint qui nimia ebrietate grauati sunt tam longo somno crapulam Falemi uini discutere. (3) Falerna regio dicitur Campaniae, ubi uina optima nascuntur. (4) uel utrum tantum dormimus quanto tempore qui Falernum bibunt concoquere possint, id est digerere [unde et crudi indigesti], an quanto ipsi concoquamus Falemum, an quod sufficiat Falerno tempus in nobis despumare, id est deferuescere. T simplifies this to: sensus est: tu tam diu hestemo sopore deprimeris ut tam longo somno sobri fiant qui crapula Falemi grauati erant. uel sic tu tantum dormis ut tempore illi bibentes Falernum possint digerere uel despumare id est deferuescere. Some of this is omission (of 3(3)), some of it is abridgment. Other forms of alteration also appear: synonyms are substituted, as at 6(1) where T gives petunt for inquirunt or requirunt of the other manuscripts; sometimes vocabulary is modernized, as in the substitution of incausto for atramento at lO(6). In the process of simplification, T also seems fairly often to change the person of verbs (e.g. at 3(2) deprimimur to deprimeris) or to change finite verbs to participles (e.g. at 3(4) qui Falernum bibunt to bibentes Falernum). The kinds of alteration exemplified by this collation could be replicated for any similar passage of the Commentum. Any copy of any text, literary or otherwise, may be marred by scribal error; but what these witnesses do-and it can be found, to a greater or lesser degree, in all manuscripts of commentary-is to abridge, revise, and simplify. In

52

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

general, this does not remove intelligibility from the commentary; it does, however, significantly change it. And the fact that some of the changes are found in all three witnesses shows that such changes are habitual and recurring: some are inherited, while some are peculiar to a single manuscript. What is striking is the other aspect of this phenomenon: that MLU are in fact so similar to one another. The divergences between R and MLU are more typical of the relationships among manuscripts of commentary, particularly scholia, than are the similarities among MLU: but it is just that similarity which makes editing the Commentum possible. 2. Stemmatic questions TBVin not only simplify and omit; they also add. But before looking at the expansions of the Commentum in the later tradition, it is worth considering the stemmatic position of these witnesses. Because they all abridge the Commentum and alter the wording of many notes, full collation is neither desirable nor necessary. In order to demonstrate the relationship of TBVin to MLUR, however, I list those passages in the commentary on Satire 2 where a) TBVin all provide essentially the same text as MLUR and b) MLU disagree with R, and TBVin agree in siding with one side of the tradition or the other. a) TBVin agree with R against MLU (the reading printed in our edition is given first): l(2) nam RTBVin : quod MLU 3(3) uotum MLU : uotum deorum RTBVin 3(4) seductis id est RTBVin : om. MLU 5(4) aut acerra RTBVin : om. MLU 8(3) dubitatione MLU : dubitatione et ideo RTBVin 9(1) ea MLU : at ea RTBVin 9(2) agit MLU : agunt RTBVin 9(5) expirare RTBVin : ex(s)pirasse MLU 9(8) uapor RTBVin : uaporabilis MU : uaporalis L 9(9) eleganter MLU : ideo eleganter RTBVin 9(9) ebulliat RTBVin : ebullit MLU 9(9) coquuntur RTBVin : coquantur MLU 9(9) terminantur RTBVin : terminentur MLU 12(1) intra MLU : inter RTBVin 12(1) est RTBVin : est effecerat MLU 14(2) nerius RTBVin : nerio MLU 21 (1) postulatus MLU : se postulantem RTBVin 21(1) et MLU : at staius RTBVin 2 1(1) inuocabit RTBVin : inuocauit MLU 2 1(1) perfidia MLU : perfidia tua RTBVin 24( 1) iouem RTBVin : ioue MLU 26(6) euitandum RTBVin : euitanda MLU 31(5) obscenitatis indicium (inditi U) faciunt MLU : et hoc obscenitatis indicium est RTBVin 32(4) liberantibus (lib. T) RTBVin : liberatoriis MLU 32(5) consumant RTBVin : consumunt MLU

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENWM

53

36(8) macram RTBVin : uehementem MLU 37( 1) az RTBVin : om. MLU 39(3) ioui adiungens RTBVin : ioui id est (idem LU) si uoluerit nutrix mea a te talia (a te talia] ante te M) flagitare adiungens MLU 39(4) ueto MLU : et ueto (uetat T : uet B) RTBVin 41(1) neruis corpusque f. s. MLU : neruis ut fortis sit corpusque f. s. ut sit robustus in senectute RTBVin 41(4) dicitur MLU : dicitur car0 RTBVin 41(9) id est RTBVin : om. MLU 41(10) ponuntur MLU : ponuntur iouemque morantur id est a beneficio retinent RTBVin 48(6) hunc MLU : haec saepe RTBVin 48(6) deus non MLU : deum RTBVin 48(6) perseuerat MLU : inquit perseuerat RTBVin 48(7) exhaurit RTBVin : exhauriat MLU 49(1) iam crescit ager RTBVin : 0 nequiquam fundo suspiret nummus i. (1. M) i. iam crescit (crescet M) a. MLU 50( 1) quae erat dum MLU : om. RTBVin 50( 1) non MLU : in eo RTBVin 52(2) laetum RTBVin : letum ut auro putas numina delectari quod tu diligis et his uultus deauratos existimes MLU 52(4) lamina RTBVin : lamina incussaque pingui producta MLU 54(2) est RTBVin : sit MLU 54(3) laetari MLU : laetaris RTBVin 54(3) natum MLU : innatum RTBVin 54(4) festinet MLU : festines RTBVin 55( 1) hinc--existimes RTBVin : om. MLU 57(2) est MLU : om. RTBVin 58( 1) praecipui sunto] praecipui sunt MLU : om. RTBVin 58(1) sensus MLU : sensus ergo (ergo om. T) est RTBVin 61(1) exoleuisse MLU : om. RTBVin 61(1) de MLU : om. RTBVin 63(2) nostrum corpus MLU : corpus nostrum RTBVin 66(3) est MLU : om. RTBVin 68(1) ab RTBVin : om. MLU 68( 1) concupiscentiis quibus MLU : qui concupiscentiis RTBVin 68( 1) utuntur MLU : non utuntur RTBVin 68(3) habet MLU : cum habet RTBVin 7 1(1) locupletibus MLU : locupletibus tantum sed RTBVin 71(3) messalinum (massilinum B) RTBVin : messalinus MLU 71(3) dicit qui RTBVin : qui MLU 73( 1) cogitationem RTBVin : cogitationem secretam MLU 73( 1 ) ius2RTBVin : pro MLU 75( 1) hic MLU : ce in hoc loco adiectio sillabica est, nam in cedo uerbo producitur. hic RTBVin Of the 65 readings given here, the text given by MLU is preferable in slightly more than half.

54

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) TBVin agree with MLU against R: 5 ( 5 ) orant MLUTBVin : orent R 6(3) contingit MLUTBVin : contigit R 12(1) cuius* MLUTBVin : cui RRous 32( 1) incantare MLUTBVin : in caritate R 38(1) terra MLUTBVin : contra R 41(8) iterum MLUTBVin : igitur R (s. 1. uel iterum) 55(2) ouo MLUTBVin : auro R 56( 1) 1. RRous : om. MLUTBVin 58(2) perducis R : producis MLUTBVin 66(4) massam MLUTBVin : massa R There are only 10 such instances, and in only two are MLUTBVin in error. Both are relatively easy mistakes: the omission of the numeral 1 (fifty) at 56(1), and the simple confusion of abbreviations forper and pro at 58(2). There can thus be little question of the affiliations of TBVin as a group (Vin alone agrees with MLU against RTB in a significant number of passages; see below). Equally clearly, TB are not descended from R, as they agree with MLU when R is in error eight times in the list given above; nor is B descended from T, given the large number of omissions and alterations in T which are not found in B. Vin is, as noted above, descended from B, but only partially. 3. Additions in the later tradition

As the tradition of the Cornmenturn developed, it is clear that a great deal was pruned away; at the same time, the amount that was added was very little, and largely drawn from very predictable sources. All manuscripts add occasional short glosses, which are only noticeable because they are, in TBVin, inserted into the continuous text of the commentary and can be identified through comparison with MLUR; but they are, on the whole, not worth reporting. Aside from that, there are only twelve notes of any significance added by T in the entire Cornmenturn, and all of them are also found in B and Vin, sometimes in a slightly different form. BVin, together, add six more notes; and Vin alone adds another eight. A11 told, 26 notes in over 150 pages does not show a great deal of innovation. Of the notes added in TBVin, eight are derived from Isidore (at 1.106, 1.127, 2.63, 3.29, 3.50, 5.14, 5.104, and 5.140), as are two of the six in BVin (at 1.52 and 1.54'); of the four others in TBVin, three are simple glosses of a few words (at 3.13, 3.22, and 5.58), and the fourth (at Prol. 8) is simply the inclusion in the text of a note found in the margin of R. Of the four others in BVin, three are short glosses and the fourth is a small expansion of a note in the Cornmenturn itself (at 1.50, 1.56,2.57, and 4.14). Only in Vinet's edition is there a wider range of sources, as one expects from an edition which is

'

At 1.54, it is worth noting that BVin agree with the reading quo . . . uelubuntur in kid. 19.24.13 found in Wolfenbuttel 464 (Lindsay's K), an eighth-century manuscript of Lindsay's Italian family; all other witnesses read quod . . . ufebuntur. I have found no other distinctive readings of K followed by the commentators on Persius.

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENTVM

55

itself (see below) based on three manuscripts of diverse provenance: one is a quotation from Juvenal, found in none of the other witnesses I have examined (at 3.98); six are related to notes found in marginal scholia, one of them, in turn, based on Servius (at 1.34, 1.61, 1.112 bis, 3.60, and 5.115); and the last is the addition of a short phrase to a note found in the Commentum (at 1.45)’ One or two examples will suffice to demonstrate the process of abridgment and accretion as it is shown by the later tradition. At Prol. 8(1), the Commentum reads: ‘hoc dicit quod non omnes natura sua sunt poetae, sed uentris et egestatis necessitate coguntur.’ Here R has added in the margin ‘durn se studendo fame et uigiliis cruciant; alioquin omnes essent sine labore poetae,’ and this marginal note then appears (lacking fume et) in TBVin, in the form in which it is still to be found in Jahn’s edition.* The movement from gloss or margin to text is a natural one: a reader adds something that seems useful, and it is taken up by the next scribe using the manuscript. A brief example of the changing shape of notes in the later tradition appears at 3.29, explaining the word trabeute. Here the clearest form of the note, as usual, is that given by Vin : Trabea erat togae species ex purpura et cocco qua operti nobiles Romanorum initio praecedebant. trabea autem dicta quod in maion gloria hominem transbearet. hoc est ultra et in posterum ampliori dignitate honoris beatum faceret. The note is based on Isidore 19.24.8, and is found with only minor corruptions in B as well: tocto for cocco, procedebant for praecedebant, and hoc for hoc est. T’s version is shorter and far more corrupt: Trabea uestis qua operti Romanorum initio praecedebant; dicta quod in maiori gloria hominem transbearet. This is, clearly, nonsense: the omission of nobiles alone makes the sentence impossible to understand. Much of the rest is simplification: the toga has become simply a uestis, and the last sentence has been omitted. But T does not share B’s error procedebant. Elsewhere, TB agree in error against Vin (hostiis for hostibus at 5.14), but in general it is clear-as the argument above has shown-that T presents a corrupt and abridged form of the Commentum, related to the source of B but not itself that source. A good deal has already been said about Vinet’s edition, but before turning to it mention should be made of two manuscripts containing continuous commentary on Persius, and clearly related to the Commentum, of which nothing more will be said here. One is Vatican Reginensis 1401 of the twelfth century; from my examination of it in microfilm, it is comparable to T but with rather more error^.^ The other is Bern,

’

I have included in Appendix 3 the more substantial of these notes, but have omitted the glosses and in some cases the short and corrupt versions found in T of notes better preserved in BVin. Similarly, I have not included some brief notes that are of interest only for the history of the text, as when at 1.61 Vin has ‘ _. , nobili loco nati quorum uita ex debet esse’ where KQ rightly give ‘quorum uita exemplum debeat esse posteris suis.’ On this passage, see above, p. 29. Cf. CTC218.

’

56

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Burgerbibliothek 265, a manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century which is rather more important. It contains on foll. 59'-67" an untitled commentary on Persius; it was published in some detail by Kurz.'' Although in its opening pages it contains a number of the notes characteristic of the B Tradition (on the Gorgons and the parrot), it is in fact wrongly classified as such by CTC the commentary is essentially an abridged version of the Commenturn with a few supplementary notes-and it should be observed, that the notes characteristic of the B Tradition are found out of order, as a group, after the notes on the Prologue, suggesting that they were interpolated from another source. According to Clausen, the first half of the commentary is extremely corrupt, but improves after 3.44; after this point, from my own inspection, there are no notes that do not derive from the Commentum. But while this manuscript offers occasional good readings, it is basically a text of the MLU branch of the tradition-unusual among continuous texts of the Commenturn, and suggesting derivation from a marginal source-and it is as close to LU as it is to M. It does not appear to have any particularly good readings of its own." Hence we have not used it in our edition, and I will not discuss it further here.

4. The early printed editions The first edition of the Carolingian Cornrnentum was edited by Elie Vinet and printed in Poitiers by E. de Marnef in 1563.12 Vinet himself was a teacher and scholar of considerable attainments: professor, then rector (from 1558) of the Collbge de Guyenne in Bordeaux, a scholar of both literature and mathematics and a teacher of Montaigne, he was invited by the King of Portugal to help create the University of Coi'mbra in 1547.13 After his return, he remained in Bordeaux and (his place of birth) Barbezieux until his death in 1587. Vinet is both detailed and confusing about the sources of his edition of the Cornrnentum. In his preface, he claims to have made use of three corrupt manuscripts: "nostris scio nihil inueniri posse corruptius." One of these he and Guilielmus Martinus Voltanus, an official of Bordeauxi4 found in a library in Dax (Aquae Augustae) in 1545; the second belonged to Franciscus Berna of Saintonge, Vinet's own home province; the l o E. Kurz, Die Per.sius-Scholien nach den Bemer Handschrifren (Burgdorf 1875-89). I have used this text, together with notes made by Clausen in 1952 and my own inspection of photographs of the manuscript. See also Munk Olsen 190, Persius no. 6. " Possible exceptions, which may be conjectures, are et eorum at 3.53( I ) and in Curibu.7 possidentem unde at 4.25(4-5). The Venetian edition of 'Cornutus' of 1499 presents a bad text of one of the late versions o f the Commenturn, generally identified as part of what the Catalogus defines as 'Tradition D : see CTC 233; Claudia Wiener, 'Auf der Suche nach Cornutus. Die mittelalterliche Persius-Kommentierung und Elie Vinets Arbeit an der Edition des Commenturn Comuti (1563)'. in Mentis Ainore Ligati (Festgabe fur Reinlaard Diichting) ed. B. Korkel, T. Licht, J. Wiendlocha (Heidelberg 2001) 572-73. For bibliographic details on Vinet's edition, see also M. H. Morgan, Bibliography ofPersius (Cambridge, MA 1909) 175. A brief sketch of Vinet's life, with bibliography, at CTC 295-96; L. Desgraves, Elie Vinet, Izumaniste de Bordeaun, 1509-1587: vie, bibliographie, correspondance (Geneva 1977) is, more recent and fuller. A collection of antiquarian materials about and by Vinet in Gaston Chevrou, ed., A lu M6moire du Saintongeais Elie Vinet, Principal du Collkge de Guyenne, 1509-1587 (Barbezieux 1910). l 4 Guillaume Martin, dit de la Voulte. A lawyer, he was procureur of the city of Bordeaux from 1547 to 1563, the year of his death, I am grateful to Nathalie Guilhem of the Archives of the city of Bordeaux for this information.

''

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENTVM

57

third belonged to the humanist Jean Amariton from the A ~ v e r g n e . Given ’~ the fact that Vinet claims to use three manuscripts, his next comment is disconcerting at best: Quae magis varia in conferendo deprehendimus, quam diuersa loca sunt, vnde fuerant conquisita. In iis ergo libris tale fuit, quale his vides Annaei Cornuti commentarium. Nihil in describendo mutaui, nisi siquae uoculae corruptae videbantur. Nihil detraxi, quod aliquando sum expertus, quam periculosum sit, ea statim contra vetusti codicis fidem auctoritatemque delere aut mutare, quae in alienis scriptis non probes.

On the one hand, Vinet makes use of three manuscripts; on the other he has changed nothing, except to emend a few corrupt words. The manuscripts are all corrupt, and yet he has changed almost nothing. It goes without saying that nowhere in his edition does Vinet give a hint that he is citing one manuscript rather than another, and we have no idea from him, at least, how he used his three witnesses. We do, however, have a little more evidence about this than he gives us. While little is known about Guillaume Martin and nothing about the manuscript found at Dax in 1545, something is known about the other two men, and about one of the manuscripts that Vinet used. In the first place, Jean Amariton, a student of Ramus and hired by him to teach at Presles, published a commentary on Horace, Epistles I in 1553; soon after, he moved to Toulouse to study with Cujas before moving to Paris. A loyalist during the siege of Paris, he was imprisoned by the League in 1589 and died the next year. Apparently all his papers were lost or destroyed.“ Franciscus Berna of Saintonge and his manuscript are more promising. In a letter to Pierre Daniel of 5 February 1569-some six years after the publication of the edition of the Commentum-Vinet referred to the manuscript that his friend Berna had lent him, and described it as containing a commentary on Juvenal that also contained notes by a Cornutus. Jahn, finding such notes in B (Bern 223), drew the inference that Bern 223 was the manuscript of Franciscus Berna.I7 That is probably true, and it is even possible that Daniel was the vehicle for Berna’s manuscript ending up in Berne. What is certainly true is that B and Vinet share a great many readings, and that the identification of B with Berna’s manuscript is far the most economical explanation. The paragraph is quoted by CTC 234-35,by Wiener ‘Auf der Suche nach Cornutus’ 575 (German translation, elsewhere. Information from the article by P.-F. Fournier in Dictionnuire de hiofiru~hic,frcl,z(‘LliseI1 (1936)426-27;see also Wiener, ‘Auf der Suche nach Cornutus’ 577-78. l 7 For the letter to Daniel (MS Bern 141,no. 141), see Desgraves, Ellie Virzet I3 1-32;the relevant portion is also printed by 0. Jahn, ed., Auli Per.sii Flucci Sutirurum Libcr cum .scholiis arztiquis (Leipzig 1843; reprint Hildesheim 1967) cxvii-cxviii. Jahn’s argument on the subject consists of one footnote on Vinet’s phrase ‘quum Bernae suus liber mihi reddendus foret’: ‘Idem sine dubio, de quo mod0 dixi’ (cxvii, n. 3 ) referring to his discussion of Bern 223 on the previous page. The case i s not quite so strong as modern scholars think, and the sentence of Jahn which is generally referred to seems to be misread. When he says ‘Bernae igitur codicem hunc , , . accuratius tractavi’ (cxvi), he means ‘when I studied this manuscript in Beme’ not ‘when 1 studied Berna’s manuscript.’ In his discussion of Vinet’s edition (clxvii-viii), Jahn makes no comment on the identity of the manuscripts used by Vinet. Jab? is also followed in the publication of Vinet’s letter by Reinhold Dezeimeris and Paul Courteault, ‘Lettres d’Elie Vinet’ in Chevrou, ed., A la Mkinoire . . . IS4 n.9. See also H. Hagen, Der Jurist und Plzilolog Peter Daniel uus Orleans (Bern 1873)25-26. Is

11.19), and

’’

58

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

B and Vin are not in complete agreement, however, and the way in which Vinet combined his three manuscripts must remain somewhat unclear. One important feature was mentioned above: that all the additional notes in B are also found in Vin, which seems to suggest that B provided the base text which Vinet then modified using his other two manuscripts. Vinet also added to B: in the opening of the commentary on Satire 2, for instance, B omitted quotations or whole sentences which Vin has, at 1(5), 2(1), and 5(7); in the same section, there are omissions in both B and Vin that are supplied from Roussat's manuscript in the 1601 edition, at 1(3), 2(2), and 6(4). Vin has some very idiosyncratic readings of its own, which may come from one of the non-B manuscripts, or may be typographical errors: indicat for iudicat at 2.1(1), cholera for calore (RB : colore ML) at 2.13(1), furnus for funus at 2.21(4). One or more of the group TBVin preserve what is probably a correct reading against MLUR in a number of passages:" 1.89(2) qui Vin : quia qui MLURB 2.1(7) effectum BVinK : affectum MLUR 2.26(2) impetratione Vin : imperatione LUR : inparatione MB 2.48(6) tamen BVin : tantum MLUR 3.1(7) uni BVin : om. MLUR 3.10(5) ambigua TBVin : ambiguitas MLUR 3.19(2) causaris TBVin : causabaris MLUR 3.21(7) actiue Vin : acriter MLURTB 3.49(1) caniculaZTBVin : caniculam MLUR 3.56(1) est TVin : et MLUR : est et B 3.80(1) obstipo Vin : obstupefacto MLURB 4.1 3(2) theta Vin : thetam MLUR 4.20(1) dinomaches BVin : dinomachis MLURT 5.19(2) pullatas Vin : pullas MLURTBKP 5.50(3) quid KVin : quod MLURTBP 5.58(4) morbus TBVin : om. MLUR 5.70(1) consequitur Vin : sequitur MLUR 5.95(2) alto' TBKPVin : altum MLUR 5.182(2) ostendens Vin : ostendit MLUR 6.32(1) ut TBVin : et MLUR It is apparent here that some of the correct readings in Vin are in Vin alone: some of them

are in the whole TBVin tradition: a few are in BVin. In a few places, I have cited the reading of manuscripts in the 'B' tradition (on which see below, Chapter 5), to show that there are errors limited to MLUR and errors that pervade the whole tradition. All told, however, the number of true readings preserved in the later part of the tradition of the Cornrnenturn itself is not large, and most of the errors shared by MLUR are quite small. One final point needs to be considered. Since Vin represents an amalgam of B (which is closely related to R) with two other, unidentified manuscripts, it is worth looking not just for passages where Vin disagrees with B, but for passages in which Vin agrees with MLU. In the commentary on Satire 2, there are perhaps a dozen such passages, in very

"This list is drawn largely from that at pp. 14-15 above, with fuller evidence here for the readings of TBVin

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENTVM

59

few of which there is absolute certainty as to which reading is ‘correct.’ They are as follows; in each case the reading we have printed is given first: 5(3) ut R : om. MLUVin 17(1) ne RB : nec T : non MLUVin 18(1) staio om. MLUVin 26( 1) quia2 MLUVin : quod RTB 35(2) recte MLUVin : om. RT 36(1) fuit RTB : om. M L W i n 36(6) nomine cognomen MLUVin : cognomine nomen RTB 36(8) uoto supplici MLUVin : supplice (-ci T) uoto RTB 37( 1) et MLUVin : uel RTB 46( 1) respondeat MLUVin : respondet RTB 48(2) ait M L W i n : autem ait R : id est T : ait id est B 54(4) quod MLUVin : quia (s. 1. uel quod) R 61(2) qui M L W i n : quae R In some of these cases, it is fairly clear that R is in error; at any rate, it is clear that in many of these passages, no matter where the truth lies, Vin disagrees with TB and sides with MLU. That does suggest that, to whatever limited degree, Vinet did make use of a manuscript that was more closely related to the MLU side of the tradition than was B. It should be noted that there are very few places, perhaps four, where MLU agree with T and/or B in error in the commentary on Satire 2. All this, taken together, suggests that in composing his edition Vinet did what one would expect of an editor of his time, the use of emendutio ope codicum. He was relatively faithful to the base text he found in B, but when he found it unsatisfactory or inadequate, he consulted the other two manuscripts that he had to hand, and improved on what B provided. Vin is a witness of some, but limited value; more than anything else, it shows that there were manuscripts in his day that were descended from the MLU side of the tradition-although we have no evidence at all to determine whether they were commentary or marginal scholia. When we turn to the revision of Vinet’s edition published in 1601, we are in a very different world, both in terms of critical methods and in terms of manuscript sources used. The major change in the text in the new edition came about because the editor had improved the text with the use of a manuscript unknown to Vinet; as he says on the title page, ‘cum veteri codice manuscripto collatum & multis in locis auctum & emendatum, Ex Bibliotheca C.V. IOANNIS ROUSSATI,Consil. Reg. Praefecti Caluimontij & Propraetoris Lingonensis.’ The editor also made use of another source, the Glossae Veteres on Persius published in 1585 by Pierre Pithou. The 1601 edition is remarkable for several reasons: not only does the editor identify his source carefully, but he is scrupulous in identifying the changes that he made to Vinet’s edition, putting in parentheses words that Vinet had printed that were not in his new source, and putting in square brackets words that were in his new source but had been missing from Vinet’s edition. Where the two texts differed, he left Vinet’s text and supplied in the margin the reading of his new source. Hence, it is possible to identify with reasonable certainty the readings of Roussat’s manuscript; the only difficulty is that the editor of 1601 clearly made some

60

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

changes that did not derive from his new sources, and he was not altogether careful in distinguishing what he found in Roussat’s manuscript from what he found in Pithou’s Glossae Veteres. As that text exists, however, it is not altogether impossible to ascribe a fairly large number of readings, several hundred in all, to the manuscript that belonged to Jean (or more properly Jehan) Roussat. In her recent study of Vinet’s editions, Claudia Wiener suggests that Roussat himself either edited the revision of 1601 or entrusted the work to someone else.” That is very unlikely, for both internal and external reasons. In the first place, the 1601 edition contains, as noted above, not only additions from Roussat’s manuscript, but from Pithou’s Glossae Veteres of 1585; and one of the readings (to be discussed shortly) the origin of which is unclear to Wiener is in fact from the Glossae.20In the second place, although Roussat was a collector of manuscripts and an antiquarian, his scholarly interests seem to have been directed to the local history of Langres; his collection of local Latin inscriptions was supplied to Jan Gruter for his large epigraphic collection, and his large collection of materials for local history (now lost) was used by later local antiquarians.’’ Finally, although one can not be certain about it, it seems very unlikely that Roussat had the time, even if he had had the inclination, to produce such a careful and scholarly work: from September 1599 to September 1602, he was serving his seventh, eighth, and ninth years as Mayor of Langres; he was in poor health, and was kept from retiring in 1601 only by the direct appeal of Henri IV. Although Roussat clearly had antiquarian interests, his main concern throughout his life was public affairs: he was a staunch supporter of Henri I11 and Henri IV against the League, and played an important role in preserving the loyalty of Langres during the wars of religion. Roussat’s public positions (listed in the title of the 1601 edition) were not merely honorific, but constituted a very active career, attested also by the eleven surviving letters to him by Henri I11 and eighty by Henri IV.22A more likely hint about the editor of the 1601 edition is provided by three notes in the margin of the commentary on Satire 1, all attributing readings to ‘Fed. Morellus’ : that is clearly the publisher and classical scholar FrtdCric Morel the younger (1552-1630); it seems quite plausible that he, together with his son Claude Morel the publisher of this volume, edited the text t h e m s e l v e ~ . ~ ~

I’

Wiener, ‘Auf der Suche nach Cornutus’ 578.

*’On the Glossae Veteres and their relationship to the Cummentum, see below, pp. 63-64 and Appendix 1. Janus Gruterus, Inscripfiones Antiquae totius orbis R o m n i (Heidelberg 1602-03). The autograph of Roussat’s collection is now in Leiden, MS Scaliger 17-presumably because Scaliger was responsible for the index to Gruter’s work. On Roussat as antiquary, see Edouard Dessein, Un grand Muire de lu Renaissance: Jehan Roussat 1543-1607 (Paris 1939) 173-6. Dessein’s book is a full account of Roussat’s public life, with unfortunately little about his antiquarian interests. I have not been able to discover anything more about his manuscripts. 22 On Roussat’s activity during these years, see Dessein, Un grand Maire de la Renaissance 177-180. Some of the royal letters are printed (and reproduced) by Dessein; they were published in full by Guyot de Saint-Michel et de Verseilles, Correspondance politique et militaire de Henri le Grand avec J. Roussat, muire de Lungres (Paris 1816). I have not seen this volume. 23 Claude Morel (1574-1626) was the son of FrCdCric Morel 11; see Philippe Renouard, Rippertoire des imprimeurs parisiens : libraires, foundeurs de caractires et correcteurs d‘imprimerie, depuis l‘introclucrion cle I’imprimerie a Puris. 1470,jusqu’ri lafin du seizieme siicle (Paris 1965) 316-17. ”

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENTVM

61

Identifying the editor (or the owner), however, is less important than tracing the affiliations of Roussat’s manuscript. Even the most cursory examination of its readings reveals that it shows an astonishing degree of overlap with R, the earliest witness to the Commentum itself. Thus, in the commentary on Satire 2, Rous agrees with R alone in the following passages: 2(2) item RRous : idem MLU 2(2) a. om. RRous 9(4) ebulliat RRous : ebullit MLU 12(1) cuius2 MLUTBVin : cui RRous 26(10) hostia] hostia bidental RRous 26( 10) fulgurata RRous 32(5) quis RRous : que MLU 50(1) deficiat TBVin : definiat RRous 50(3) ipse] in se RRous 56(1) L RRous : om. MLUTB 56(3) xersen RRous : sersen MLU : serxen T : perpen B : gergen P 56(4) tamen cum non essent paratae RRous 59(6) assis hoc est libra appensus libralis RRous 59(6) praerogatores MLU : prorogatores Vin : om. RRous A number of these readings are quite striking, perhaps most important that R and Rous agree in preserving the numeral L at 2.56(1). Given that Rous is reported only positively (and hence for only a small part of the text) in the 1601 edition, and that there is not a single passage in which R and Rous disagree in the commentary on Satire 2, the question to be asked is not whether Rous is closely related to R, but whether Rous is in fact the same manuscript as R. Wiener, after a careful examination, concluded that the two were gemelli rather than identical, but the case is not quite so clear as she suggests. Wiener identifies ten passages (in fact, nine)24in which R and Rous differ, of which she considers only two important. In fact, there are twice as many divergences as that: Prol. 6(3) urbem] urbem apo toy pagos (8x6 ZOO &you Rous) id est (id est om. Rous) a uilla RRous 1.2(1) bene] bonae R (s.1. uel humanae) : humanae TRous 1.7(1) quae est Chilonis sententia Lacedaemonii MLUR : quae est Chilonis Lacedaemonii sententia Rous 1.18(7) non tantum ablatiuo casu ut pictus acu clamidem uerum etiam accusatiuo ut nuda genu R : non solum ablatiuo casu uerum etiam accusatiuo, ut Nuda genu Rous I 1.34(6) et (om. Rous) plorabile (prorabile Rous) siquid TBRous : om. MLURV~XI*~ 1.52(8) post inueniri in BVinRous: Belle igitur et euge contigisse saepe locupletibus dicit, crudis et super lectulos citreos discumbentibus qui crudi lectulos citreos iacentes male scribunt, oscitantes, uel delicate ac sine cura, et ideo argant quod laudantur locupletum poemata, quia et coenas praestare solent et uestes donare. I have excluded from this list one of Wiener’s instances, at 5.177(1): sparge inquit MLUR : sparge (inquit) Vin : sparge igitur (inquit) Row. Parentheses in the 1601 edition are used to indicate something that was in Vinet but omitted from Roussat’s MS, but they also are used simply as parentheses, as here. Igitur is indeed added in the 1601 edition, but there is no indication that it was taken from Rous. 25 The 1613 reprint alters prorabile to probabile.

24

62

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

et hoc dicit (qui--dicit Rous : om. BVin). Vnde dicit tuum euge et belle recuso, id est carmina quae interim componis, dum tibi dicitur euge. Sponda autem exterior pars lecti, pluteus interior. om. MLUR 1.95(2) temptauimus MLUR : temperauimus RousZ6 1.99(3) eumenis MLU : eumenis quasi eumomis R : quasi dpipov Rous 3.1(12) per fenestras in lectum intrat R : fenestras intrat uel (uel om. M) per fenestras in lectum intrat MLU : per fenestras intrat Rous I 3.8(2) colen MR (s.1. uel colera) : colem LU : cholera Rous I 3.52(2) haud tibi inexpertum c. d. m. aut om. Rous : aut om. R 3.67(2) uel facilis uitae finis aut breuis uel MLUR : aut breuis om. Rous 3.73(3) populos MLU : populos tusciae umbria enim tuscia est RTBVin : populos tusciae Rous 3.90(3) qui miscet faece falerna uina MLUR : uina om. Rous C : +yciohoroic U : 4.23(7) cpuodhoyo~Rous : +ycioaoroyc R : + Y C I O A ~ ~ O Y M +ycioxwroic L 4.25(5) non milui uolant MLUR : milui uolant Vin : milui non uolant Rous 4.28(2) finita MLUVin : pro RTB : pro finita Rous 5.161(2) redit ad illam MLUR : ad illam redit Vin : ad illam redit apud terentium personae immutatae sunt Rous 5.163(2) frugi et sobriis affinibus uel cognatis MLUR : sobriis cognatis BVin : frugi et affinibus sobriis cognatis Rous 5.164(2) unguent0 MLUR : mingendo Rous The two passages of her list which Wiener believes show that Rous and R are not the same are the addition of apud Terentium personae immutatae sunt at 5.161(2) and the substitution of mingendo for unguent0 at 5.164(2). The first of these is taken from Pithou’s Glossae-in the manuscript of which it is Pithou’s autograph addition to the text of Vinet’s edition as copied by Scaliger-and the second is remarkable for its oddity rather than its probative value. I incline to see it as a joke or a Freudian slip of some kind. As a single instance, it certainly proves very little. What of the others? Most of these passages involve words not there: given that one should not automatically expect extreme accuracy in collation in the late sixteenth century, that Rous omits words, or even a whole lemma, is not altogether surprising. This applies to Prol. 6(3) (id est), 1.99(3) (eurnenis), 3.1(12), 3.52(2), 3.67(2), 3.90(3). In the case of 1.18(7), it may well be deliberate, and is certainly an improvement. A second clear category involves Greek: the 1601 editor knew Greek, and the scribe of R did not. Hence the improvements at Prol. 6(3), 1.99(3), 4.23(7). Another is distortions or changes of word order. Those at 1.7(1) and 4.25(5) may be significant, but may be no more than typographical errors; at 5.163(2) what ought to be two separate insertions are brought together as one. A fourth category includes 1.2(1) and 3.8(2), passages in which what is an interlinear variant in R is the text of Rous. And there are what may be simple errors: the combination of two readings at 5.28(2) and a plain mistake at 1.95(2). The small remainder are rather different. At 1.34(6), Rous adds a phrase that is omitted from MLUR as well as from Vin; it is found in the R tradition, but not in R itself. At 1.52(8) there is a long addition in BVin, to which Rous adds an extra note in the

’’Wiener wrongly reports this as temeruuimus.

3. LATER TRADITION OF THE COMMENTVM

63

center. At 3.73(3), the 1601 edition explicitly reports that Vmbria enim tuscia est was absent from Rous, but it is present in R. These are, quite clearly, the most significant differences between the two. In such cases, it is clear that the 1601 edition is using material that is not in R, but their number is so small that the differences may result from errors in reporting. It is also perhaps worth noting that R, alone of the four major manuscripts, has marginal catchwords in a hand of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. I can not identify the hand, but it is clear evidence that at least someone was looking at R at just the time that Roussat’s manuscript was being used by the Morels. Since there are a great many changes in the text between the 1563 edition and the 1601 edition, most of them made tacitly, there is no reason to believe that other sources were not used. One can also look at the problem from another point of view, that of logic and editorial economy. Either Rous is R, or, if the evidence given above is taken to demonstrate that they are not likely to be the same manuscript, Rous is a gemellus so close to R that it provides virtually no independent evidence: the agreement of RRous, if they are gemelli, would merely take the history of a reading back one generation of copying. In no case, so far as I can see, does Rous provide a true reading that is not also provided by R; and hence, even if it is was a different manuscript, it provides no valuable new evidence. There is one last, unanswerable question. Is it historically possible for R and Rous to be the same manuscript? Rous was in France, presumably in Langres or Paris, in 1601; R is now in the Royal collection of the British Library, and it is described in the catalogue of the Royal manuscripts of 1666-before it had been rebound with the other contents now found in Regius 15 B xix. If the two are the same manuscript, then one must consider how a manuscript got from LangresParis in 1601 to London before 1666. We do not know the facts, but it is certainly a possible history: it was not only his possessions, but the King himself, who moved from exile in France and Holland to England in 1660.

5. A final red herring In addition to the two printed editions of the Commentum discussed above, there is a third text of this period that has often been considered an independent witness to the ancient commentary on Persius, the Glossae Veteres published in his edition of Persius and Juvenal by Pierre Pithou in 1585. In their printed form, these notes are very close to notes in the Commentum, but they have new and worthwhile readings, and they contain a few scholia that are not to be found in the Commentum itself. Since Pithou did own the manuscript of Juvenal and Persius that contains the oldest and best medieval scholia on Juvenal (now Montpellier 125), there has always been the hope that he had access to an equally valuable scholiastic source for Persius.

64

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

That, however, is not the case. Jahn in 1843 was suspicious of the Glossae, and rightly cited a letter of Scaliger to Casaubon, praising the latter’s decision to include the Glossae in his (1605) edition of Persi~s:’~ Laudo, quod glossas ueteres ad Persium attexueris. Scito illas ita a nobis excerptas a Pithoeo editas fuisse. Chirographum earum meum una cum ueteribus glossis Iuuenalis, quas itidem ex prisco exemplari Iuuenalis et ex editione Georgii Vallae collegeram in aedibus meis Aginni, inuenies apud Puteanos fratres, si mod0 non periit. . . . Ego illarum omnium glossarum eclogarius fui. The autograph of excerpts that Scaliger says was in the possession of the Puteani fratres in a sense still is: MS Dupuy 394 (ter), foll. 218-225 contains excerpts in Scaliger’s hand that are unquestionably taken from Vinet’s 1563 edition, together with further notes and additions in both Scaliger’s hand and that of Pithou.28 The identification of this manuscript clears up at least two problems. The major one is the source of the Glossae, which can be shown to have no independent authority whatsoever (although Scaliger’s emendations are themselves valuable); even the notes added by Pithou from another source are likely to be drawn from a late and not particularly valuable manuscript. The minor one is the presence of one note in the 1601 edition of the Cornmenturn Cornuti. At 3.37 in the Glossae, one finds the note: Feruenti tincta veneno) Metaphora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reuerti non potest. In the 1601 edition, the same note is enclosed in braces-a typographical convention that is not explained at all, but suggests that the note was neither in Roussat’s manuscript (it is not in R) nor in Vinet’s edition (it is not). Nor, indeed, is it in the manuscript of the Glossae. Where it does appear is in the manuscript of Persius that Pithou owned, Montpellier 125, one of the very few ninth-century scholia in that manuscript and in its close relative Sangallensis 870. Stephan, who published these scholia, observed that the scholium on 3.37 was the only note that had anything in common with the Cornrnentum;29 it does so because it was copied from the Montpellier manuscript and printed by Pithou in the Glossae Veteres, and the Glossae in turn were taken into both the 1601 edition of the Cornmenturn and Jahn’s 1843 edition. There are some puzzles in determining the origin of some of Pithou’s corrections and additions to Scaliger’s excerpts; but there is no problem in recognizing that the Glossae themselves have no independent value. A full edition of the Glossae will be found in Appendix 1.

’’Jahn, ed., Persius clxv; also CTC 236-37. A microfilm of this manuscript was given to me by the late F. Edward Cranz. Scaliger’s hand is immediately recognizable, and Anthony Grafton kindly confirmed my suspicion that the other hand in the MS is that of Pithou. 29 C. Stephan, De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis (Bonn 1882) 14 n.1 and 23. On the scholia in the Pithoeanus, see Appendix 1.

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENWM 1. Lemmata quid faciunt?

If one looks merely at the substance of the interpretations of Persius offered in the Cornmenturn and in the various sets of marginal scholia to be discussed in Chapter 5, it is immediately apparent that they are not very different from one another. There are notes that appear in only one or two sources; there are better and worse, longer and shorter versions of the same explanations; there is greater and lesser clarity or coherence. But to say that most notes in the scholiastic manuscripts are very similar to those in the Cornrnenturn is not to say that the collection of scholiastic texts in any manuscript is similar to the Cornmenturn: what distinguishes the Cornmenturn from a set of scholia is, above all, its form. Not only is it a continuous and ordered text-something that is true of almost no scholiastic manuscripts-but it has a distinctive form that is supplied by the presence of the major lemmata and lemma signs. In all probability, the system of lemmata was never executed with the thoroughness and precision that it requires-hence, it is not advisable to emend drastically on the basis of the inconsistencies of the system exhibited in MLU-and, as its alterations in R and R's relatives make clear, it was very fragile and disappeared quite rapidly. R itself shows only two lemma signs,' and in the half-dozen sets of marginalia that I have collated, I have not found a single use of the lemma sign so extensively employed by MLU. Despite these flaws, however, it is clear from the system as preserved in MLU (and reconstructed in Chapter 2) that the system of lemmata is in fact the defining feature of the Comrnenturn: it establishes it as a single text rather than a collection of notes; it provides fixity, identity, and coherence. The Cornrnenturn is not the only ancient or medieval commentary to include within itself the entire text which it purports to explain; but it is a feature particularly associated with Biblical commentaries, such as those of Jerome or of Rabanus Maurus.2 In these works, every verse of the text being explained is quoted, generally one or two verses at a time; and in these cases, the units of text quoted are generally complete sentences or at least clauses, and the units of commentary do not in general involve sublemmata or repetition. It is also quite clear, for Biblical commentary, that the commentator starts from a text and then offers an explanation of it (which may or may not be original); in the Cornrnenturn, on the other hand, it is not difficult to show that the system of lemmata was superimposed on pre-existing exegetical material. Commentary on Persius was written

' See above, p. 38.

* On the completeness of the text in Jerome's

commentaries, see L. Holtz, 'Les manuscrits latins B gloses et B comentaires: de rantiquit6 h YCpoque carolingienne', in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli, eds., I1 Libro e il rest0 (Urbino 1984) 153-54.

66

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

long before this commentary was written; ‘Cornutus’ created this book, and he shaped the commentary he inherited to fit the framework he created. What remains, however, is to examine just what he used and how he put it together. What I hope to demonstrate here is that, not unlike other medieval versions of ancient commentaries, the Commentum is based on the re-combination of at least two marginal versions of an ancient commentary, to which have been added a great many paraphrases and glosses. This amalgam was then combined with a complete text of Persius, which became a somewhat Procrustean framework into which the collection of notes was squeezed. On the whole, ‘Cornutus’ did his work well; but there are enough repetitions, mistakes, and awkwardnesses to make it relatively easy to recognize the process through which it was created. It is not so much the repetitions or omissions in the lemma-system that make the work of the compiler visible as the passages in which the lemma simply does not match the note appended. In many places, there is more text than is needed: a bare gloss or explanation of a single word is introduced by the quotation of an entire verse, suggesting-as is indeed the case-that for the compiler the completeness of the lemmasystem was of at least as much importance as the appropriateness of the notes themselves. In the commentary on Satire 5, for instance-where there seems either to have been a lack of material or the compiler was becoming tired of his task-there are several places where the lemma-system seems singularly artificial, with sequences of notes that are broken up under separate lemmata or sequences of glosses with excessive lemmata. Thus, at 5.41-43 we find:

41 Q TECVM ETENIM LONGOS MEMINI CONSVMERE S. soles dicit dies, ut Virgilius: ‘tris adeo incertos caeca caligine soles e. p.’ (Aen. 3, 203-4).

42 Q ET TECVM PRIMAS EPVLIS D. N. primas noctes pro primis partibus noctis posuit, ut: ‘primaque oriens e. i.’ (Aen. 7, 51). 43 Q VNVM OPVS ET REQVIEM PARITER D. A. id est simul studiis exercemur, simul otiis fruimur. The sequence is a single thought, and the notes could easily have been grouped under a single lemma. As it is, the first two notes comprise only a gloss on a single word or phrase (soles, primus noctes), thus making the remainder of the lemmata not strictly necessary, while the third consists of a paraphrase. A similar structure of notes appears in other parts of the Commentary. There are sequences that could easily have been combined, while large portions of the lemmata are necessary only for the compiler’s lemma-system, not for the comprehensibility of the text. So at 5.78-82:

78 Q VERTERIT HVNC DOMINVS M. T. E. M. D. hunc ait qui liber efficitur. 79 Q PAPAE interiectio, quasi uox admirantis. 79 (2) Q MARC0 SPONDENTE RECVSES C. T. N. spondente id est fidem dicente.

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

67

80 § MARC0 SVB IVDICE P. hoc ironicos dicit, quia neque ill0 fidem dicente pecuniam credere dubites, neque ill0 iudicante formides. (2) dignus enim is est qui iudicet apud quem non timeas ne iniuste damneris. 81 3 MARCVS DIXIT ITA EST A. M. T. assigna id est sigilla. 82 Q HAEC MERA LIBERTAS hanc tu arbitraris certissimam libertatem quam ex seruo factus ciuis Romanus acceperit? 82 (2) Q HAEC NOBIS P. D. serui, qui beneficio dominorum manumittebantur, ut superius dixit: ‘at illum hesterni c. i. s. Q.’ (3 105sq.). The first three sentences are glosses on hunc, pupae, and spondente and are parallel in form (as also the gloss on assigna at Sl), but pupae, as a complete sentence, became a major lemma, while the other two are minor lemmata subordinate to the grand scheme of the lemma-system. The strained relationship between the lemma-system and the body of the Commentum also appears in the misplacement of some notes under the wrong lemma. A clear example of this occurs at 1.69-70:

69 Q ECCE MOD0 HEROAS SENSVS AFFERRE VIDEMVS NVGARI S. G. adhuc de malis poetis loquitur et dicit: uidemus eos qui hoc tantum sciunt, Graecas nugas uerbis componere, uelle tamen etiam fortes et nobiles sensus carminibus pangere, cum neque uilia aut agrestia carmina apti sint explicare.

70 Q NEC PONERE LVCVM A. artifices id est doctos, idoneos. ( 2 ) ponere dicit scribere, ut Horatius: ‘scriptor honoratum si forte reponis Achillem’ (A.P. 120) et Iuuenalis: ‘semper ego auditor tantum? numquamne reponam’ (1, 1). (3) et hoc dicit: nec scribere artifices nemora ita ut uarietas arborum enumeretur decenter, ut non tantum scripsisse quam ipsum lucum fecisse uideantur. (4) ecce, inquit, sensus nobis heroum facta suggerunt, non ut solemus Graecorum moribus pulsati res nugis plenas scribere. Here, quite clearly, 70(4) is out of place in a note on verse 70: from a formal point of view, it is introduced by the minor lemma ecce, which is not a part of the major lemma to which it is subordinate, but in fact the first word of the previous lemma. And from a substantive point of view, it clearly summarizes the content of the lemma of verse 69. The same kind of displacement occurs elsewhere. Thus at 2.12-13: 12 Q PVPILLVMVE VTINAM QVEM PROXIMVS HERES IMPELLO EXPVNGAM non utique cuius tutor sit, sed puerum adhuc intra pupillares annos constitutum et nondum suae tutelae, cuius secundus heres substitutus est. (2) quem scabiosum bilicosumque ideo dicit tamquam ex hoc speret celerius moriturum. (3) expungam proprie foras mittam; tractum a militibus, qui expuncti dicuntur dum foras e militia emittuntur. (4) impello autem ait prosequor.

68

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

13 Q NAM ET EST SCABIOSVS merito sperat eum cito esse moriturum, et deos precatur quod illum uideat et plenum scabie et uehementi calore frequentius excitari. 13 (2) Q ET ACRI BILE TVMET id est melancolia. (3) metaphora a bello, in quo cadente qui primus est succenturiatur secundus. (4) itidem in stipendiis pro meritis accipiunt mercedem, et primo mortuo secundus succedit. 13(3-4) form a unit, but they have nothing to do with the lemma or with melancholy. In fact, they are closely related to 12(3), in identifying military metaphors. The division of the notes on 12-13 is artificial and misleading: notes on scabiosus and bile appear under the lemma pupillurn-expungum, while notes that belong under that lemma appear under the succeeding two lemmata. This is a clear case of scholia being artificially forced into the system of lemmatization. Three more examples (of the many which could be cited) are the following: 2.24(6) on Ergenna belongs on 2.26; 2.57(4) is a general note on 2.5560 which could better have been placed much earlier; 4.6(5) explains Quirites, which is not a part of the lemma-and indeed is not part of any lemma. One final passage leads from the simple issue of displaced notes towards larger questions concerning the composition of the Commenturn. At 2.59-60, there is a long and strange concatenation of notes:

59 $ AVRVM VASA NVMAE SATVRNIAQVE IMPVLIT A. V. Q. V. ET T. F. M. Numa Pompilius, rex Romanorum, uasis fictilibus usus est etiam ad religionem deorum, ex quo Numa dictus est quod numinibus deseruiret; nam primus religiones inuenit. (2) Suturniu ueru Saturno enim in Italia regnante aes in usu fuit, quod etiam postea in aede Saturni condebatur, unde aerarium dictum est; nondum enim fuerat argentum atque aurum. (3) uirgines quoque Vestales uasis fictilibus in sacrificiis usae sunt. (4) illud autem aes una parte capite Iani notatum erat, altera naue qua Saturnus fugiens ad Italiam uectus est. (5) bene autem in ill0 nummo geminum erat signum, et hospitalitatis Iani et aduentus Saturni, quod aes postea, ut dictum est, in aede Saturni condebatur, nondum argent0 auroque signato; unde aerarium nomen accepit. (6) fuit autem assis libralis et dipondius duarum librarum, quod hodieque in usu remansit et solet pensari potius quam numerari; unde et dispensatores dicti praerogatores. (7) et est sensus: ministeria innocentium ac simplicium uasorum [auaritia] caeca remouit ambitio. (8) uel quia Saturnus aereis uasis placabatur. 60 Q VESTALESQVE VRNAS ET T. F. M. aut Vestae aut Vestalium uirginum; utrumque est. (2) sunt autem uasa, quae seruiunt Vestae, fictilia. (3) Tuscumfictile siue quod in Etruria creber usus uasorum fictilium fuerat, siue quod Tusci deorum simulacra fictilia fecerunt. (4) haec enim omnia luxuriante mundo mutata sunt. In the first place, it is clear here that the system of lemmata has been imperfectly executed, as the lemma at 60(1) repeats part of the lemma at 59(1); the distribution of notes suggests that the lemma at 59(1) should have been briefer. Beyond that, however,

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

69

one note is clearly misplaced: 59(2) and (4-6) form a single note on Suturniu ueru, moving from the history of metals to the early coinage made from bronze. The long and relatively coherent note is interrupted by (3), which disturbs the sequence: illud ues at 59(4) clearly refers back to Suturniu ueru. What is more, 59(3), explaining Vestulesque urnus, says virtually the same thing as 60(2), and is thus redundant as well as misplaced.

2. Doublets Redundant notes are very frequent in the Commentum, and provide important evidence for the composition of the commentary. If the artificiality of the lemma-system demonstrates that the present form of the Commentum displays an uneasy juxtaposition of lemma and text, the fact that in a great many places there are two notes that say more or less the same thing gives important evidence for the source of the text itself it is combined from at least two sets of notes which are themselves ultimately derived from a single source. Such a process is, to be sure, scarcely surprising: it can be seen in the history of the commentary on Terence transmitted under the name of Donatus and perhaps in the Juvenal scholia as weL3 But because of the strong formal organization of the Commentum, the process is perhaps clearer here than anywhere else. The examples of misplaced scholia given above already include at least one instance of a doublet, and many more can be adduced. In the note on 1.85, we find the following collection:

85 9 PEDIVS QVID CRIMINA RASIS LIBRAT IN ANTITHETIS rusis id est expolitis uel purgatis. (2) Pedius quidam ill0 tempore damnatus est repetundarum; cui cum crimen obiectum fuisset furti, non se fortiter respondendo purgauit sed ex compositione uersuum fauorem quaerebat figuris dictionum seruiens, securus criminum diuersorum. (3) antitheta autem sunt haec: fortia neglecti uelabant colla capilli, et per neglectos uelabant colla capillos; aut quotiens umbra porrexi brachia mota, aut quotiens umbra reduxi brachia mota. (4) et est sensus: cum proposuent Pedius in carmine suo crimina furti obiecti purgare, omissa criminis materia ad uersuum figuras et antitheta commigrauit, quae quidem essent in libris eius laudabilia nisi ordinem materiae perturbasset. ( 5 ) librut id est quadam moderatione uerba trutinat. (6) antitheta autem illa sunt quae contra se ponuntur, ut: ‘hac parte pudor pugnet, illinc petulantia; hinc pudicitia, illinc stuprum; hinc fides, illinc fraudatio’ (Cic., In Cut. 2, 25). (7) hinc doctus posuisse figurus luudutur quia laudatur Pedius docte figuras posuisse, non crimina soluisse, uituperat aduocatum, qui obiectum cnmen non breui sermone diluit sed ambagibus distulit. Cf. Zetzel, ‘On the History of Latin Scholia.’

70

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Of these various notes, (1) and (5) are simply glosses. (2) and (4) are different versions of the same note, and perhaps (7) is another. (3) and (6), on the other hand, offer different illustrations of antithesis, and may derive from independent sources. Similar examples may be found throughout the Comrnentum. At 2.9, we find:

9 (3) Q 0 SI EBVLLIAT PATRVVS PRAECLARUM FVNVS ypallage: non praeclarum funus, sed quia praeclaram dat hereditatem. (4) uel praeclarumhnus si patruus ebulliat. (5) ebullire autem proprie dicitur exspirare. (6) metaphora a bulla, quae aliquo uenti tenore sustentatur; quae cum in aqua fiunt cadentibus guttis rumpuntur et spiritum quo continentur amittunt; ex quo etiam prouerbialiter dicitur: homo bulla est. (7) propterea ebullit, id est exspirat. (8) nam cum ebullit aqua igne subiecto, altius quidam uapor emittitur. (9) eleganter dixit ebulliat, siquidem senum fata tarde coquuntur, hoc est terminantur heredum cupiditate praecipiti. Here, (5) and (7) are different wordings of the same note, while (6) and (8), although one is much fuller than the other, are also probably different versions of the same idea. At 4.17, we find:

17 0 QVAE TIBI SVMMA BONI EST adhuc hic sermo Socratis est ad Alcibiadem, et quaerit quid summum bonum aestimet. (2) culpat per hunc etiam eos qui in cultura corporis student et ingenia neglegunt. (3) quod et Horatius ironicos dicit: ‘si bene qui cenat uiuit bene, lucet, eamus quo ducit gula’ (Epist. 1, 6, 56 sq.). (4) in luxuriosum et otio deditum interrogatiue consequente responsione quod summum bonum in cena lautiore et in nitore corporis ducat, hoc est nitido cultu et epularum urbano apparatu. (5) in quo fine beatam uitam reponis? potest et respondentem eum facere. Here the overlapping is not so simple, but it is clear that (l), (4),and (5) all contain related versions of a note on the summum bonum and on the use of dialogue form. At 4.47, there are at least two sets of doublets:

47 Q VISO SI PALLES IMPROBE NVMMO S. F. I. P. Q. T. V. A. S. P. M. C. V. F. N. P. B. D. A. si cupidus es et ad conspectum pecuniae pallescis, si libidinosus et grauis debitoribus faenerator, superuacuo awes tuae laudantium uocibus inflammantur. (2) puteal uicus est apud urbem ubi faeneratores debitonbus pecuniam credebant. (3) puteal autem dictum quod ibi debitor creditori dans bona sua tamquam in puteum mittat. (4) uibices dixit cicatrices allegoricos, quod faeneratores debitoribus suis usuras innouantes tamquam uulnerum in eis cicatrices aperiant. (5) flagellus dixit flagitas, ad exigendum eos commouens. (6) haec omnia faciens frustra opinioni uel aestimationi popelli credulas aures accommodas. (7) quid enim ad rem pertinet si uitiosis moribus sumus et sine ratione ac mod0 uiuamus? (8) tunc bonum te, inquit, ciues iudicabunt si contempnens pecuniam inconupte uixeris. (9) faeneratores ad puteal Scri bonis Licini, quod est in porticu Iulia ad Fabianum arcum, consistere solebant. (10)

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

71

puteul autem dictum quod ibi debitores bona sua tamquam in puteum deiciant. (11) puteul dicebatur locus in quo faeneratores deambulabant. (12) est ergo ypallage, id est sensus conuersio: non puteal flagellas, sed debitores qui ill0 conueniunt. (13) multu uibice id est multa et graui usura. (14) siquidem ut uibices, hoc est cicatrices plagarum, faciunt homines recordari, ita usurae damnum patrimonii facientes cogunt maerere debitores. (15 ) uibice jlugellus asperas usura pecuniae. (16) uibices sunt plagarum tumores ac liuorum uestigia. There are two sets of notes on the meaning of the puteal at (2-3) and (9-1 l), and while (9) clearly contains information not found in the previous comment, there can be little doubt that these ultimately derive from the same source. Interlaced among the notes on the puteul, moreover, are possibly three sets of notes on uibicejlugellus, at (4-5), (13-14), and (15-16). Finally, at 5.22 we find:

22 $ QVANTAQVE NOSTRAE PARS TVA SIT CORNVTE A. similiter ab Horatio de Virgilio: ‘et serues animae dimidium meae’ (Curm. I , 3, 8). 22 (2) $ QVANTAQVE NOSTRAE PARS TVA SIT C. A. ad Annaeum Comutum philosophum, egregium uirum, qui eius auditor fuit, loquitur. (3) sententia a Pytagora tracta; ille enim interrogatus quid esset amicus, respondit quae Horatius sic posuit: ‘et serues animae dimidium meae’ (Curm. I , 3, 8). (4) Persius autem ut aliquid nouaret permisit Cornuto aestimare quantam uellet propriae animae partem suam dici. Here there are not only two quotations of the same verse of Horace, but two uses of the same lemma. The first note almost certainly arises from a gloss or independent marginal note, as it is much briefer and adds nothing to the material given in (3).4 The double lemma at 5.22 leads to other indications of the presence of doublets. One, of course, is the simple redundancy of notes; another is the redundancy of lemmata. One of the clearest examples of this is at 4.23, where there are two overlapping notes with a repeated lemma:

23 $ VT NEMO IN SESE TEMPTAT DESCENDERE N. S. P. S. M. T. id est ut nemo intrinsecus se consideret, nemo se uult experiri. (2) sed pruecedenti spectutur m. t. Aesopus apologorum scriptor dicebat unumquemque hominem duas manticas ferre uitiis plenas, et in ea, quae ante pectus est, aliena uitia, in ea uero, quae a tergo est, nostra, eoque euenit ut alterutra potius delicta quam propria uideamus. (3) merito Persius ait pruecedenti tergo, hoc est pectore, ubi aliena uitia cemimus. (4) et hoc dicit: quam difficile est ut quis se ipsum intellegat, quia cum omnes propriis uitiis palleant, aliena tantum uitia culpant. It should also be noted that there is evident corruption in (2). which we did not emend, as it is in all the manuscripts and may be what ‘Cornutus’ wrote: qui eius is clearly a corruption of cuius, but it is impossible to say whether the error occurred in antiquity, in Carolingian marginalia, in the Cornmenrum, or in the common ancestor of the manuscripts of the Commenturn. One might suggest, very speculatively, that the statement that ‘Cornutus was the pupil of Persius’ may explain the attribution of the Cornmenturn itself to ‘Cornutus.’

72

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

23 (5) item 0 VT NEMO IN SESE TEMPTAT DESCENDERE N. facilius enim quis aliena uitia notat quam sua. (6) ab Aesopo tractum, qui ait nos manticas, id est duos folles uitiis repletos, ferre, et in ea mantica, quae ante pedes, aliena uitia esse, in ea, quam a tergo ferimus, nostra. (7) A o d p o s autem cpuot6hoyo~de uultu hominum mores agnoscebat; qui cum ad Socraten ueniret ait ei: 'libidinosus es.' Alcibiades risk (8) illum iniuriis discipuli afficere uoluerunt, quod de magistro eorum iniuriose locutus sit. (9) tunc ille ait: 'parcite, sum quidem libidinosus, sed meum est ipsam libidinem uincere.'

3. L, fol. 17' (excerpt), including notes on 4.23.

4. U, fol. 140' (excerpt), including notes on 4.23.

4.THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

73

Here, although the story of Dopyrius (correctly, Zopyrus) and Socrates is given only in the second note, both notes contain a summary of the Aesopic fable and the last sentence of the first note is a longer version of the first sentence of the second. A further indication that the compiler is here combining two different, but overlapping sources is the use of item, a word that is used to introduce a sentence or a note in some 16 other passages of the Commenturn.’ Thus, at 1.13(8-10):

13 (8) Q NVMEROS ILLE HIC PEDE LIBER numeri proprie rithmi sunt; nunc uero metrum significat. (9) pede liber id est prosaicam orationem componens. (10) item pede liber orator qui prosaicam orationem componit, quamquam Cicero praecipiat prosaicam quoque orationem ita componendam esse ut certis quibusdam pedibus et fiat et terminetur; cui praecepto iudicium aurium et naturalem orationis cursum facili enuntiatione multi non sine causa praetulerunt. Here item introduces the longest comment with the greatest amount of detail; but the first part of (10) is a repetition of (9). The case is more complex at 3.39-41:

39 Q ANNE MAGIS SICVLI GEMVERVNT AERA IVVENCI NEC MAGIS AVRATIS PENDENS LAQVEARIBVS ENSIS PVRPVREAS SVBTER CERVICES T. an maiora tormenta passi sunt hi quos Phalaris Agrigentinorum tyrannus tauro aeneo torquebat inclusos; aut grauior sollicitudo Democritem philosophum torsit-quem Dionisius tyrannus opes et felicitatem mirantem inuitauit ad cenam appositoque apparatu omni magnis epulis frui iussit, sed ita ut gladius ligatus seta ex laquearibus supra ceruices eius penderet-quam torquentur huiusmodi cogitationibus suis cum se decipi intellegunt nec tamen corriguntur et apud se ita murmurant ut nec uxoribus credant, ut secretum eius ea nesciat quae scire debuerat. (2) item quae proxima nesciat uxor uxor, inquit, quae est proxima, id est corpore adiuncta. 41 Q IMVS IMVS PRAECIPITES QVAM SI SIB1 D. quomodo ille qui sibi soli dicit uitia sua et ne culpetur non uult ea pandere, ita et ab uxore hoc secretum abscondit, et tamen tormentum animi silentio sustinet. (2) item [ Q ] quam si sibi dicat non furore compulsus sed interna conscientia furtim obmurmuret. Here the second sentence of each note is introduced by item, and 41(2) also includes an incorrect lemma-sign. What is striking here is that 39(2) introduces a minor lemma which in fact is neither part of the major lemma nor indeed in the right order: the words quae proxima nesciat uxor are in line 43, and do not appear in any major lemma. It is perhaps also worth noting that the phrase et tamen . . . sustinet at the end of 41(1) appears again,

I have found it used in this way at 1.13(10), 1.17(10), 1.20(11), 1.24(8), 1.29(7), 1.45(7), 3.21(2), 3.23(3), 3.26(4), 3.39(2), 3.41(2), 3.52(2), 3.88(3), 4.28(4), 4.37(3), 5.57(2); some of these are discussed below. It is curious that irem is not so used in the commentaries on Satires 2 and 6, and that its uses seem to fall into clusters.

74

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

wrongly, at 44(5). It would appear from these confusions and the repeated use of item that the Cornmentum was not well ordered at this point: lemmata, marginalia, and notes from two different sources are imperfectly integrated, and leave clear signs of the difficulty. A final illustration of the use of item appears only a few lines later, at 3.52:

52 0 HAVD TIBI INEXPERTVM CVRVOS DEPREHENDERE M. interrogatiue legendum, tamquam si dixisset: ignotum tibi non est corrupti mores qui sunt intellegere, id est praui? certe degustasti philosophiam? (2) item haud tibi inexpertum c. d. m. aut interrogatiue aut pronuntiatiue legendum, dicens non illi esse incognitum prauos et turpes et peccantes mores, quos curuos appellauit. (3) ergone uidisti dextrum litterae Pytagoricae? (4) aut magis pronuntiatiue: certe degustasti philosophiam. Is this sentence a statement or a question? In 52(1), the commentator asserts that it is a question; in (4), that it is a statement. In (2), the sentence introduced by item, the author waffles: it is one or the other. Here, it is not only the content and the presence of item that suggest a division of sources, but the fact that the minor lemma in (2) is long and contains abbreviations, something relatively rare, but which is found in connection with other uses of item. But what was in the source from which all three of these statements about the nature of the sentence was drawn? Quite clearly, the source offered two alternatives, and may not have decided between them. That, in turn, suggests-what we would in any case expect-that the Commentum is drawn at two removes from a variorum commentary composed in late antiquity, one similar in form to what we know about the commentaries of Donatus on Virgil and Terence. Before turning to that issue, however, it is worth taking a brief look at another word used to introduce alternative notes, aliter." Aliter is much less common than item, and appears in this use only six times, of which one is particularly worth noting, at 3.56(5):

56 0 ET TIBI QVAE SAMIOS DEDVXIT LITTERA RAMOS subaudis: haud tibi inexpertum est quae Pytagoras Sam0 insula ortus praecepit, qui Y litteram ad modum uitae humanae figurauit, quae in infantia uel initio monitione pedagogi et paterno metu secta non est, et postquam in adulescentiam quis uenerit diuiditur. (2) et in sinistra parte rami uelut uitia sunt, quae deuexioribus facilem ad se praestat ascensum, et altera dextera, in qua uirtutis opera celebrantur, arduum ac difficilem limitem pandit; qua qui euaserint, quieta sede excipiuntur. (3) quas partes quisquis ab anno sextodecimo optinebit, in his fuerit staturus. (4) qua similitudine docebat per uitia ad perniciem cito tendi, ad felicitatem per uirtutem tarde ueniri. (5) aliter: litteram Y Samius Pytagoras inuenit instar humanae uitae, quae in dextera parte angustiorem ascensum commodat, habens in summitate planitiem, in sinistra uero facilem descensum, sed nullurn cacuminis retentaculum, There is also one use of alia exposifio, at 2.6(3), clearly introducing an interpretation parallel to that in 6(2); note also alrer sensus at 1.73(5), 2.57(4). Alirer also appears in M (see the apparatus at 4.10(3)) to introduce a line of the commentary that had been omitted.

4.THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

75

qua per uitia eundum est; et ideo praecipitari necesse est qui illuc ascendunt et perueniunt. (6) altera, in qua uirtutis opera celebrantur, arduum ac difficilem habet limitem; quem qui euasissent, experirentur quietissimas sedes. (7) qua similitudine docebat per uitia ad pernisiem cito tendi, per uirtutem ad felicitatem tarde ueniri. This note is just a few lines after the last passage discussed, and in the large-scale repetition it is comparable to the repeated note on Aesop at 4.23(5). In this case, however, much of the repetition is verbatim, or nearly so; the conclusion is unavoidable that the two halves of the note were drawn from different sets of scholia, both of which were drawn from a single source. The use of aliter, indeed, is itself worth noting. It is rarely found introducing an alternative note or explanation in Servius-and almost every instance of et aliter is found in the commentary on the Georgics after 1.192, when the manuscript evidence becomes very precarious. It occurs with some frequency in introducing alternate interpretations in the $ version of Ps.-Acro on Horace, but I do not know of its occurrence in genuinely antique scholiastic texts? In introducing variant readings, aliter is a feature of Carolingian scholarship particularly associated with Lupus of Ferribres.8 The Commentum itself has no close connection to Lupus, but the presence of aliter is one more very slight piece of evidence that it was put together in its present form in the ninth century, not in late antiq~ity.~ 3. Variorum commentary

Commentaries, by their very nature, are tralatitious; cautious or conservative commentaries generally record, frequently without expressing judgment, the conflicting opinions of their predecessors. What results is variorum commentary, and in late antiquity its most eminent representative was Donatus, in the fourth century, who explicitly set out to include in his commentary on Virgil the interpretations of earlier critics." Less elegantly, the Verona scholia seem also to register the opinions of others as well as, or indeed in place of, the author's own ideas. In the period from the fourth to the sixth century, when the ancestors of most surviving scholia appear to have been composed, it seems likely that many grammatical commentaries, as heirs to a long tradition of

'

See Noske, Quaestiones Pseudoacroneue 263. Noske (270-72) dates the composition of this form of the Horace commentary to the early sixth century, but his argument is based on general considerations of levels of culture-and an unnecessarily early dating for some of the later versions of the commentary-and is unconvincing. The commentary was almost certainly compiled (including the insertion of uliter-alternatives) around 800 CE. * On aliter, see Zetzel, 'History of Latin Scholia' 336, n.6; for Lupus, see L. Traube, Textgeschichte der Regulu S. Benedicti (ed. 2, Munich 1910) 123; E. A. Lowe, Pulaeographicul Papers (Oxford 1972) 320-22; J. E. G. Zetzel, 'The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the Meaning of Emendutio', CP 75 (1980) 46 n.22. Although the connectives between sentences and notes are among the most inconsistent elements in the scholiastic manuscripts, it is perhaps worth noting that in W, the version of 2.68(7) in the right margin of fol5' wrongly gives si homines inquit uuari cupiditate and the contemporary corrector has added aliter auri over auari, giving the correct reading. This is the only instance of aliter I have found introducing a variant text of a scholium, although I may well have missed others. l o Cf. Donatus, Epistulu (p.5 Hardie).

76

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

school interpretation, took the form of variorum annotation; they can be contrasted to works that deliberately stand aside from the school tradition, such as the commentary on the Aeneid of Tiberius Claudius Donatus, or with other forms of exegesis that appear in the same period, allegorical and philosophical interpretations such as Macrobius’ commentary on the Somnium Scipionis or Fulgentius’ interpretation of Virgil. These works are not variorum commentaries; they do not have behind them the generations of commentary that underlie the grammatical-exegetical texts.’ But while the variorum tradition has been of immense importance in preserving what little remains of classical Roman grammatical scholarship, simplified though it has been over the centuries of transmission, it is a type of commentary that makes it extremely difficult to trace, in formal terms, the lineage of any one set of notes. In this instance, I believe, it is useful to distinguish between the doublets discussed above, in which two notes supply different versions of the same interpretation, and the variorum notes examined in this section, in which one note or two linked notes provide versions of conflicting interpretations. The doublet indicates a double transmission of a single comment; variorum gives no indication about the transmission, but does provide a clue to the form and style of the source from which that single comment was derived. Thus, at 1.15, we find the following comments:

’

(9) toga recenti noua uel nitida ualde. (10) abusiue pro noua; non enim quicquid nouum recens, sed naturalia intacta recentia sunt. These two notes are clearly contradictory: (9) regards nouus as a synonym of recens, while (10) differentiates between the two. The juxtaposition of these notes may suggest a variorum commentary; or it may simply indicate that different interpretations, derived from different sources, were juxtaposed by the compiler.’* Contradictions may be even more blatant, as at 2.2:

2 § QVI TIBI LABENTES APPONIT C. A. labentes dicit natura lubricos, ut Ouidius: ‘labitur occulte fallitque uolubilis aetas, et nihil est annis uelocius’ (Met. IO, 519sq.), ut Horatius: ‘heu heu fugaces, Postume, I’ostume, labuntur anni’ (Carm. 2, 14, Isq.). (2) upponit autem dicit adiungit, quia ad praeteritos alii accedunt; item Horatius: ‘et illi quos tibi dempserit apponet a.’ (Carm. 2, 5, 14sq.). ( 3 ) labentes non est annorum epitheton, sed ad calculos redige. Here, the first sentence explains lubentes as applying to the passage of time, the third sentence explicitly rejects that interpretation and applies lubentes to the white stones mentioned by Persius in 2.1. Again, whether the juxtaposition of contradictories goes back to late antiquity or is the by-product of combining contradictory texts in the Carolingian period must remain uncertain, but the very frequency of contradictions may ” On the different varieties of commentary (and their varying popularity in the later Middle Ages), see Christopher Baswell, Virgil in Medieval England (Cambridge 1995), with a useful summary at 9-13. Each interpretation is found in other sources: that of (9) in the Juvenal scholia and elsewhere, that of (10) in Isidore and the glossaries. See the testimonia collected in our appendix.

’’

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

77

suggest that they arose at more than one stage. In the commentary on Satire 2 alone, there are contradictory interpretations of bona at 2.5(2) and (6); of lactes (three interpretations) at 2.29(3-5); of the identity of LicinusLicinius at 2.36(1, 6) and (3-5); of laeuo at 2.53(1) and (2); of ouato at 2.55(2) and (3); and of thefratres aenos at 2.56(1-2) and (3). In many cases, the same set of notes can adumbrate the complex history underlying the Commentum in a few sentences. Thus at 1.71 we find: 71 (3) 0 VBI CORBES ET FOCVS ET PORCI ET FVMOSA PALILIA F. id est fertilem agrum, qui necessario habet et corbes et porcos et Palilia. (4) Palilia dicit diem sacrum in honorem Palis deae pastoriciae cognominatum, quo die positis in foco manipulis foeni ludibundi rustici saliebant, qui expiari se hoc sacrificio credebant; ideo fumosa dixit. (5) aliter: si Parilia, diem dicit sacrum in honorem Iliae quae peperit Remum et Romulum, quorum mentionem sacrificiorum Cicero in Philippicis (14, 14) commemorat. (6) Palilia quae nunc mutatis litteris Parilia dicimus. (7) uel quod dies quo condita Roma est accensis manipulis accenso foeno colatur. (8) aut Palilia dies festus Palis deae agrorum siue pastorum habitus a ueteribus. (9) Varro sic ait: ‘Palilia tam priuata sunt quam publica; et est genus hilaritatis et lusus apud rusticos, ut congestis cum foeno stipulis ignem magnum transiliant, quod Pali faciunt se expiari credentes’. The repeated indications of varying interpretations (aliter, uel, aut) are the mark of a variorum commentary: there are at least two interpretations of Palilia, and indeed there is uncertainty about whether the Parilia and Palilia are the same festival or commemorate the same divinity. At the same time, however, the use of aliter (discussed above) and the fact that the first part of (4) and (8) convey the same information suggest that the present form of the note results from the combination of two sets of marginalia. There is similar complexity at 1.76 a few lines later:

76 0 EST NVNC BRISEI QVEM VENOSVS LIBER ACCI uenosus id est asper, fortis, ualens. (2) et est sensus: sunt qui contempnentes carminis nobilitatem solos student ueteres poetas legere, ut Accium, qui fortia carmina scripsit, cuius uenosum ait librum, uel Pacuuium, qui tragoediam de Antiopa scripsit. (3) Briseum Accium ideo dixit quia poetae in Liberi patris tutela esse noscuntur. (4) est autem Briseus Liber pater cognominatus siue, ut quibusdam uidetur, a mellis usu, eo quod ipse primum inuenisse dicatur me1 et ex fauis exprimere. (5) brisin iucundum dicimus, unde etiam quidam Briseidam aestimant dictam quod Achilli iucunda fuerit. (6) uel certe, ut aliis uidetur, ab uua, quod uuam inuenerit et expresserit pedibus; brisare enim dicitur exprimere. (7) uel certe Briseum dictum ex nomine nymphae quae eum nutrisse dicitur. (8) Briseus ideo quia barbatus colitur Liber pater Briseus cognomine. (9) et uenosus quasi inaequalis, horridus; similiter et uerrucosa Antiopa quae est tragoedia nobilis. (10) Brisei hirsuti, et tractum a Libero patre qui in Graecia est, ubi eius duae sunt statuae, una hirsuta quae dicebatur Brisei, altera lenis quae dicebatur Lenei.

78

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Here, there are at least four interpretations of the epithet Briseus, and three appear in the form which one might expect in a variorum commentary: (4) siue . . . (6) uel certe . . . (7) uel certe . . . . And yet, in the context of the whole note, it is clear that ( I ) and (9) are at least partially contradictory concerning the meaning of ueizosus, and (8) and (10) are partially doublets. Once again, it seems likely that a variorum commentary was the source of two sets of excerpts which were recombined in the Commentum. 4. Combination and confusion

The arguments developed above might be understood to point to a very neat, almost mathematical process: an ancient variorum is abridged into the margins of various manuscripts, from at least two of which ‘Cornutus’ then restored-with some imperfections and repetitions-a single commentary. There is an element of truth in such a description, but not a very large one; indeed, there is about as much truth as there is in the equally simplistic equation about Servius, that the Vulgate plus the additions of Servius Auctus is approximately equal to the commentary of Donatus from which Servius himself had worked.13 In the case of the Commentum, neither the dismemberment of the posited late-antique variorum commentary rior the recomposition in the Carolingian age is a simple process: a great deal is lost and gained at each stage, and what is left-the Commentum itself-is a work that is both dependent on its tradition and independent of it. Perhaps the most important point to be made about this sort of transmission is that it is untidy and in many respects open. Marginal scholia, as opposed to semi-independent commentaries, are extremely variable and open to new and different kinds of annotation; above all, they serve the interest of the owners and users of the manuscripts. The selections from an antique commentary that are incorporated into the margins of a text are not the result of professional, scholarly abridgment (if such a thing exists or existed), they are the product of personal choice. Indeed, they may be the result of more than one person’s choice, at different times, using different ~ o u r c e s .What ’ ~ is more, as emerges from consideration of the medieval marginal scholia in KQ and other manuscripts, scholia are not orderly texts, and a manuscript of Persius may contain not only marginalia (the order of which is not always immediately obvious) but glosses and rubrics as well. When ‘Cornutus’ set to work, he was using material that was ambiguous, redundant, and disorderly; if he did not succeed in creating complete order, he came impressively close.

’’

For the Servian equation and its problems, see G. P. Goold, ‘Servius and the Helen Episode’, HSCP 74 (1970) 101-68. l4 An interesting parallel-later than the tradition of the Commenturn-may be found in All Souls MS 82, discussed by Baswell, Virgil in Medieval England 41-83, in which there are at least three hands working at different dates, but in some cases the later hands have completed or amplified the notes of the earlier ones.

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

79

Two difficult passages from the Commentum-difficult in part because the compiler was not completely successful-offer some understanding of the process involved. The first is on 1.19-20:15

19 (3) 0 HIC NEQVE MORE PROBO VIDEAS NEQVE VOCE S. I. T. T. hic dicit in auditorio, ubi recitant poetae. (4)uel hic pro tunc. (5) et hoc dicit: cum molliter, inquit, leguntur carmina, audientium quoque animi ad libidinem excitantur. 19 (6) Q HIC NEQVE MORE PROBO VIDEAS N. V. S. laudantium laetitiam insectatur, cum aut tumultuose clamant aut obscenos motus edunt ad dulcedinem carminum quae effeminant aures in tantum ut audientium quoque animi soluantur. (7) ingentes autem Titos dicit aut generaliter Romanos senatores a Tatio Tito Sabinorum rege aut certe a membri uirilis longitudine dicti Titi.

20 (7) 0 TITOS tres enim curiae fuerunt primo Romae, Titiens, Samnes, Nuceres. (8) Titiens a Tito Tatio rege Sabinorum participe in regno Romuli, Samnes a Romulo qui Romam condidit, Nuceres a Nucismone qui aliquando Romulo auxilium dedit. (9) alii a Luco Luceres nominarunt. (10) et est sensus: haec enim cum effeminate leguntur carmina, audientium quoque soluuntur animi; itaque neque more honesto neque uoce uirili laudant. (11) item Titos ironicos equites Romanos, principes magnae auctoritatis et honoris. (12) idem ualuisset si Lucios aut Marcos aut Publios dixisset. (13) sinecdochicos autem Titos scolasticos, quod sint uagi neque uno magistro contenti et in libidinem proni sicuti aues quibus comparantur. In the first place, the presence of a double lemma is a clear indication that the work of the compiler was not perfected. In fact, the lemma at 19(3) includes both the subsequent lemma at 19(6) and the one after that, at 20(7). But the problems extend beyond that. 19(7) is a gloss on Titos, which is not part of the major lemma governing it; indeed, it belongs in the following note. What is more, 19(7) is in part a doublet of 20(8) in that each has a reference to Titus Tatius as the source of the name Titos. There is also another doublet: compare 19(6) ‘camzinum quae effeminant aures in tantum ut audientium cluoaue animi soluantur’ with 20( 10) ‘cum effeminate leguntur carmina, audientium auoaue soluuntur animi.’ Finally, it should be noted that 20(9) is in fact not a note on Persius, but a note on another note, offering a variant and somewhat improved spelling and etymology for Luceres. All this suggests a degree of confusion in the Cornmenturn: a corrective gloss (20(9)) has been wrongly included; there are two versions of the same note, presumably from different sources; and there is a repetitive and partly mislocated set of lemmata.

It should be noted that sentence numbers here d o not begin with (I), as there is an earlier set of notes in the ‘doublet’, and they are numbered continuously.

Is

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

80

The other passage comes from the commentary on 2.3 1-34:

31 3 ECCE AVIA AVT METVENS DIVVM MATERTERA CVNIS EXEMIT PVERVM dicit nunc quae mala et inania ab eis petantur. (2) sunt auiae quaedam aut materterae quae statim puerum a cunabulis solutum uotis suis diis caelestibus commendant, postulantes eis diuitias, formam, uires, eloquium. (3) in hoc petendo ostendit uota hominum nimium esse importuna. 31 (4) 0 METVENS DIVVM MATERTERA ut Terentius: ‘fugitans litium’ (Phorm. 623), id est timens lites. ( 5 ) transit iterum ad uanas superstitiones muliemm, quae dum ad nutriendum infantes acceperint, eos digito turpi, id est medio, expiari fascino putant [obscenitatis indicium faciunt].

32 0 FRONTEMQVE ATQVE VDA LABELLA INFAMI DIGIT0 ET LVSTRALIBVS A. S. E. V. 0. I. P. tollit eum de lecto et incipit eius aliquid incantare fronti puerili et labellis ipsius tenerrimis. (2) infami digito ait medio, qui obscenitatis est, ut ait Iuuenalis: ‘cum Fortunae ipse minaci praeberet laqueum mediumque ostenderet unguem’ (10, 52sq.). (3) sunt autem nomina digitorum haec: pollex, salutaris, infamis, medicinalis, ultimus. (4) lustralibus saliuis purgatoriis, liberantibus puerum ex omni malo et ex omni, quod dicunt mulieres, fascino; uel quia frequenter infantibus saliuae fluunt. (5) urentis merito oculos quia fascino urunt tamquam consumant: Virgilius: ‘nescio quis t. 0.m. f. a.’ (Buc. 3, 103);urentis ergo fascinantis. 34 3 INHIBERE PERITA prohibere ne fascinent. There are here two double lemmata: 31(4) is part of the lemma of 31( 1 ) and 34(1) is the same as the (abbreviated) last two words of 32(1); it should also be noted that 34(1) is unmistakably derived from a gloss.16 At the end of the note on 3 1 is another gloss, which we have deleted: obscenitatis indicium faciunt (31(5)). That is the reading of MLU, while R and its congeners read et hoc obscenitatis indicium est; both clearly derive from an interlinear gloss in the archetype, which simply read obscenitatis indicium, expanded differently in the two sides of the tradition. But the larger (mis-)organization of this set of notes is also significant. A new section of Persius’ argument begins with Ecce auia at 31, concerning the misdirected wishes for infants made by nurses and elderly female relatives, the effects of which Persius deprecates. 31(1) is a simple statement of transition; 31(2) is a general summary of the whole passage from 31 to 40. At the same time, however, 31(5) starts with an Evil Eyewhich in turn is elaborated in the next note, at 32(2-5). The fascinum and its expiation appear three times in this set of notes (31(5); 32(4); 32(5)) with considerable redundancy; and there is a strange alternation between very broad notes and very particular glosses. What seems to have happened is that the compiler has taken over two very different types of note, some of which concern the whole passage, others smaller sections or single words. He has shaped them into a structure of lemmata that forces the inclusion of broad l6See

below, p. 96

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

81

comments within narrow rubrics; and in so doing, he has also violated his own system of lemmata by the presence of doublets. A few of the textual difficulties of the Comrnentum give one a sense not only of the methods of the compiler but of the physical shape of the original manuscript. At 1.15(6) we find:

15 (6) 0 PEXVSQVE TOGAQVE R. pexus pectinatus uel tonsus, unde: ‘propexam in pectore barbam’ (Aen. 10, 838). (7) [barba] est enim tonsurae genus quo iuuenes tondentur, unde sic tonsi pexibarbi uocantur. (8) cuius rei meminit Virgilius: ‘stiriaque impexis induruit horrida b.’ (Geo. 3, 366). There are two difficulties here, both revealed by differences between R and MLU. The first is barba in (7). That is the reading of MLU; R reads barbitondiurn.’’ Neither word belongs; the scholiast is talking about pexus, which need not refer to beards. And yet pexibarbi at the end of the sentence makes it clear that the beard is fuller than one might think. In fact, however, it clearly grew not from Persius, but from the quotation from Virgil in (6), which is further elaborated in (8). Here too, however, R makes a change, substituting the easier Virgilian verse ‘postquam tondenti barba cadebat’ from the first Eclogue. What all this reveals is the process of agglutination that shaped the commentary: a simple gloss (‘pexus pectinatus uel tonsus’) led to explanation through a Virgilian quotation; that in turn needed explanation-leading to the interpolated barba or barbitondium, clearly an interlinear gloss in origin-and that explanation needed another Virgilian quotation to explain it. Another example of considerable confusion appears at 1.59-60:

59 3 NEC MANVS AVRICVLAS I. M. A. manus rnobilis id est facilis, docta. (2) aures albas id est asininas; nam sic stulti ridentur: apposito temporibus pollice, imitantur aures asini aliis digitis quasi sannam facientes. ( 3 ) aut protendunt linguam quantum Apula canis multa siti. (4) et bene Apulam canem dixit, propter quod Apulia aestuosa est. ( 5 ) etiam hoc genus est ridendi quando admirantur; nam tria sunt genera sannarum: aut manu significare ciconiam aut auriculas asini aut linguam sitientis canis.

60 5 TANTAE id est tantum prolatae. (2) auriculas asini stolidas esse hoc prouerbio significatur, ex quo fabula quoque prodidit Midam stolidi animi asininas habuisse aures, quas albas dixit per sinecdochen. ( 3 ) est enim interior aurium pars alba, ut populum quoque albam dicimus, quod utique folia eius una parte sint alba, alia parte uiridia. The whole passage is out of order and incomplete. As often, an indication of the difficulty is given by the incomplete lemma: of 1.60, all but the last word is missing, even though some of the missing words appear as a minor lemma in 59(4). The placement of

” On

barbitondiurn and its medieval attestations, see Jahn, ed., Persius cxxxiv n.1.

82

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

that note in turn points to further difficulty, because it belongs on 1.60, not 1.59. It then becomes clear that a great deal of the note is disordered: 1.59(3-4) belong on 1.60; 1.59(5) is part of an introductory note on the whole sequence 1.58-60; 1.60(2-3) concern 1.59 rather than 1.60. The confusion here (which is in fact part of a larger area of disorder) probably derives from the faulty combination of marginalia, out of order, into a single text. The use of quotations to explain Persius’ usage is fairly frequent; but, as is probably the case at 1.15(6-8) discussed above, quotations themselves lead to further commentary, something that is perhaps indicative of the compiler’s methods. In two cases that I have found, the quotation is itself glossed in a way that seems to confuse the quotation with the text of Persius. That is the case at 3.21(3):

21 0 CONTEMPNERE a uitiis scilicet relicta uirtute, quia uirtus in te et rigiditas mentis et sapientia quae uitia expellat non est. (2) item conternpnere, haec ab Horatio male translata intempestiua sunt. (3) Horatius: ‘quin tu inuidiam placare paras uirtute relicta? contempnere miser’ (Serrn. 2, 3, 13sq.). (4) sensus: an inuidiam uirtute placare paras, qua relicta contempnere? ( 5 ) hic efficaciter; neque enim officia extorquenda sunt. Sensus is frequently used in the Cornmenturn as in other exegetical texts to introduce a paraphrase or explanation of the line being explained; but here, the words that follow sensus are simply a slight expansion of Horace’s own words. Persius’ elliptical contemnere indeed alludes to the verses of Horace quoted by the Cornmenturn, and the next sentence criticizes Persius’ borrowing; but the note here is clearly a clarification of Horace, not of Persius. That suggests, perhaps, that whoever first used Horace to explain Persius here was using a manuscript of the Serrnones that itself had scholia. The other similar passage appears at 3.66, where an interpretation of Virgil seems to become intertwined with the interpretation of Persius:

66 9 DISCITE 0 MISER1 ET CAVSAS C. R. id est philosophiam, ut Virgilius. (2) debere dicit unumquemque discere omnium rerum rationem ut sciat quis ipse est et ob quam rationem natus est. (3) sed et finem uitae debet intueri et quae fugiat, quae exoptet, quem modum in cupiditate habeat, quod bonum, quod asperum nummus habeat, uel quantum suis parentibus largiri oportet. (4) ‘felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas’ (Verg. Geo. 2, 490). ( 5 ) sapientem ergo felicem esse dixit qui rerum potuit cognoscere causas. (6) discite aut naturalem philosophiam aut moralem. (7) naturalis est quae tractat de rerum natura, moralis quae de moribus nostris. (8) et hoc dicit: utrum in quem usum nascimur uicturi an qualiter uicturi et quid futuri. There can be little question that Persius is here making use of the famous verse from the Georgics which the Cornmenturn quotes in (4); but the order of this note is remarkably confused. (1) ends ‘ut Virgilius’, which ought to introduce the quotation-which does not appear for several lines. Instead, (2) and (3) are a perfectly reasonable exposition of these verses of Persius. Then comes Georgics 2.490, but instead of returning to the explanation

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

83

of Persius, the next sentence ( 5 ) is clearly an explanation of the verse of Virgil just quoted. After that, the Commentum returns to explaining Persius for the rest of the note. There are at least two possible explanations for this order and content. One is simply that (1) and (4) are partial doublets-that they are parts of one note drawn from different sets of marginalia. That is not altogether satisfactory here, because ut Virgilius almost requires the subsequent quotation. The other is that the entire Virgilian section (1,4-5) is itself a marginal comment or gloss added to the Commentum by either the original compiler or an early reader, which was then badly incorporated into the Commentum by a subsequent copyist. At 4.18(1), the explanation of curata uses the word chromutiarii; the sentence then goes on to explain chromutiarii-a gloss on a gloss. Indeed, intrusive glosses are the form of textual difficulty that reveals most about the composition and shape of the Commentum. In the middle of the lemma of 2.55, the gloss id est euenit follows subiit in all four manuscripts; the note 'pingui auro id est lamina' (2.52(4)) appears after productu at 2.52(3) in MLR, but after dicitur in U; only in Vinet's edition does it appear as a separate note. The confusion in both these notes (2.52, 2.55) is genuine, and more wide-ranging than first appears: the note that we print at 2.55(1) is found there in R alone; part of it is found between 2.52(2) and (3) in MLU. At 2.17(3) the gloss id est consentiat appears at different places in MLU and R, and at 2.31(5) the indication of obscenity in the use of the middle finger is glossed slightly differently in R and MLU. In all these cases from Satire 2-and others that could be cited from elsewhere-it appears that the Commentum itself had interlinear glosses that were inserted into the text differently in the two branches of the tradition. It is perhaps indicative of this-and (a topic to be discussed in more detail shortly) of the fact that the compiler seems to have grown somewhat tired of his task as he proceeded-that in the commentary on the first Satire there are at least ten notes where the first comment following a lemma is a gloss on the very last word of that lemma-as if it had been taken from a manuscript of Persius along with the text or, more likely, that it was inserted as an interlinear gloss over the last word of the lemma, and then became a part of the text. Aside from notes in which all the comments concerned a single word or which consisted of only a single sentence, this pattern is found six times in the commentary on Satire 2, once on 3, and only once thereafter in the Commentum.'8 That the 'original' manuscript of the Commentum may not have been the tidiest text in the world is scarcely surprising. The effort of making a coherent single commentary out of multiple sets of marginalia-and other materials-can not have been small, and the compiler may well have continued to seek out other useful pieces of information to insert in the completed text. It is also possible, in fact quite likely, that even after the Commentum was completed, later readers continued to add useful material: none of the major manuscripts is completely lacking in what we would, in describing the more stable

"The passages I have found are: 1.1 1(5), 20(14), 32(1), 39(1), 41(1) 60(1), 62(1), 70(1), 101,6, 131(1); 2.8(1), 18(1), 35(1), 41(1), 44(1), 53(3); 3.66(1); 5.135(3). Other notes consist enitrely of a single sentence explaining the last word of the lemma, but those are indicative of the artificial nature of the lemma system itself.

84

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

paradosis of literary texts, describe as ‘interpolation’. Here, it is simply more of the same, although often with very confusing results. A commentary is not a tidy text. 5. Construction

I suggested above that the compiler of the Cornrnenturn may have grown weary of his task, that the decreasing use of ‘last gloss first’ as the Cornrnenturn proceeds may be the result of progressively less energetic revision of the commentary. That may be an illegitimate inference, but in trying to give an account of how the Cornmenturn was put together and from what materials, it is important to remember that the text is not a completely homogeneous whole: individual notes become briefer and the amount of commentary per line of Persius becomes less. Thus, while there are respectively 65.92 and 66.48 words on average in each note of the commentaries on Satires 1 and 2, there are only 40.80 and 45.71 words in each note of the commentaries on Satires 5 and 6; in terms of words of commentary per line of the text of Persius, the figures are 71.19 and 59.39 for Satires 1 and 2, and 36.52 and 41.14 for Satires 5 and 6.19 Similarly, the proportion of notes comprising four sentences or more also decreases over the course of the Cornrnenturn. None of this is surprising; indeed, as noted above, it is typical of commentaries and is in fact comparable to the phenomenon often observed in the grammarians, that illustrative quotations are most frequently drawn from the first book of large works, and that quotations from the beginnings of books are more frequent than quotations from the end. What it means for an analysis of the composition of the Cornmenturn,however, is that the later parts of the commentary are much less useful than the earlier parts in examining either the manner and intentions of the compiler or the kind of sources from which the Comrnenturn derives. If, particularly in the earlier parts of the text, it is clear that there are doublets suggesting derivation from two versions descended from the same source, that is less clear in the later parts: notes are shorter, have fewer elements, and hence fewer places in which doublets could possibly appear. Nor is this declinc in fullness from beginning to end necessarily indicative of the compiler’s having lost interest: every scholiastic manuscript has fewer and briefer notes at the end than at the beginning, and that will also have been the case for the manuscripts with marginalia that I have posited as the proximate sources for the Cornmenturn. As it is, even the earlier sections of the Cornmenturn do not provide indications of a consistent plan imposed by the compiler. In the commentary on Satire 2, for instance, more than half of the longer notes (4 sentences or more) begin with a summary of the

# of words # of lemmata

lines of Persius

Satire 1 8899 135 125

Satire 2 4454 67 7s

Satire 3 5667 110

118

Satire 4 2662 42 52

Satire 5 6976 171 191

Satire 6 3291 72 80

4. THE SHAPING OF THE COMMENTVM

85

passage in question; but approximately a quarter begin with a gloss on an individual word. In a few cases, the opening note is a grammatical or historical explanation. But the logical, and most frequently followed pattern is for a note to begin with some form of summary or general explanation, which is then followed by minor lemmata introducing alternative or supplementary explanations, and/or by glosses on individual words or short phrases. The structure of notes varies somewhat, in part depending on the number of sentences and, indeed, the complexity of the text cited in the lemma; many shorter notes consist merely of paraphrases o r - o n e of the clearest signs that the lemma-system is an artificial construct-glosses on one word of a lemma that may contain as much as a full verse. Certain formulae, however, predominate. Glosses on individual words or phrases are generally introduced by id est, which is, in fact a very common means of opening a note, either in introducing a gloss or as the start of a paraphrase. Id est is the first word of the first sentence of 17 of 135 lemmata in Satire 1, 12 of 75 in Satire 2, and 18 of 171 in Satire 5; it is never much less than lo%, never as much as 20%. Similarly, a phrase including sensus followed by a paraphrase or explanation begins 23 notes in the Cornmenturn, and those including hoc dicit amount to 29; all told, these three phrases account for the openings of 130 of 597 notes, or 22%. Roughly an equal number of notes with similar purposes-in general, paraphrase or summary-use inquit or no particular marker. One category of scholiastic comment that is relatively infrequent is notes beginning with ordo: it introduces only five notes, and a total of 10 sentences, in the entire Commenturn. This may be contrasted with its use 17 times in Servius’ commentary on the Eclogues or Porphyrio’s 15 times (three with the peculiar usage ordo et sensus) in the commentary on Horace, Sermones Book 1; each of these texts is considerably longer than Persius. If one looks closely at the shape and organization of the Commenturn, a picture of the compiler and the process of compilation emerges. Whoever put it together had a very clear idea of organization; a plan-not perfectly executed, to be sure-to create a single book that interwove commentary and text; that combined into one framework all that the compiler could fiid, or found useful, in the ancient scholia to which he had access; and that assimilated the exegesis of a classical text to that of the Bible. The ancient marginalia were almost certainly not the only sources the compiler used, and almost certainly, too, some of the paraphrases and glosses were his own work, created both to explain the text where needed and to fill in the framework of the lemmata. What is clear throughout, however, is that the Cornmenturn is a composed work: its very shape (or at least its intended shape) reveals that it was in fact shaped; a commentary intended to give an illustrious name to an intelligent piece of scholarship, and to stem the endless flux and difficulty of marginal scholia. In that, of course, the author did not succeed.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP The preceding chapters have aimed to establish two formal histories of the Cornrnenturn: in Chapters 2-3 the stemmatic relationship among the extant manuscripts and the nature of their divergences, and in Chapter 4 the relationship between the Cornmenturn as reconstituted from the manuscripts and its putative origins in late antiquity. It should be clear, however, particularly from the discussion of the early printed editions, that each of these histories is only one of many, potential or actual. There is, to begin with, no reason to believe that the ancient marginalia used by the compiler of the Cornmenturn were the only ones that existed or survived to the ninth century, and no reason to believe that they (and their putative siblings) were derived by a simple process of excerpting or indeed that all, or each, was derived from a single ancient commentary: the relatively unified and tidy tradition that I reconstructed in the previous chapter gains whatever tidiness it may have because we do not have enough evidence to complicate it. In the next chapter, I will return to the question of the sources and composition of the Cornrnenturn and consider the substantive (rather than formal) issues that bear on its history; but before that, it is necessary to complicate the medieval part of the story. All the manuscripts considered so far contain continuous commentaries, not scholia; and the only manuscript discussed that has the text of Persius and the text of the Cornmenturn on the same pages is L, in which the two are kept in separate columns and do not affect one another. But there are quite a few other relatively early (pre-twelfth century) manuscripts containing a text of Persius with annotations that are closely related to the Cornmenturn,but which present their notes as scholia attached to the text of Persius rather than as a separate work. It is the nature of these scholia and their relationship to the Cornmentum itself that I will consider in the present chapter. The fundamental division that I am making between commentary and scholia is, it should be stated, by no means the only way to categorize the available material; the very useful survey of the early medieval commentaries in Catalogus Translationum et Cornmentariorurn ignores the formal arrangement and instead divides the manuscripts into two groups, an ‘A tradition’ (the Cornmenturn and its descendants) and a ‘B tradition’ the manuscripts of which differ to some degree in content from the A tradition. In fact, however, the differences of content are relatively minor compared to differences of wording, and there are relatively few notes in any manuscript of the B tradition that are not also found in some fashion in the Cornmenturn. The real difference, as I hope will become clear, is one of form-and that difference is such that manuscripts with marginal scholia, even if they contain readings that are in some sense ‘better’ than those found in the major manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn, do not in fact supply evidence for the text of the Cornrnenturn itself. The difference is one of kind, not one of degree.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

87

Although I will return to this issue at the end of the chapter, it is perhaps useful to anticipate. For the real problem in dealing with marginal scholia is how one talks about them, and it is worth trying to explain why. In what follows, I will discuss the exegetical materials contained in six manuscripts of Persius, manuscripts which differ considerably among themselves in the content, physical arrangement, and quantity of that exegesis. In some cases, the scholia are neatly (or relatively neatly) arranged in columns that are kept distinct from the text; in others, the individual notes straggle, overlap, and compete with one another for space and attention. In some manuscripts-r rather, in some parts of some manuscripts-the notes proceed down one margin, in order, and then down the other margin; in most scholiastic manuscripts, notes in each margin follow the order of the text, and one must go from one to the other to keep in step with a reading of the text. In all these manuscripts, there are not only marginal notes, but interlinear ones (for which I generally use the term ‘gloss’, even though some of them are much longer than the traditional understanding of glosses), some of which extend into the margins and interrupt the flow of the marginal scholia. In some cases, the pages are ruled for scholia as well as for the text of Persius; in others, the marginalia do not seem to be part of the original planning of the book. In some cases, the glosses and the marginalia are clearly part of the same set of annotations: even if not written by the same hand, they do not overlap in content and can sometimes be shown to derive from the same source. In other cases, it is quite clear that the glosses and scholia are derived from different sources-and (as with the composition of the Commentum itself) these different sources overlap in content. In other words, it is frequently not clear how one should define the ‘text’ of a scholiastic manuscript: the orderly marginalia? everything in the margins? every writing that is not part of the actual text of Persius? And in what order does one print this material? A printed edition-unless it reproduces the format of the original-inevitably imposes its own order on material that is often very disorderly. Wessner’s complicated sets of brackets and codes in his edition of the Juvenal scholia allow the reader to reconstruct fairly accurately what is in the Pithoeanus and where it is; they do not give one a sense of what the text is really like to read or use. And there is a further problem, of course, that of multiple hands. While the manuscripts of the Commentum present a linear text additions and corrections to which are clearly distinguishable, a scholiastic manuscript is normally an open text: there is aImost always room to add one more gloss or note, and the process can continue for centuries.’ In examining microfilms (and in quoting notes from these manuscripts, here and in Appendix 3), I have excluded obviously late annotations, but I have made no attempt to distinguish among roughly

’

The best recent discussion of the accretion of marginalia is the account of All Souls MS 82 of Virgil in Baswell, Virgil in Medieval England 41-83. Although a great deal has been written about marginalia in recent years, most of it has either been codicological or (post-modernist) theoretical, and has not paid great attention to the problem of sources and the interaction among hands. The studies that I have found most relevant are those of Holtz, ‘Le RBle des commentaires’ and ‘Les manuscrits latins 31 gloses.’ There is also a detailed and useful study of the Verona scholia on Virgil by E. Condello, ‘Ai margini di Virgilio: paleografia e codicologia degli Scholia veronensia’, in V. Fera, G. Ferrah, S. Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginalia from papyri to prinr (2 vols, Messina 2002) 1.59-81. Concerning the physical arrangement of marginalia and text, see also M. Maniaci, “‘La serva padrona”: interazioni fra test0 e glossa sulla pagina del rnanoscritto’ in the same collection, 1.3-35.

88

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

contemporary hands; in none of the manuscripts discussed here have I seen any reason to believe that different hands are consistently using different sources for their marginal annotations. But, as will be discussed further below, it is not totally inaccurate to describe the Commentum as a text, but scholiastic manuscripts, both individually and as a group, as a process: they are created and exist over time; they are open texts, not closed ones; they offer the chance for active engagement by readers and owners-to the extent that the reader can himself become at least a partial author. Hence a scholiastic text lacks the unity of a continuous commentary: it is a set of texts, not a text. In what follows, I will look at three pairs of manuscripts. Two of them (WO) are said by CTC to belong to the A tradition, and two of them (KQ) are categorized as manuscripts of the B tradition, and indeed contain the set of notes that most differs from the Commentum. The final pair (FN), to be examined very briefly, fall somewhere in between: they have some characteristics in common with KQ, others with the Commentum itself. I have not examined all the manuscripts labeled ‘Tradition A’ or ‘Tradition B’ in CTC, but I have examined in photograph or microfilm all the preRenaissance manuscripts of tradition A and five of tradition B, together with the printed reports of two more. The six manuscripts discussed here are both heavily annotated and representative; as a sample, I have collated carefully the marginalia and glosses on Satire 2 in all six, and have collated completely K, the manuscript generally regarded as the most important witness to tradition B; where its readings were of interest, I have checked them against its closest (and more carefully written) relative, Q. My goal here is not to provide a full collation or a critical text of these manuscripts: there is not enough important in them to make it worthwhile. Instead, it is the relationship of the marginalia to the continuous text that concerns me: above all, given the fact that the Commenturn itself is based on ancient marginalia, it is worth trying to determine whether any of the marginalia in medieval manuscripts descend (like the Pithoeanus of Juvenal) directly from the sources of the Commentum, or if they represent the re-marginalization of the Commentum itself. I . The scholia in 0 and W Of the nine manuscripts written before the fifteenth century identified by CTC as belonging to the A Tradition, four are the primary manuscripts of our edition (MLUR), a fifth (T) is also cited and has been discussed above, while a sixth, Vat. Reg. Lat. 1401, is also a continuous commentary, but of very little value.’ Of the remaining three, one, Vat. Reg. Lat. 1560, contains an important text to be discussed below, the fragmentary commentary of Remigius of Auxerre; but it contains only a single leaf with scholia related to the Commentum, and that contains little of i n t e r e ~ t .The ~ two remaining manuscripts contain copious marginal scholia, and are discussed here. W = Vienna, Nationalbibliothek 131, of the late tenth century. The text of Persius appears on foll. IIv-15r; scholia appear at the top of the page, in an orderly column in the On Vat. Reg. 1401, see above, p. 55. For one non-Commentum scholium in Vat. Reg. 1560, see below on Prol. 4 in Appendix 3

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

89

outer margin of the text (i.e. on the right on recto, on the left on verso), and at the bottom; individual notes are generally keyed to the text of Persius by signes de renvoi. Some of the notes are elegantly displayed in the shape of descending triangles; the manuscript as a whole gives more of an impression of leisurely spacing than does, for instance, 0. Additional notes and glosses appear between the lines of Persius and tucked into the inner margin. 4 0 = Oxford, Bodleian Auct. F. 1. 15, of the early eleventh century, probably from Canterbury. The text of Persius appears on foll, 79’-92’; as in W, scholia appear around the text at top, outside margin, and (less frequently) bottom. Individual notes are occasionally keyed to the text; the scholia are written in very tight lines; new notes do not necessarily begin on a new line, although they are generally marked by a capital letter. There are many interlinear notes and notes written between the text and the scholia; relatively few notes appear in the inside margin? WO are classified as belonging to Tradition A in CTC, and they are closely related to one another: for large parts of the commentary they contain an almost identical text of an almost identical set of notes from the Commentum, and an almost identical wording of non-Commentum material! In order to give some sense of the relationship between WO and the Commentum-and because it is not always possible to find clear dividing-lines between individual notes when examining marginalia-I have looked at the number of sentences in the Commentum, to see how many of them are used, all or in part, in the scholia of WO. This method is not foolproof, of course: the numbered sentences vary widely in length; they represent divisions imposed by the editors, not embedded in the text; and I have defined ‘use’ generously, to include almost any verbatim correspondence. In total, the Commentum on Satire 2 contains 241 sentences; of these, 96 (or 40%) appear, complete or in part, in WO. A further 42 sentences (17.5%) are echoed in substance in WO, but without significant verbal parallels. That is to say, more than half the sentences in the Commentum have some counterpart in WO-and more than 40% do not. Seen from the other side, there are only about 17 notes, or significant portions of notes, in the marginal scholia of WO that are not related to notes in the Commentum. Some of these figures may not fairly represent the relationship among these texts, because they combine the evidence from 0 and W, which do not always contain the same text, and they suppress the fairly large number of interlinear glosses which have no relationship at all to the Commentum, while including the glosses-a not inconsiderable number-that are related to the Commentum. Most of the marginal notes in WO (and

Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 574; CTC 219; Munk Olsen 214 (Persius 101). A. Goehel, ‘Ueher eine Wiener Persius-handschrift s. X, mit glossen und scholien’, Philologus 14 (1859) 170-80, 382-87 and Iuvenaliana und Persiana aus einer Wiener Pergament-Handschrijt des X . Julzrhunderts (Berlin 1859) 6-9, believed that W either was, or reproduced, one of the sources of the Commenturn, and printed (Iuvenaliana 918) useful samples of the two commentaries in parallel. I have collated W from microfilm. Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censimenfo no. 327; CTC 218; Munk Olsen 204 (Persius 57). I have inspected 0 briefly and collated it from microfilm. WO are not gemelli; in particular, there is variation between them in whether a given note is gloss or scholium. I will not discuss their relationship in detail, although its main features will emerge in the course of this discussion.

’ ‘

90

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

many of the interlinear glosses, on which more below) are either exact or approximate equivalents to notes found in the Cornrnenturn, and-to put the same thing from the opposite point of view-there are very few marginal notes that are not related to notes in the Cornrnenturn. On the other hand, it would be wrong to call these sets of scholia reproductions of the Cornmenturn: the notes that WO supply are often in different orders from those of the Cornrnenturn and, perhaps more important, WO supply only a small portion of what is in the Cornrnenturn. What the evidence will demonstrate is not a relationship of descent, but a more amorphous connection. It suggests that multiple commentaries (or sets of scholia) existed, relying on the same basic collection of notes; and while the collection itself had a certain degree of coherence, it had no unity. In this connection, it is worth looking at a few representative instances of the way the two commentaries work. On 2.14, the Cornrnenturn has the following set of notes: Q NERIO IAM TERTIA CONDITVR VXOR Nerio nomen fictum est. (2) Nerius quidam morte coniugum locupletatus fenerator factus est notissimus. (3) de hoc Horatius ait: ‘scribe decem Nerio’ (Serrn. 2, 3, 69). (4) ille, inquit, nobilitatur coniuges tumulando, mea uxor nec aegrotare patitur. ( 5 ) dos enim ciui Romano data, non ex patrio dictata nomine, si repudium non interuenerit, post mortem uxoris ad maritum pertinet.

On the same passage, WO supply a majority of the notes in the Commentum and what is more, they are (at least in 0)in the same order: (1) Nomen fictum. ( 2 ) Nerius quidam morte coniugum locupletatus fenerator factus est notissimus. (4) Hoc dicit: ille nobilitatur coniuges cumulando, mea uxor nec patitur aegri tudinem.

( 5 ) Dos enim ciui Romano data, non ex patrio dictata nomine, si repudium non interuenerit post mortem uxoris ad maritum pertinet. (1) fictum nomen 0 I (4) nobilitator W I mea-egritudinem I ( 5 ) ante (4)W

om. W I ( 5 ) ciui] cuidam W

Of these, ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) are verbally identical; in (1) the brief note has been shortened even further; and in (4) nec aegrotare patitur has been changed to nec patitur aegritudinern (this section is omitted from W). WO share the fairly trivial error curnulando for turnulando, and they also share the (correct) reading of R, Nerius rather than Nerio in (2), and of MLU, ciui rather than a ciue in (5). WO also share the omission, typical also of the later abridged manuscripts of continuous commentary as well, of the quotation in (3). A slightly more complicated case appears at 2.57, a note that is itself somewhat confused in the Cornmenturn: Q SOMNIA PITVITA QVI PVRGATISSIMA MITTANT id est certa, quia pituita pleni nihil ueri somniant. (2) pituita autem morbus est gallinarum, qui ex edacitate nascitur. (3) unde euenit ut grauati somno homines non bona somnia uideant. (4)

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

91

alter sensus: dum ouato auro effigies h i t , expulit antiquum ordinem ministerii, quia Numa instituit quibus modis oporteat uenerari deos. Notes related to the first three sentences of this appear together in WO:’

(2) Pituita autem morbus est gallinarum qui ex edacitate nascitur. (a) Vnde euenit ut grauati somno uel pituita pleni nihil ueri somnient. (2) autem om. W I est morbus W I (a) somnientur 0

It is clear that while (2) is the same note as in Commentum, (a) is an amalgam: it begins with the opening of 57(3), and ends with the bulk of 57(1). It is perhaps worth noting that W’s reading somnient (of which 0’s reading is a corruption) is an error for somniant shared by LU. The version of the note given by WO makes rather more sense than that in Commentum: while the irrelevant disease of chickens appears in both versions, the Cornmentum’s note on the bad dreams of heavy sleepers has little to do with the context.

5. W, fol. 4” (bottom half). The note on pituita appears at the foot of the page, and 57(4) is in the left-hand margin. The physical context of this note in the scholia is also significant. In W, it is the last note at the foot of fol. 4“, immediately following the last part of 56(3), in quorum templo sornniorurn interpretes erant qui puros a pituita uisus horninum exponebant. This note too is perhaps better arranged in WO than in Commentum; but here the point is simply

’ It should be noted that in citations from the scholiastic manuscripts, I have identified sentences by the same numbers that they receive in our edition of the Commentum when they correspond closely, and I have identified material that differs significantly from the Commenturn by lower-case letters (a). The use of a right-hand bracket after a lemma (1) indicates that the preceding words of the text of Persius (to which the note refers) are for the reader’s convenience and are not part of the scholium.

92

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

that the notes on pituita are grouped together. In 0, on the other hand, this note appears as an extended gloss-one which indeed extends from the normal interlinear position to make use of a large gap in the middle of the scholia in the right-hand margin of fol. 83’.’ That the same note can appear as both gloss and scholium may be surprising; but in fact there are several places in the commentary on Sat. 2 where the same thing happens.

6. 0, fol. 83” (top half). The note on pituitu appears in the gap in scholia in the right margin, and 57(4) begins at the end of line 5 at the top. There is, however, somewhat more to be said about the notes on 2.57 in WO, because one part of it had appeared a few notes further up the page in both manuscripts: 57(4) Alter sensus: dum ouato auro effigies linit, expellit antiquum ordinem ministerii, quia Numa instituit quibus modis oporteat uenerari deos. alter] aliter 0 : alius W

In 0, this appears between 55(2-3) on ouatu (the egg-batter treatment of statues) and a version of 59(1) on the name of Numa; in W, it appears after 50(2-3) and before 59(1), This may suggest that the interlinear notes were written before the marginal scholia.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

93

which in turn precedes the other notes on ouato at 55(2-3). It is perfectly clear, of course, that 57(4) is seriously out of place where it stands in the Commentum: it is the only note on line 57 that has nothing to do with pituita, and the opening alter sensus, following chicken diseases and bad dreams, makes no sense at all. Nor, indeed, does aliud sensus in W make much sense where it stands. Only 0 gives a reasonable order for the notes. If the version of the scholia on 2.57 in WO reveals the weaknesses of the Commentum, there are equally complex problems in WO. Consider, in the first place, the notes on 2.59 in the Commentum: § AVRVM VASA NVMAE SATVRNIAQVE IMPVLIT A. V. Q. V. ET T. F. M. Numa Pompilius, rex Romanorum, uasis fictilibus usus est etiam ad religionem deorum, ex quo Numa dictus est quod numinibus deseruiret; nam primus religiones inuenit. (2) Satumia aera Saturno enim in Italia regnante aes in usu fuit, quod etiam postea in aede Saturni condebatur, unde aerarium dictum est; nondum enim fuerat argentum atque aurum. (3) uirgines quoque Vestales uasis fictilibus in sacrificiis usae sunt. (4) illud autem aes una parte capite Iani notatum erat, altera naue qua Saturnus fugiens ad Italiam uectus est. (5) bene autem in ill0 nummo geminum erat signum, et hospitalitatis Iani et aduentus Saturni, quod aes postea, ut dictum est, in aede Saturni condebatur, nondum argent0 auroque signato; unde aerarium nomen accepit. (6) fuit autem assis libralis et dipondius duarum librarum, quod hodieque in usu remansit et solet pensari potius quam numerari; unde et dispensatores dicti praerogatores. (7) et est sensus: ministeria innocentium ac simplicium uasorum [auaritia] caeca remouit ambitio. (8) uel quia Saturnus aereis uasis placabatur.

This note has its own confusions: in particular, it should be noted that (3) is seriously out of place: not only is it a doublet for 2.60(2) and closely related to the first sentence of this note, but it interrupts the sense of the surrounding notes: (4) clearly follows on (2): On the other hand, the notes in WO reveal a great deal of corruption and confusion themselves: (a) Vnde et numa eo quod numinibus deseruiret sed hic uasis fictilibus utebatur. (1) uasa numae] i. fictilia. numa rex fictilibus utebatur uasis.

(b) Catinum quod apud numam fuit cuius tempore aerea erant uasa; unde et aerarium in quo et nauis saturni erat picta et nauis iani. (b) et nauisl-Iani

0 : erat saturni nauis depicta W I saturni W : saturnis 0

I print these three notes separately, because they are found in three different places. The first (a) immediately follows in both 0 and W the note 57(4), discussed just above. The second (1) is an interlinear gloss in 0 and is not found in W. The third (b) is an interlinear gloss in W and a marginal scholium in 0. There is a fourth note, which will be discussed later, that has no relationship to the Commentum but is found in KQ.

’On this, see above, p. 68-69.

94

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Of these three notes, the interlinear gloss in 0 is the simplest: it is very close to the wording of part of 59(1) in the Cornmenturn, but since the content-and indeed the diction-could easily be derived from the text of Persius, it offers no compelling information about sources. The first note, however, although it concerns 2.59, in fact deals with the same problem as 57(4), discussed above-and in fact in WO 59(a) immediately follows 57(4). Indeed, the set of notes as presented in 0 (W has them slightly disordered) makes perfect sense: the first note on ouato (55(2-3)) is followed by the second note on ouato (57(4)), which is out of place in Comrnenturn; that note ends with a reference to Numa’s religion, and then 59(a) continues that-but makes it clear at the same time that while Roman religion was founded by Numa, he did not institute the use of gold in temples. The whole sequence (leaving out variants and minor corruptions in WO) thus reads as follows: 55(2) Siue quod ouo perfundantur statuae ut brattea melius inhaerescat, siue quod talk est brattea qualis oui membrana. (3) uel certe ouatum aurum dicit quia medium oui simile est auro. 57(4) Alter sensus: dum ouato auro effigies linit, expellit antiquum ordinem ministerii, quia Numa instituit quibus modis oporteat uenerari deos. 59(a) unde et Numa, eo quod numinibus deseruiret; sed hic uasis fictilibus utebatur. This collocation of notes indicates some of the difficulty in describing relationships among these manuscripts: it is not simply that WO present a partial and rearranged text of notes also found in the Cornmenturn, but that they at times present a coherent alternative version: in other words, although these notes are very much like the Cornmenturn, they are not from the Cornrnenturn-nor, unless the compiler was very much less intelligent than the rest of his work suggests, is W or 0 a source, or a copy of a source, of the Cornmenturn itself. It is, of course, not always true that the version of WO is more coherent than (or even as coherent as) that in the Cornmenturn;that is shown by the final note on 59 preserved in WO, which is almost totally incoherent. In this case, although the sequence of notes in the Comrnenturn has been disturbed, there is a clear distinction between sentences concerning Numa’s earthenware crockery and sentences concerning the bronze associated with Saturn; the latter topic leads to the discussion of the etymology of aerariurn and the supposed bronze coinage with images of Janus and of Saturn’s ship (also reported by DS Aen. 8.357 and Macrob. Sat. 1.7.21-22). But WO have substituted Numa for Saturn in 59(b), making nonsense of the name of the aerariurn and of the cultural history given in the Cornmenturn. At some stage the rest of the note has also become totally garbled, leaving a treasury that has pictures of two ships rather than coins with a ship and a face. One final instance shows a fuller example of the same process of copying, adaptation, invention, and reshaping, in the commentary on 2.26:

26 3 AN QVIA NON FIBRIS OVIVM ERGENNAQVE IVBENTE TRISTE IACES LVCIS EVITANDVMQVE BIDENTAL IDCIRCO STOLIDAM PRAEBET TIBI VELLERE B. I. hoc dicit: putas deos tuorum scelerum oblitos

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

95

quia non iaces fulminatus in lucis bidentalium? (2) in usu fuit ut augures uel aruspices adducti de Btruria certis temporibus fulmina transfigurata in lapides infra terram absconderent, cuius impetratione rei oues immolabantur. (3) hoc ergo dixit: et quia necdum te fulmine perculsum sepeliuit caesis hostiis Ergenna, ideo derides Iouem? (4) Ergennu aruspicis nomen fictum secundum morem Etruscorum. (5) bidentul autem ideo dicitur fulmen aut quod duos dentes habeat aut certe quod in eo loco ubi ceciderit bidentes mactentur. (6) cetera autem fulgura qualibet hostia procurantur, sed omnia calcare nefas dicitur; ideo euitundurn dixit esse. (7) triste iuces, id est quod lecto nomine tuo alii tristes efficiantur. (8) iaces quia fulminati supra terram positi mandantur sepulturae. (9) bidentul dicitur locus secundo percussus fulmine, qui bidente ab aruspicibus consecratur, quem calcari nefas est. (10) ergo bis eadem de caelo tacta, quae expiari non possunt nisi ; immolata qualibet hostia cetera fulgura teneantur. This is a long and complex collection of annotations; there is a set of notes on Ergenna and Etruscan haruspices (2-4) followed by a set of notes on bidentul (5-6, 9-10) interrupted by two notes on triste iuces (7-8). The same arrangement-except for the position of (7)-more or less holds in WO, but with some significant differences: (a) Hoc dicit: ideo rides Iouem quia necdum te fulmine perculsum sepeliuit caesis hostiis ergenna.

(4) Ergenna autem nomen fictum secundum morem ethruscorum. (b) Bidental bis fulminatum uel locus bis tactus quod locus bis fulminatus uix euadet damnum. dental dicitur fulmen Iouis quod ad similitudinem humani dentis sit. (c) Bidental autem dicitur uel quia duos dentes habeat uel (d) quia bidente ab aruspicibus consecretur, quem calcari nefas est, (e) nec expiari potest nisi immolata hostia. cetera fulmina ibi infra terram abscondantur. (7) triste dicit quod lecto nomine tuo alii tristes efficiantur. (a) quia W : quod 0 I percussum W (4) morem om. 0 (b) bidental om. 0 I bis fulminatus locus ut ceuadet 0 I debtal0 I ad] in W (d) ab om. 0 (e) abscondatur 0 (7) quod lecto W : quia deleto 0 I efficiuntur 0

It should be pointed out that the relative position of the two notes on bidentul is reversed in W, and that the last sentence (7) appears as an interlinear gloss in 0, while it is part of the marginal scholia in W. Of these notes, only (4) and (7) are exactly equivalent to comparable wordings in Cornrnenturn; (a) is fairly close to (3), with some rearrangement, but unquestionably the ‘same’ note. It is with the notes on bidentul that one runs into problems. What is worth noting is that WO group together-and confuse-the several notes in Cornmenturn that are separated by (7) and (8): sentences (c-e) are related to ( 5 ) , (9) and (10) respectively; but while they represent an attempt to make a single coherent

96

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

note on the bidental, they have also distorted seriously the religious details given in Cornmenturn about the victim to be sacrificed to expiate different sorts of fulrnen. That religious lore may be nonsense; to a certain extent, the comment in (10) persists in linking bis to bidental, and then smuggling the bidens into the expiation. That strangeness-that a bidental is a place that has been struck by two thunderbolts-also pervades the additional note (b) that is not attested in the manuscripts of the Cornrnentum, or indeed in the B tradition. It starts from explaining bi-dental as a place that is extraordinary because of the damage caused by lightning striking twice in the same place. In the second sentence, that clearly leads to a further inference: if a double-lightning strike is marked by a bi-dental, then a single strike should somehow be connected to aDental! We now have a new word for a thunderbolt, so named because it looks like a tooth. One of the two sets of notes on bidental is related to ancient sources; the other is almost certainly pure, and quite ingenious, invention. But again, although it is clear that many of the scholia in WO on 2.26 are related to the Commenturn,it is not clear whether or not they actually come from the Cornmenturn. The notes in the Commenturn are repetitive: (6)-not found in WO-and (9-10) are almost certainly two versions of the same note (although the first has been reshaped to emphasize euitandum rather than bidental), and these notes are probably two versions of an original, which may be represented by (2)-another sentence not found in WO. Although thc version of WO includes some nonsense and some significant shortening relative to the notes in the Cornmenturn,it does not have the double version represented by (6) and (9-lo), and there is no reason not to believe that the WO version is based on one of the sources of the Cornrnentum rather than the Cornmenturn itself.. But the very fact that WO use what appears to be a secondary elaboration of an ‘original’ note suggests that the antecedent tradition was already extremely complex. Given the nature of the evidence and the problems of proof, it is frustrating but scarcely surprising that it is impossible to give a clear demonstration that the scholia of WO either are or are not dependent on the text of the Cornmenturn itself. There are a few, but very few, significant errors shared by WO with parts of the Commenturn tradition: at 9(6), WO agree in error with ML (U is missing here), omitting the necessary conjunction cum; at 57(1)/57(a), W (and probably 0 ’ s model) agree with LU in the error somnient; at 12( I), WOMLU agree in ending the note est effecerat, where R rightly omits effecerat. Conversely, there are no clear examples of agreement of WOR in error in Satire 2. There is, then, a very slight amount of evidence that WO are more closely related to MLU than they are to R; and as will be seen later, this is consistent with the textual affiliations of the marginal scholia of tradition B. In both cases, it is significant because it suggests that WO descend from the Cornmenturn itself, as they share errors found in only one side of the manuscript tradition of the Cornrnentum. But in dealing with texts of this sort, shared error-and so few examples of shared error-is simply not very compelling evidence: WO may depend on one of the sources of the Cornrnentum, and the correct readings in R may be an aspect of that manuscript’s tendency to emend and ‘improve’ the text of the Cornrnentum. The other sort of evidence-indications that WO draw on a composed

5 . MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

97

commentary like, or to be identified as, the Cornrnenturn-is also worth considering, even though it too is less clear-cut than one might wish. There is, it should be stated, none of the evidence that can prove beyond doubt that a set of scholia is copied from a commentary: misdivided notes, the repetition of pointless or misleading groupings of notes, the inclusion of lemmata within text. Some instances of this sort do appear in the case of KQ, and will be discussed later.” Here, there are merely probabilities. Thus, at l(2-4), we find the following sets of notes in Cornrnenturn and WO respectively: Cornrnenturn (2) nam Cretenses definientes uitam ex laetitia constare dies laetos albo lapillo et tristes nigro indicabant. (3) postea facto computo lapillorum uidebant quantos dies in anno laetos uixerint et eos se uixisse testificabantur. (4) nam et in tumulo cuiusdam ita scribebatur: uixit annos tot, durauit tot.

W fol. 3’, 0 fol. 82’ (a) Veteres singulos annos et dies uitae suae lapillis numerabant, et bonos quidem candidis malos uero nigris (b) ut uidelicet scirent quot dies in anno letos uiderint, et eos uixisse se testificabantur: (c) uixit annos tot, durauit tot; quod cretenses maxime faciebant.

(3) uixerint Clausen : uiderint MLU : uixerant (b) eos uixisse se om. 0 (c) annis W I uel habuennt (habuerunt Rous) RRous : durauit tot om. 0 uixerant BVin : uixissent T I et om. (4) namscribebaturom. M I annis R

The shared error uiderint is not indicative, as it is found in all manuscripts; but it is also curious that W O share the omission of narn-scribebatur with M. As it is possibly a palaeographical error (-banturhatur), it may be coincidence; on the other hand making the same visual error in the same spot is not necessarily coincidental. More generally, the notes in the Cornrnenturn make more sense: the explanation of Cretan views of happiness in (2) prepare for the calculus of (3) and the epitaph of (4); in WO the reference to the Cretans is at the end and seems to refer to epitaphs, not the calculus of happiness. The whole note in WO-setting aside questions of textual corruption-gives a somewhat less logical exposition, and-if we could assume that the ‘better’ version was necessarily the source of the ‘worse’-then we could conclude that the text in WO was likely to be derived from the fuller and clearer notes in the Cornmenturn. But even that would not show that this set of notes did not appear as a group in one of the Cornmenturn’s antecedents, and hence it only shows that WO used these notes, not that they found them in one specific text.

For the use of similar evidence concerning the relationship of the Bernbine Terence to Donatus, see Zetzel, ‘History of Latin Scholia.’

lo

98

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

A possibly clearer example appears at 6(2-4): Cornmenturn ( 2 ) difficulter potest inueniri qui sine murmure et susurro uota faciat; paene enim nemo aequa precatur. (3) alia expositio: non potest quiuis sine murmure optare, nec facile cuiquam contingit Clare a diis postulare quae petit. (4) pro eis qui humiliter fundunt [humiles] susurros . . .

W fol. 3", 0 fol. 82' (2) Difficulter potest inueniri qui sine murmure uota faciat; paene enim nemo aequa precatur. (3) Vel non potest quiuis sine murmure optare, nec facile cuiquam contingit Clare a diis postulare. (4) pro eis qui fundunt humiles susurros. (2) potest W : potens 0 I quiuis 0 : quis W

(3) non RBVin : id est non MLU I quiuis URTBVin : qui M: quis L I contigit R I a om. M (4) humilesque susurros add. Juhn I qui humiles fundunt humiliter susurros U I humiles del. Cluusen : homines TI3 I

In this case the text of WO is far closer to that of the Cornmenturn. The absence of et susurro and the difference between alia expositio and uel are not significant: one would expect to find fuller forms in commentary and briefer ones in scholia. But two things about these notes do suggest that the Cornmenturn is in fact the direct source of WO. One is that (2) and (3) are in fact doublets, two wordings that say essentially the same thing, and that suggests that a text that has both notes is a compilation from two sets of scholia. The other is that the errors of the Cornrnenturn in (4) are fairly closely reproduced in WO. Not only is the lemma absent from both, but both offer the same confused interpretation: the point of the note was that it is not the whisper that is humble, but the whisperer. The note is clearly compressed, but it is the adverb, not the adjective which belongs. In this case, it seems likely that WO drew on the Cornmenturn itself rather than on an independent source-although again, it may be that both WO and the Cornrnenturn drew on a common source with the same features. There are several passages where it would appear that the order of notes in WO is dependent in some way on the order in Cornmenturn, although it is by no means easy to be certain. One slightly problematic example is at 68:"

Commenturn (4) hoc dicit: sacerdotes, reddite mihi rationem, quid opes in templis agunt? (5) cur diis et non usuris consecrantur? quibus tam sunt superuacuae quam Veneri pupae, quas nubentes uirgines donant. (6) solebant enim uirgines antequam nuberent quaedam uirginitatis suae dona Veneri consecrare;

W fol. 5', 0 fol. 83' (a) Cur diis et non usuris consecrantur dona uestra uelut uirgines ueneri pupas donant? (6) solebant enim uirgines antequam nuberent quaedam uirginitatis suae dona ueneri consecrare; hoc et uarro scribit. (7) si homines, inquit, auri cupiditate

" It should be noted that although (9) follows (7) directly in W, that is because (8) appears as an interlinear gloss; the text itself is not out of order.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP hoc et Varro scribit. (7) si homines, inquit, auri cupiditate cormpti uitia incurrunt, at quid aurum superis, quibus solent haec uitia displicere? (8) nernpe hoc ibi facit aurum quod pupae in templo Veneris. (9) et cum haec faciunt homines, naturae uitio corrumpuntur; uerum uos, pontifices, dicite, in templis aurum quid facit?

99

corrupti uitia incurrant , ut quid aurum superis conceditur quibus solent haec uitia displicere. (8) Hoc autem facit aurum in templo quod faciunt pupe in templo ueneris. (9) et cum haec faciunt homines nature uitio corrumpuntur.

(7)auari U I at Jahn : u t MLURVin I quid RVin : quod MLU

(7) hoc-scribit om. W I inquid 0 auri 0 : auari W I conupti 0 : torquentur W I in uitia W I incurrint 0 I superis conceditur : offerunt superis I haec om. (9) post displicere [7] W I hoc 0

Q QVID IVVAT HOC TEMPLIS NOSTROS I. M. (1) id est quid prodest ut credamus deos cupiditate aliqua uel

Quid prodest ut credamus deos cupiditate aliqua uel ambitione sicut homines tangi et in luxuria uel pompa

'*

Without extending this argument further, it should be noted that there are at least three. more passages in OW on Satire I1 that may suggest through the order of notes dependency on the Commenrum,on lines 12, 17, and 66.

100

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

ambitione sicut homines tangi et ut ex felicitatem eorum uel auro constare. humano corpore credamus deos luxuria uel pompa aut ambitiosis delectari carnalibus et et W : ut 0 I uel W : et 0 felicitatem deorum in auro positam esse? $ ET BONA DIS EX HAC S. D. P. (1) quid Et quid prodest bona deorum malis delectat credere cupiditate deos tangi et nostris estimare. bona eorum malis nostris aestimare?

I

The most important element of the superiority of WO over the Cornrnenturn here does not appear in the quotation: that in the Cornmenturn there has been serious disarrangement of the notes, and the note on 62 is preceded by one set of notes on 64 and followed by another, only then followed by the notes on 63. Even within this passage, however, it is clear that the version of WO is clearer, briefer, and more intelligent. In the Cornmenturn, both notes are extended by unnecessary and repetitive verbiage: in 62( 1) the reference to the human body is out of place (and belongs in a note on 63); similarly, the reference to cupiditas belongs in the note on 62 rather than that on 63. It would also appear that in the wording as well, WO is clearer: the repetition of quid prodest in both notes makes sense, while the substitution of delectat in Cornrnentum 63(1) may well have been an error influenced by delectari in 62( 1). Even clearer is a long sequence of notes from 41-46. What is printed here includes all the marginal notes, in the order in which they appear in W; the order of notes on 41 is slightly different in 0, as will be explained below. The order of notes in the Cornmenturn is the one found in the manuscripts, but only relevant portions of Cornmenturn are reproduced here.

Comrnenturn 41 9 POSCIS OPEM NERVIS CORPVSQVE F. S. EST0 AGE SED GRANDES PATINAE TVCCETAQVE CRASSA ANNVERE ID SVPEROS VETVERE I. Q. M. rnorantur id est a beneficio retinent. ( 2 ) ad alios transit, qui sua intemperantia uotis officiunt. ( 3 ) bonam ualitudinem optas quae te etiam in senectute non deserat, et in membris auxilium poscis, sed hoc tibi a diis praestari cotidianae epulae ac luxuriae non permittunt. (4) tucceta apud Gallos Cisalpinos bubula dicitur condimentis quibusdam crassis oblita ac macerata, et ideo toto anno durat. ( 5 ) solet etiam porcina eodem genere condita seruari; aut assaturarum significat iura. (6) hinc Plotius Virgilii amicus in eadem regione est nominatus Tucca. (7) tucceta autem sunt condimenta gulae

W fol. 4", 0 fol. 82' 41(8) Iterum agit de hominum optationibus cum petant ut fortes sint corpore et eadem fortitudo usque in senectam perseueret; sed non potesl concedi a diis dum cotidie crapula ipsum corpus corrumpit. (9) Fidele idest ualidum quod sustineat senectam quae morbis omnibus abundat. (4) Tucceta autem apud Gallos cisalpinos bubula dicitur condimentis quibusdam crassis oblita atque macerata ut ideo toto anno durat. (5) Solet etiam porcina ita condita seruari. (6)

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

deliciosae, quibus bona hominum ualitudo corrumpitur. (8) iterum agit de hominum optationibus, cum petant ut fortes sint corpore et eadem fortitudo usque in senectam perseueret; sed hoc a diis non potest concedi, dum cotidie crapula ipsum corpus cormmpit. 41(9) 0 CORPVSQVE FIDELE id est ualidum quod sustineat senectam, quae morbis omnibus abundat. (10) uel tuccetu dicuntur loca in quibus tunsae carnes ponuntur. 44 . . . (8) iunices dicuntur aetate uiridiores uaccae, inter uitulas et uaccas. (9) iunices feminae, iuuenci masculi dicuntur. 46 0 QVO PESSIME PACT0 TOT TIBI CVM IN FLAMMA I. 0. L. hic quasi Mercurius respondeat: ‘quo pacto possum augere rem tuam cum hoc quod habes consumas et disperdas hostias faciendo?’ (2) uel certe Persius in eum inuehitur. (3) iunicum autem ait iuuencarum. (4) iunices dicuntur tenerae aetate boues, quae iam excesserunt uitulas necdum tamen ad summam magnitudinem peruenerunt. (5) dictae a iuuenibus, unde comparatiuus iuniores, quia sunt minores iuuenibus. (6) omentu autem sunt membranae quae exta continent.

101

Hinc Plotius Virgilii amicus Tucca. (a) tuccetae carnes concisae uel contusae uel carnes bubulae. (b) Aliquando enim delicati cibi generant morbos. 46(1) Idest quo pacto putas tibi rem augeri cum cotidie uitulas occidas; et hoc quasi Mercurius respondet. (2) uel certe poeta inuehitur in eum. 44(a) Iunices aetate uiridiores in uitulas et uaccas. 46(6) Omenta sunt membranae quae exta continent. 41(8) agit 0 : ait W I ad senectutem W (9) habundat W 41V-b) ordo (a), (6), (b), (4)W; ( 5 ) om. W. (4) totum annum W (6) plocius 0 I uirgilio W I tucca om. 0 (a) tucceta sunt W : tuccetae 0 I uel contusae om. 0 44(a) in 0 : idest W 46(6) sunt om. W

In this passage, it is fairly clear that (aside from some confusion in the notes on tuccetu) WO give a better and more coherent order of notes than does the Cornmenturn.Not all the text of the Cornmenturn is reproduced here, but it is clear that this section is badly disturbed. In the first place, the lemmatization is confused and disordered: there are two double lemmata at 41(9) and 44(6), while the first half of line 46 appears in no lemma at all. Secondly, notes on the same subject appear under more than one lemma, particularly evident in the case of tuccetu, explained at 41(4-7) and (lo), and iunices, explained at 44(8-9) and 46(3-4); 41(3) and (9) are similar, as are 44(7) and 46(1), while 41(1) appears instead after 41(10) in RTBVin. In general, the text of the Commenturn here shows precisely how it was composed-and how difficult it was to do. In WO, on the other hand, the order makes more sense. All the notes on tuccetu are together, even if they are in slightly different orders in the two manuscripts. The single note on iunices (which is the same as 44(8)) appears where it belongs, just before 46(6). And the note that should introduce the passage, which comes very late in Cornmenturn (41(8)) is the first note in WO. All told, either the composer of WO did a remarkably intelligent job in sorting out the confusions of Cornmenturn or-rather more likely-he

102

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

was using a set of (marginal) scholia that included only a part of the material from which Commenturn was composed. So far, so good. But one must also look at the notes on tucceta, which are not in a coherent condition. Here 0 reproduces fairly accurately the group of notes found at 41(46), even though the note on Tucca’s name has been badly shortened, and follows them by two notes that are not in the Cornmenturn. One of these (a) is almost certainly an alternative version of (4); it suggests a slightly different variorum source for WO. The other (b) is the kind of bland moralizing summary that one expects scholiasts to add on their own; and the fact that it appears in different places in the two manuscripts suggests that it may have originated as an addendum. What remains puzzling is autem: it is not in 41(4) in the Commentum, and the presence of such a connective is often a sign of the work of coordinating variorum notes drawn from disparate scholia into a single commentary; it may, however, have been in a source common to WO and the Commentum, and dropped from the latter. All told, the notes on tucceta appear to have been drawn from a text like the Cornmenturn, but not from the Commentum itself. The constraints of physical format and the typical brevity of marginal and interlinear notes make it virtually impossible to determine beyond any doubt the relationship between the scholiastic commentary of WO and the continuous commentary of the Commentum. The salient characteristic of the continuous commentary is the linking together of various notes under a single lemma, and the kind of error that most clearly shows the dependence of marginalia on commentary is the repetition of mistakes made in the creation of the continuous commentary: misdivided sentence, repetitions, wrongly placed notes. But marginal commentary rarely links together more than a few sentences as a unified note: within the commentaries on Satire 2, I have rarely found in WO more than three sentences together parallel in content and order to the equivalent sentences of the Commentum. Hence, the evidence gathered above is slight and suggestive, not probative. And what it suggests is that while it is probable that some notes in WO derive from a continuous commentary, there is no necessity that it be the same continuous commentary that is found in MLUR-just that it had a great deal of similarity to their text. It is also important to emphasize that what is found in WO is not a fixed text like the Commentum. Although WO are closely related, they are not identical: on Satire 2, there are 17 interlinear glosses in 0 that are omitted by W, while there are 4 glosses that appear in W but not in 0; and there are 12 notes that appear as marginal scholia in 0 that are interlinear glosses in W, while there are only 2 marginal scholia in W that are glosses in 0. The vast majority of the interlinear notes related to Commenturn,moreover, are related in substance rather than precise verbal correspondence; that is scarcely surprising, given that glosses tend to be cramped and abbreviated. But what is clear from these numbersand from inspection-is that 0 is a more crowded manuscript than W; its margins are much tighter and it crams notes between the lines, while W prefers to have a smaller but more readable collection of annotations. Of the two manuscripts, W is older and generally more carefully written; the figures about glosses and marginalia suggest that 0 was copied from a manuscript much like W, but included the ancestor’s glosses as

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

103

marginalia (as with the. section heading ‘Aliud poema inchoat de superstitione mulierum reprehendenda,’ interlinear in W at 2.31, marginal in 0) and thus made room for more glosses-some of which, in fact, duplicate the material in the margins. In several cases, indeed, the glosses that appear in 0 but not in W duplicate material found in the margins of WO, as at 2.12, 21, and 53. The motion from gloss to margin parallels that followed in creating the Cornrnenturn itself glosses in its sources were expanded to become sentences and notes. One clear example from WO: over inhibere at 2.34 W gives the gloss prohibere, 0 gives prohibere ne fascinent; exactly that note is found in the Cornrnenturn at 2.34(1). What is not always clear in WO, however, is whether the glosses establish continuity with the scholiastic tradition before the Cornrnenturn, or if they are an undoing of the move from interlinearity to marginality that is visible even in WO. What the evidence suggests, finally, is complex and ambiguous. Some notes in WO share textual errors of one part of the Comrnenturn manuscripts; some notes clearly show signs of independence and of a better order within the text; some, indeed the majority, offer little evidence one way or the other. But one should not even try to resolve the issue disjunctively: somewhere in the background to WO may be a version of the Cornmenturn; somewhere there is a set of marginalia that are a possible source of the Cornrnenturn itself; but somewhere there is another continuous commentary very like, but not identical to, the Cornmenturn. To construct one set of stemmatic relationships among versions of scholia and commentaries is impossible, because there was no such single relationship. Notes and groups of notes travel, through margins, texts, and indeed memories and lectures. Nor should it be forgotten that while most of the notes in WO are related to the Cornrnenturn, there are also 17 non-Cornmenturn notes, some of them also found in manuscripts of tradition B. What one can observe here, however, is something that emerges from the examination of other parts of the tradition as well: the combination of small groups of manuscripts (MLU, WO) that seem to represent witnesses to a single text in their groupings, but which are more loosely related to one another individually, in a pattern that reveals a large and largely invisible (to us) set of combinations and variations: moments of fixity that emerge in a wider context of flux. 2. The scholia in K and Q: the so-called B tradition In the case of WO, the problems to be considered involved defining the relationship of a marginal text to a continuous one within a relatively coherent tradition: MLUR and WO are generally thought to contain the ‘same’ text, or at least to be related to one another as whole to part. Close examination of individual notes, however, makes it clear that even a relatively simple relationship like this is not in fact simple: the A tradition is not a nuclear family, but an extended one-if indeed one can speak of it as a family at all. If we turn to another pair of manuscripts, KQ, the initial problem is very different from that of WO: here we have what is generally considered to be a separate scholiastic tradition-but in fact (as was the case with the family relations of WO) it will become apparent that clearcut answers are even harder to find.

104

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

The two manuscripts to be examined here are far the fullest representatives of the B tradition as identified by CTC; indeed, they are among the manuscripts with the fullest scholia of any that I have examined. K = KfivoklBt, Castle Library I D 31, a French manuscript of the tenth century.'' The text of Persius appears on foll. 1'-32"; it is written in a narrow column in the center of the page, generously spaced, with each verse occupying two lines. Scholia appear in both margins, more rarely at top or bottom; each side follows the order of the text, but scholia are not keyed to the text. They are written in smaller letters than the text itself, but still in fairly large letters and relatively easy to read. There are interlinear glosses, which I have not studied, except to determine that they are normally not related to the Cornmenturn. Q = Leiden, Vossianus Latinus Q. 18, of the eleventh century.I4 The text of Persius appears on foll. 69'-90'; as in K, it is written in a narrow column in the center of the page. The spacing is less generous, and not all verses occupy two lines. The scholia are in both margins and the bottom (more rarely at the top as well); unusually, the scholia frequently follow the order of the text continuously, the notes in one column (generally the left) all preceding the notes in the other (generally the right). When that is not the case, then notes are often grouped in blocks: a set of notes in order in the left column, the subsequent set in the right, and so on. Occasionally, scholia are keyed to the text. The use of lemmata, however, is frequent, and becomes more pronounced beginning in Satire 2. On a few folia (particularly 81' and 82', on Sutire 4 and the beginning of Sutire 3,there are three columns of scholia, one to the left and two to the right of the text. I have not studied the interlinear glosses. The B tradition is an invention of CTC, and it is useful even if it misrepresents the facts. Several manuscripts are grouped by having a partially different set of scholia from those found in the Cornrnenturn or in WO, and they also display at times characteristic rewritings or rearrangements of notes from the Cornmenturn. But the characteristic notes by which CTC at least initially identified B tradition manuscripts occur at the very opening of the Cornrnenturn: a note on satire, a note on the Gorgons, and a note on parrots are the longest and most pervasive of these.I5 These initial notes, however, pose two difficulties: one is, as we have seen, that the opening of the Cornrnenturn itself is missing, and hence it is methodologically dubious to distinguish one set of notes from another that no longer exists; the other is that some manuscripts that CTC classify as belonging to the A tradition also contain these notes. In what follows, I will generally not consider the opening in discussing the relationship of K Q to the Cornmenturn, and although I will On K, see J. KviEala, Scholiorum Pragensium in Persii satiras delectus (Prague 1873); Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 420; CTC 220-22; Munk Olsen 196 (Persius no. 31). l 4 Munk Olsen 197-98 (Persius no. 37) describes it as tenthkleventh century, possibly from Auxerre; cf. also Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 208. The description at CTC 223 ('text with glosses') is not adequate for the fullest early marginal commentary on Persius. The most important discussion is that of Kissel, Specimen criricum 9-1 1; he prints excerpt$ from the scholia on pp. 11-19. It should be noted that Kissel's comment (10) that the scholia were not all written at the same time by the same hand is true, but he is also right immediately to observe that the scholia in the margins are contemporary with the text of Persius. The scholia are perhaps written by more than one hand-r at least more than one pen-but are a coherent and consistent text; the glosses (which I do not discuss) are another story, and vary in date and hand considerably. I s For a text of non-Cornmenrum notes, see Appendix 3.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

105

concentrate, as before, on the notes on Satire 2, I will look at several sections of the KQ scholia in determining what defines ‘B tradition.’ It should be noted that (as will be further discussed below) this is not a homogeneous tradition, and other manuscripts identified by CTC as belonging to the B tradition do not have the same relationship to the Cornrnenturn as do KQ. Although excerpts from several manuscripts of tradition B have been published,16 the group has been defined (at least for CTC) by KviEala’s 1873 edition of K. K, indeed, is an important witness to the early history of the scholia to Persius. Written probably in the early tenth century, it contains a text of Persius in whose wide margins have been written copious scholia, which break off, however, in the middle of a word in the first note on Sat. 6, and contain after that, other than interlinear glosses, only a few notes on the last few lines of Satire 6 together with a vita. K has a near twin, however, in Q, a tenth- or eleventh-century manuscript, possibly from Auxerre, which is less generously spaced but has scholia extending through Satire 6 which supplement K. The relationship that CTC believes to exist between K and the Commenturn is ‘that Tradition B may have been a second, later tradition, drawing perhaps on the same original collection of material as Tradition A, but in the manner of a second gleaning, and adding new material from the standard Carolingian source^."^ Although this description is not completely false, it is a drastic oversimplification of the truth and is not easy to understand: are we to imagine that the composer of K and Q (or of their model) went back to some large ‘collection of material’ and chose notes that had not been used before, deliberately creating an alternative commentary? The Commenturn and KQ each have notes not found in the other, but they display a great deal of overlap; and in fact it is very hard to see what scholiastic sources tradition B used other than the Cornmenturn. The description of the relationship given by CTC is unfortunate, not just in its lack of clarity but because the authors seem to have been seriously misled by KviEala’s edition, which gives a totally false impression of what K contains. He printed almost all the scholia in K that are not found in Jahn; he also included notes which presented the same material in significantly different form, and he noted, giving variant readings, a number of scholia found in both K and Jahn’s edition. He omitted, however, a great many notes, perhaps half the scholia in K, which differ from Jahn’s text only in being much more corrupt. In a number of cases, moreover, he misdivided or rearranged the notes of K to make it seem more coherent than it actually is. K’s text indeed, is very corrupt, and while some of the errors are idiosyncratic (as comparison with Q reveals), some are found in both manuscripts and hence go back to an earlier stage of the tradition. Thus, for instance, at 1.83(1) KQ read carmina for discrirnina in Cornrnenturn; at 2.1(2) deficientes for definientes; at 2.14(4) ernulando for tumulando; and at 4.4(1) paupertatem for pubertatern. Some of K’s individual errors are

l 6 Notably by Kissel, Specimen Criticum; Kurz, Die Persius-Scholien; and M. Zillober, Eine rieuc Hurzd.sc/zr(fl rler sechs Satiren des Aulus Persius Fluccus (Augsburg, I862)-and indeed by Jahn, ed., Persius. ” CTC 220.

106

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

impressive: perhaps the most notable is laticlauiurn for lactidiaturn at 2.29(3); where K is not extant, Q supplies the brilliant hereditarios poetas for heredipetas at 6.52( 1). KviEala's printed selection has undoubtedly influenced the description of K given in CTC; indeed, in the citation of the scholia on the Prologue (p. 221), CTC prints only what is found in KviEala's edition, and follows him in omitting a note that is substantially the same as that in the Cornrnenturn on Prol. l(3-4). On Satire 4, the Cornrnenturn contains 154 sentences; of these 106 (70%) are present in KQ, and there are only 16 notes in KQ not derived from the Cornmenturn." On Satire 6, where K is mostly absent, Q's marginalia include all but ten sentences of the Cornrnenturn,and add only a few notes not found there. On the other hand, on Satire 2, closer to the start of the manuscript, KQ have 83 of 241 sentences (34%) of the Cornrnenturn, compared to 96 (or 40%) of the sentences in WO from the Cornrnenturn. At the same time, there are at least 30 notes on 2 in KQ not related to the Cornrnenturn, compared to only 17 in WO. The proportion of nonCornrnenturn notes in KQ on Satire 1 is even higher than for Satire 2, although I have not computed it exactly. Two conclusions are to be drawn from these figures, in addition to the recognition of KviCala's unreliability. One is that one should be chary of identifying these manuscripts as part of a separate tradition of commentary on the basis of a relatively small proportion of notes not related to the Cornrnenturn. The other is that the model of KQ was a manuscript of, or related to, the Cornrnenturn to which supplementary notes were added: the proportion of non-Cornmenturn material decreases over the course of the text, a clear sign that it was being added (and that the person adding it became less enthusiastic over time) rather than being the base to which the Cornrnenturn material was added. Such general considerations, however, still leave unanswered the two most important questions about tradition B and its relationship to the Cornrnenturn. One is the same as that which concerned WO, whether KQ present a version derived from, or parallel to, the extant Cornrnenturn. The other is the question of sources: KQ present a significant number of notes not based on the Cornmenturn. Are these derived from a separate ancient commentary, from other ancient sources, or independently created? As in the case of WO, clear answers are not easy to come by, and more than one answer to both questions may be true." The fact that the Cornrnenturn is a continuous text and KQ are marginal makes some differences between them inevitable and therefore insignificant as evidence for the form of KQ's model: the long runs of notes in the Commenturn tend to be broken up; they may appear in different orders and in different margins in different sets of marginalia; and KQ themselves sometimes disagree. Thus, at 5.1 1, the note in Cornrnenturn begins as follows:

''

As above, it should be noted that the sentence-count itself is an artificial and not particularly scientific measure of proportions; it is cited here merely as an indication. It should also be noted that the amount of nonCornnzenturn material in K is a number of notes, not of sentences: a few of' them (e.g. the story of Baucis and Philemon at 4.21) are quite long. Some of the codicological evidence assembled here is taken from either K or Q, and some from both. I have collated K completely, but although I have read through Q I have only collated samples of it and examined in it the specific passages of K discussed.

''

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

107

0 NEC CLAVSO MVRMVRE RAVCVM N. Q. T. G. C. I. mos est alta cogitantium carmina frequenti deambulatione donec apta reperiant tacite secum murmurare. (2) et hoc dicit: tu, Cornute, neque tecum cornicaris, id est mod0 cornicis lentus cum murmure incedis, quae raucum quiddam secum murmurat. (3) nam de incessu eius Virgilius ait: 'et sola in sicca secum s. h.' (Georg. 1, 389). In this case, Q places ll(1)-without the lemma, of course-at the foot of the second column of notes on fol. 82r, and (2-3) at the top of the third column, a perfectly reasonable division. K on the other hand gives (1) and the opening of (2), et hoc dicit, at the top of fol. 20v, while the rest of the note, from tu, Cornute to the quotation from Virgil:' as the next-to-last note in the left-hand margin of the previous page. K, very clearly, has misdivided a text in which (1) and (2) were in order, as in the Commentum; it suggests (but can not prove) that it was a continuous commentary, rather than scholia. A similar case appears in Q, where K is no longer extant. At 6.69, the note in the Commentum reads:

0 MIHI FBSTA LVCE COQVETVR V. E. F. F. S. A. V. T. I. N. 0. S. A. E. C. M. V. S. I. V. P. I. M. V. sensus: an ego fame moriar et festis diebus urtica uescar et sinciput fumosum, quod est dimidium caput porcinum, ut dum ego parce uiuo tuus nepos, id est filius tuus perditus, haec omnia, quae seruo, impensius uiuendo abligurriat et saturatus anserum iecineribus in patriciarum turpibus stupris bona mea consumat cum in eo libido exarserit? The same note in Q is misdivided: the first half, down to uiuendo,'l appears at the foot of the left-hand column of fol. 89' (which ends with 6.70); the second half, from abligurriat is the first note in the left-hand column of fol. 90'. Abligurriat is also capitalized, in Q uniformly an indication of a new note. Again, it is clear that at some point a continuous text was falsely divided, and it seems very likely that it was the Commentum itself. Not all the examples are so clear. At the opening of the commentary on Satire 4, the following note appears in the Commentum:

0 REM POPVLI TRACTAS de his dicit qui honoris cupidi supra modum aetatis suae publici moderaminis gubernacula quaerunt suscipere, quod significat per Alcibiadem, qui relictus a patre sub tutela Pericli philosophi prae nobilitate et divitiis puer rem publicam Atheniensium ministrauit. (2) et est sensus: cum puer es, possis rem publicam ministrare? Almost every word of this appears in KQ, but not in the same order.22In K, the following note appears in the right margin of fol. 17'. I leave errors uncorrected, punctuate where K does, and for reasons which will become clear, I retain the line divisions of the scholium:

*'

It is worth noting that the quotation from Virgil is written out in full in KQ, as indeed most of the included quotations are. " With the following variants: porcinum] porcinum comedam; impensius] impendius. '*The order of words in the Commenturn is followed by WOP; there are no scholia in this section of N.

108

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Alcipiaden alloquitur cuius tutor erat perides ambie bat aut alcipiades hon ores publicos. per alcipiaden qui relictus a patre sub tutela pericli philosophi prae nobili tate et diuiciis rem pupli cam gubernauit dicit de his, qui honoris cupidi puplici moderaminis gubernacula querunt suscipere. Et sensus cum puer sis putas rem publicam ministrare? In Q, both the order and the physical arrangement are somewhat different. The two columns given below represent the left and right margins of fol. 80"; the line divisions are again those of the manuscript. Alcibiadem alloquitur cuius tutor erat perides. Ambiebat autem alcibiades honores publicos per alcibiadem qui relictus a patre

De his dicit qui honoris cupidi publici mode raminis gubernacula quaerunt suscipere. quod significat sub tutela pericli philosophi prae nobilitate et diui tiis rem publicam athe niensibus ministrauit. Et est sensus. Cum sis pu er potes rem publicam ministrare?

The problems here are clear: in Q, the right hand margin contains 4.1(1-2) (with some errors, to be sure) except that it is missing the words per alcibiadem . . . patre. Those words are found as a separate line at the end of the parallel note in the left-hand margin, after a note (also the opening section of the note in K) that does not come from the Commenturn. In K, this dislocation does not occur, but another one does: the second half of 1(1) precedes the first, the words p o d significat are omitted, and the word order dicit de his replaces de his dicit. The crucial point, of course, is that the textual disorder begins with the same words, per alcibiadem, in both manuscripts; the fact that the dislocation in Q corresponds to the line divisions in that manuscript, while the same is not true of K, suggests that Q is closer to the origin of the problem than is K, despite being the later manuscript. I am by no means certain that one explanation can be found for both

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

109

dislocations, but one possibility comes to mind. If the Commentum note were divided into two notes, at the top of the left and right margins of a page-and as this is the beginning of a satire, that is not impossible-and the non-Commentum note were written across the top of the page, then both errors could be derived from the same physical arrangement: Alcibiadem alloquitur, cuius tutor erat perides. ambiebat autem alcibiades honores publicos de his dicit qui honoris cupidi supra modum aetatis suae publici moderaminis gubernacula quaerunt suscipere, quod significat

per Alcibiadem, qui relictus a patre sub tutela Pericli philosophi prae nobilitate et diuitiis puer rem publicam Atheniensium ministrauit. Et est sensus.. .

7. K, fol. 17' (bottom half). The notes on Sat. 4.1 appear in the right-hand margin, In that case, the first line of the second column might have been taken (by Q) as part of the upper note, while K, in transcribing the commentary, might simply have reversed the two halves, something not altogether uncommon in scholiastic manuscripts. The other changes in K, particularly the removal of p o d significat, are probably a matter of

110

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

adaptation: the sentence in K, per Alcibiadem . . . dicit de his, qui . . ., is awkward, but grammatical. But what these rearrangements suggest, quite clearly, is that the ancestor of KQ was a text of Persius with marginal scholia, not a continuous commentary like the Commentum.

8. Q, fol. 80' (top half). The scholia on Sat. 4.1 are on either side of the beginning of the satire. I offer one final example of evidence for the physical arrangement of the ancestor of KQ. The following is the second half of the comment on 2.29 in Commentum: ( 3) lactes sunt loca in lateribus sub umbilico pube tenus, adeo delicata ut plagam ferre non possint; inde est quod lactidiatum dicimus qui male sit cake percussus. (4) uel certe lactibus intestinis pinguibus. ( 5 ) uel, ut alii dicunt, membranae sunt quibus cohaerent inter se intestina. These same sentences, in the same order, are found in both K and Q, but with a difference: instead of the phrase sub umbilico pube t e n u ~ ;we ~ find in Q:

sub um .i. secreta deorum noueris et consilia bilico pube tenus. This strange text is clearly the result of an erroneous insertion; and indeed the line secreta

. . . consilia is found as an interlinear gloss over 2.29 in both Q and K. The inclusion of a gloss implies a text of Persius with marginalia; a line length 'that permits an insertion in 23

In fact, in K it reads .sumrno unibilicopupefenus; the text in both KQ is superficially very corrupt in this note.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

111

the middle of umbilico suggests that the text of Q was drawn from marginal scholia rather than continuous commentary. It would thus seem that the common source of KQ was a marginal commentary, composed largely of notes drawn from the Commentum; indeed, it is hard not to think that the source of KQ was the Commentum itself-but the Commentum rearranged and abridged to fit in the margins of a text of Persius. In terms of the form of KQ’s ancestor, another question that needs to be addressed is the question of lemmata. Normally, lemmata are omitted: sometimes one or two words appear, equivalent to the minor lemmata of the Commentum, but that does not help much in determining the form or content of the source. In some passages, Q seems to maintain a vestige of the major lemmata, as at the opening of Satire 2, where 3(1) is introduced by a lemma in capital letters, NON T. P. P., 5(1) by AT B., and 9(3) by PRAECLARVM F. 0. Unfortunately, on the same page there are similar capital lemmata that are confused: 14(1) is introduced by BILE T. N. IAM T. C. V . , where bile tumet belongs with the previous note, and M. B. F. (for mens bona fama, 2.8) introduces notes on ebulliat in line 9. In a few passages, moreover, the double lemmata characteristic of the Commentum are retained. Thus, part of the note on the first two lines of Satire 3 includes some of the text of line 1 (cf. 3.1(7-9)):

. . . et dum explorat (sic) hominum notat segnitiem (segnitiam Q), et inducit unum ex comitibus alium castigantem. Iam clarum mane. mane quando aduerbium temporis.. . Here, lam clarum mane is the equivalent of the major lemma, and mane of the minor lemma. So too at 5.36(2-3), KQ have: Ordo est cum primum pauido custos mihi purpura cessit me tibi subposui. teneros tu suscipis (suspicis K) annos: hoc est ineuntem adolescentiam meam. . . While teneros tu suscipis annos might be a continuation of the ordo-scholium, it is not necessary, and the fact that K punctuates both before and after it-together with the fact that it is a lemma in the Commenturn-suggests that it was originally a lemma and was included here by mistake. One further example of the use of lemmata, however, adds to the problem. In the first notes on Satire 2, KQ have the first two sentences of the Commentum (2.1(1-2)) as a single scholium, and then introduce their second note (2.1(6)) as follows: Funde merum. dicit placandos esse deos non sumptuosis (praesum. K) sacrificiis Here Funde merum is clearly a lemma. Since it is only two words long, that would not be particularly significant, were it not for the fact that funde merum does not appear as either a major lemma or a minor lemma in the Commentum itself. That suggests derivation not from the Commentum, but from a closely related source. In certain cases, moreover, it is clear that KQ have not merely bad texts of the same notes that are found in the Commentum, but (as is sometimes the case with WO) quite different versions of similar material. At 2.39, for instance, what the Commentum has as two separate (and separated) sentences is a single one in KQ:

112

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Commenturn (1) ast ego, inquit, contemptor diuitiarum, nolo a diis talia mihi impetrare nutricem. . . . (4) et non dicit haec aut huiusmodi uota, sed omnino nulla: ueto quicquam infanti meo optari.

K fol. lo', Q fol. 75" Verba Persii: Ego qui sum contemptor diuitiarum ueto meam nutricem aliqua uota meo optare puero.

The same is true of some of the notes on 2.5:

Commentum (1) satirice carpit nobiles personas, licet ad amicum scribat, et cum aliud agere uideatur, efficit tamen aliud. . . . (5) tacita autem ait pro ipsi taciti, qui ideo palam non orant ne iniqua eorum petitio audiatur.

K fol. 8', Q fol. 74" Satyrice carpit nobiles Romanos, qui ideo taciti orent, ne iniqua eorum petitio audiatur.

Examples could be multiplied; as in the case of WO, there is reasonable evidence both that the source of KQ used a form of the Commenturn itself, and that it used another form of some of the notes preserved in the Commentum. That is very clear in some of the notes on the very opening of the Commenturn:both versions (in different language) identify the source of one of the opening lines of Satire 1 as Lucilius; but in the Commentum the note is attached to 1.2, while in KQ it is correctly attached to 1.1, and conversely what appears in the Commenturn as the first note on 1.1 (semet ipsum arguit . . .) is in KQ attached to 1.2, where it makes much better sense. At 1.7 there are two complementary notes: Commenturn 7(1) identifies the source of nec te quaesiueris extra as Chilon, while KQ omit Chilon, but correctly quote the Greek phrase yv6& C J W V T ~ V . These instances, though striking, are not however probative, as it is not clear that the opening notes of the Commentum are the notes that would have been known to the source of KQ. KQ and the Commentum frequently give notes in a different order, and in each notes are sometimes out of the proper order of lines. In some cases, the Commentum clearly has an inferior order or structure, as at 3.39(1), where the story of Dionysius and Democritus (sic) is given as a parenthesis within a paraphrase of the text, while KQ omit the parenthesis and give a separate and different note on the story. There are a few passages, however, where KQ and the Commentum share dislocations and confusions that suggest common descent rather than mere confusion. One clear example occurs at 3.44; although the parts of the note are in different orders, both versions contain a form of 3.44(5): Oculi oleo tacti perturbantur ad tempus, et tamen tormentum animi silentio sustinent, ut turbatis oculis ad scolam non iret. oleo tacti KQR : tacti M : tacti oliuo LU I et tamen] attamen KQ I u t ne irem t. scolam K : u t ne irem ad scolam t. 0.Q

0. ad

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

113

The difficulty of the central clause is indicated by KviCala's alteration of sustinent to sustinebant (a reading found, indeed, in B; sustinebat in Vin): it does not fit in context otherwise. This same clause, however is found in a much more suitable context in an earlier note in Commentum 3.41(1)-a note unfortunately not found in KQ: ita et ab uxore hoc secretum abscondit, et tamen tormentum animi silentio sustinet. It is clear that its occurrence in 44(5) is a mistake, and it is significant that it is found in KQ as well as Comm. It suggests that the source of KQ is drawing on a text very much like our Commentum, even though it has not taken over the whole thing. Another passage worth noting is at 5.20-21: Commentum 20 <§>DARE PONDVS IDONEA FVMO quae digna sint incendio. (2) idonea sublimia carmina. (3) allegoricos quidem fumo, res uanas et leues extollere uel uilissimas res pro ponderosissimis commendare. 20 (4) DARE PONDVS I. F. hoc dicit: sic est is qui uelit uanam rem et uilem materiam nobilibus uerbis describere et ad res nugosas centum uoces uel multa pectora exoptare, quomodo si uelit fumo pondera ferenda imponere. 21 SECRET1 LOQVIMVR haec quae scribimus digna non sunt theatro nec magnis auditoribus recitanda, sed tibi, o Cornute, placitura. 21 (2) TIBI NVNC HORTANTE CAMENA EXCVTIENDA DAMVS PRAECORDIA id est tibi praebeo purganda carmina mea uel probanda.

K fol. 20"-21', Q fol. 82' Allegoricos significat per fumum res uanas et leues et tam uilissimas ut dicantur posse extolli a fumo. et hoc dicit: sic est ille qui uult uanam rem et uilem materiam nobilibus uerbis describere et ad res nugosas centum uoces uel multa pectora exoptare quomodo si uelit fumo pondera ferenda imponere.

Res uanas et leues extollere uel uilissimas res pro ponderosissimis commendare. haec quae scripsimus digna non sunt theatro nec magnis auditoribus recitanda sed tibi o Cornute placitura id est tibi praebeo purganda carmina mea uel probanda.

The second part of the first note in KQ is the same as 20(4); the second part of the second note is the same as 21(1-2), omitting lemmata. But the first part of each of these notes is related to the same sentence of Comm., 20(3), and none of the three versions is altogether satisfactory. In any case, it points to a different division and order of notes in KQ from that in Comm. There are other cases where KQ may have known two different forms of the same note. At 5.144, for instance, the following sequence of notes appears in Comm.:

114

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

0 QVID TIBI VIS C. S. P. M. B. I. QVAM N. E. V. C. sensus: quam rem cupis ut periculosum mare pertemptes? an auaritiae furor sic tuum pectus incendit ut uma cicutae extingui tuus furor non ualeat? (2) rnascula bilis dixit ualida cupiditas, cuius ardorem nec copiosa cicuta sanare potest. (3) cicuta autem liquoris genus est quod calorem in nobis frigoris sui ui extinguit. (4) ideoque sacerdotes Cereris Eleusinae, quibus usus Venens interdicebatur, hoc liquoris genere ungebantur ut a concubitu abstinerent. In KQ, there are two versions of 144(1). One, apparently the first in both K and Q, although they are differently arranged on the page, reads: sensus: quam rem cupis ut periculosum mare pertemptes? auaritiae furor sic tuum pectus accendit ut urna cicutae extingui tuus furor non ualeat? sensus om. K I tuus furor extingui K I ualeat Q : possit K After a note which is the equivalent to 144(2) and a note on cicuta not the same as 144(3), we find: dicit hoc: auaritiae furor sic tuum pectus incendit ut uma cicutae tuus furor extingui non ualeat. hoc om. K I tuus furor om. K I ualeat K : possit Q The first form of this note has accendit for incendit; and KQ vary interestingly in reading ualeat (with Comm.) or possit. One suspects that there were two versions of this sentence circulating in different manuscripts, and that both of them were included in the model of KQ-and that they affected the readings of one another. One final example of the complex relationship of the two versions will suffice. In KQ we find the following sequence of notes at 5.177-78 (emended; see apparatus): (a) Cicer enim calefacit homines ac in Venerem salaces facit uel reddit, siue ut quidam dicunt et ista consuetudine quod aediles certis ludis populum pascebant cicere et ceteris leguminibus. (b) nam in ludis floralibus omnia semina spargebantur, ut tellus ueluti muneribus suis placaretur; (c) ludos enim terrae colebant. (d) hoc ergo dicit: perfice omnia ista ut sic in memoria hominum sint ut etiam a senibus memorentur. (e) sparge, inquit populo cicer. hoc enim in ludis floralibus inter cetera munera iactabant, quoniam terrae ludos colebant. (a) enim Q : autem K I ac K : id est Q I salaces] salares KQ I consuetudinem KQ I aediles] elides KQ I pascebant Q : pacebant K I (d) sic Q : sint K I sint om. K I (e) sparge Q : iacta K I in Q : inter K I ludos terrae K

There is a double summary of the Floralia in (b) and (e) and the phrase ludos terraekerrae ludos is repeated in (c) and (e); that (and the presence of a non-Commentum

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

115

note in [a]) suggests that there may be two sources for the note. Comparison with 5.177(1-3) is useful: <§> VIGILA ET CICER INGERE L. R. P. N. V. F. P. A. M. S. sparge, inquit,

populo cicer. (2) hoc enim in ludis Floralibus inter cetera munera iactabatur, quoniam terrae ludos colebant et omnia semina super populum spargebant ut tellus uelut muneribus suis placaretur. (3) et hoc dicit: perfice ista omnia ut sic in memoria hominum sint ut etiam a senibus memorentur. The first half of this note, up to (2) colebant, is essentially the same as (e); the second half is similar, with some repetition, to (b). In this case, the version in the Commentum is superior to that in KQ, but the non-Commentum note in KQ has at least one detail, the presenuk of the aediles, that is not found in the Commentum. Again, one may suspect multiple sources, partly dependent on the Commentum in its extant form, partly reflecting an earlier state of the text or its source. The fact that some of the codicological evidence points to a marginal source, while some of it points to a continuous text, leads to the same conclusion. The discussion so far has concerned only the larger-scale evidence about the relationship of the two versions: the presence of Commenturn material in KQ, and its relationship to the various forms of the A tradition. It is also worth looking more closely at the smaller-scale evidence of variant readings; and again, the conclusion will emerge that KQ both are and are not dependent on the extant version of the Cornrnent~m.~~ In the first place, it is clear that with respect to the major division in the manuscripts of the Commenturn between MLU and R, KQ are much closer to MLU, as were WO as well. In broad terms, in those places where K is extant and contains the same text as MLUR, and where there is a division between MLU and R, K agrees with or is significantly closer to MLU in slightly more than 200 readings, and is in agreement with R in only 77. Of those agreements with MLU, some are clear errors: 1.99 (7) dictae R : dicti MLUKQ 2.36 (8) macram R : uehementem MLUKQ 3.60 (1) uitae R : om. MLUKQ 3.94 ( 5 ) incandescit R : scandescit MLUKQ 4.20 (4) obsita R : obsitam MLUKQ 4.25 (4-5) praedia-loci R : om. MLUKQ 5.73 (5) habitabant R : habitant MLUKQ 5.185 (4) explorandis R : exploratis MLUKQZ5 Not all these readings are very significant, but the omission of pruedia-loci alone would suffice to demonstrate the relationship beyond doubt. In this case too, it should be noted that in the following phrase MK read curritis for Curitis, and LU are even more corrupt.26 24 My reports of readings are based primarily on my full collation of K; I have checked (and report) the readings of Q for each passage cited, but I have not made a full independent collation of Q. " R in fact reads pro explorundis; the correct explorundis is found in TBVin. " Here, in fact, Q reads Curifis,not curritis; in at least two other passages MLUK agree in error, while Q agrees with R in the correct reading: 4.43 (3) praetextu RQ : praetexta MLUK, 5.169 (1) ne RQ : et MLUK. Similarly, among the few shared errors of RK, Q disagrees with them and agrees with MLU in the correct reading at one point: 3.66 (3) quem modum MLUQ: quem ad modum RK.

116

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

The close relationship of MLUK is confirmed by the paucity of errors shared by KQR. Of clear examples there are very few indeed:27 1.58 (2) sannam MLU : sanna RK (deest Q) 3.53 (1) eorumque MLU : eorum RKQ 5.47 (4) aequali MLU : aequa RKQ None of these readings is very significant; and in contrast with this small number of errors shared with R, KQ share a fairly large number of demonstrably correct readings, which suggests that they are not descended from the nearest common ancestor of MLU. Thus we find (a selection only): 1 . I 16 (2) horatium om. RKQ recte 3.35 (1) possessi RKQ : possessos MLU 3.64 (4) medicus RKQ : om. MLU 4.1 (3) puta RKQ : putas MLU 4.10 (1 -2) momentanae-regulam RKQ : om. LU : post decliui (3) M 5.20 (3) ponderosissimis RKQ : ponderissimis MLU 5.70 (1) temone RKQ : tempore MLU 5.164 (2) perfundere RKQ : profundere MLU Beyond places where KQ agree with one side of the tradition of the Commentum or the other, one needs also to consider passages where KQ may preserve worthwhile readings not shared by MLUR. The text of K is-as will be apparent from some of the quotations given above+xtremely corrupt; it is filled (and the same is true, to a slightly lesser extent, of Q) with small errors of carelessness or ignorance, some which involve larger-scale nonsense. But there are also signs in KQ of some intelligence-r of a good source other than the extant tradition of the Commentum. In many of them, there is no need to posit an independent source: there are places where synonyms are introduced, and others where tenses or moods are changed. But it is highly probable that among the following readings are some which belong, if not in a critical edition of the Commentum, then in a putative reconstruction of an ancient commentary on Persius: 1.29 (1 1) carpit KQ : tangit MLUR 1S O (4) poeta fuit KQ : poeta MLUR 1 S O ( 5 ) reducat KQ : perducat MR : producat LU 1.56 (3) pinguescis KQ : pinguis sis MLU : plenus sis R 1.59 (2) deridentur KQ : ridentur MLU : rident R 1.67 (3) comoediae . . . exprimunt KQ : comoedia . . . exprimit MLUR 1.67 ( 5 ) apposuit KQ : apposuerit MLUR 1.73 (7) Seranus KQ : Cincinnatus MLUR 1.76 (4) primus KQ : primum MLUR 1.94 (3) deductus KQ : perductus MLUR 1.119 (7) constituit KQ : imposuit MLUR 2.3 (4) uoluntatem KQ : uoluntates MLUR 2.5 (1) Romanos KQ : personas MLUR 2.48 (4) offertur KQ : infertur MLUR 3.31 (4) uiuendo KQ (and Vin) : utendo MLUR

*’It is worth repeating that, in all such lists of shared errors, there are many places not reported where neither group of manuscripts is clearly in ‘error’, and that there is often, in scholia, more than one ‘true’ reading in any given passage. See below, Chapter 7.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

117

3.66 (3) oporteat KQ : oportet MLUR 3.103 (2) praecedebant KQ (and Vin) : procedebant MLUR 3.109 (1) fingunt KQ : simulant MLUR 4.1 (2) sis KQ : es MLUR 4.20 (6) seruitutis iugo KQ : seruitiis MLUR : seruitio BVin 4.33 (2) quemque KQ : quemquam MLU : aliquem R 4.42 (2) uitia . . . nostra KQ : uitam . . . nostram MLUR 5.9 (6) fuit autem (enim Q) minax KQ : nam adhuc uiueret. minax MLU : hic fuit R 5.22 (2) cuius KQ : qui eius (eis U) MLUR 5.31 (2) habebant KQ : habent R : habeant ML : om. U 5.50 (2) his quorum KQ : illis quorum Vin : quorum enim MLU : quorum R 5.63 (2) feraces K (ferales Q) : fertiles MLUR 5.129 (1) non minus KQ : minus MLU : maius R : magis uel non minus B : uel non minus uel magis Vin At least two of these readings are factually correct, Serums at 1.73 (7) and cuius at 5.22 (2), and hence may point to a better version of an ancient note. That does not, however, mean that they were at any stage the readings of the Commenturn itself, and we have not included them in our edition. As yet, nothing has been said about the notes in KQ that are not related to or derived from the Commentum; a full text of these will be found in Appendix 111. A great many of them are simply paraphrase, for which no external source need be assumed to exist. That is true, for instance, of this note on Prul. I: non potaui de ill0 fonte ut poeta fierem, sicut Ascraeus, qui bibens de fonte Pegaseo mox poeta factus est. Such a note is derived from simple glosses (Ascrueus and Pegaseo) combined with the text of Persius himself. There are also simple grammatical explanations, often paradigms, or quotations from Christian scripture, as at 1.74: Dictare dicimus imperare; hinc dictator imperator. unde in euangelio: exit edictum .i. generale praeceptum. Slightly stranger is the note on 3.1 1: Antiquitus haec cartes huius cartae, sicut Beronices Beronicae, Madgalenes Magdalenae, Agathes Agathae dicebantur; sed moderni haec carta. More than the Commenturn, the additional notes contain glosses on glosses, such as the extended etymology for parusitus in the note on 1.22. That scholium also reveals the author’s taste for displaying his rather limited Greek, as at 4.31, 5.55, 5.58, or 5.112 (in the last case probably based on a similar note at Myth. Vat. 2.42). But the notes in KQ are not simply trivial; there are notes which display some learning (as in the case of the citation of yvG0t osclur6v mentioned above, which probably comes from a fuller form of the note given in the Commentum), while others reveal signs of vivid imagination.,But much of the useful material can be traced back to some fairly standard sources: Servius, Isidore, Fulgentius, Solinus, and the first two Vatican Mythographers. Most of the long note on 3.83-84 is drawn from Servius on E d .

118

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

6.31; the note on Procne at 5.8 is a confused version of Servius on Ecl. 6.78 (and there are related versions also in Myth. Vat. 1.4 and 2.217); the note on castoreurn at 5.135 is from Servius on Geo. 1.59. In the same way, the long note on Pegasus and the Gorgons on Prol. 1 is based largely on Fulgentius, Myth. 1.26 andor Myth. Vat. 2.1 12-13.28 Even though KQ and Cornrnenturn use some of the same sources-hence the suggestion in CTC that the B tradition is a ‘second gleaning’ from the same materialthere are one or two sources that they do not have in common: in particular, KQ cite Fulgentius and Solinus, while the Cornrnenturn does not. The references to Fulgentius are specific, if puzzling: at 1.4 he is cited wrongly as the source for Accius Labeo’s translation of Homer (Fulgentius in libro aethirnologiarurn),while at 2.42 we find: Tuceta dicuntur escae regiae sicut Callimorfius dicit in piseis: ambrosio redolent tuceta fauore. This is a direct but unacknowledged borrowing from Expos. serrn. antiqu. 41 (122.4-5 Helm). The description of the Parcae at 5.48 may be drawn either from Fulgentius (Myth. 1.8) or from Myth. Vat. 2.14.29 The passage that is most revealing about the work of the compiler of the KQ commentary, however, is the very long note on the parrot at Prol. 8 (which I will assume was not a part of the lost opening of the Cornmenturn). Its sources are extant, and it is worth setting out in parallel the note in KQ (slightly emended) and the relevant portions of Isidore and Solinus. It should be said that Solinus’ source, Pliny NH 10.1 17-119, was clearly not a direct source for this note. Isidore, Etyrn. 12.7.24 KQ Psitacus auis solummodo Psittacus Indiae litoribus in Indiae partibus gignitur gignitur, colore uiridi, colore uiridi, torque torque puniceo, grandi puniceo, grandi lingua et lingua et ceteris auibus ceteris auibus latiore. unde latiore. unde et articulata articulata uerba exprimit uerba exprimit, ita ut si ita ut si eam non pro- eam non uideris, homispexeris, hominem loqui nem loqui putes. putes, quae auis pro munere regibus offertur. ex natura autem salutat ex natura autem salutat dicens XaTpE .i. aue. hinc dicens: haue, uel XaTps. est illud xaTp~ KaTcap ~VLKOS .i. aue Caesar

Solinus 52.43-45 Sola India mittit auem psittacum colore uiridem, torque puniceo,

*’It should be remembered that the provenance of notes on Prol. and 1.1-23

IS uncertain, as the original form of the Cummenrum is lost. 29 The note in KQ on Prol. 12 is also remarkable for its citation of Eugenius of Toledo. It should be observed that the same note is also found in PN and in F (Leiden BPL 82)-but without the final sentence with its quotation of Eugenius. I do not know whether the quotation was added by the ancestor of KQ to a shorter note, or removed by PNF from a longer one.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP inuictissime. nam cetera nomina institutione .i. doctrina discit. hinc est illud: psitacus a uobis aliomm nomina disco (discit Q); hoc didici per me dicere: Caesar aue. cuius auis rostrum tantae duritiae est ut cum se praecipitat in sublimi in saxum, nisu oris sui se excipiat et quasi quodam utatur praesidio. caput uero tam ualens est ut si quando ad discendum sit ammonitus plagis dum pullus est ferrea clauicula sit uerberandus. nam studet ut loquatur id quod homines, atque ideo intra alterum annum aetatis quae monstrata sunt et citius discit et tenacius retinet. maior est paulo segnior et obliuiosus et indocilis. inter nobiles et plebeios discretionem facit numerus digitorurn. qui meliores sunt, quinos digitos habent, ceteri uero ternos.

119

:etera nomina institu.ione discit. hinc est Ilud: psittacus a uobis iliorum nomina disco; IOC didici per me dicere: 2aesar haue. (Martial 14.73) cuius rostri tanta duritia est, ut cum e sublimi praecipitat in saxum, nisu se oris excipiat et quodam quasi fundamento (praesidio SAPZ) utatur extraordinariae firmitatis. caput uero tam ualens est ut si quando ad discendum plagis sit admonendus (nam studet ut quod homines loquatur) ferrea clauicula sit uerberandus. dum in pull0 (pullus SAP2) est atque adeo intra alterum aetatis suae annum, quae monstrata sunt et citius discit et retinet tenacius (t. r. S A P ) : paulo senior et obliuiosus est (maior paulo segnior est et obliuiosus SAP) et indocilis. inter nobiles et ignobiles (plebeios SAP2) discretione digitorum facit numerus: qui praestant, quinos in pedes habent digitos, ceteri ternos. lingua lata multoque latior quam ceteris (aliis S A P ) auibus: unde perficitur ut articulata uerba penitus eloquatur.

The compiler of this note, clearly, made only small changes in his sources, and he copied them in bulk, not attempting to combine them. Both Isidore and Solinus report on the coloring of the bird, but since Isidore is the first source, his version is followed. The only possible exception to this is solummodo in the first line of the scholium, which could

120

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

conceivably reflect sola in Solinus. As for the alterations made, KQ add only two sentences, of which the first, quae auis pro munere regibus offertur, could be inferred from the rest of the note or from another source (e.g. Macrob. Sat. 2.4.29-30), and the second, hinc est illud ~ d p eK a k a p &VUCOS .i. aue Caesar inuictissime, may be an expansion either of the epigram of Martial or of the story in Macrobius. What is notable here is that KQ seem to have interpreted Isidore and Martial to say that Caesar is a word the parrot knows by nature and put in a sentence to expand on that view. What is most interesting here, however, is the use of Solinus. The variant readings included in parentheses-clearly reflected in the text of KQ-are drawn from Mommsen’s apparatus, and reflect the text of what Mommsen described as Class 111 of the manuscripts of Solinus, which he considered to be an interpolated version of the text. More recently, however, it has become clear not only that what Mommsen considered an interpolated version is in fact Solinus’ own revision of the Collectanea (retitled in the revision as Polyhistor), but that it is more widely and better attested than Mommsen knew: a full text of the revised version now exists in Milan, Ambros. C 99 inf., a manuscript of the ninth century which is clearly associated with Fulda, where this version of the text (the first clear medieval attestation of which is in the catalogue of Lorsch written in the second third of the ninth century) was known to both Walafrid Strabo and Lupus of Ferrih-es. Indeed, Lupus used it to correct his own copy of Solinus, Leiden Voss. Lat. Q. 87. But while Walafrid used the revised Solinus in his Vita Sancti Galli, Heiric in his Collectanea used the shorter version (Mommsen’s Class I). There appears to have been a great deal of interest in the text of Solinus in this period; indeed, all three branches of the textual tradition appear at Fulda in the mid-ninth century. But the revised version is far less common than the others outside the small circle of those connected with Fulda, Lorsch, and (through Lupus) Ferribres. All this suggests that the KQ text is not to be associated with Heiric, but may well be connected to one of the other scholars who knew this tradition. It seems reasonable to infer that the collection of material that is peculiar to the B tradition did not take shape until then, and does not simply reflect the use of another late antique commentary on Persius.’” In fact, what is fairly clear from the entire collection of evidence about KQ is that there is little if anything in these notes that reveals distinct sources that have anything to do with the explanation of Persius. There are some extra notes, a significant number on Satires 1 and 2; they do convey some ancient learning not found in the Commentum. But there is nothing that could not have come from either a slightly fuller form of the Commentum or from the standard late-antique sources the use of which in KQ is apparent. And like the Commentum itself (see Chapter 6), the KQ scholia show clear signs of Christianity. 10

For the information in this paragraph, I am entirely indebted to the detailed study of Veronika van Biiren, ‘Une Uition critique de Solin au IX‘ sikcle’, Scripturium 50 (1996) 22-87, who is not, however, aware of the presence of this text in the Persius scholia. The revised Solinus was indeed known in antiquity and used by Ammianus, but it is not widely attested and the rapidity of its dissemination within a particular circle in the ninth century is striking. For a general account of the transmission (before van Biiren’s discoveries, however), see R. H. Rouse in Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission 393.

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

121

One further aspect of KQ is worth considering. As will be seen below in the discussion of PN, and as is already clear from the fact that a few KQ notes are also found in WO and indeed among the additional notes in TBVin, the extra notes in KQ do not add up to a coherent text: they are floating scholia, and can turn up in manuscripts not otherwise affiliated to KQ. Nevertheless, the commentary found in the margins of KQ is a distinct commentary, with a shape and some content of its own. One of the striking features of these manuscripts (although generally unobserved) is that they contain section titles. These are by no means unique to KQ, and in some cases clearly reflect a common practice.31Sometimes these are in the margins, sometimes between the lines of Persius, sometimes occupying lines ruled for the text itself. They are generally written in capital (or uncial) letters, to distinguish them both from the text and from the scholia. The titles are not all present in both manuscripts, but there are enough to show that they are a conscious and deliberate system, identifying speakers and sometimes topics. Thus, at 2.31 KQ have the note THEMA (TEMA K) DE SVPERSTITIONE; at 2.61 EXCLAMAT; at 2.64 ALIVD THEMA (TEMA K) INCHOAT; at 4.19 PERSIVS; at 4.23 POETA EXCLAMAT; at 4.37 PERSIVS AD VOLVPTVOSVM; at 5.30 PERSIVS; at 5.62 AD C O W T V M ; at 5.66 NEGLEGENTIS VOX; at 5.76 POETA. Most strikingly, at 1.57 both manuscripts write PAREN, and at 1.63 both write TESIS: two halves of the same word bracketing-a parenthesis. This title, more than anything else that I have seen in KQ, suggests that the composer of this commentary had a sense of humor.32Whether or not that is true, what is clear is that he had a sense of composing a book: not just a commentary, as in the Cornmenturn, but a real edition, with notes and headings to guide the reader. It is perhaps less learned and less intelligent than the Cornmenturn, but it has an integrity of its own. That, of course, means that KQ are of virtually no use for an editor of the Commenturn: the book that they contain has a great many of the same words, but it is not the same, and it was manipulated, organized, and thought through with somewhat different intentions. As the notes quoted in Appendix 3 show, KQ have a taste for the mildly bizarre and irrelevant, and a particular interest in mythology. The mention of Baucis in Satire 4 prompts a full tale of Baucis and Philemon; the story of Demophoon is long and detailed; there are several lengthy notes on the dolls that virgins dedicate to Venus. It used multiple sources, as did the Cornmenturn itself, and one of them was probably (if my arguments are right) a copy of the Cornmenturnthat had been written in the margins of a text of Persius; another was a set of marginalia related to, and possibly prior to, the Cornmentum; and the The practices of titulature in poetic manuscripts would probably be worth investigating-but not here. In some cases there are notes beginning aliud t h e m inchoaf (cf. KQ at 1.76; 0 at 2.30 (with the error aliud poema inchoar) and 2.64; W at 3.88 and 5.73; P at 5.132). At times, these are clearly understood as titles rather than scholia. Indications of speaker appear in some manuscripts in passages of dialogue (thus P at 5.1 12, 142, 168; 6.33, 68, 78; in KQ at 5.161; in Q at 5.83 and 6.78; in KQPN at 2.39). My collection of this material is by no means complete. B. Munk Olsen’s study of poetic titulature, ‘Les titres dans les manuscrits des p&tes classiques latins copits du IX‘ au XIP sitcle’, in J.-C. Fredouille et al., eds, Tifres er articulations du f a t e dans les oeuvres antiques (Paris 1997) 511-27, compiles evidence about the titulature of poems and books and has nothing whatever to say about section headings within poems. 32 These rubrics are not found in WOPN, although an interlinear gloss between 1.62 and 63 in W reads ‘parentesis est huc usque.’ I’

122

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

remainder, at least the identifiable remainder, was a set of books familiar to every scholar of the Carolingian period: Isidore, Servius, Fulgentius, Solinus and the rest. 3. Mixed manuscripts: P and N The two sets of marginal scholia that remain, those in P and N, are classified by CTC as part of the B Tradition; and in part, that is true. P is a manuscript of some importance in the editorial history of the Commenturn, since it was the basis of Jahn's additions to the text he inherited from the 1601 edition. N has long been known, but it is less widely cited, and is generally less elegant and less useful; the scholia in it also end at 3.3 1.31 P = Paris, Biblioth&que nationale, Lat. 8272, written in the eleventh century, probably in France.34 The text of Persius appears on foll. 1'-16'; it is written in the center of the page (one verse to the line), with scholia at the top and on either side, keyed to the text by signes de renvoi. When scholia are extensive (near the beginning of the text) they are more or less in columns, but more often they are ragged and disorderly individual notes with neither left nor right margin aligned. Towards the end of the manuscript, the scholia are reduced to a few notes on each page, placed in the margins near the verse being explained. The scholia are written in two hands, of which the first is very similar to that which wrote the text of Persius; the second hand takes over on fol. 1l', where both hands appear. The second hand is more insular in appearance, uses abbreviations much more than the first hand, and even employs some Tironian notes. But despite the change in appearance, the two hands use the same methods and the same sources; both write interlinear notes before marginal notes. In the earlier parts of the manuscript, it is often the case (as in Q) that all the notes in one margin refer to earlier verses than all the notes in the other, suggesting that the scribe was working from a continuous commentary rather than marginalia. It is also striking that both the longer interlinear notes and the marginalia are drawn from the Commenturn (or, as always, a related source). I have not studied the smaller interlinear glosses, but have collated the scholia completely from microfilm. N = Paris, Bibliothkque nationale, Lat. 8049, written in the eleventh century, in France.35The text of Persius is written on foll. 2'-15', but scholia end at 3.31 at the top of fol. 7'. Where they exist, the scholia are written at the top, down the outer margin, and at the bottom; occasional notes are written between the text and the inner margin, and there are interlinear glosses as well. Notes are not keyed to the text. I include observations on j3 CTC lists ten further manuscripts with marginal scholia that the authors attribute to tradition 9. Of these one (Munich 526) was written in the fifteenth century, and two in the twelfth. Zilloher's publication (Eirte neue Hundschri?) of one of these, Ottobeuren, Stiftsbibhothek 65 VIII, makes it clear that it contains little if anything of any worth. I have not inspected the other (Munich 14748). Bern 257 (tenth century) and Bern 665 (eleventh century) seem from Kurz's publication (Die Persius-Scholien) to he very similar in manner and content to PN-an amalgam of notes from the Cornmenturn and notes related to those in KQ (on Bern 265, a continuous commentary, see above, p. 55-56). Harvard 336 is generously dated to the late eleventh century by CTC-my own inspection would suggest a century later (see also Munk Olsen 192 (Persius 16)), and my study of it convinced me that its only interesting feature is its provenance (Libri and Phillips collections). I have included in Appendix 3 reports from Leiden BPL 82, of the eleventh century, which has scholia only on 1.1-88. It is certainly possible that one or more of the others would reveal interesting new notes, but I doubt it. 34 Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censirnento no. 374; CTC 223; Munk Olsen 207 (Persius 70). 35 Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censirnento no. 367; CTC 223; Munk Olsen 206 (Persius 66).

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

123

N here as a sample of the less elaborate marginalia on Persius in this period, but it is in no sense an important witness. I have not studied the glosses, but have collated the scholia from microfilm. P and N are not as closely related as either of the other pairs of manuscripts considered here, but they are closer to one another than they are to any other texts. They are classified as being part of the B tradition largely on the basis of the notes on the Prologus and the opening of Satire I ; but as we have seen, the Cornrnenturn at that point provides no clear standard of reference, and (as can be seen from Appendix 3) manuscripts that no-one thinks of as belonging to the B tradition (notably WO) contain at least some of the characteristic notes of KQ on those lines. If one examines the notes on Satire 2, however, a more complicated picture emerges. In the first place, it is clear that PN share some important characteristics-and notes-with KQ. PN have the same selection of notes on 2.1, with KQ variant readings within the notes, But the two pairs rapidly diverge; on 2.3, KQ include 3(1), 3(3) and 3(4); P has only a part of 3(4), and it is included as a gloss rather than a scholium, while N omits 3(4) entirely. Both PN omit the KQ (non-Cornrnenturn)notes on 2.8-9, but include the same half of the KQ note on 2.5; on 2.6 P again includes the portion of 2.6(2) found in KQ as a gloss, and N omits it entirely. PN both include the KQ version of 2.9(56), but they have the correct reading spiriturn in (6), while KQ misinterpret the nornen sacrum as spurnarn. Both PN have the KQ note on 2.30 (auriculas deorurn ernere dicebatur qui facile exaudiebatur), as a scholium in P and as a gloss in N; PN modify in the same way the idiosyncratic wording of KQ on 2.59(2) (Saturno Itali in terra rnorante KQ : Saturno in terra Italiae rnorante PN : Saturno enirn in Italia regnante MLUR). One passage is worth looking at in slightly more detail, because the text given by PN represents a solution to a very confused passage of the Cornrnenturn. At 2.52(2), the Cornrnenturn notes: si tibi ergo argentea uel aurea uasa donauero, sudes gaudio et guttas excutias quod cor tuum hinc fit laetum. That is the reading of R; but MLU extend the note:

. . . laetum, ut auro putas numina delectari quod tu diligis et his uultus deauratos existimes. A few lines later, at 2.55(1), we find in R but not in MLU: hinc id est ex tali dissolutione animi subit ut auro putes numina delectari, quod tu diligis, et his uultus deaurandos existimes.

What PN supply is something of a compromise. In both of them (omitting minor errors) we find the following notes, the first linked to 2.52, the second to 2.55: Si tibi aurea uel argentea uasa dono feram, sudabis gaudio, id est guttas excutias, quod cor tuum fit laetum ut auro putes (putas P ante corr.) numina delectari, quod tu diligis, et hinc uultus eorum deaurandos existimes. Siue quod ouo . . .

124

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

What follows is Cornrnenturn 2.55(2)-the sentence that in the Commentum immediately follows the second version of the sentence. In other words, PN have the MLU form of 52(2) juxtaposed to the note that follows the R form of the note; textually PN also share one significant reading with R, deaurandos. The fact that PN, in their marginal scholia, have none of the notes that intervene in the Cornrnenturn between 2.52 and 2.55 (some of them appear as glosses) makes it impossible to determine whether these scholia are based on the Cornrnenturn or not; but since it is clear that, in the Cornrnenturn itself, this note was an addendum (or omitted and added by a corrector) inserted differently in the two branches of the tradition, it seems very likely that the source of PN had access to a better or clearer version of these notes than ours. Even during the course of the commentary on Satire 2, one can see both PN moving away from KQ, and coming closer to the Cornrnenturn. N has fewer notes, and the changes are less striking; but in P it is clear that in the first part of the text, nonCornrnenturn notes from KQ are also found in P; after very little, P ceases to have much of the idiosyncratic material of KQ, but still has the same excerpts, and the same revisions, of notes from the Cornrnenturn; then one starts to see in P the Cornmenturn form of notes of which a variant form is found in KQ; and then more material from the Cornrnenturn that is not in KQ appears in P, ending with the long note on Messala Corvinus which is found in the Cornrnenturn. PN belong to the B tradition-in part; but in fact they represent another marginal variation among the multiple permutations of scholarly annotation on Persius.

4. Six manuscripts in search of a text

What, finally, can one say about the relationship among the various sets of scholia to the Cornrnenturn? If the arguments given above are at all convincing, it will be clear, for instance, that the scholia in WO are derived from the Cornmenturn itself at some points, and are derived from a comparable but better commentary at others; that most of the scholia come from something related to the Cornrnenturn, but that a significant number of notes are independent of it-and not just independent, but related to notes found in KQ. If one were to employ the usual assumptions of textual criticism-that is, assuming that no scribe innovates deliberately, and that most transmission and most error are mechanical-then one would necessarily conclude that the nearest common ancestor of WO (or at least some ancestor) represented an amalgam of at least three sources; and, given the relationship among the notes from these various sources, one would then have to conclude that the three sources themselves derived from a single archetypal commentary. The same is true, more or less, for the other pairs of manuscripts considered here. KQ in particular, the manuscripts supplying a text that is most distant in content from that of the Cornrnenturn, can be shown to descend from a manuscript of the Cornmenturn related to MLU rather than to R; from a set of marginalia that reproduced much of the content of the Cornrnenturn; from a Carolingian source with a taste for Fulgentius, Servius, and Solinus; and from a manuscript that may have been one of the

5. MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP

125

sources from which the Cornrnenturn itself was drawn. Thus, it also becomes clear that the Cornrnenturn itself can be shown to exist in multiple forms: as continuous text (as we have it), as relatively full marginalia, as abridged marginalia, and (as we know from T and Vat. Reg. 1401 at least) as abridged complete text-not to mention the continued presence, it would appear, of the separate sets of scholia from which the Cornrnenturn was compiled. That is to say, using relatively mechanical principles of stemmatics, there were, in the mid to late ninth century, at least six different versions of the Cornrnenturn in circulation, and that does not even begin to deal with the problem of the multiple versions of the non-Cornrnenturn scholia found in all six sets of marginalia examined here. But such a reconstruction of teeming and proliferating versions goes against both sense and Ockham’s Razor. In his presidential address to the Society for Textual Scholarship in 1983, the late Paul Oskar Kristeller told the following anecdote:36 I was once asked by a first-year graduate student in history, not at Columbia, what the difference between a text and a manuscript was; the question was not easy to answer, but it showed that the student had a lot to learn that he might better have learned in college. If the question is not easy, its difficulty lies purely in the fact that it is ambiguous, because the word ‘text’ has more than one meaning. If by ‘text’, one means ‘critical edition’ (in the sense of Oxford Classical Text), then a manuscript is something one uses to constitute a text. The more likely way to approach it, however, is from the other end: a manuscript is a physical object, and a text is the set of words that it contains. That seems simple enough. The difficulty is that while ‘manuscript’ has only one obvious meaning,”7 ‘text’ has many, and the responses proposed above simply skirt the major problems. And the central problem, the one which the six manuscripts discussed above most urgently pose, lies in the obvious next question: ‘a text of what?’ As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the real problem in discussing marginal scholia is how one talks about them. The normal way to describe the relationships among texts (or witnesses to texts) is one of correctness and of deviation from the putative norm: manuscripts are said to contain accurate or inaccurate or interpolated or sincere copies of text X; but (as will be discussed further in Chapter 7) that implies the prior existence, in both chronological and logical terms, of some ‘X’ to which all the copies are related. But while the six manuscripts WOKQPN clearly contain a great deal of the ‘same’ text, it is not clear-indeed, it is very unlikely-that there ever was a text from which these manuscripts are derived. They are texts-of themselves. In some ways, it would be just as possible to draw up a stemma of the complicated affiliations of the Cornrnenturn and these six manuscripts-with contamination, interpolation, borrowing, and the like-as it is to draw up a stemma of the textual

’‘ Paul Oskar Kristeller, ‘Textual Scholarship and General Theories of History and Literature’, Text 3 (1987) 1-9, at p.4. Setting aside, of course, the bibliographer’s problems (carefully addressed by Munk Olsen) with books that are now single, but in fact contain multiple manuscripts of different origins.

37

126

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

affiliations of an open textual tradition. At the same time, however, it would be even more pointless to do so for these scholiastic manuscripts than it is for a complex textual tradition. None of them has a single source; all of them seem to have access to the same or similar material through multiple channels; each of them is a collection of notes just as valid and just as useful (or useless) as the collection of notes in the others. They are all manuscripts of scholia to Persius; none of them is a manuscript of the scholia to Persius-and there never was any such creature. These are all overlapping fragments of a text that never existed. Traditional textual criticism posits the existence of such a lost whole; but the permutations among commentaries and collections of scholia suggest that these multiple versions represent combinations of multiple originals, some of them ancient, some of them medieval. And the scribes pick and choose, whether from the physical consultation of several other books or from memory and imagination; while there are obviously some dominant strains in the scholiastic tradition, there is nothing that constrains a scribe to stick to them. One traditional model for the transmission of Latin texts is that of the hourglass: the many copies of a text that must have circulated in antiquity narrow to one or two lines of transmission between the sixth and ninth centuries, and then spread out again in the high Middle Ages.3KBut the model for scholia and commentary is more like the Epicurean rain of atoms through the void, randomly combining and separating, creating and dissolving multiple worlds of which we can, at any time, be cognizant of only a few. Paul Wessner, in his great edition of the scholia to Juvenal-to which we will return in the next chapter-identified four different groups of marginal scholia from the Carolingian period, all of which he believed derived from the school of Heiric of A ~ x e r r eand , ~ ~which made use of a source that was not the same as the scholia of the Pithoeanus, but was at times fuller than the Pithoeanus: ‘Negari igitur vix potest scholia recentiora a fonte pendere, qui in singulis certe integrior erat comment0 Pithoeano.’ We do not possess an equivalent for Persius to the older scholia on Juvenal found in the Pithoeanus, but the situation described by Wessner for the Carolingian Juvenal scholia is strikingly similar to that found here-except that the Commentum itself is yet another Carolingian compilation. All these manuscripts or groups of manuscripts have fluctuating contents and sources; many of them have access to ancient material independent of the others. What becomes most striking about the Carolingian commentaries on Persius is the existence of the Commentum itself in the case of Juvenal, there is no such carefully composed Carolingian text. We need, finally, to return to the question of composition, to deal with two remaining questions about the Commentum: its background and its authorship.

’*So, for instance, Reynolds, Texts und Transmission xiii. ”) Wessner, ed., Scholiu in Iuvenulem xxx. The discussion of Carolingian commentaries on Juvenal will be found on pp, xxii-xxxii. The role of Heiric and the school of Auxerre will be discussed further in chapter 6 .

6. THE ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM 1. Ancient sources

I have argued in Chapter 4 that, in formal terms, the Commentum is based on at least two sets of marginal scholia that were themselves abridged and derived from a single variorum commentary composed in late antiquity. But to say that in fact says very little about either the ancient sources of the commentary on which the Commentum was based or indeed the sources of the Commentum itself. That is true for two principal reasons. In the first place, to say that the Commentum is ‘based on’ marginal scholia themselves derived from an ancient commentary leaves too many questions unanswered. The ancient marginalia on other texts, above all on Terence, show that a marginal commentator might employ a pre-existent commentary, but that the resulting scholia were not accurate representations (or abridgments) of that commentary: much is omitted, some things are added, there are interpretations and misinterpretations of the material the scholiast used. At the other end of the process, moreover, there was room for similar flexibility: the Commentum used marginal scholia, but there was nothing to stop the compiler from changing, adapting, or adding to what he found. In other words, even if much of the material in the Commentum is ancient-and there is no reason to doubt that-there is no contextual guarantee that any single statement in it is ancient: it may have been added in the ninth century or the sixth; it may have been misinterpreted or mis-copied at any stage of the process. In the second place, even if a piece of information or interpretation in the Commentum appears to have ancient sources, there is no guarantee that the note in question was part of the ancient commentary on which the Cornmentum was ultimately based. Other sources preserved ancient lore; and it can easily be demonstrated that the compiler knew a great deal more than is likely to have been conveyed in the margins of two or three manuscripts of Persius. There is also a surprising amount of misinformation in the Commentum; and if one is to credit the compiler with the use of ancient lore, one needs also to inquire into his sources for ancient ignorance. Accounts of medieval commentaries based on ancient sources tend to look at these texts in one of two mutually exclusive ways. A given text may be seen as providing access to, and a reasonably clear representation of, an ancient commentary; but it may also be considered as a layer of medieval dross under which nuggets of ancient gold lie buried, contaminated by the presence of debased materials drawn from Isidore or invented from whole cloth. Furthermore, there are often attempts to give a date for a commentary or set of scholia based on preconceptions about what is to be valued: either the ancient elements provide the date, or the medieval idiocies and colloquial glosses provide the date. Neither approach is true, and neither dating is rightdepending on how

128

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

the text itself is defined. Most commentaries, particularly marginal scholia, are, as suggested earlier, not text but process. To take any single historical perspective on such a text is to distort the truth. That there is ancient material in the Commentum is beyond question. Material about historical individuals or customs (Caesius Bassus or Licinus); knowledge of the topography of Rome ( e g the puteal) or the proper name of the Painted Stoa; recognition of Persius’ imitations of Lucilius or Ennius; otherwise unknown fragments of Varro: all this and quite a lot more supplies (with what accuracy we sometimes can not tell) genuine knowledge of the ancient world that was almost certainly transmitted in the margins of manuscripts of Persius. The Commenturn once (2.56) cites the third-century scholar Helenius Acro, and it has been inferred that Acro wrote a commentary on Persius on which the sources of the Commentum relied; perhaps, but the ‘fact’ for which Acro is cited (that there were fifty equestrian statues of the sons of Aegyptus opposite the fifty statues of the Danaids in the Palatine portico) is not only highly dubious in itself, but has very little relevance for the interpretation of Persius. That is poor evidence for Acro as a commentator on Persius; although there obviously were commentaries, we have no names to attach to them reliably. The existence of ancient commentary is clear from external evidence (notably from Jerome), but it is also clear from the Commentum itself that it incorporates sentences or notes that were composed in antiquity. In the first place, there is the comment at 3.28(4): cognitio enim equitum Romanorum censoribus erat subiecta, quae nunc consulum est officii. It is not clear how long the review of the equites persisted, but it certainly outlasted the censorship, and nunc shows that this sentence was written at a time when it was still the responsibility of the consuls, in other words before the end of the consulship. The only other similar use of nunc (normally, it refers to the present of the poem, not of the commentator) is at 1.71(6), of the festival of Pales, the Palilia, which we ‘now’ call Parilia with a change of letter. Again, the present tense belongs under the Empire, in a pre-Christian context. The mention of dotis dictio at 2.14 may not, as Berger thought, provide a fixed terminus ante quem of 428 CE, but it probably reveals the practice as contemporary with the person who wrote this sentence.’ Another passage which guarantees the antiquity of at least part of the Commentum is at 1.73(7-8), where Atilius (here called Quintius) Serranus is identified with Quintius Cincinnatus. The same misidentification is attributed to Persius by Johannes Lydus, De magistratibus 1.32, in the sixth century, and is elsewhere found, to the best of my knowledge, only in Ampelius 18.4 and Myth. Vat. 1.223. Lydus clearly knows the note on Persius found in the Commentum, which provides additional proof that the origins of the Commentum are earlier than Lydus.

’

A. Berger, ‘Zum sogenannten Cornuh Commenturn’, Wiener Sfudien 32 (1910) 157-59. I am grateful to Bruce Frier for pointing out the weakness of Berger’s argument.

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

129

Lydus’ mistake is a useful one for modern scholars, but it is by no means the only error; and if there is genuine ancient lore in the Cornrnenturn, there are also errors that make one wonder whether the compiler knew much at all about the ancient world. Among these mistakes some are merely verbal, such as the mistake at 5.88(4) that Masurius’ cognomen was Albinus rather than Sabinus. That error may come from the use of a source which made the same mistake: it is found in Macrobius, Sat. 3.6.11, and may well occur elsewhere, unrecorded in modern editions. The garbled story of Staius at 2.18 (2,8), however, goes beyond verbal error. In the first place, the Cornrnenturn confuses the fictional nameZ Staius with the historical figure Staienus, one of the villains in Cicero’s defense of Cluentius. In saying that ‘Staius’ was on the jury in Oppianicus’ trial and took money from both sides, the Cornrnenturn supplies an accurate report of part of Pro Cluentio but applies it to the wrong person. On the other hand, when it describes Staius as praetor tutelarius in the trial of Oppianicus, it not only confuses Staius and Staienus, it gives ‘Staius’ in the early first century BCE an office that did not exist until the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Although it preserves some valuable information, the Cornrnenturn in its final form is an odd amalgam of recondite lore and serious ignorance; but for a text of this period, that is not unexpected. The various marginalia other than the Cornrnenturn show far less genuine knowledge (except perhaps of Isidore and Servius) and more pure invention. But it should not be forgotten that KQ on 1.7 preserve the Greek of Chilon’s yvG& osaudv, and the same manuscripts on 5.177 preserve the connection of the aediles with the Floralia, both omitted from the Cornrnenturn itself. The mere fact, however, that the Cornrnenturn preserves ancient lore and ancient quotations not otherwise attested tells us very little about its origins or its history, other than the fact that at some time, some contributor to the margins of a copy of Persius knew some things that we would otherwise not know. But when these pieces of information entered the tradition is totally unclear; and even if they can be attributed to the posited variorum commentary on which the Cornrnenturn ultimately depends, that tells us nothing about the compiler of the Cornrnenturn himself in the ninth century. 2. Isidore and ‘Cornutus’ More promising than the few scraps that steer us to antiquity is the relationship between the Cornmenturn and the vast and widely read encyclopedia, the Etyrnologiae, written by Isidore of Seville in the early seventh century. Isidore is useful in this context for two reasons. In the first place, he lies chronologically between the period when the sourcecommentary was presumably composed (4”-6” centuries) and the period when the Cornrnenturn took shape (9” century): thus uses of Isidore by the Cornrnenturn clearly point to the compiler rather than the source, while uses of the Cornrnenturn by Isidore point in the other direction. Secondly, of all the texts which provide parallels to information in the Cornmenturn, Isidore supplies more close verbal parallels; and in some

The first note in the Commentum (2.18( 1)) gets it right: ‘Stuio’nomenficfum.

130

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

17 such places, Isidore is-although in some cases the verbal parallel is small--the only available parallel text.3 But there are problems as well in making this comparison, and Isidore’s virtues as a comparand are also his drawbacks: in some cases, it is impossible to tell whether Isidore drew on the Cornmenturn or the r e ~ e r s e And, . ~ as Isidore not only made copious use of ancient commentaries in compiling the Etyrnologiae, but was also one of the most widely used sources for ancient material employed in the ninth century, there is no greater probability for one direction of borrowing than the other. Furthermore, since it seems highly likely that the commentators on Persius in antiquity drew on the same sources as Isidore himself, a shared obscure fact or word is not in itself evidence for dependence, only for a common source. Thus, for instance, at 1.83(6) we find as the Cornrnenturn’s second definition and example of antithesis: Antitheta autem illa sunt quae contra se ponuntur, ut: ‘hac parte pudor pugnet, illinc petulantia; hinc pudicitia, illinc stuprum; hinc fides, illinc fraudatio’ (Cic., In Cat. 2, 25). In Isidore, the comparable passage (2.21.5) reads as follows: Antitheta, quae Latine contraposita appellantur, quae dum ex aduerso ponuntur, sententiae pulchritudinem faciunt, et in ornament0 locutionis decentissima existunt, ut Cicero: ex hac parte pudor pugnat, illinc petulantia; hinc pudicitia, illinc stupmm; hinc fides, illinc fraudatio; hinc pietas, illinc scelus . . . confligit. Isidore’s explanation is fuller; his use of contraposita (rather than the Cornrnenturn’s contra se ponuntur) makes the translation of the Greek antitheta more apparent; and his quotation from Cicero is longer. Hence it is evident that while the Cornmenturn could conceivably have been using Isidore, Isidore was not using the Cornrnenturn-at least this version of the note in the Cornmenturn. It is possible that the ancient commentary on Persius was fuller than the extant note and that Isidore used it, but it is even more likely that both Isidore and the commentary on Persius made use of a rhetorical source no longer extant. Such is also probably the case in several other passages. Thus, at 2.48(3-4), we find: (3) Ferturn autem genus est panis uel libi quod diis iniertur a pontificibus in sacrificio. (4) dictum autem ferturn a ferendo. This needs to be compared not only to a passage of Isidore, but to one of Paulus-Festus as well. Paulus 75.17L:

K. F. Hermann, Anulectu de aerate et usu scholiorum Persiunoruni (Gottingen 1846) 8-9, examined the relationship between Isidore and the Commenturn (as printed by Jahn) and concluded that Isidore was drawing on the Commenturn. That is, as will be seen below, only partially true. Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici’ 205-06, dismisses the idea that Isidore might have drawn on an early stratum of Persius commentary, but her list of parallels is both incomplete and inaccurate.

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

131

Ferctum genus libi dictum, quod crebrius ad sacra ferebatur, nec sine strue, altero generi libi, quae qui adferebant struferctarii appellabantur. Isidore 6.19.24 (= Rabanus Maurus De uniuerso 5.9):’ Fertum enim dicitur oblatio quae altari offertur et sacrificatur a pontificibus, a quo offertorium nominatum, quasi propter fertum. In this case, the offering by the pontifices is common to Isidore and the Cornmenturn, while the reference to the genus libi is common to Isidore and Paulus. It seems likely that all these texts go back to a single, fuller source that was variously abridged. In several cases, precise verbal parallels may suggest-but certainly not prove-that one text used the other rather than that both relied on the same source. At 1.39(3), the Cornrnenturn reads: Turnulus dicitur terrae aggestio, ubi nulla memoria est. The comparable passage at Isidore 14.8.21: Tumulus est mons breuis, quasi tumens tellus. item tumulus terra congesta, ubi nulla memoria est. The only difference is between aggestio and congesta-not direction of borrowing. So too at 6.25(3-4):

enough to determine the

(3) Occare enim est cum rustici satione facta bubus dimissis grandes glebas caedunt ac ligonibus frangunt. (4) dicta occatio quasi occaecatio, quod quasi cooperiat semina. Compare Isidore 17.2.4 (= Rabanus Maurus, De uniuerso 19.1): Occatio est cum rustici satione facta bubus dimissis grandes glebas caedunt ac ligonibus frangunt; et dicta occatio quasi obcaecatio, quod operiat semina. The only difference (other than orthographic) is the variation between operiat in Isidore and quasi cooperiat in the Commenturn. It is possible that Isidore drew on a note on the ancient Persius commentary which then became part of the Cornrnenturn, but the passage of Isidore was certainly used by others in the early middle ages (cf. GlossariurnAnsileubi OC 17 in addition to Rabanus), and it could just as easily have been borrowed from Isidore by the compiler of the Cornrnenturn. A similar uncertainty arises in connection with Cornrnenturn 1.18(5), explaining the phrase ‘patranti fractus ocello’: Patratio est rei ueneriae consummatio, unde et patres dicti, eo quod patratione peracta filios procreent, unde et Iuuenalis: ‘oculosque in fine trementes’ (7.241).

Where relevant, I give references to the appropriate passages of Rabanus Maurus’ ninth-century encyclopedia De uniuerso, which relies heavily on borrowings from Isidore and may indeed have been one of the sources used by the compiler.

132

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Here the substance of the note and much of the wording, are identical to Isidore 9.5.3 (= Rabanus Maurus De uniuerso 7.2): Pater autem dictus eo quod patratione peracta filium procreet. patratio enim est rei ueneriae consummatio. Lucretius (4.1 129) ‘Et bene patra patrum.’6 Both passages derive pater from patrare and both use the same definition of patratio; Isidore illustrates this with a (corrupt) quotation from Lucretius, the Cornrnenturn with a quotation from Juvenal. As they start from different explananda, the order of the two is different, but it is not possible to say which is the source of the other? At times, however, even if the wording is exactly the same, it is fairly clear that Isidore is drawing on an earlier commentary on Persius. Thus, at 1.56(5):

Aqualiculus proprie porci est; hinc ad uentrem translatio. Precisely the same words (with the addition of autern after aqualiculus) appear at Isid. 11.1.136, but there is far less point to explaining the metaphorical use of aqualiculus to describe the human paunch in a dictionary than there is in a commentary on a passage in which precisely that metaphorical use is employed.8 In some cases, there is simply more substance in the Cornrnenturn than in the parallel passage of Isidore. Thus at 3.78(4), the Cornrnentunz gives a fairly full sketch of who Arcesilas is:

Archesilas, Scythi filius, Pitaneus, Cirenaticus philosophus perfectissimus fuit, qui Academiam primus inuenit. Here Isidore 8.6.12 omits the paternity and origin of the philosopher: Hanc sectam (sc. Academiam) Arcesilaus Cyrenaicus philosophus inuenit. That the two are closely related, however, is clear, as both of them oversimplify in calling Arcesilas the ‘inventor’ of the Academy.’ The direction of borrowing is clear also at 6.18(3-4): ( 3 ) Horoscopus autem est qui horas natiuitatis hominum speculatur. (4) uaro genio id est dissimili et diuerso fato.

The wording at Isidore 8.9.27 differs only very slightly: Horoscopi dicti, quod horas natiuitatis hominum speculantur dissimili et diuerso fato. What is striking here, however, is that the explanation of horoscopus as given by Isidore makes remarkably little sense: an astrologer, in general, is not someone who looks at birth-hours attached to ‘different and diverse fates,’ but simply someone who casts The text of Lucretius readspartu, not patru.

’The source of borrowing is equally unclear at 5.95(4) and Isid. 3.21.7.

’ It should be noted, however, that the metaphorical use is much more common in, for instance, Jerome and Augustine, than the original meaning.

’Similarly, at 3.53(2), the Commentum has the proper name of the Painted Stoa, which is omitted by Isidore 8.6.8. These texts are not alone in making Arcesilas the founder of the Academy; cf. Lactantius, Inst. 3.4.1 1.

6. OFUGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

133

horoscopes. The words make sense in explaining Persius, who is talking about the horoscopes of twins: ‘geminos, horoscope, uaro producis genio. . . .’ Once it is seen that Isidore is drawing on a commentary on Persius, moreover, the last few words of his definition gain additional significance. In the Cornmenturn,the words dissirnili et diuerso fato are a separate note, a gloss explaining the phrase uaro genio. Isidore runs the phrases together, and necessarily omits the lemma that separates them. What this suggests, quite clearly, is that (3) and (4) were together in antiquity in the order in which we find them in the Cornrnenturn-that this collocation reproduces that of at least one of the sources used by the compiler. The absence of the minor lemma uaro genio, moreover, is very much like that typical of the various sets of marginal scholia discussed in Chapter 5: they frequently run notes on different words together without indicating a change of subject, and in several places, we have emended the Cornmenturn itself to insert minor lemmata of just this type for the sake of clarity. On the other hand, Isidore gives a fuller or better exposition than the Cornrnenturn in several places. At 5.75(3) we find the following explanation of manumission: Quia quotiens manumittebant, eos alapa percussos circumagebant et liberos confirmabant, unde manumissio dicta eo quod manus eis mitteretur. Just what manus eis rnitteretur means is not clear to me, but it is found in all manuscripts. It is not found in the parallel passage at Isidore 9.4.48: Manumissus dicitur quasi manu emissus. apud ueteres enim quotiens manu mittebant, alapa percussos circumagebant, et liberos confirmabant; unde et manumissi dicti, eo quod manu mitterentur. Both may be based on a common source (an uncorrupted ancestor of the Cornrnenturn, or a third text), or the compiler may have used Isidore. At 3.28(5), it is even more likely that the compiler made use of Isidore. The note in the Commenturn reads: Stemmata dicuntur ramusculi, quos etiam aduocati faciunt in iure cum causam partiuntur, ut puta, ille filius illius et ille pater illius. Isidore 9.6.28: Stemmata dicuntur ramusculi, quod aduocati faciunt in genere, cum gradus cognationum partiuntur, ut puta ille filius, ille pater, ille auus, ille agnatus, et ceteri.. . Here Isidore’s language makes considerably more sense: the sternrna is not used to establish the divisions in a legal case (causarn partiuntur), but to indicate degrees of relationship in inheritance cases.’” In this case, moreover, it is clear that 28(5) is an alternative to part of 28(2):

lo Another passage in which Isidore is fuller is at 4.29(1), compare Isid. 20.6.6. There is also some textual confusion in the Cornmenrum here, as the note is displaced in MLU.

134

.

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

An oportet te arrogantia inflatum dissilire quod in aliquo nobili Tusco stemmate millesimus a magno auctore numereris et ramum aliquem ac lineam quasi successionis a genealogis in stemmate notatus optineas? It thus seems likely that 28(2) was originally part of the commentary, and that 28(5) was added from Isidore by the compiler in the course of creating the Commenturn. In some cases, each version offers something that is better than the other. At 4.13 (24), the Commenturn offers an explanation of the use of the letter theta that is remarkable for being in the present tense: (2) Est sensus: potesne damnare uitium et tuo iudicio annotare, id est sua nota? quoniam iudices litteram theta apponunt ad eorum nomina quos supplicio afficiunt. (3) merito theta dnb TOG 0av6zou, id est a morte, eo quod quasi habet telum suum ideoque triste intellegitur uel mortis signum. (4) unde quidam ait: ' 0 multum ante alias infelix littera theta.' The passage is very close to Isidore in his discussion of alphabets (1.3.8):"

. . . 0 quae mortem [significat]. Nam iudices eandem litteram 0 adponebant ad eorum nomina quos supplicio afficiebant. et dicitur Theta dnb TOO 0avdtou, id est a morte. unde et habet per medium telum, id est mortis signum. de qua quidam '0 multum ante alias infelix littera theta.' Isidore uses the imperfect, for a custom that is past; but he is also rather more comprehensible in his explanation of the telum-in this case, the bar across the middle of the letter-than is the Cornrnentum. One suspects, in fact, that the note in the Commenturn is a corrupted text of an early note, written while the use of theta to signify executions was still current, while the comment in Isidore is a less corrupted version of the same note, in which the tenses have been altered.I2 One final passage needs to be discussed. In explaining Persius' metaphors of fermenturn and caprificus at 1.24-5, the Cornrnentum includes the following (1.24(3-5)):

(3) Et tractum a ferment0 et a caprifico: sicut enim fermentum massam rumpit et caprificus saxa, ita ingenium pectus. (4) fermentum enim intra modium plus una hora non potest contineri. (5) crescit enim caprificus ex lateribus in quibus concepta est. These explanations are related to those in Isidore (20.2.18 and 17.7.18 respectively): Fermentum a feruore nuncupatum, quod plus prima hora non potest contineri, crescendo enim excedit.

Part of this is repeated (with a quotation of Persius 4.13) at 1.24.1. A similar pattern is apparent in the relationship between Cornrn. 2.9 (6-8) and Isid. 20.8.2. The Cornmenturn leaves out the etymology of olla-perhaps because it is irrelevant to the passage of Persius-and Isidore leaves out the proverb 'homo bulla est'-perhaps because it has nothing to do with the names of pots. It seems likely to me that at Cornrn. 2.59(5) and Isid. 16.18.3-5 (cf. also 15.5.3)the two are drawing on a common source. "

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

135

Caprificus appellata eo quod parietes quibus innascitur carpit; rumpit enim et prodit ex latebris quibus concepta est. There are, however, some important differences. In (5), the reading lateribus (from later, brick, not Zatus) in the Commentum is clearly preferable to Zatebris in Isidore. On the other hand, the language of Isidore (innascitur innata; rumpit rupto) suggests that his source may well have been a comment on Persius. It is thus possible that Isidore depends on an earlier Persius commentary on which the Commentum is also based.I3 In (4), the difference between una hora and prima hora is not significant: either word could be an expansion of a numeral i, and in the scholia both numerals and ordinals are abbreviated in that fashion. What is odd in (4), however, is the modiuddomudrruzssam (to give the variants) not in Isidore: why is yeast being set to rise in a container for dry ingredients? Finally, it should be noted that the wording in (3), although not related to anything in Isidore, is itself striking: why is yeast said to break a massa? If mama (normally meaning a lump of something; see OLD) is to make sense, it must mean the rising lump of leavened dough; and while the expanding dough might possibly break a container, it does not 'break' itself. There is, indeed, another source that offers some explanation for the language used by the Commentum here; and it is not Isidore but the pre-Vulgate (and Vulgate) version of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 5:6: Modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit-a small amount of yeast can spoil the whole batch of dough. The Commentum has wrongly substituted rumpit (perhaps taken from Isidore's sentence on the caprificus) for corrumpit; and it may not be excessive to find in the modium of the following sentence a corruption of the biblical modicum. If these tentative suggestions are correct, then it is likely, here as in some other passages discussed above, that the Commentum drew on Isidore-as indeed that Isidore drew on an antecedent of the Commentum. In this case, not only did the compiler use the ancient marginalia, but he also employed other sources to fill out his commentary. Since that was clearly done by some of the other scholiasts discussed in the previous chapter, it is scarcely surprising; but it does cast some light on the methods of the compiler. Second, and perhaps more important, is the fact that the compiler uses the New Testament to compose his commentary on a secular text. Since the Commentum was compiled in the ninth century, it was certainly composed in a monastic context by a Christian cleric, and it is not unreasonable that he should have a very familiar biblical phrase in his head; but it is a clear demarcation between the Commentum and the remains of the ancient commentary that was his principal source. I have not, to be sure, found many such examples; someone more familiar with early Christian texts might well find more. Jahn adduced several passages (2.68, 3.72, 3.84) where he thought that Christian doctrine was being intr~duced.'~ I strongly suspect, moreover, that the statement that women have one fewer rib than men (1.95(5)) is influenced more by Genesis than by anatomy.

-

l3

l4

-

I am grateful to Carlotta Dionisotti for correcting my misunderstandings of this passage. Jahn, ed., Persius cxxxivcxxxv.

136

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Nor is Christianity absent from the various forms of marginal scholia. At 1.18, KQ give as an etymology for pater the Greek ndvvza zqp6v; the only other place I have found this etymology is Joannes Scotus Erigena, Expositio super Ierarchiam Caelestem S. Dionysii, PL 122.130D. On Prol. 12, KQ quote Eugenius of Toledo; on 3.32 Boethius; at 6.76 on catasta they explain it as ‘genus tormenti quo sancti cruciabantur . . .’. On 5.116 WOKQ, in addition to Vinet’s edition, cite from Jeremiah 13:23 the proverb about the leopard’s spots; and on 3.56, at the top of a page, Q provides a versification (of which I do not know the source) of Matthew 7:13 surrounding a large Pythagorean Y. Perhaps because the Commenturn and texts like it-commentaries and scholia on classical textstend to be edited by and for classicists rather than medievalists, they generally are seen more as classical texts that have somehow been debased than as Carolingian texts that happen to have used ancient sources: we use such texts as lenses to examine antiquity, not as creations in their own right. The presence of these references, however, should serve as a salutary reminder: the world of the ninth century Persius commentaries is, not surprisingly, a Christian world. It may, indeed, be worth emphasizing the relative paucity of Christian references in the Commentum itself it chooses to represent itself as an ancient text, as part of the world on which it comments. 3. Quis ille? Given the structure of the Commentum and the prehistory that can be reconstructed from it, it is fairly clear-and I have in fact assumed-that it was composed not in antiquity, but in the ninth century.I5 At the same time, however, it ought to be recognized that the text claims, through its attribution to Comutus, that it is in fact ancient. Not all the major manuscripts bear this attribution. As a title, U alone gives incipit commentum cornuti in persium; a few lines later, at the beginning of the commentary on the Prologue, R gives a more elaborate annei cornuti commentariorum liber in flacci persii satyrarum libro, while at the end of Satire 6, U refers to the work as Corrzutus in Persium and L as Cornmenturn Cornuti in Persio (sic), while M has no title and R has a simple explicit. Annaeus Comutus in R is, almost certainly, a fanciful elaboration of the title of the work; but because of the genuine association of the real Annaeus Comutus with Persius, one suspects that he is the Cornutus that the scribes, and perhaps the compiler, all had in mind.‘6 It is, of course, fairly clear that the genuine Comutus-either in his role as friend and teacher of Persius or in his role as a commentator on Virgil-had nothing at all to do with the commentary that bears his name. And, although the name of Cornutus is appropriate I‘ I have discussed the general patterns of transmission of ancient commentaries in ‘On the History of Latin Scholia,’ and it is the same pattern described by Wessner in connection with the Juvenal scholia. The recombination of ancient marginalia (which, when they survive, seem to belong to the fifth or sixth century) into independent commentaries did not take place until the ninth century; the dating of the manuscripts and the complex history reconstructed here guarantees that the Commenturn could not have been composed later than the ninth century. l 6 Prkaux, ‘Propositions’ 302-03 concludes from this evidence that “dam I’aire de Reims” [where R was written] the Cornmenturn was attributed to ‘Annaeus Cornutus’, while the attribution to ‘Cornutus’ in L came about “dans l’aire germanique et environ.”

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

137

to a commentary on Persius, it is also found in connection with far less likely works: Cornutus on Juvenal is attested in several manuscripts, and there is also a Cornutus commenting on the am of Phocas,I7 not to mention the Disticha Cornuti. In that respect, ‘Cornutus’ is a close associate of ‘Probus’, a name also found in connection with Persius: the biography found in many manuscripts is given in some (including L) the title Vita Aulis Persi Flacci de cornrnentarioProbi Valeri sublata. But it is highly unlikely that this work of ‘Probus’ was actually written by the first-century scholar M. Valerius Probusand even more unlikely that he wrote a commentary on Persius-and equally unlikely that Valerius Probus wrote the commentary on Juvenal used by G. Valla in his edition of 1486, or the many grammatical works that circulate under the name of ‘Probus’. Both names, with their recollection of great ancient scholars, simply gave an aura of scholarship and antiquity to often undistinguished works of grammar and exegesis. As in the case of Probus, moreover, there is no need to believe that the works attached to ‘Cornutus’ were all written by the same person: indeed, although the commentary on Juvenal attributed to Cornutus is found in B together with the abridged form of the Cornrnenturn, it is, as Jahn says, the production of a man who did not know grammar and had poor sources, whose knowledge, such as it was, he saw ‘per nebulam’.18 ‘Cornutus’, in fact, is a red herring; and although we may be able to locate the compiler fairly closely in space and time, we are unlikely to be able to give him a name. Nor does it matter very much. But in fact there are some genuine names associated with the Cornrnenturn and the marginal scholia around it, and they have long been known. One of them is Heiric of Auxerre, whose presence in the Juvenal scholia was mentioned at the end of the previous chapter. The other is Heiric’s pupil Remigius, a fragment of whose commentary on Persius survives and is clearly related to the Cornrnenturn. Jahn and Mariani have suggested that the Cornrnenturn is the work of a pupil of Heiric, Elder that it is the work of Heiric himself. Either solution is plausible, neither can be proven. But it is worth looking at the evidence a little more closely. 4. Cornutus, Heiric, and Remigius

In the so-called ‘doublet’ (that is to say, the opening pages of the Cornrnenturn as we have it), there is a note in MLU (not in R) that reads:

16 (3) 0 ALBVS aut pallidus pauore recitandi aut labore scribendi aut, ut ait Cornutus, ueste candida. If this section of the Cornrnenturn were genuine, the note would obviously be surprising: what is a reference to Cornutus doing in a text ascribed to Cornutus? ‘Comutus’ (that is to say MLUR) in fact does not give this gloss on albus; instead, at 1.16(6) we find the gloss festiua ueste indutus. The gloss at 1.16(3) does appear in other manuscripts: but ” See PrBaux,

‘Propositions’300 n.5, citing C. Jeudy, Viafor5(1974) 69-71.

’* Jahn, Persius cxxv. For detailed examination of the Cornutus question, see Jahn, ed., Persius cxiii-cxxvii; also Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 474-77, and J. P. Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus on Persius’, Speculum 22 (1947) 246-47.

138

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

they are some of the manuscripts of the B tradition, namely KQ and Bern 665.’’ But if the A tradition is the Cornrnenturn Cornuti, why do MLU ascribe to Cornutus a gloss found only in the B tradition? In part, the answer is simply that Cornutus is not just the eponym of one particular text-the Cornrnentum as preserved in MLUR-but is a name that appears almost at random. The manuscript taken by Marchesi as the core of the tradition of Persius exegesis, Laurentianus 37, 20 of the thirteenth century, ascribed to Cornutus one set of notes-but the larger, anonymous set of notes in the same manuscript comes from the same source, namely the standard tradition of the Comrnentzirn.20The shortened version of the Cornrnenturn in B is called the Cornrnenturn Cornuti just as much as the fuller version in the major manuscripts?’ What is clear about the note at 1.16(3) is that, together with the rest of the opening of the Cornrnenturn, it comes from a source other than the Cornrnentum itself, probably put together from marginalia and glosses.” In the lack of any clear attachment of the name ‘Cornutus’, therefore, one needs to look for a different approach to the identification (or at least more precise definition) of the author of the Cornrnentum, and in this Elder found a clue in the fragmentary commentary on Persius in Vat. Reg. Lat. 1560 ascribed to Remigius of A ~ x e r r e . ‘Elder’s ~ argument was simple, if not conclusive: since the commentary of Remigius incorporates a great deal of the Comrnenturn, and since Remigius is known for the simplification of work by his elders and betters, what more likely source would he have than a commentary on Persius by his own teacher, Heiric of Auxerre? Heiric’s knowledge of Persius is clearly attested in his poem on the life of St. Germanus and in his scholia to his own poem, a few of which are parallel to notes in the Cornrnenturn itself.24 He was also very well acquainted with, and indeed lectured on, other classical poets including Juvenal. As was mentioned at the end of the last chapter, Wessner believed that four different versions of the Juvenal scholia originated in Auxerre in the Carolingian period, and several notes (in various manuscripts) make it clear that the scholiast(s) knew the work of Heiric, and that Heiric had himself commented on Juvenal.

See Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 498-99. C. Marchesi, ‘Gli Scoliasti di Persio’, RFIC 39 (1911) 564-85, 40 (1912) 1-36, 193-215 for criticism of his argument, see Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 475-80; Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus’ 242-43; and Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici’ 203-04. LUR; M has no titles. 22 It should, of course, be pointed out that this supplemental opening of the Cornmenturn can not in fact be from a manuscript Iike KQ, since it lacks precisely those notes which are most characteristic of the B tradition. There is, in fact, relatively little overlap. 21 For a description and text of the fragment, see Appendix 2. 24 On the use of Persius in the Vita S. Germani, cf. F. Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre e 1’Acfnofafio secundum Remigium’, GIF 18 (1965) 147-51. For parallels to the Cornmenrum, see our testimonia to 1.66(1), 2.53(1), 3.56(1-7), 4.13(1), 4.28(7-8), 5.11(5), 5.16(1), 5.30(2). For Heiric’s life, see the convenient summary in R. Quadri, ed., I Collecfaneadi Eiric di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense I L (Frihourg 1966) 3-28. l9

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

139

The first of these notes appears on Juvenal 1.78 in the form of commentary which Wessner designated as x (of which none of the manuscripts is of value for the Persius ~cholia):~~ Praetexta genus erat togae, qua utebantur pueri _adhuc sub disciplina usque ad decimum quintum annum, deinde togam uirilem accipiebant, unde in uita sancti Germani legitur: ‘cessit praetexta togae’ (Vita S.Germani 1.98) This note-like Heiric’s own scholium on the passage-is clearly related to Cornmenturn 5.30(2), but with two causes for doubt. One is that all the other parallels (including the Cornmentum and Heiric) give the age for receiving the toga uirilis as sixteen, not fifteen; the other is that the scholiast on Juvenal in fact misquotes Heiric, who had written ‘cedebat praetexta togae’, not ‘cessit . . .’ The second note is one that appears in slightly different forms in several different manuscripts of Juvenal on 9.37, ‘ . . . sollicitent, ahz& yhp 8 c p 6 h ~ ~&vGpa ~ a t K ~v ~~G o s. ’ Here, the scholia of the Pithoeanus say only ‘ipse ad se trahit’, glossing the first two words of Greek. Other manuscripts have a very different note with a very different interpretation. Paris 8272 (my P) reads? Prouerbium erat de catamitis dictum: dulces sunt mores, id est faciles et flexibiles, uiri mollis. Unus pes deest uersui Graeco, quem magister Heiricus scire non potuit. This note is also found in several of the manuscripts of Wessner’s cp group, namely Leiden Voss. Q. 18 (my Q), Leiden Voss. F. 64, Paris Lat. 8070, and Vienna 131 (my W); it is also found in Bern 223 (my B).27At least one other manuscript (Bern 665) has a slightly different version? Hoc Graecum conuptum est uno pede, quem magister Hircus, ut Cornutus dicit, diu exquisiuit, inuenire non potuit, sed hoc significat: dulces mores uiri mollis. The combination of Cornutus and Heiric in one note is probably significant: this Cornutus is not the same person as Heiric, and it is possible that Cornutus is Heiric’s But there is more to be said about this note. In the first place, it points out the limitations of Heiric’s Greek: he could perhaps recognize, in the corrupt text of Juvenal 9.37 that he had available, that the verse did not scan, but he could not remedy it and

Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem xxiv-xxvi, xxix. Wessner quotes only the last phrase; the full scholium is given by Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 150. Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem xxix, also points out another scholium in x which reflects an etymology given in Heiric’s poem. 26 Quoted by Jahn, ed., Persius cxxvii and Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 152. Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem xxviii quotes only the final sentence. For the fullest list of manuscripts giving this scholium, see Wessner, Scholia in Iuvenalem xxviii-xxix (not including Paris 8272, cited by Mariani). ” It is worth noting-although it may not be significant-that this group includes three different divisions of the manuscripts of Persius commentary: Q and W have very different sets of marginalia, and B is a late (and somewhat abridged) manuscript of the Commenturn itself. 28 Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 152. 29 So Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 152.

25

140

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

perhaps could not read it.3oSecondly, one should not ignore the gloss (and hence the text) to which the comment about Heiric is attached. The Greek words were variously corrupted, but, as Jahn saw, adz& was misread as 4005 and yhp 8 @ h K & z a t was corrupted to something resembling y h u d q (thus losing the foot (and more) which Heiric could not find), while the last two words remained more or less correct. The four words were then glossed one at a time, as mores, dulcis, uir, and rnollis.3’ Hence the extremely peculiar translation; and while it is not specifically ascribed to Heiric, the translation and the metrical perplexity are clearly connected, and it is very likely that they both reflect the Greek scholarship of Auxerre in the third quarter of the ninth century. The strange gloss on Juvenal 9.37 offers one possible connection with the Cornrnenturn Cornuti, other than the name of Cornutus itself. One of the striking features of the Cornmenturn is its lack of Greek: there are a few words (mostly rhetorical terms), a very few glosses and etymologies; but remarkably little attempt to quote anything in Greek and very little use even of the Greek alphabet. At 1.99(2), the commentary seems to suggest that mimullones is derived from pipq~rtqrather than pavia (which the context requires); a similar etymology-except that the Greek is even further corrupted to up0 tu rnesto-appears in KQ. At 3.4(1) the Cornrnenturn seems not to know the name for the gnomon of a sundial, which is supplied in W. At 1.7(1)-which may of course not have been part of the original Cornrnenturn-the commentary gives the name of Chilon, but yv68t O S ~ U T ~isV supplied only by KQ. More striking is the omission of Greek at 1.56(4): tractus sensus ex Graeco uersu, quo significatur ex uentre crass0 tenuem sensum non nasci. ~ is not quoted in any Latin source, The Greek text (.axcia yaoTfip XEXT~V06 T ~ K T Ev6ov) so far as I know, although a similar Latin version is found in Jerome, Epist. 52.11, “Pinguis uenter non gignit sensum tenuem.” One can not be certain that the Cornrnenturn had access to the Greek, but in any case, it did not use it. The final example is at 5.22(3): “sententia a Pytagora tracta; ille enim interrogatus quid esset amicus, respondit quae Horatius sic posuit: ‘et serues animae dimidium meae’ ( C u m . 1, 3, 8). Again, there is a circumlocution avoiding the Greek; this time, however, the Greek is quoted in at least one Latin text, Porphyrio’s commentary on this verse of Horace. One can not, of course, be certain that the compiler of the Cornrnenturn knew it. Heiric knew more Greek than most of his contemporaries, but not a great deal. And here, the connection of Heiric with a ‘Cornutus’, and Heiric’s knowledge of Persius and correspondences between his scholia to his own poem and the Cornmenturn all support the idea of some connection between Heiric and the composition of the Cornrnenturn. But Elder’s suggestion that Heiric himself was the compiler is speculative: the school of Auxerre had other pupils and teachers, even though Heiric and Remigius are the two most famous.’2 But the problem is more complicated than Elder realized, in that

30 All manuscripts that give the Greek at all provide a corrupt text, except for the Pithoeanus. For a conspectus, see Knoche’s apparatus. ” Jahn, Persius cxxvii. I do not understand the process of corruption which led to yhudq. 32 Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus’; also Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 147, CTC 237-39.

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

141

Remigius knew not only the Comrnentum itself, but some notes from the B tradition. Remigius was, as Elder describes him, ‘no original thinker, but a most beelike, and useful, p l a g i a r i ~ t . ’His ~ ~ commentaries-not just this one--consist of careful borrowing from earlier sources, simplified for more elementary use and equipped with extra glosses, and with glosses on glosses; and except for his simplifications and glosses, one should not expect to find anything original. It is worth briefly examining his comments on 1.16-18:

Tandem legens illa carmina sede celsa, idest in sede excelsa, in pulpito uidelicet uel in rostris. albus tu, idest pallidus, uel pauore recitandi uel labore scribendi seu propter uestem candidam necdum consul factus nec purpureum adeptus uestimentum quod laticlauium dicitur. cum natalicia sardoniche idest cum pretiosa gemma. Sardonix est gemma pretiosa quam patronus filiolo suo donat in die natalis sui, quam Romani in anulis suis ferre solebant. et est nigra candida et rubra. dicta autem sardonix a sardio et oniche, quod utriusque colorem habeat. hoc autem dicit quod talk poeta recitaturus carmen adornatus et festiuus incedebat ut corporis habitu se audientibus commendaret. et collueris tu, idest purgaueris et laueris, mobile, idest tremulum, guttur cum liquido, idest claro, plasmate fractus, idest dissolutus et effeminatus, patranti ocello, idest luxurioso et adulanti oculo. plasma dicitur medicamentum quo fauces recreantur clamore sauciate. idem dicitur et fonascus a greco quod est phone, idest uox. Idem est et gargarismus. Patranti ocello: Patrare proprie est rem ueneriam peragere. Est autem ypallage, idest fracto ocello. Nimia enim luxuria facit oculos distortos et prauos: Vnde Virgilius ‘Transuersa tuentibus hyrcis.’ Here, the first sentence (tandem. . . rostris) is simply paraphrase of Persius, of which the second half is taken from Commenturn 1.16(4). The second sentence is an amalgam: pallidus. . . candidam is from (or at least parallel to) the note in the doublet mentioned above, in which the interpretation ueste candida is ascribed to Cornutus (1.16[3]).At this point, Remigius leaves the Cornmenturn. He returns to it halfway through the note, with hoc autem dicit, a sentence which is drawn almost verbatim from Cornmenturn 1.16(5), followed by sentences drawn largely from Comrnentum 1.17(7) (doublet), 1.18(4), and 1.17(9). This last sentence, however, is found not only in the Comrnentum but also in the B tradition (KQPN), where it is followed by the sentence ‘dicitur autem fonascus a graeco, quod est fone, id est U O X . ’That ~ ~ is, except for the change from autem to et, exactly what is found in Remigius, except for a useful extra gloss explaining plasma as gargarismus. The other non-Commentum notes have a similar background. The consul is found as an interlinear gloss in KQ (noua uel nitida, scilicet nondum consul factus (factas K))35 and the rest of the second sentence (nee purpureum . . . dicitur) is found in KQW and as a gloss in PN, and the description of the sardonix is an amalgam of notes found in Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus’ 243. For textual variations, see Appendix 3. 35 0 has only the first half of the gloss, and PN do not have it at all. I am unable to read W here. Wessner cites mention of the consul in this note from Montpellier 212 and Bern 257.

j3

34

142

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

KQ and WO. It should also be noted that, although all the marginal scholia include notes from the Cornmenturn and other notes, none of the manuscripts I have examined has exactly the collection found in Remigius. One further feature of the Remigius fragment deserves altention. The manuscript was written relatively early, probably in the early tenth century and possibly within the lifetime of Remigius himself (who died in 908). The commentary on Persius is filled with extensive-and often difficult to read-interlinear and marginal annotations, which may be written by the scribe who wrote the text, and which in any case are clearly contemporary and well-informed, frequently supplementing the notes of the first hand in sensible ways, and in a style not different from that of the commentary itself.36 One note by this corrector is of considerable interest. At 1.46, Remigius comments:

Quando haec auis rara est, idest raro inuenitur, scilicet niger cignus et albus coruus; Prouerbium est antiquum. Raram autem auem dicit uel perfectum poetam uel uerum iudicem et sine assensione aurium. et est translatio a fenice. et hoc uerecunde Persius: raro se commode dicit scribere. Nam et fenix raro uidetur, quae circa Indiae partes moratur. The second part of this note, on the phoenix, is closely related to the Cornmenturn (although it is also found in K and W). The first part, however, is not linked to the Cornmenturn, and on the phrase scilicet niger cignus et albus coruus the corrector comments above the line: secundum Remigium. It is, of course, peculiar that a commentary by Remigius should cite Remigius as a source; but this may only reflect what Wessner suspected, that the phrase secundum Remigium in the title of the Vita that precedes the fragment of commentary indicated that the text was not by Remigius himself, but by a student based on lecture notes. The black swan and white crow, both of which come from Juvenal (6.165 and 7.202 respectively), appear in KQ and in Montpellier 212 without Remigius’ name, but in WO one finds Remigius given credit in an interlinear gloss: Si quando sit (scit W) cignus niger (nier 0)et albus coruus secundum Remigium. There are similar notes in Bern 265 and 665 and elsewhere.” It is hard to determine the precise course of events here, but whatever happened, it appears that a note derived from Remigius, and sometimes giving credit to him, was widely distributed in the marginal tradition of Persius scholia at a very early stage: some of these manuscripts were probably written in the tenth century. What is striking, moreover, is that while the gloss itself appears both in KQ and in WO, the attribution to Remigius appears only in the manuscripts closest to the Cornmenturn itself. A close analysis of the marginalia in WO might well reveal more traces of Remigius than one

36

37

On the corrector, see Appendix 2. See Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 500.

6. ORIGINS OF THE COMMENTVM

143

would have expected, given the fact that the commentary survives in a single manuscript and in one other quotation.38 I return, finally, to the question of authorship and origin of the Commentum. What is certain is that certainty is impossible: the name of Comutus is too loosely used, the evidence for Heiric’s authorship is too slight, the complexity of Remigius’ sources too great. But one thing does emerge: the Commentum (or a marginal version of it) and the various sets of scholia including non-Commentum notes were written and circulated rapidly, and in a small area: from Remigius’ use of non-Commenturn material that is found in a wide range of marginal sets of scholia (at least KQ and WO), one can be certain that these compilations, or compositions, or texts, already existed in the latter part of the ninth century in or near Auxerre, considerably earlier than the manuscripts in which some of them are now attested. In that respect, the Persius scholia-if not the Commentum itself-are precisely comparable to the Carolingian scholia on Juvenal. On the other hand, it will not do simply to say that the extant manuscripts were written as copies of putative earlier collections of the ninth century: the range of combinations that we have seen in just six manuscripts with marginalia and in the fragment of Remigius shows that these are flexible works of variable contents. To write a stemma for such a tradition, or even for a single group of notes, is neither possible nor desirable; there is no text to be reconstructed, there are only texts to be read. What is more, although we may want to recover scraps of antiquity from these books, they were not written with an eye to the needs of modem antiquarians. To try to look through these texts at antiquity is not to look at them; and the way in which we perceive such manuscript books has a great deal of bearing on how we edit them. In the final chapter, I will try to suggest some reasons why standard editorial theory (‘the method of Lachmann’) is singularly inappropriate for these medieval texts and propose (as others have done) some alternatives. My central question is one raised by the differences between the Commentum and the sets of marginalia: why is it possible to apply the method of Lachmann to the former, but not to the latter? What distinguishes a text that is copied relatively faithfully from one manuscript to another from a text that is subject to alteration, intervention, and change?

38 Laurentianus 37, 20 on Persius 6.71: “Nepotes dicuntur luxuriosi . . . uel, ut dicit Remigius, nepa est quidam serpens, qui fetus suos deuorat, cum famescit, inde nepos dicitur quasi patrimonium consurnens et deuorans siue dissipans” (Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 500). It is not, however, necessary to believe that this came from a commentary on Persius.

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE 1. Scribes, authors, editors

Among the various commentaries and sets of scholia on Persius discussed in the preceding chapters, how can one determine which manuscripts contain the ‘same’ text and which contain different ones? As with any textual tradition, that is of course in part a matter of definition and convention: we collectively decide that, for instance, the Mediceus and the Palatinus of Virgil contain the ‘same’ text: although there are many divergences in individual readings, the two are close enough for us to consider them as copies of the same work. But even without splitting philosophical hairs about ‘same’ and ‘different’, it is obvious that to define ‘sameness’ is as problematic in dealing with a text like the Cornrnenturn and its relatives as it is unproblematic in dealing with the major texts of classical literature. If one looks back at the series of manuscripts and their ‘texts’ of commentary or scholia on Persius discussed above, it is clear that at one end of the textual spectrum stands a group of three closely related manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn, MLU, the stemmatic relationship among which is clear and which, despite errors and variations, contain a unified, coherent, and above all stable text. But if the Cornrnenturn found in MLU is a stable text, then in what way is it legitimate to speak of the text in R as the ‘same’ Cornrnenturn as that found in MLU? As was shown in Chapter 2 , the scribe of R or its immediate ancestor rewrote certain aspects of the Cornrnenturn in a manner that appears deliberate: shortening lemmata, removing lemma-signs, eliminating some incomprehensible and corrupt sentences, adding some glosses. R’s text is, for all intents and purposes, still the Cornrnenturn-but R is not a ‘sincere’ witness, and the text, although preserving some genuine readings corrupted in MLU, is interpolated. Given the ever-changing nature of exegetical texts, however, it is largely a matter of definition and editorial convenience to view R’s version as an interpolated text of the Conzrnenturn rather than as a slightly different commentary-Cornrnenturn ‘second edition corrected.’ Greater problems arise in assessing the status of the later manifestations of R’s version of the Cornrnenturn. T and B eliminate a great many quotations, they further shorten the lemmata, they omit (particularly T) quite a lot of material, they add notes from Isidore and perhaps other sources. Again, is this the ‘same’ work as that contained in MLU or R? In a sense, one can establish a proportion: MLU is to R as R is to TB. Each step is, from a traditional textual critic’s point of view, a further step away from an original that must be reconstructed using ever more interpolated sets of witnesses. Viewed in another light, however, each stage can legitimately be seen as a different commentary, albeit one with deep roots in the tradition from which it sprang. Each one,

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

145

presumably, was composed (which at times means no more than revised) within a particular social and intellectual context (which I have not attempted to recover here); the additions, deletions, and rewritings, at least some of them, are deliberate and authorial, not accidental and scribal. To those distinctions I will return shortly. If one can see the tendency towards innovation and revision even in those forms of exegesis which remain consistently separate from the text and are not in the open form of scholia, then how much more is such alteration to be expected in marginal scholia? As is clear from the manuscripts discussed in Chapter 5, there is a distinctive combination in these scholia of textual continuity with considerable variation in content. Textual continuity exists, in that some or all the manuscripts agree in preserving particular alterations and abridgements of notes found in the Commentum, and in that all the marginal scholia, whether in the A tradition or the B tradition, show agreement with MLU in particular readings, thus showing that there was little if any attempt to broaden the textual base of the notes that were preserved and very little horizontal transmission. Variation in content is present, clearly, because of the number of notes abridged, rearranged, revised, added or deleted from copy to copy. As was shown above, these scholiastic collections are simultaneously conservative and highly individual; they do and do not depend on the Commentum; they are and are not original compositions by their scribes. In other words, as with the various forms of continuous commentary, so with marginalia: each version is its own text, each scribe is both author and copyist. A manuscript like W or Q contains some of the same texts as the Commentum;it does not contain the same text. In certain respects, an argument like this is not at all unusual, particularly for those familiar with the transmission and editing of commentaries. It applies equally well to the four Carolingian commentaries on Juvenal excerpted by Wessner as evidence for the scholia vetera, to the multiple versions of the Berne Sylloge on the Eclogues and Georgics, and probably-although they have never been edited clearly enough for anyone to be certain-to the commentary of Ps.-Acro on Horace and to the Adnotationes super Lucanum. What is more, in the newest edition of the Berne Sylloge, there is a serious attempt to keep the various strands of tradition separate, just as we have chosen to edit a single strand of the tradition of commentary on Persius rather than blend texts that have every right to be considered separately and independently.' The choice of what to edit, however, depends to a certain degree on the perspective from which one looks at the material. If one views these commentaries and sets of scholia as productions of the Carolingian period, then the relationship among the various versions of commentary on Persius is one among independent works of related content. If one views them as residual forms of an ancient commentary, then their relationship is in fact precisely parallel to the stemmatic relationship among manuscripts of a single classical text: corrupt and degenerate copies of a lost and pristine original. Although when expressed in this tendentious way, the latter approach may seem improbable at best, it is in fact the method that has long dominated the editing of medieval commentaries on classical texts, and has been particularly evident in

' Cf. Luca Cadili, ed., Scholia Bernensia in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica, Vol. 11, Fasc. 1 (Amsterdam 2003).

146

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

scholarship on the Comrnenturn and its relatives. The goal has been, quite explicitly, the formation of an eclectic text that would use the ‘best’ in all forms of the commentary to reconstruct an ancient core. Thus Liebl, for instance, who first recognized the importance of L, viewed eclectic editing as essential:* Dass bei der Herstellung des Textes dieser (wie andrer) Scholien nur ein eklektisches Verfahren zum Ziel fuhren kann, dass selbst verh2iltnissmassig jung Abschriften mit Nutzen zu verwenden sind, davon wird sich jeder iiberzeugen, der mit diesen Scholien sich abgibt. Jahn’s edition is highly eclectic: taking as his base the 1613 reprint of the Paris edition of 1601, he not only removed the careful distinction among sources made in that edition, but also added material from the marginal scholia in P, a manuscript with a very different set of scholia from the Cornrnenturn itself. Jannaccone3 is most explicit about the goal, and views the important task-subsequent, it is true, to the establishment of a reliable text of the Commentum-as separating the ancient core from the medieval periphery, to find what lies behind the text. Even Wessner is at times scornful of the medieval in comparison with the ancient: what is good is old, what is relatively new is bad. But did such an ancient model ever exist? And to what extent, even possible to restore it? If the analysis of sources and composition given above has any merit, it shows that the stream carrying ancient lore to medieval manuscripts has many currents and channels. Isidore, to take the clearest example, drew from late antique commentary on Persius (as on commentaries on other authors as well); but Carolingian commentators also drew on Isidore. Commentators in both antiquity and the Carolingian period drew on multiple sources, sources which themselves often drew on one another. To identify an ancient fact in a medieval commentary is not the same thing as identifying an ancient text in a medieval commentary, and it is generally impossible to separate out the ancient from the medieval, other than in the most trivial way. Nuggets of ancient truth there are, such as Varro on the Parilia or a fragment of Cornelius Severus; but what can generally be identified is facts or brief quotations, not context, and certainly not the language of an ancient scholar. And, of course, it is just as possible to identify nuggets of ancient error, such as the equestrian statues of the sons of Aegyptus for which Acro is named as the authority. The ancient material is sometimes valuable; but we can not polish up the words or syntax of the Commenturn and find silver beneath the tarnish, nor can we remove medieval incrustations from an ancient jewcl. In editing a medieval text, one is editing a medieval text, whatever earlier material it contains: it does not provide access to a lost ancient ‘original.’ The argument given above, moreover, makes explicit a position that many editors accept implicitly, but which editors of classical texts, in general, firmly reject-that the work being done by a scribe (particularly, of course, in texts such as the Commenturn and its relatives) is authorial and editorial as much as it is purely scribal. Hence, the

’ Liebl, Reirriige zu den Persius-Sclzolien 5. ’ Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici’ 205-07.

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

147

relationship among the versions is not mechanical, but mindful: the scribe may be doing something more than mere copying, and he can be assumed to know what he is doing. Jannaccone rejects this position emphatically, and she is scarcely alone:4 Non mi pare che la congerie scoliastica leidense, che b un prodotto del lavoro filologico all’alba della rinascenza carolingia, riveli la personalith del compilatore: il commento leidense non B un commento perpetuo prodotto da una dottrina individuale e dovuto a un maestro, ma una compilazione scoliastica che b spesso poco pi6 che affare da scriba: e in questo sta il suo pregio. What is visible in this approach is a search for the lost original: Carolingian scholia and commentaries are largely mindless acts of transcription and compilation, not the product of thought, choice, and interpretation. There obviously are manuscripts the production of which is the result of scribal acts: that is largely true of the manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn as it is of most contemporary manuscripts of ancient literary texts; it is also clearly the case that most of the scholia in KQ are copied from one or more other manuscripts. At the same time, however, even KQ are products of individual choice. Not all the notes are identical; the placement on the page is certainly not identical; and one need not add that the errors are not identical. This last is presumably not a matter of choice, but the other two are: at least in the case of marginal scholia, most scribes are, if not writing original commentary (and some of the notes may be that as well), making choices and judgments about what to include and what to leave out, where and how the reader needs assistance, how to design the page. To insist that everything that goes on in a manuscript is the result of mechanical scribal acts is logically equivalent to saying that all the manuscripts of scholia descend from a single original that contained a version of every note found in any of them, and that all alterations from that putative ur-corpus take place solely as the result of error. That extreme position is absurd, as is the extreme in the other direction: to say not that scribes exercise choice and judgment, but that they are actual authors of everything that is in their manuscripts. To take one extreme is to make copyists into automata; to take the other is to deny history. What is as unacceptable as either extreme, however, is the bland assumption made by many editors that we know just what scribes were doing and that we can privilege certain aspects of scribal activity over others without justification or explanation. Over the centuries in which editorial theory has been developed, there have been radical differences in the understanding of what an editor is doing and how slhe does it; why should we assume that there is no similar range of differences in the long period of scribal activity that preceded the use of moveable type? Even within the Carolingian period, it is obvious that there are real differences between the copying and editorial activities of a Lupus of Ferribres and of the composer of the scholia in K or Q; to take Lupus as the norm for all periods and all kinds of text is an assumption of very doubtful merit. There is clearly a spectrum of activities that take place in writing manuscripts: at one end, there are the scribes attempting to reproduce sacred scriptures accurate to the last jot and tittle; at the other end, there is an individual writing Jannaccone, ‘Rapporti di codici’ 207.

148

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

an original work. Within the tradition of the Carolingian annotations of Persius, it is striking that at least one part of it, the central manuscripts of the Commentum, belongs at the scribal end of the spectrum, while other parts, the shorter versions of the Commentum and the marginal scholia, are at least partly scribal, partly authorial.

2. A text of what? A tradition such as the one described in this book stands apart in several important respects both from the standard patterns of transmission of most classical texts and, indeed, from the way we are accustomed to understand the meaning of ‘text’ itself. In all probability, the Commentum and its relatives derive, at some remove, from a commentary on Persius that was composed in late antiquity-a book, one assumes, that was intended to accompany and explain the text, not merely a set of marginal annotations. In that sense, all the manuscripts discussed here can be considered ‘witnesses’ to an ancient text, similar to the way in which medieval manuscripts are witnesses to the text of the speeches of Cicero, the letters of Seneca, or the plays of Plautus. At the same time, however, there is a significant difference between the way in which the medieval exegesis of Persius represents its lost original and the way in which the manuscripts of Cicero’s speeches represent theirs. The Persius commentary was abridged into margins, recombined into commentary, again abridged, reshaped, and improved over and over again; at every stage parts of the ‘original’ were lost, material was added both on the basis of the scribe’s own understanding of Persius and through the inclusion of selections from other texts, such as Isidore; in every manuscript, it became something different. Where the scribe of a manuscript of Cicero’s speeches was constantly trying to reproduce a text that had been composed centuries earlier, the scribe of Persius commentary or scholia was trying to keep what he wrote up-to-date and useful. He wrote for the present, not to preserve the past. In a broader sense, of course, the copyist of a Cicero manuscript was no less concerned with the present value of his work than our scholiasts-but the value being maintained was clearly very different. Cicero (like Persius himself) was important within the educational system; the preservation of a consistent and accurate text mattered for instruction in Latin, in rhetoric, or in morality. Commentaries had a place in this system, but it is a secondary place, for second-order texts. To maintain the constant possibility of reading Persius (no mean feat), changing audiences needed changing types of assistance, and one assumes that changing conventions about how to present that assistance influenced the physical format in which commentary was provided. Hence preserving the continuing vitality of one text necessarily meant constant alteration of the other. Such an observation, of course, is neither surprising nor new. Commentary stands at one end of a spectrum of varieties of text and of textual transmissions: it is a kind of text with little, if any, claim to accurate preservation, and is thus totally different from works of high literature; at the same time it represents the most ‘open’ kind of textual transmission, one in which, as has been shown in previous chapters, there was a great deal of borrowing from one manuscript to another. It is thus completely unlike certain

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

149

‘closed’ traditions (such as that of Lucretius), in which one manuscript was copied faithfully from another, without contamination or interpolation and, ideally, without error. And yet even this description blurs a distinction that deserves to be examined in more detail. There is a real difference between the kind of contamination-collation of readings, correction against other copies-that is characteristic of ‘open’ traditions of classical texts and the kind of revision of substance and form characteristic of the tradition of commentary. In general, classical textual criticism views the former as a troublesome aspect of the paradosis of the same text, and the latter as a form of relationship among difSerent texts: we return to the problem of ‘same’ and ‘different’ with which this chapter began. The history of commentaries, although it is obviously eccentric, allows us to raise questions about the transmission of all ancient texts: are there different standards of copying and fidelity for different sorts of text? Should we regard one sort as the norm and another as a deviation? Or is there a spectrum of possibilities? The standard theory of textual criticism, as applied to classical texts, is that generally described as ‘the method of La~ hmann.’~The theory is in many parts older than Karl Lachmann’s 1850 edition of Lucretius-it arose in the textual criticism of the New Testament beginning in the late eighteenth century-and it did not receive its canonical expression until Paul Maas’s Textkritik of 1927.6 The method was developed, for the most part, as an element of the effort to secure an accurate text of scripture; and for Lachmann, at least in his dealings with classical texts, it was directed against the unsystematic and idiosyncratic use of individual judgment in correcting texts, emendutio ope codicum. Stated in its simplest and blandest terms, Lachmann’s method is unexceptionable: first find the earliest text that can be reconstructed (recensio), and only then use that reconstruction as the basis for restoring the author’s original words (emendutio). As an instruction to emend only on the basis of the best possible reconstructible text, the method now appears to be common sense; and the method of recensio, as described most clearly in theoretical terms by Maas, is simply an application of rigorous logic to the task of refining and narrowing often large and refractory bodies of material. Applied as Lachmann did in his reconstruction of the lost archetype of Lucretius, the method works well (although it does not explain adequately the

It should be noted that my discussion of Lachmann’s method in this and the following section is a revision and extension of an earlier paper: James Zetzel, ‘Religion, Rhetoric, and Editorial Technique: Reconstructing the Classics’, in G. Bornstein and R. G. Williams ed., Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in rhe Humanities (Ann Arbor 1993) 99-120. The fullest and best study of Lachmann and his antecedents remains that of Sebastiano Tirnpanaro, La Genesi del metodo del Lachmann (ed. 2 revised, Padova 1985). An English translation of Timpanaro’s work by G. W. Most is forthcoming, and I am grateful to him for allowing me to read it. On Lachmann, see also Kenney, Classical Text, esp. 98-1 10. Cited here from Texrual Criticism, the English translation of the third German edition. More recent (and less abstract) expositions of the theory in English that I employ are M. L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Stuttgart 1973) and L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars (ed. 3 , Oxford 1991) 207-241. It will be clear that my discussion is heavily indebted-well beyond specific references-to G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del tesfo (ed. 2, Florence 1952) and to Timpanaro, La Genesi. An extremely useful brief account of textual criticism and its history is R. J. Tarrant, ‘Classical Latin Literature’ in D. C. Greetham, ed., Scholarly Editing: A guide lo research (New York 1995) 95-148.

150

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

relationships among the Renaissance manuscripts of Lu~ retius);~on the other hand, as a theory of texts in general, it is seriously deficient, because ihe kind of closed and narrow tradition exemplified by the transmission of Lucretius is in fact exceptional. If one starts from a text like the Commenturn-which is, it should be stated firmly, in its own way equally exceptional-then a whole series of doubts emerge. In what follows, I will offer an admittedly speculative account of three different problems in the method of Lachmann, the first two of which (discussed in this section) have been examined in detail by others: the question of the ‘author’s original text,’ the problem of mechanical and nonmechanical transmission, and, most speculatively, the very notion of textual truth. In all three areas, I will suggest, Lachmann’s method is anachronistic in its application of modern assumptions about texts that may not be universally applicable, even within the smaller realm of ancient Latin texts. Was there ever an ‘original’ antique commentary on Persius which the extant witnesses were trying to reproduce? Even if we assume that one commentary underlies the variety of forms by which the commentary is now represented, it is painfully clear that it has been altered beyond recognition. The late-antique marginalia on which the Comrnentum relies were almost certainly not accurate reproductions of any single book, as can be seen from the surviving evidence in other commentary traditions. The Bembine Terence, one of the best extant examples of an ancient manuscript with marginalia, contains notes written by two different hands half a century apart; it also includes some notes that were clearly derived from more than one source.8 The marginal scholia which provided the basis for medieval commentaries were not uniform; they were in all probability the result of the interests of individual owners; they were not, in short, a scholarly product. The development of the commentary tradition on Persius, as on other authors, shows a willingness to alter what was transmitted and to add material from other sources. To view all exegesis derived at some remove from an ancient work of scholarship as necessarily leading us back to one original is simply false. There is not only no archetype (in Lachmann’s narrow sense of a single late antique manuscript from which all later copies are derived), there is no one text. As was suggested in Chapter 1 , the problems both of history and of definition that surround the tradition of ancient commentaries bear a certain similarity to questions raised by post-modemist theory; and indeed in recent years one of the most vigorous attacks on the method of Lachmann has come from that direction. In the 1980s and 1990s, Jerome McGann and other editors of medieval and modern literature have taken exception to the very concept of an authorial original and the goal of reconstructing it.’

’ For current views on the transmission of Lucretius, see Reynolds in Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission

2 18-22. See Zetzel, ‘History of Latin Scholia.’ Jerome McGann, A Critique of Modern Textual Crificism (ed. 2, Charlottesville 1992); many of his subsequent articles are collected in his The Textual Condition (Princeton 1991). I am heavily indebted to McGann’s approach, although the particulars of his discussion of modem texts are not germane to my argument and will not be cited for specific points. I am also indebted, for the application of this approach to medieval texts, to David Greetham, Textual Transgressions: essays toward the construction of a biobibliography (New

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

151

The debate among modernists largely concerns issues that are of little relevance to editors of classical texts, and only slightly more to editors of medieval Latin texts. The central question has been the choice of text to use as the basis for a critical edition: the author’s final draft, the corrected proofs, the first printed edition, or the last edition supervised by the author. It is a debate over the location of authorial intention. Any classical editor, of course, views these problems with a mixture of envy for the range of materials available and surprise at the very idea of choosing a base text: Housman’s attacks on the concept of the ‘best manuscript’ have made that anathema for classicists.” But the debate over the textual location of authorial intention clarifies one important aspect of Lachmannite textual theory, which is not limited to its variant in the Greg-Bowers approach to copytext editing: that the very idea of the search for the archetype, the fundamental process of the method of Lachmann, is based on Romantic conceptions of the author and a Romantic quest for a lost past: it assumes a unity and wholeness which the editor aims to restore. In fact, although classicists never possess the irrefutable evidence of changing authorial intention and of the social construction of texts available to the editor of Wordsworth or Byron, some of McGann’s criticism of critical method is still relevant to editing ancient and medieval texts. It is important to recognize that the fundamental goal of any critical edition is not to reproduce any extant text: it is to reconstruct an earlier, and presumably better, form of the work in question. That process of reconstruction, as McGann has shown, embodies an essentially Romantic attitude-the desire to recover something precious that has been damaged or lost through the depradations of time. Even though classical editors rarely can recover any evidence about the authorial intentions behind a text, we still assume that what we are trying to restore is a unified and coherent whole-something that clearly does not underlie the traditions of scholia, or (as will be argued below) a rather greater proportion of ancient texts than we would like to think. The method of Lachmann is predicated on the unity and coherence of an original textand on the use of unity and coherence as principles in reconstructing that original. Maas, indeed, contrasted the process of source-criticism in reconstructing a historical event, ‘which by its very nature resists being set down in literary form, and is misrepresented or falsified, often even consciously, by the earliest witnesses’ with the work of textual reconstruction: ‘A work of literary art is an organic whole, and the reader is conscious of each element as standing in a necessary relation to every other element in it . . . ’ l l The assumptions of unity, of organic wholeness, and of art certainly apply to some classical texts, but equally certainly not to all; and the fact that a work is old and in Latin or Greek does not make it automatically a ‘work of literary art.’ The assumption of a perfect, almost pre-lapsarian original underlies most attempts to edit or emend ancient texts: we assume, all too frequently, that errors, inconsistencies, or lapses of style or syntax must York 1998), particularly his discussion of Hoccleve (129-97) and of the relevance of Bowers’ theories to medieval texts (226-45). 10 On the ‘best manuscript,’ see Tarrant, ‘Classical Latin Literature’ 111-12, with excerpts of some of Housman’s more trenchant discussions. “ Maas, Textuul Criticism 21.

152

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

come from the tradition, not the author. No-one who edits scholia keeps that belief for long. The second area of objection to the method of Lachmann, one more familiar to classicists than the implicit Romanticism discussed above, is the assumption of mechanical and linear transmission.Even before Lachmann set down in lapidary Latin his reconstruction of the lost archetype of Lucretius in 1850, it was recognized that his approach had weaknesses: it not only fails entirely to address the problem of contamination, but it assumes a concept of error and an understanding of scribal activity that, in at least some circumstances (including commentaries), are neither justified nor justifiable.” Lachmann’s method operates in a world of closed traditions and few wimesses-Lucretius-and, as Giorgio Pasquali and Sebastiano Timpanaro have shown, even Lachmann himself had a broader understanding of textual history and criticism when he edited the New Testament and the Nibelungenlied. The most glaring weakness in Lachmann’s approach lies in his understanding of the process of transmission as purely mechanical. His scribes are automata, making errors of the eye and hand, not errors of the mind; neither intention nor preoccupation plays any part in the process as he understands it. Transmission as Lachmann sees it is an industrial process, but one in which the workers themselves are supremely unimportant. But what right do we have to assume that the copyists in a textual tradition are mere ciphers or robots? Pasquali adduced the work of Eduard Schwartz and Ludwig Traube as counterinstances. Schwartz, in editing the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, discovered that the wide circulation and complex origins of the text resulted in a tradition in which the transmission was horizontal as much as vertical: that the extent of contamination (to use the Lachmannite term) was so great that it was impossible to reconstruct a single archetype. What is more, it was clear that the text of an author as widely studied as Eusebius was not transmitted mechanically: scribes, in fact, were readers and editors, to such an extent that every manuscript represents its own recension.” Pasquali himself, through his own work in editing Gregory of Nyssa, came to recognize the problem of intelligent scribes copying non-mechanically: if the content of a work matters to the copyist, why should one expect him to pay no attention to what he is writing? And if he is attentive to the content as much as to the letters of the text, then the kinds of changes he is likely to make, whether deliberate or not, can be expected to be different from the kinds of changes made by the ideal scribe of Lachmann’s vision: someone totally ignorant of the content, and preferably even of the language, of the text being written.14

l2 The dedication of Jahn’s Persius to Lachmann in 1843 already reveals their differences, and Jahn’s edition is distinctly un-lachmannite in the wealth of manuscript material employed. See Kenney, Classical Text 128-39 and Tarrant, ‘Classical Latin Literature’ 110-11. l 3 So the summary of Schwartz’s argument in Pasquali, Storia 135-40. According to Timpanaro, La Genesi 58, the recognition that not all error is mechanical goes back to Madvig-and was never recognized by Lachmann. By ‘recension’ in this context is meant not the Lachmannite technical sense of the review of all extant witnesses, but the usage more common in Biblical scholarship, meaning simply a deliberate version of a text. l4 Pasquali, Sroriu xvii summarized the argument succinctly as part of his ‘dodecalogue’: ‘E un pregiudizio credere che la tradizione degli autori antichi sia sempre meccanica; mccanica i? solo dove l’amanuense si rassegna a non intendere. Numrose eta e numerose cerchie non si sono rassegnate a lasciari il testo quale lo

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

153

Traube’s attack on the method of Lachmann was two-fold, both historical and technical. In the first place, he emphasized the fact that manuscripts as historical artefacts can illuminate the contexts in which they were written: in his extraordinary analysis of the transmission of the Regula Benedicti he traced with great precision the ways in which the text was altered to fit the circumstances and the social pretensions of the Benedi~ tines.’~A manuscript is historical evidence in and for itself, just as much as it is a witness to an earlier text; and the scribe of the manuscript has human intentions and human interests that go well beyond making purely mechanical mistakes. In the second place, Traube, palaeographer though he was, emphatically rejected the misuse of palaeography as the principal grounds for correcting transmitted error: l 6 Eine Konjectur wird dadurch doch nicht besser, dalj man sie palaeographisch begriinden kann; und gewilj wird sie dadurch noch nicht richtig, daf3 sie palaeographisch im besten Falle moglich ist. Innerhalb der Philologie, d. h. in dem Bereiche der Herausgeberkunst, fallt der Palaeographie eine andere Rolle zu, als fur Pflasterchen zu sorgen. If for ‘palaeography’ we understand the whole range of mechanistic presuppositions imposed by Lachmannite textual criticism, then Traube’s dictum applies broadly to the whole range of texts the copyists of which could comprehend-and thus alter intelligibly and often intelligently-what they were writing. Pasquali’s critique of Lachmannite mechanism covers a wide assortment of types of alteration of text. Some of them are, if not mechanical, still not intentional in any way: the variations in the text of Nonnus that Pasquali describes are generally metrical echoes of other verses, not conscious attempts to rewrite the Dionysiaca.” Even within the transmission of the Regula Benedicti, it is not altogether clear whether the linguistic regularizations and refinements added between the time of Benedict and Charlemagne’s recovery of the original text were the natural and unconscious result of scribes’ improved Latinity or a deliberate attempt retroactively to improve that of Benedict himself. But while some types of alteration may have been unconscious, others were unquestionably a matter of choice and had far wider implications than mere stylistic embellishment: they reflect what a text meant, and how it was used. How a book is copied is directly related to why it is copied.’* That some texts can change, often substantially, because of the way they were used is not a new discovery, although it is more often recognized for medieval texts than for classical ones. In his short and often neglected treatise on textual criticism, Hermann Kantorowicz explored the changing face of medieval legal texts: alterations because of error and misunderstanding are complemented by the effects of changing law and legal avevano ricevuto, ma lo hanno reso pib chiaro, adattato a1 proprio gusto, abbellito.’ Much of my argument is an application of these sentences. l5 Traube, Texfgeschichteder Regula S. Benedicti. l6 L. Traube, Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen (Munich 1910-1920) 3.1 13, partially quoted by Pasquali, Storiu 137, n.3. ” Pasquali, Sforiu 113-16. Recognized in West, Textual Criticism 16-17 and Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars 234-37.

154

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

education, by quotation and abridgement. He made an important distinction between ‘canonical’ texts (such as those of classical literature) and ‘free’ texts subject to interp~ lation.’~Even here, however, the distinction is not as sharp as one might like: Traube’s work on the Regula Benedicti made it clear that the same text can at different times be canonical or free, and it is precisely that problem that is illustrated by the various forms of commentary on Persius: it is possible to see the difference between MLU on the one hand and the tradition deriving from R on the other as consisting precisely in their different khds of textuality: the three basic manuscripts represent a tradition in which the text is viewed as fixed, as something to be copied accurately; the others represent stages of adaptation of a free tradition, in which the text is shaped to fit the needs of its audience and (in the case of scholiastic transmission) the constraints of physical form. The first kind of textuality is what the method of Lachmann can comprehend; but perhaps the second is more common than we would like to admit. The Pasqualian distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical transmission does not perhaps cover adequately the range of possibilities, particularly in dealing with texts as amorphous as the Commenturn and its relatives. I would prefer to consider a different pair of categories, formal and functional textuality, characterizing those texts for which the precise verbal form is of controlling interest as opposed to those in which, to use a rough description, the practical function of the work is paramount. In a certain sense, of course, utility is paramount in any case: but for works characterized by formal textuality, their primary utility resides in the precise form of words itself. As will be suggested below, this description is applicable above all to religious texts and to works studied in grammatical and rhetorical education. The absence of formal textuality is very clear in certain areas, and it is generally recognized. The most obvious instance is that of legal texts: the Digest was composed by selecting and where necessary altering the words of earlier jurists to fit the needs of Justinianic law, and there are numerous cases in which we can see that the version in the Digest says the exact opposite of the text from which it was drawn.” At the same time, however, one can see the tradition of the Digest itself following two different directions: on the one hand, as a practical work, it was excerpted, altered, and used in various ways in later legal writings; on the other hand, it became a recognized masterpiece itself and was therefore preserved accurately. The fluctuating textuality of other technical works is also evident: the Corpus Agrimensorum was constantly changed and adapted for centuries: ‘we have seen scholars through the ages not slavishly copying the text but adapting it to their different requirements. . . .’2’ The same is true for countless other practical texts, from commentaries to cookbooks, and does not need amplification here?2

’’Kantorowicz, Einfiihrung 41. See above, Chapter I , n.5.

So, for instance, Digest 9.2.27.17 ‘in haec mihi uideri damnum datum: atque ideoque lege Aquilia agi posse’ compared to Collatio 2.4.1 ‘in haec nec mihi uideri damni Aquilia lege agi posse.’ I take this example from B. Frier, Casebook on the Roman Law ofDelict (Atlanta 1989) 59. M. D. Reeve, ‘Agrimensores’, in L. D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission (Oxford 1983) 5. 22 A clear example is the continuing adaptation of the text of Donatus’ Ars grammutica; for a recent useful survey, see Federica Ciccolella, Donatus graecus: Gaming Greek from Antiquity tn the Renaissance (Diss. Columbia, New York 2004) 11-58. 2o

*’

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

155

What needs to be stressed, however, is not the functionality of these texts, but the fact that scribes (or owners, or editors-we know little about the social contexts of transmission) did not feel any particular compunction about making alterations and additions: in certain contexts, the need to pass on a precise form of words was simply not important. But if some contexts of transmission did not demand verbal fidelity, but rather a sense of fidelity to the truth-value or functionality of a text, then what are the contexts in which verbal fidelity-the kind of painstaking copying on which modern editors r e l y d o e s in fact matter to the scribe? Kantorowicz’s distinction between ‘free’ and ‘canonical’ texts does not go far enough toward defining exactly what it means for a text to be (or become) canonical. It is clear, in the first place, that, at least within the tradition of ancient Latin texts, certain books seem to achieve canonical status almost instantly-the major poets of the Augustan age are the obvious example. Furthermore, the strongest guarantee of formal textuality for literary texts is educational use: grammatical or rhetorical instruction demands a consistency of verbal form that protects the language of such books from major alteration. In the second place, there is a tendency for books to move from functional to formal textuality, and not the other direction: that is largely a matter of their ceasing to have a living use, and becoming instead ‘classics,’ objects of study or admiration in their own right. By the ninth century, it is safe to say, most ancient texts had become canonical; and even within the tradition of the Persius scholia, it is clear that the creation of the Commenturn from the fluid and multiple traditions of marginalia is a move from functional to formal textuality. That it did not last, that the commentary was re-marginalized and abridged in various ways, is an illustration of the fact that secondorder texts are an exception to the normal direction of textual change. What is important, however, is to recognize that there is no clear and simple dichotomy to be made between formal and functional texts, between ‘free’ and canonical: in small and large ways, those categories are impermanent. If one looks at the tradition of the major literary classics, it is clear that their verbal form was generally respected, and yet even there some variation exists. The text of Sallust, quite clearly, was affected at various stages by both hyperarchaism and analogical levelling, tendencies that affect occasionally even the text of Cicero. That is not the same as the functional alterations that affect the cookbook of Apicius, but it shows that taste and usage had some effect on perceptions of the text. As far as the poets are concerned, the interpolations that appear in Ovid’s Metamorphoses or in Juvenal’s Satires suggest that reading and transcribing were far more interactive processes in antiquity than should make us comfortable, and the peculiar agglomerations known as the Corpus Tibullianum and Appendix Vergiliana bear witness to much more flexible conceptions of authorship and authenticity than we now accept.23 R. J. Tarrant, ed., P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses (Oxford 2004) xiii, rightly rejects the idea that interpolated verses in the Metamorphoses were the product of deliberate falsification, and assumes a slower process of verses written imitationis uel aemulationis gratia gradually infiltrating the text. That is certainly possible in some or even many cases, but it is equally possible that the writers did not see any reason not to alter the text. 23

156

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Some texts that we regard as unquestionably ‘literature’ (at least from the point of view of the modern classroom) have very clearly not always maintained formal textuality. One need only look at the manuscript tradition of Martial’s Epigrams: one family (A) has expurgated the text, the others (perhaps by error, perhaps by intention) have left out various poems and preface^ .'^ Censorship is not unknown today either, but both then and now its use suggests a less-than-respectful attitude toward authorial intention and textual integrity. Even more drastic, although less definable now, is the treatment meted out to dramatic texts. The plays of Plautus, it is abundantly clear, passed through the hands of actors and producers for some time before being taken over by copyists or scholars who desired to preserve the text accurately. The same, of course, is true for Elizabethan drama in English (where authorship is frequently as uncertain as the authenticity of the text) as it is for Greek tragedy. In the latter case, indeed, there is papyrological evidence that songs of Euripides not only were excerpted from complete plays for performance as set-pieces, but were altered and metrically reshaped to fit their new circumstances-perhaps to suit the vocal abilities of the performer. Even the text of Terence, whose pure Latinity made him a school author from a very early stage, was provided with an alternate ending for the Andria. In the case of Plautine comedy, in fact, one might suggest that there is no clear dividing line to be drawn between literary history and textual history: while some critics insist that contradictions and redundancies are characteristic of Plautus and can not be taken to belong to a Greek model, others assume that they are a sign of later redactions of Plautus, whose own ‘original’ was as logical and spare as Menander or Diphilus. In such cases, the progressive development of translation or imitation is simply continued by the development of the text itself. Most modem accounts of the interpolation of texts in antiquity assume either that it is accidental or that it involves malice. But the processes reconstructed in order to make the intrusion of extra verses in Ovid or Juvenal accidental are often improbably dependent on coincidence and misunderstanding, and the imputation of malice involves assuming an attitude toward the protection of texts that is, I suspect, unproven and unlikely. Modern writers are extraordinarily protective of their own words, and the commercial system of publication has a strong interest in defending the concept of textual integrity and authenticity; but strong conceptions of copyright and of intellectual property-the idea that it is obligatory to respect the integrity of a text and its authorship-are, like the method of Lachmann itself, products of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, promoted to ensure the payment of authors and the profits of publishers; without such conceptions, even deliberate alteration of a text need not entail malicious intent.25 If

24

See Reeve in Reynolds, ed., Texci and Transmission 23944.

’’The first formal copyright law took effect in 1710; like earlier licensing laws, its goal was to protect authors

against piracy rather than to protect the internal integrity of the text. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was produced in the 1880s, and took effect in Britain from 5 December 1887. The broader rubric of ‘intellectual property’ (covering patent, copyright, trademark, and design) is far more recent than that. Useful material on British copyright law may be found at http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk; W. Fisher, ‘The Growth of intellectual property: a history of the ownership of ideas in the United States’, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tFtsher/iphistory.pdf 12-18 offers an excellent account of the growth of copyright and intellectual property emphasizing the importance of the intersection in the nineteenth century of

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

157

people change texts, one should at least entertain the possibility that they have no sense that it is wrong to do so. If we set aside our own conceptions of authorship and ownership, then perhaps we can contemplate the idea that it is formal textuality, not functional textuality, that is the exception. 3. Sola fides, sola scriptura

The transmission of ancient commentaries, not just of the Commentum, provides a model that is almost the complete opposite of that presupposed by the method of Lachmann. Instead of a single original, there are many; instead of an archetype, there are multiple forms constantly present and transmitted in overlapping patterns; instead of mechanical copying from one manuscript generation to the next, there is pervasive contamination and horizontal transmission. And instead of a unified and univocal text, commentaries deliberately contain alternative and mutually contradictory explanations of the text they purport to explain: there is not one text, but many; there is not one truth, but many. If we set aside both Maasian organic unity and post-modernist doubts about authorial intention and the possibility of any genuine original and instead concentrate on the activity of the scribe, the transmission of commentaries suggests that we should look closely at a far more basic assumption: why should we assume that scribes, or readers, placed as high a value on finding a single, ‘true’ text as we do? Isfides or ‘sincerity’ always an essential part of the work a scribe is doing? Authors, certainly, even if they change their minds from one draft to the next, at each stage generally are attached to a single text and a single meaning-but that does not in the least require that the scribes and readers who contemplated their work in later generations had the same attitude, even in the case of works of high literature. In some cases, interpolations in poetic texts may result from attempts to improve on the author; certainly whoever wrote the Helen Episode was attempting to offer a helpful supplement to a lacuna in the Aeneid, and it is probably because Virgil has always been the most canonical and protected of all Latin texts and constantly read in schools that it appears in no ancient manuscript. As noted above, there is no reason to think that such inventions are the result of malice. In many places in ancient commentaries, we find, alongside textual notes that prefer one reading to another, others that indicate that more than one reading is acceptable.26We need not assume that the ‘original’ was as sacrosanct to later readers as it was to the author, and there is very little evidence to show that ancient readers were as respectful of the text as modem scholars wish. It was suggested above that the use of books in an educational setting is the primary motive for accurate copying and transmission of a text; and, as far as classical Roman (or labor-based theories of property and romantic notions of authorship to the strengthening and extension of copyright; additional bibliography at 11.72. (A German version of this article, which I have not seen, is published as ‘Geistiges Eigentu-in ausufemden Rechtsbereich: die Geschichte des Ideenschutzes in den Vereinigten Staaten’, in H. Siegrist and D. Sugarman eds., Eigentum im internationalen Vergleich: I8.-20.Jahrhundert (Groningen 1999) 265-91. 26 So, for instance, Servius at Aen. 8.692: ‘CONCVRRERE MONTIBVS ALTOS alii ‘altis’ legunt, unum ta m n est.’ On these passages, see Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism 91 and the discussion of variants as opposed to corrections in Zetzel, ‘The Subscriptions in the Manuscript$ of Livy and Fronto.’

158

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Greek) literature is concerned, the early and ever-expanding role of education in the preservation and copying of texts provides some reassurance that the versions of ancient literature which we possess have, for most of the time before the use of printing, remained fairly constant. In fact, however, educational purposes require only that a text be synchronically uniform (all the students in a class ought to have the same text) not that it be diachronically true to a distant original: if all copies of Sallust present hyperarchaisms, then the text is just as useful as it would be if all copies presented a modernized orthography. The occasions when diachronic respect for an original is necessary, in fact, are very limited. Scientific and technical texts have a greater obligation to represent their subject accurately than to preserve the exact words of an earlier author; the only two types of text that come to mind in which strict verbal fidelity is essential are the formulae of prayer and of law.27Even there, however, it is clear that certain limits apply: the wording of a legis actio became significantly less important after the rise of formulary procedure, and the prayer accompanying a lustration will not have been very effective in the Christian empire. And one need only look at the text of the Carmen Arvale, religiously preserved on stone, to see how inaccurate a text could become over centuries, despite the importance of getting it right. But although religious texts, in fact, are the sole area in which absolute fidelity is a central concern, and although the principles of Lachmannite textual criticism arose in the context of Biblical scholarship, no text shows more clearly than the Bible that the assumption of a single and unified authorial text is much more complicated than it appears at first sight.28At many levels and through many languages, the Bible preserves evidence of multiplicity and indeed of the exaltation of multiple truth to a degree that ought to give pause to believers in textual unity and correctness. In the first place, it is perfectly clear that the presence of two, and later three, versions of the Bible-Hebrew, Greek, and then Latin-presented a distinct problem, as the three do not agree. When Augustine (City of God 18.44) worries about the fact that at Jonah 3.4 the Hebrew text has Jonah prophesying the destruction of Nineveh in 40 days while the Septuagint gives the figure as three days, his solution is to recognize that both texts are true: ‘utraque auctoritate utendum putaui, quoniam utraque uera atque diuina est.’2yIf two versions of a text are both divinely inspired, and they disagree, then they must simultaneously be true: the principle of non-contradiction does not apply.

*’1 note that there are wide realms of texts about the transmission of which I do not know enough to speak:

medical, mathematical, and other scientific writings; philosophical texts; geographic and chorographic treatises; rhetorical treatises; and more. I suspect that there is no one consistent pattern for all or any of these categories. By ‘Bible’ I generally refer to what Christians call ‘Old Testament’; I refer to Christian scripture as ‘New Testament.’ 29 Bettenson’s Penguin translation curiously mistranslates ‘both are one, and both are inspired by God.’ I cited this passage and the Massoretic double readings discussed below in ‘The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto’ 56 n.50, but the interpretation given here is somewhat different.

’’

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

159

Whether he knew it or not, in acknowledging a double truth in the biblical text, Augustine was replicating the procedure of the Hebrew Bible itself?’ The Bible contains a number of so-called ‘double readings,’ passages where the redactors of the text from divergent strains of tradition were unwilling to give up any evidence for what might be a residue of sacred truth. In some cases, where two parallel passages existed, one reading would appear in one passage, the other in the other; in some cases, the presence of a double reading-readings never, it should be added, of doctrinal significance-is signalled by the appearance in the Septuagint in conjunction of words which are in fact alternate readings; and in some cases, the Hebrew text itself contains two variants in conjunction without indicating that they are in fact variants. There are other, more explicit ways in which the Massoretic and Midrashic material records the existence of a double text: the Kethib-Qert? (‘write-read’) variants in the Massoretic text itself and the Midrashic comments known as ’a1 tiqrt?, in which, as Talmon describes it, ‘an established text is suspended, as it were, and another reading becomes the point of departure for an ensuing Midrashic comment, by means of the introductory formula: “do not read . . ., but rather read . . .y’’3’ The Bible is a book with multiple layers of composition and a complicated transmission in multiple languages-but at the same time it is the divinely inspired word of a divinity. In harmonizing a single version of a text with many versions and many origins, its compilers on the one hand strove to merge into a single body the various groups with whom the versions were associated, but on the other hand embodied through the multiple readings surrounding, and sometimes discreetly embedded in, the composite text the desire not to lose access to possibly genuine tradition. God may be one, but his word is not: as Symmachus said in a very different religious context (Rel. 3.8): ‘uno itinere non potest perueniri ad tam grande secretum.’ But the Bible-any sacred scripture-has a double function: for experts and believers, the existence of multiple texts was itself a desirable tool of study and a sign of reverence for the multiple channels of divine truth; but for use in religious services-and to delineate the boundaries between one orthodoxy and another-it was necessary to have a single and uniform text without doubts. The several sects (Jewish or Christian) constructed textual uniformity and fidelity internally, while the universe of sects reveals the diversity of scriptural revelation-as indeed is apparent in the different versions (both texts and translations) of the Bible deemed true by different religious groups today. The transmission of scripture encapsulates the necessity for both multiple and single truth, and it impresses on its scribes the theological imperative of maintaining its complete accuracy: textual fidelity is a mark of religious fidelity. The choice of one truth among others involves a leap of faith, in more ways than one. And while extended discussion of the Bible may seem irrelevant here, it should not be forgotten either that classical texts in the Middle Ages were copied

” As my knowledge of Hebrew is minimal, I rely for what follows on the work of Shemaryahu Talmon, particularly ‘Double Readings in the Massoretic Text’, Texrus 1 (1960) 144-84 and ‘Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts’, Texrus 4 (1964) 95-132. Talmon, ‘Aspects’ 126.

160

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

by scribes for whom the Bible was rhe Book, and that the method of Lachmann, as noted above, was developed in the context of Biblical criticism. The language of textual criticism has a peculiar tone. We speak of the ‘sincerity’ of manuscripts, of ‘error’ and of ‘corruption.’ Editors (not just Housman) take a high moral tone: departures from the ‘correct’ text are sometimes not treated as accidental, even less as possibly being legitimate alternative truths or as thoughtful alterations: deviations become deviance. Only if in place of ‘error’ we used ‘sin’ could the semantic context of editorial theory be any clearer: it is the language of religion, and of Christianity in particular. We assume that fidelity to a distant truth is the underlying principle of scribal activity, and we impute departures from that truth to failure of character or morals. But much as we would like at times to believe otherwise, not even Virgil is a sacred text; the accurate preservation of his words is not as important for one’s immortal soul as is the accurate preservation of Torah, Qur’an, or Gospel. In talking about fides and about corruption, we import religious assumptions into the examination of a social process. It is, in fact, only in a religious context that the preservation of a faithful text makes much difference to writers or to readers, and the urgent need for textual fidelity-as opposed to the accommodation, albeit uneasily, of multiple truths and multiple interpretations that characterizes the early history of the Bible-arose in one particular religious context, that of the Protestant Reformation in early modern Europe. Not only did the technical possibility of multiple identical copies of a text first arise at that point, but doctrinally the Protestant need for a secure text which could inform a universal priesthood of all believers, believers whose salvation itself depended on individual access to the word of their god, made textual uniformity a matter of urgent necessity. Combined with Protestant desire to purify from medieval corruption the pristine practices of an original Christianity, the concept of textual fidelity received strong reinforcement from the concept of theological restoration: to restore the Book and to restore the Church were one and the same thing. Lachmann’s method was developed within the textual criticism of the New Testament; the method itself is also based on Protestant theology. If we try to remove the theological incrustation from the history of texts, what remains is what has been argued above. People copy a book not, for the most part, because of the sanctity of the text or reverence for its author’s name, but because of its utility, very broadly conceived: for the aesthetic pleasure it gives, for the instruction it conveys, for the linguistic models it provides-r, in certain cases, for all three. But if, as copyist or reader, I find something that no longer pleases me or teaches me correctly, it is my responsibility not to preserve the ugly, the inaccurate, or the inadequate, but to improve it. If I find, with all due immodesty, that I have something to add to the material I am copying or reading, I may see fit to do so. Different sorts of utility, clearly, require different degrees of ‘fidelity’ and permit different degrees of alteration and embellishment: Virgil and Servius may belong together, but they are very different sorts of text.32 Different ideas of ‘fidelity’ dominate at different times and at different places, I t is, of course, salutary to remember that the application of critical standards that ‘we’ deem inappropriate is not limited to ancient or medieval scribes or interpolators. In this connection, Bentley’s argument in favor of the

32

7. TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

161

and they can coexist, over time, within the history of the same text. All texts (or their authors) would like to attain formal textuality; few achieve it consistently. The brilliantly mad Jesuit Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) came to believe, on the basis of the evidence of coins, that most of ancient literature (with the exception of Cicero, the Georgics, Horace’s hexameter poetry and the Natural History of the Elder Pliny) had been forged in Italy in the fourteenth century.33My own view is less drastic than that: it is simply that, in a manuscript age, books change, and that they do so not merely as a result of error, malice, and corruption, but because books are, as they have always been, tools as much as icons. We can, in many or even most cases, use the methods of recension to get behind the variations that we perceive, while recognizing that variation is not always error. We can use the resources of philology to detect stylistic and linguistic inconcinnities, and thus approximate what we choose to think of as most desirable, the authorial text. At the same time, however, it helps to recognize that the stylistic canons by which we judge readings in Virgil are not those of our ancestors and that linguistic assumptions have veered from anomalism to analogism in modern times as well as in antiquity. The assumptions of Lachmannite textual criticism are not wrong, but they are a part of the culture that produced themxhristian, romantic, industrial-while the ancient books we read as well as the medieval copies in which we read them came from a very different world. In the first chapter of Civilization and its Discontents, Freud famously describes human memory through an analogy to the arc$aeological remains of Rome, but a Rome in which all the past layers of the city are simultaneously preserved, ‘an entity . . . in which nothing that has once come into existence will have passed away and all the earlier phases of development continue to exist alongside the latest In fact, of course, in both the mind and the city not everything is preserved, although (at least according to Freud) traces of every stage survive. So too with texts. The Commentum Cornuti, while not a masterpiece or even a work of literature, provides if not a model, at least a useful corrective to our normal assumptions about manuscripts and ancient texts. We rightly value the major works of ancient literature, but we do not have direct access to them: the history that is embodied in the manuscripts that we use (or indeed in the editions we create) is not separable from the ‘original’ but a part of it. And if certain rare texts, as I believe, remain close to what their authors wrote, then perhaps we should be aware that they are the exception, not the norm-and be glad that previous centuries valued some of them for some of the same reasons that we do.

emendation uepris for ueris at Horace, Odes 1.23.5, which is based as much on natural history as on philology, is a useful reminder. See now Kristine Haugen, Richard Bentley: scholarship and criticism in eighteenthcentury England (Diss. Princeton 2001) 113-21. 33 On Hardouin, see now Anthony Grafton, Bring Our Your Dead: The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, MA 2001) 181-207. 34 Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Disconrents, trans. Joan Rivihe (New York and London 1961) 18.

APPENDIX I. PIERRE PITHOU AND THE COMMENTUM CORNUTI 1. The older scholia in the Codex Pithoeanus

As has been stated before, one of the puzzles of the early tradition of exegesis on Persius is the absence of any equivalent in the margins of the text of Persius to the extensive scholia found in the margins of the text of Juvenal in the famous manuscript that belonged to Pierre Pithou, now Montpellier, FacultC de MCdecine 125. What appears in the margins of Persius in that manuscript is, for the most part, a commentary written by a much later hand which is not unlike the Commentum but has notes neither as full nor as good as those in MLUR.’ There are, however, two small sets of notes in relatively early hands that deserve to be mentioned. One set, published by C. Stephan in 1882, consists of the following individual notes on Satires 2 and 3;’ the fact that the same notes with relatively minor textual differences are also found in Sangallensis 870 suggests that they, like the scholia uetera on Juvenal, come from an ancient source. I have removed orthographic peculiarities, italicized lemmata, and expanded some abbreviations.

2.1: Hunc Macrine d. n. Olim sapientes dies pacificos numerabant adponentes lapillos albos. dies autem malos lapillis nigns conputabant. 2.3: Funde merum g. ‘Merum genio’ quod uinum eius uendebant. 2.8: Mens bona. Mens bona et conscientia pura publice oriit cuius fama clarior est. bona nam qui praua postulat sub lingua murmurat. 3.37: Mouerit in. g. $ t. Metafora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinam colorem non potest reuerti; sic et isti. 3.39: Anne magis s. g. ae. i. Falaris et ipse nihilominus rex Siciliae uno eodemque ritu in poenis delectabatur. Vnus ex ciuibus ipsius aerarius cupiens placere fabricatus est uaccam aeream; obtulit principi. Interrogatus a rege istud quid

Prkaux, ‘Propositions’ 304-05 uses the (late) scholia in P as evidence for the Cornmenturn; they are clearly related, but of no textual value whatsoever. Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 502 described them rightly as ‘a partially interpolated excerpt from the Cornmenturn’ and suggested that they might have been written by Pithou himself; from the handwriting, that seems unlikely. Stephan. De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis gives the text of these notes on pp. 14-15; a full collation of the Sangallensis on p. 22.

APPENDIX I

163

profecerit, ille respondit ‘calefactam missus reus uoces poenae ipsa reddit.’ istud placuit regi; iussit calefaci et ipsum ibi mitti. 3.40: Laquearibus ensis. Dionisius rex fuit Siciliae. iste nouo poenae genere homines adficiebat. Democritus philosopus iste dixit quietam uitam esse regibus; ille audito uocauit ad prandium, exhibuit delicias, et supra caput eius in filo equino ligatum gladium iussit pendere. ille propter casum et uocem fili illius cum nimio terrore coepit comedere. post consumptum prandium interrogatus a principe dixit cum nimio metu prandidisse. ait illi rex ‘sub gladio uita principum deputata est.’ None of these scholia is found in the Commenturn, nor does any of them resemble closely any of the equivalent notes found in other manuscripts of marginal scholia (see Appendix 3). Stephan believed that the note on 3.37 was from the Commentum, but that is because it entered the Commentum from the Glossae Veteres, and Pithou’s source for the note was almost certainly the Pithoeanus itself. The odd language of some of these notes led Stephan to the unlikely hypothesis that they were originally written in Greek.3 What is clear is that they come from two small groups of verses, 2.1-8 and 3.37-40; that suggests that they were taken from a scrap or scraps of a fuller collection-which is now otherwise entirely lost. The second early set of notes in the Pithoeanus was also written in the ninth or tenth century, and consists of five notes on 1.1-4. As Stephan observes, they are taken from the Commentum itselfi4 what he could not know is that in the disordered notes of this passage the Pithoeanus sides decisively (and wrongly) with MLU against R. In this, they share the textual affiliations of all the sets of marginal scholia that I have seen. As they supply nothing new, there is no point in reproducing them here.’ 2. The Glossae Veteres

One of the first collections of scholia on Persius to be printed was the so-called Glossae Veteres included by Pierre Pithou in his 1585 edition of Juvenal, Persius and Sulpicia. These glosses are a small collection-they occupy only twelve pages in the original edition-but they are of considerable interest, and include many of the more substantive scholia of the Commentum. These Glossae, as printed, correspond to no known manuscript, although in substance most, but not all, are clearly related to the Commentum. Their source, therefore, has been a matter of considerable speculation, and it is necessary for any editor of the Commentum to decide whether they are, in fact, an independent witness, and if they are not, how they are related to the extant manuscripts. My intention here is to show that they are of virtually no value at all, as they are largely derived from the edition of the Commentum published in 1563 by Vinet. As the text is so Stephan, De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis 23, n.1, using the evidence of Johannes Lydus to show that there were Greek scholia on Persius. Stephan, De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis 15-16. Stephan does not give the text; I copied the notes in Montpellier in 1976.

’

164

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

short, it is worth giving it in full in order to show precisely what elements derive from what source. Part of the mystique of the Glossae arises from their having been printed by Pithou together with the ancient scholia to Juvenal which he had found in Montpellier 125. The Juvenal scholia in this manuscript are justly famous-they are still the basis of any edition-but, as shown above, the Persius scholia are with a few exceptions late and worthless. Pithou, in speaking of the source of his Juvenal scholia,was proud to identify his own manuscript; but he was remarkably vague about the source of the Glossae Veteres. On the one hand, he implies that he used his manuscript for both sets of scholia; on the other, he says that he had help from his friends: Non ignoro . . . Probo tribui commentaria non in Iuuenalem modo, sed et in A. Persii satiras illa, quorum hic quoque bonam partem emendatiorem damus, usi etiam hac in re consilio iudicioque amicorum, atque in primis 10s. Scaligeri uiri incomparabilis. . . . [cited in CTC 2361 Scaliger himself was not so reticent about his help to Pithou. Twenty years later, he wrote to Isaac Casaubon about the Glossae Veteres, which Casaubon had printed in his edition of Persius: Scito illas ita a nobis excerptas a Pithoeo editas fuisse. Chirographum earum meum . . . in aedibus meis Aginni invenies apud Puteanos fratres, si mod0 non periit. Patri enim eorum dedi, et fortasse Pithoeus quaedam aliter edidit ac ego scripsi, quod tamen non puto. Ego illarum omnium glossarum eclogarius fui. [CTC 236f.l It is not entirely surprising that neither Pithou nor Scaliger is completely truthful; each exaggerates his part in the work. But by a fortunate chance, it is possible to show exactly what each of the two did. For Scaliger‘s autograph of the Glossae, while no longer in Agen, is still among the papers of the Dupuy family in the Bibliothkque Nationale, Fonds Dupuy 394 (ter), foll. 218-224. These pages contain a collection entitled Glossae Veteres in Persium. Most of the contents, including that title, are written unmistakably in Scaliger’s hand. A second hand, Pithou’s, added another title, Ex Veteribus Glossis in Satiras Persii, and contributed a number of corrections and additions to Scaliger’s notes. At the top of fol. 225‘, which contains some emendations of Persius in Scaliger’s hand, Pithou has written: Accepi v Id. Jan. MDLXXXIIII Vesannae petreco[. . .]. The place mentioned here is Perigueux, and the date is one year before the publication of his edition! Before giving the text of the Glossae, it is worth noting one feature of Scaliger’s manuscript: it is supplied with numbers in the left-hand margin, which do not refer to lines of the text. Rather, they are page numbers, and with a few exceptions they are the Jahn, ed. Persius ckiv-xlxvi was already suspicious about the origin of the Glossue; see also Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 502.

APPENDIX I

165

same as the page numbers of Vinet’s edition of 1563, but they are never more than one page wrong, and always one number too The obvious inference from the numbers is that Scaliger was copying from a printed text, and in fact it will emerge that with very few exceptions the only notes or readings not drawn from Vinet‘s edition are those added or changed by Pithou. For the text that follows I have printed Pithou’s text of 1585, giving a complete apparatus for the text of the scholia, but not for the lemmata, as these received a certain amount of abridgement and traasposition in the course of excerpting. The lemmata are given as in Pithou’s edition; in Scaliger’s manuscript, they are written in capital letters. The sigla used are as follows: Pith. = ed. Pithou, 1585, pp. 148-159 Pith* = notes and variants in that edition, pp. 288-289 S = the first hand (Scaliger) in Dupuy 394 (ter), foll. 218-224 S’ = corrections and additions by Scaliger S* = corrections and additions by Pithou Sc = corrections (primarily deletions) in which the hand cannot be identified securely; I suspect that these are almost invariably by Pithou. Vin = Commentum Cornuti, ed. Vinet, 1563 It should be noted (1) that I have modernized typography but not spelling (although I have not reported such variants as physici : phisici); (2) that while Pithou numbers the Prologue and Satire I continuously, I have used the standard numeration; (3) that, obviously, I have not noted Scaliger’s omissions from Vin, and where nothing is reported, it should be assumed that VinSPith all agree; (4) that I have not included the Vita given by Pithou, which is not included in Scaliger’s manuscript.

’Exceptions: 1.43 is on p. 10, not 9 as in the manuscript; 1.54 on 12, not 11, 1.56 and 58 on 13, not 12; 1.81 on 17, not 16; 5.53 and 54 on 63, not 62; 5.161 on 71, not 70; 6.80 on 81, not 80.

166

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE IN SATYR. I 9. Verba nostra conari) Et blandiri, legitur. 14. Pegaseium melos) In aliis est, nectar.

5

10

15

20

25

30

1. Quantum est in rebus inane) Graecum est, 6oov d K E V ~ V . 2. Quis leget haec) Hunc versum de Lucillii primo transtulit. 4. Labeonem) Labeo transtulit Iliada & Odysseam verbum ex verbo, ridicule satis, quod verba potius quam sensum secutus sit. Eius est ille versus: Crudurn manduces Priamum, Priamique phisingos. 6. Examenue improbum) Examen est lingua, vel lignum, quod mediam hastam ad pondera adaequanda tenet. Castigare autem est digito libram percutere, vt temperetur, & prae agitatione post aequum conquiescat. Trutina vero est foramen, intra quod est lingula, de qua examinatio est. 9. Nostrum istud viuere triste) Figura Graeca est, pro, nostram vitam tristem. 11. Cum sapimus patruos) Sic Cicero: Obiurgavit Caelium, vt quidam patruus Censor. 12. Petulanti splene cachinno) Cachinno nomen est, & declinatur per omnes casus, hic Cachinno, huius Cachinnonis. Cachinnus est cum voce risus lasciuior, quem Graeci * povoysp6v~ aqdicunt. Et secundum Physicos dixit, qui tradunt homines splene ridere, felle irasci, iecore amare, corde sapere, pulmone iactari. 14. Animae praelargus) Animae praelargus dicit vento abundans. 16. Et natalitia t. c. s. albus) Ambiguitas in natalitia, vtrum eam natali suo, munere acceperit, an tantum eo die gerere soleat: quia quidam habent anulos, quos die tantum natali gerunt. &, albus, aut festiua veste indutus, aut recitandi pauore, ac meditandi & scribendi taedio perfunctus: uel veste candida nondum purpureum adeptus vestimentum, quod laticlauium dicitur. 18. Patranti) Patratio est rei venereae perfectio, vel consummatio. vnde & patres dicti, eo quod patratione filios procreant. ib. Ocello) Per 6~0~6pt0pc~: quia illum contrahendo minorem facit. Iuuenalis, -0culosque in fine trementes. 21. Et tremulo scalpuntur) In libidinem excitantur. Iuuenalis, -Quod enim non excitat inguen Vox blanda, & nequam? digitos habet.

3 rnelos S2Pith : nectar VinS I nectar SzPith : rnelos VinS 5 Lucillii SPith : Lucili Vin 6 uerbum S2Pith : uerbo VinS I ridicule VinSPith : ridiculose SZPithZ 8 phisingos VinSPith : pisennos (ut uid.) Sz : pisinnos PithZ 9 lingua uel lignum VinSPith : ligua uel linum S2PithZ 11-12 est lingula de qua VinSPith : linurn est de quo S* : aliter lignum S 2 : est h u m de quo Pithz 14 scholium om. VinS, add. Sz 16 omnes om. Vin 17-19 Cachinnus est-iactari om. VinS, add. S2 18 tradunt S2 in muug. : dicunt S2 in confextu 22 soleat S'Pith : solebat VinS 23-25 et albus-dicitur om. VinS, add. S2 27 patratione] patratione peracta VinS : peracta del. Sc I Posr hoc scholium sequitur in VinS: INGENTES TREPIDARE TITOS OUVEK~OXLK$I)S Titos scholasticos: quod sint uagi; del. Sz

APPENDIX I 26. Vsque adeone Scire tuum) Haec periodus apud Lucillium posita est * vt me scire volo mi mi conscius sum, ne damnum faciam. Scire hoc se nescit, nisi alios id scire scierit. 28. At pulchrum est d. m.) Hic requiritur historia Demosthenis, qui, cum transiret, & a mercenario tabernae digito monstraretur, fertur laetatus esse, quod ab ignobilibus sciretur. Et Horatius libro quarto Carminum sic posuit: Totum muneris hoc tui est, Quod monstror digito praetereuntium. 29. Ten Cirratorum) Occulte tangit Neronem, cuius carmina, quia imperabat, per scholas celebrabantur. 39. Nunc nun e tumulo) Tumulus dicitur terrae aggestio, vbi nulla est memoria. 43. Nec scornbros met. car. nec tus) Quae carmina nullum periculum habeant apud salsamentarios & turarios. Per scombros significat salsamentarios, per tus pigmentarios. 44. Quisquis es, o modo quem) Mimica & Comica exclamatio: quoniam poetae nonnumquam omisso recto sermone, extra scenam soli loquuntur, sustinentes personam suam, aut aliquorum hominum verba interponunt. 50. Nun est hic Zlias Acci) Accius Labeo Iliadem Homeri versibus foedissime composuit. 54. Scis comitem horridulum) Scis birrum attritum comiti condonare. Lacerna, pallium fimbriatum, quo olim soli milites velabantur. Penula, pallium cum fimbriis longis. 56. Qui pote?) Tractus sensus ex Graeco versu, quo significatur, ex ventre crass0 tenuem sensum non nasci. 58. Nulla Ciconia) Tria genera sannarum: aut manu significare ciconiam, aut opposito temporibus pollice, auriculas asininas, aut linguam sitientis canis. Sanna autem dicitur 0s distortum cum vultu, quod facimus, cum alios deridemus. Inde sanniones dicti, qui non rectum vultum habeant. 72. Palilia) Varro: Palilia tam priuata, quam publica sunt apud rusticos: vt congestis cum faeno stipulis ignem magnum transiliant, his Palilibus se expiari credentes. 82. Trossulus) Trossulum oppidum fuit Hetruriae, non longe a Volscis. HOCequites Romani sine peditibus expugnauerunt Numio quodam duce. Vnde equites Romani Trossuli dicti sunt.

1 haec] haec est VinS : est del. S' I Lucillium SPith : Lucilium Vin I posita est SzPith : poetam VinS 4 At VinPith : SED S 5 mercenario SPith : mercennario Vin 8 monstror SPith : monstrer Vin 13 tus VinPith : THUS S 14 pigmentarios VinSPith : unguentarios SzPithz 21 fimbriis SPith : fimbris Vin 23 xa@a yacrrr)p k m b v 06 rima v6ov S' (ut uid.) in marg., Pithz 25-26 opposito temporibus pollice om. VinS, add. Sz 26 asininas STith : asini VinS 29 sunt et VinS : et del. S1 30 faeno Pith : foeno VinS 31 Hetruriae SPith : Etruriae Vin 33 Post hoc scholium sequitur in VinS: PEDIVS QVID? Pedius damnatus repetundarum, cum ei [cui cum Vin] crimen obiectum esset furti, non se fortiter respondendo purgauit : del. SC

167

5

10

15

20

25

30

168

5

10

15

20

25

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

86. Librat in anithetis) Antitheta sunt haec: Fortia neglecti velabant colla capilli: Et per neglecti volitabant colla capilli. Aut quotiens vmbra porrexi brachia mota: Aut quotiens vmbra redduxi brachia mota. Antitheta autem ista sunt, quae contra se ponuntur: vt, hinc pudor, illinc petulantia: hinc pudicitia, illinc stuprum: istinc fraudatio, illinc fides. 95. Sic costam longo) Omnia Epicorum carmina, ita fere sunt composita, vt proximus pes ab vltimo dactylus sit, exceptis admodum paucis, quos m o v 6 a ~ ~ o v zappellant, a~ vt apud Cornelium Seuerum: Pinea frondosi coma murmurat Apennini. 97. Subere coctum) Suber cortex arboris. Virgilius: Huic natam libro, & syluestri subere clausam. 99. Torua mimalloneis) Versus Neronis sunt. ib. Mimalloneis) Mimallones dicuntur ministri Liberi patris, &7d zqq y~ pfi~ iloso~ . Calandrus Illyriorum rex ad Macedoniam cum exercitu uenit: Macedones cum paruum exercitum haberent, plurimas mulieres cothumis & thyrsis in modum Baccharum ornauerunt. Illi credentes exercitum aduentare, discesserunt. 101. Bassaris) Bassarides, Bacchae: quibusdam videtur a genere vestis, qua Liber pater vtitur, demissa ad talos, quam Thraces Bassarin. Quidam a vulpibus, quarum pellibus Bacchae succingebantur. Vulpes Thraces Bassares dicunt. 119. Nec cum scrobe) Midae historiam tangit. 122. Nulla tibi vendo Iliade) Non tibi illud dem, si mihi Iliada Labeonis, aut Neronis Troicon tradas. Scripsit Nero Troicon. 133. Nonaria) Nonaria dicta meretrix. quia apud veteres a nona hora prostabant, ne mane omissa exercitatione ill0 irent adolescentes.

IN SATYR. 11. Hunc Macrine diem) Alloquitur Plotium Macrinum, hominem sane eruditum, & patemo se affectu diligentem, qui in domo Seruilii didicerat, a quo agellum 30 comparauerat, indulto sibi precio aliquanto. 13. Proximus expungum) Tractum a militibus, qui expuncti dicuntur, dum foras a militia emittuntur. Item metaphora a bello, in quo, cadente qui primus est, succenturiatur alius.

2 uelabant VinSPith : uolitabant Pith2 3 neglecti uolitabant colla capilli Pith : neglectos uelabant c. capillos VinS : neglectos ulitabant c. capillos S1 (uf uid.) : neglectos uolitabant c. capillos Pith2 4-5 aut (bis) VinSPith : ah S1 (ut uid.), Pith2 I brachia VinS'Pith : bracchia S 6 redduxi SPith : reduxi Vin 6-7 ut hinc pudor-fides SZPitb : ut hac parte pugnet petulantia; hinc pudicitia: hinc stuprum, hinc castitas: hinc fides, illinc fraudatio VinS 8 epicorum SPith : Epicureorum Vin 9 anov6af(ovta< SPith : spondaizontas Vin 11 murmurat VinSPith : sibilat Charisium S1 in marg.: sibilat apud Charis. Pith2 20 demissa SPith : dimissa Vin 21 bassares] Hesych S' in marg. : Vide Hesychium Pith2 28 S' in marg. non liquet I Plotium SPith : om. Vin 30 precio SPith : pretio Vin 32 item om. Vin

APPENDIX I

169

14. Nerio iam tertia) Nerius morte coniugum locupletatus, foenerator est factus notissimus: de quo Horatius, Scribe decem Nerio. Dos enim a ciue Romano data, non patrio dicta nomine, si repudium non interuenerit, post mortem vxoris ad maritum pertinet. 19. Vis Staio) Staius tutor pupillarius fuit: Gutta & Albus, & caeteri praepositi, 5 fuerunt iudices: qui in Iuniano iudicio cormpti, Oppianicum damnauerunt. 26. An quia nonfibris) In vsu fuit, vt augures, vel aruspices adducti de Etruria, certis temporibus fulmina transfigurata in lapides infra terram absconderent, cuius in patratione rei oues immolabantur. 27. Bidental) Locus sacro percussus fulmine, qui bidente ab aruspicibus consecratur, 10 quem calcare nefas est. 36. Nunc Licini in campos) Licinius Crassus inter Romanos locupletissimus, ideo Dives cognominatus. Alii volunt Licinium tonsorem ac libertum Augusti Caesaris significari prqdiuitem: cuius monimentum est pretiosi operis via Salaria prope vrbem, ad lapidem secundum. De hoc non inuenustum Varronis Epigramma fertur: 15 Marmoreo Licinus tumulo iacet: at Cat0 paruo: Pompeius nullo. quis putet esse Deos? 39. Non mando) Verbo vsus est aruspico, cum eis dicitur: Mando tibi, vt maximum Iouem audias. Vt quemadmodum procurationis assertio fit, ita fiat & in sacris, & in prece. 20 42. Tucetaque crassa) Tuceta apud Gallos Cisalpinos bubula dicitur, condimentis quibusdam crassis oblita, ac macerata: & ideo toto anno durat. Solet etiam porcina eodem genere condita seruari, aut ad saturarum iura. Hinc Plotius Virgilii amicus in eadem regione est nominatus Tuceta. 56. Nam fratres inter ahenos) Acron tradit, quod in porticu Apollinis Palatini fuerunt 25 Danaidum effigies, & contra eas sub diuo totidem equestres filiorum Aegisthi. Ex iis autem statuis quaedam dicebantur postulantibus per somnum dare oracula. 59. Saturniaque impulit aera) Aes in aede Satumi condebatur, nondum argent0 auroque signato. Vnde aerarium nomen accepit. Fuit autem assis libralis, & dipondius. quod hodie in vsu remansit. & solebat pensari potius quam numerari: vnde & 30 Dispensatores dicti prorogatores. 70. Donatae a uirgine puppae) Solebant virgines ante, quam nuberent, quaedam virginitatis suae dona Veneri consecrare. Hoc & Varro scribit.

1 est factus Pith : factus est VinS 2 Horatius SPith : Oratius Vin I a ciue Pith : a ciui VinS 3 dicta Pith : dictata VinS 7 Probus in Iuuenalem et Lucan. S1 (ut uid.) in marg. : del. Sc 8-9 in patratione SPith : impetratione Vin 13 Licinium SPith : Licinum Vin 14 monimentum SPith : monumentum Vin I pretiosi VinPith : preciosi S 15 hoc] hoc homine VinS : homine del. S’ 17 quis putet] credimus S2 : in quibusdam codicibus ‘Credimus esse Deos’ Pithz 21 dicitur] dicitur car0 VinS : car0 del. Sc 22 et ideo SZPith : ac ideo VinS 23 ad saturarum VinSPith : assaturarum S2PithZ I Sz in marg. non liquet 25 fuerunt SZPith : fuerit SVin 30 solebat SPith : solet Vin

170

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

72. Messalae lippa propago) Cottam Messalinum dicit, qui tam vitiosos oculos in senectute habuit, vt palpebrae eius in exteriorem partem verterentur. Hic ab Aurelio Cotta adoptatus, Aurelius Maximus dicebatur, originem trahens ab Aurelio Messala, qui septies fuit consul. qui cum a quodam Gallo ad monomachiam in praelio vocaretur, coruus super galeam in capite eius sedit, & victo hoste Coruinus vocatus est.

IN SATYR. 111. Nernpe hoc adsidue) Hanc satyram poeta ex Lucillii libro quarto transtulit, castigantis diuitum luxuriam & vitia. 10. Bicolor mernbrana) Bicolor, quod pars crocea, pars glutinata apud antiquos erat. 13. Vanescat sepia) Sepiam pro atramento, a colore, posuit: quamuis non ex ea vt Afri, sed ex fuligine ceteri conficiant atramentum. 18. Lallare) Nutrices infantibus, vt dormiant, solent dicere saepe, Lalla, lalla, lalla. Aut dormi, aut lacte. 21. Contemnere) Haec ab Horatio male translata intempestiua sunt --quin tu Inuidiam placare pares, virtute relicta? Contemnere miser. ib. Et sonat) Vt Virgil. Nec vox hominem sonat. 26. Cultrixque foci) Quia delibantiae dapes in ea positae, ad focum feruntur. 28. Sternmate quod Tusco) An oportet tu arrogantia inflatum dissilire, quod in aliquo nobili Tusco stemmate, millesimus a magno auctore nuniereris, & ramum aliquem ac lineam successionis a genealogo in stemmate numeratus obtineas? vel in equitum Romanor. recognitione trabeatum censorem donis militaribus insignis salutes? Cognitio enim equitum Romanorum Censoribus erat subiecta, quae nunc Consulum est officii. 37. Feruenti tincta veneno) Metaphora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reuerti non potest. 45.Morituro verba Catoni) Merito, inquit, mihi lippitudinem arcessebam, ne Catonis deliberatiuam orationem recitarem, vtrum moriatur, an non: aut quibus verbis vti potuit, cum se destinaret interficere.

2 exteriorem VinSPith : dexteriorem FPith2 I post uerterentur] Fuit enim et multis deditus uitiis (diuitiis Sz ut uid.) VinS : lineam infra posuir Sc : om. Pith 3 Aurelius] Marcus Aurelius VinS : Marcus del. S' I dicebatur SPith : uocahatur Vin 5 uccatus SPith : appellatus Vin 8 Lucillii SPith : Lucilii Vin 9 diuitum luxuriam SPith : lux. diu. Vin 11 Sepiam om. Vin 12 fuligine VinSPith : figulinis Sz : Al. ex figulinis, male Pith2 13 Nutrices SPith : a nutrice . . . quae Vin 14 lacte VinSPith: lacta S2 15 translata Pith : traslata VinS 19 Et-hominern sonat om VinS, add. Sz 22 millesimus SPith : milesimus Vin I auctore Pith : autore VinS 24 militaribus SPith : militatibus Vin 26 Post hoc scholium add. S2: DISCINCTI VIVERE NATTAE fictum n o m n ah Oratio. Alii dicunt luxuriosum : non habent VinSPith 27 hoc scholium non habent VinS; add. S2 in marg. inferiore 29 arcessabam SPith : accersebam Vin 30 moriatur Pith : moriretur VinS

APPENDIX I

171

48. Quid dexter senio) Senio maior missus: vt Sceua, Immerito, inquit, flebam istas, cum semper laudarem. 89. Inspice sodes) Sodes, antiquae affectationis est: adeo vt soluto eo quidam vsi sint, vt Plautus, qui per solutionem sic ait: Dic mihi, si audes, quae est, quam ducere vis vxorem? 5 103. Tandemque beatulus) Ambitionem imdet, non quia ~ ! C K C C ~ &&< p ~ h p t o t dicuntur mortui. non est enim Romanae consuetudinis. sed quia pretiosa in funeribus veste stragula, caeterique etiam pauperculi exponebantur. Beatulus autem, qui nunquam splendidiore habitu fuit. aut certe, quia Romanae consuetudinis fuit simpliciter sepelire. 10 106. Hesterni capite induto) Hestemi, ait, a defunct0 pridie manumissi, id est liberti, & ciuis Romani facti. ib. Capite induto) Quia manumissi ante manumissoris corpus pileati incedebant. 112. Populi cribro decussa farina) Farinam, panem non delitiosius cribro discussum, sed plebeium, de populi annona, id est, fiscalem, dicit. 15

IN SATYR. 1111. Scis etenim iustam) Reuera scis iustitiam in lance pensare, & ipsius lancis dubiae rectitudinem calles discernere, & curuam regulam momentare, vbi inter curua subit, donec in liquido stet sententia. Regulam dicit ipsum momentaneae stilum. 13. Nigrum praefgere Theta) Iudices literam Theta apponunt ad eorum nomina, quos 20 supplicio afficiunt. Merito. 6qza &&I TOO Bavhzou, eo quod quasi habeat telum sum. ideoque triste intelligitur: vel mortis signum: vnde quidam ait, 0 multum ante alias infelix litera Theta. 18. Curata cuticula sole) Curata, scilicet a Chromatiariis. Nam Chromatiarii dicuntur colorarii, vel qui toto die in arena sunt, vel in sole. Antiqui enim vngebant se, & in 25 sole erant, vt oleum corpus imbiberet: vt Iuuenalis, Nostra bibat vernum contracta cuticula Solem, Effigiatque togam. 26. Quantum non miluus oberret) Secundum prouerbium: Quantum milui volant. 30

1 HOCscholium habent VinPith, om. S, add. Sz in marg. inferiore I sceua VinSzPith : sena Pith* I istas SzPith : istarn Vin 3 adeo bis S :pr. del. Sc 7 pretiosa VinPith : preciosa S 8-10 beatulus-sepelire habent VinS2, om. S 8 autern om. VinSZ 9 h i t pr. SzPith : fuerit Vin 11 pridie SzPith : prius VinS 12 ciuis Pith : ciues VinS 13 pileati incedebant SzPith : praeibant pileati VinS 14-15 non delitiosius cribro discussum sed SZPith: gregalem et S : utrumque Vin 17 lancis dubiae SPith : dub. lanc. Vin 19 donec-sententia SzPith (alibi Vin) : om. S 24 lemma bis S : pr. del. S1 25 arena Pith : harena VinS 28 effigiatque togam VinS2Pith : om S

172

5

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

28. Pertusa ad compita) Compita sunt loca in quadriuiis, quasi turres, vbi sacrificia, finita agricultura, rustici celebrabant. Merito pertusa, quia per omnes quatuor partes pateant, vel vetusta. vel compita non solum sunt in vrbe loca, sed etiam viae publicae ac diuerticula aliquorum confinium, vbi aediculae consecrantur patentes. In his iuga fracta ab agricolis ponuntur, emeriti & elaborati operis indicium. 44. Caecum vulnus habes) De gladiatoribus tractum, qui accept0 vulnere, inaurato balteo tegunt. 49. Puteal) Foeneratores ad puteal Scribonis Licinii, quod est in porticu lulia ad Fabianum arcum, consistere solebant.

10 1NSATYR.V. Caenanda Glyconi) Glycon Tragoedus populo mire placuit: & ideo a Nerone manumissus est, datis Virgilio Tragoedo domino eius, pro parte dimidia, quam possidebat, sestertiorum tercentis millibus. Hic fuit staturae longae, fusci corporis, labio inferiori demisso: antequam subornaretur deformis: nescius iocari, propter quod 15 eum insulsum Persius dixit. 14. Verba togae sequeris) Toga est pumm pallium, forma rotunda & fusiore, atque inundante sinu: & sub dextro veniens, super humerum sinistrum ponitur: cuius similitudinem in operimentis simulacrorum, vel picturamm aspicimus, easque statuas togatas vocamus. Toga vero Romani in pace vtebantur, in bello paludamentis. 20 Mensura togae iustae senas vlnas habebat. 22. Quandoque nostrae Pars tua sit Cornute animae) Sententia a Pythagora tracta, dimidiam animae suae partem dicit Cornutum, vt Horatius Virgilium: Et serues animae dimidium meae. 3 1, Succinctis laribus) Quia Gabino habitu, cinctuque Dii Penates formabantur, 25 obuoluti toga super humerum sinistrum, dextro nudo. 33. Candidus vmbo) C Z ~ V E K ~ O Xpro I K ~toga. ) S Alioquin & in praetexta candidus vmbo est. 47. Nostra vel aequali) Hoc secundum Astrologos dicit. Et hic sensus tractus est ab Horatio: Seu libra, seu me scorpius aspicit. 30 52. Mille hominum species) Et Horatius: Quot capitum viuunt, totidem studiorum Millia.

2 celebrabant SPith : celebrant Vin 3 uel uetusta SZPith : om. VinS I non solum sunt Pith : sunt non solum VinS 4-5 iuga fracta SzPith : fracta facta VinS 8 Scribonis Licinii VinSPith : Scribonii Libonis S' : Al. Libonis Pith2 9 arcum VinSPith : circum S2Pith2 13 tercentis SPith : trecentis Vin : sexcentis S2Pith2 19 in bello paludamentis SPith : belli autem tempore pallundamntis Vin 21 hoc scholium om. VinS, add. S2 I sententia-tracta] Sic Horatius Virgilium S2, qui deinde deleuit et sententia-tracta scripsit 24 cinctuque VinSPith : cinctique SZPith* 25 dextro nudo] al. et sub dextro Sz in marg. : del. S' 28 hoc scholium om.S, add. Sz (hoc-dicit et sensus-aspicit habet Vin, sed non eodem loco) 29 Horatio Pith : Oratio S2 31 Et Horatius S'Pith : ut Oratius Vin : ut Horatius S 33 millia Pith : milia VinS

APPENDIX I

173

Et Terentius, Quot capita, tot sententiae. 53. Velle suum cuique est) Et Virgilius: -trahit sua quemque voluptas. 54. Sub sole recenti) Est hic sensus ab Horatio tractus: Hic mutat merces surgente a sole. 73. Quisque Velina) Velina tribus numero aliarum tribuum accessit: & qui circa Velinum lacum habitabant, Romam translati sunt. Romae autem erat consuetudo, vt qui ex manumissione ciues Romani efficiebantur, in numero ciuium Romanorum frumentum publicum acciperent. 75. Quibus vna Quintem) Quos manumittebant, eos alapa percussos circumagebant, & liberos confirmabant. Vnde manumissio dicta, quod manu mitteretur. Quiritem autem singulariter abusiue dixit, licentia poetica. Nam sicut pater conscriptus non dicitur, its nec Quiritem dicere possumus. 88. Vindicta) Virga est, qua manumittendi a Praetore in capite pulsantur: ideo dicta, quod eum vindicat libertati. Masurius autem hic Sabinus legis consultus fuit: & Rubricas, vocat minium, quo tituli legum annotabantur. 100. Certo compescere puncto) Non ad trutinam, sed ad stateram retulit, quae punctis, & vnciis signatur. 104. Frontem de rebus) Pudorem. Templum enim pudoris est frons. 112. Mercurialem) Ideo dixit, quia ipsum Deum lucri dicunt. Vnde & cum sacello pingitur, & a negotiatoribus plurimum colitur. 119. Digitum exere) Digito sublato ostende, victum te esse a vitiis. Tractum a gladiatoribus, qui victi, ostensione digiti veniam a populo postulabant. 123. Moueare Bathylli) Bathyllus pantomimus fuit, Maecenatis libertus. 137. Verte aliquid) Negotiare, & speciem pro specie commuta. 138. Baro, regustaturn) Lingua Gallorum barones, vel varones dicuntur serui militum. qui vtique stultissimi sunt, serui videlicet stultorum. 140. Et oenophorum aptas) Oenophorum vas vinum ferens. o%oq enim vinum est, de quo est illud: Vertitur oenophoris fundus sententia nobis. 145. Vrna cicutae) Cicuta calorem in nobis frigoris sui vi extinguit Vnde sacerdotes Cereris Eleusiniae liquore eius vngebantur, vt a concubitu abstinerent.

5 Horatio SPith : Oratio Vin 7 et SzPith : nam VinS I qui] omnes qui VinS : omnes del. Sc 9 efficiebantur S2Pith : fiebant VinS 11 Quos Pith : quoties S : quotiens Vin 12 manu] manu eius VinS : eius del. Sc 1617 Masurius-annotabantur habent VinS2Pith : om. S 16 Masurius autem hic S2Pith : hic Masurius Vin 20 hoc scholium om. S : habenr VinS2Pith 21 sacello VinPith : saccello S 26 hoc scholium om. S : habent VinS2Pith 27 Lingua-uel om. VinS : add. S2 28 serui-stultorum om. S, add. S2 (haber Vin) 31 fundus sententia nobis SPith : f. s. n. Vin 32 post Cicuta habenr VinS : hic genus liquoris est quod : del. S2 I unde S2Pith : ideoque VinS 33 liquore eius S2Pith : quibus usus Veneris interdicebatur, hoc liquoris genere VinS I abstinerent] se abstinerent VinS : se del. S"

5

10

15

20

25

30

174

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

153. HOCquod loquor inde est) Horatius: Dum loquimur fugit inuida aetas. 161. Duue cito hoc credus) Hunc locum ex Menandri Eunucho traxit, in quo Dauum seruum Chaerestratus adolescens alloquitur, tanquam amore Chrysidis meretricis 5 derelictus: idemque tamen ab ea reuocatus ad illam redit. Apud Terentium personae immutatae sunt. 165. Et vdus Chrysidis) Vdas fores dixit, quas amatores solent vnguento perfundere, & ante ianuam illarum noctem vigiliis, & cantu transigere. 177. Vigilu & cicer) Ludis Floralibus omnia semina spargebantur in populum, vt 10 Tellus velut muneribus suis placaretur. 180. Herodis venere dies) Herodes apud Iudaeos regnauit temporibus Augusti, in partibus Syriae. Herodiani ergo diem natalem Herodis obseruant, vt etiam sabbata: quo die lucernas accensas, & violis coronatas in fenestris ponunt. 184. Recutituque subbutu) Instituta Iudaeorum significat, propter circuncisionem: 15 quam, auctores suos secuti, faciunt. 185. Ouoque periculu rupto) Sacerdotes, qui explorandis periculis sacra faciebant, obseruare solebant ouum igni impositum, vtrum in capite, an in latere desudaret. Si autem ruptum effluxerat, periculum ei portendebat, pro quo factum fuerat, vel rei familiari eius. 20 186. Cum sistro luscu sucerdos) Sistrum sacerdotes Isidis portant. Lusca autem, ideo, quod nubiles deformes cum maritos non inuenerint, ad ministeria Deorum se conferant.

IN SATYR. VI. Admouif) Hanc satyram scribit Persius ad Caesium Bassum poetum Lyricum, quem 25 fama est, in praediis suis positum, ardente Vesuuio monte Campaniae, & late ignibus abundante, cum villa sua vstum esse. Hic ergo dum viueret, Roma ad Sabinos necessario transibat, vbi brumali tempore in calido loco carmina scribebat. 6. Mihi nunc Ligus ora) Seipsum Persius significat secessisse in Liguriae fines, videlicet propter Fuluiam Sisenniam matrem suam, quae post mortem prioris viri ibi 30 nupta erat.

1 hoc scholium om. S , habenr VinS2 I Horatius S2Pith : Oratius Vin 2 fugit S2Pith : fugerit Vin 3 ex S2Pith : de VinS 5-6 Apud-sunt om. VinS, add. S2, qui post sunt scripsit Nam pro Ch, deinde deleuit 8 illarum Pith : earum VinS 9 hoc scholium om. S, add. Sz; simile habet Vin I spargebantur in populum S2Pith : super p. spargebant Vin 10 uelut muneribus S2Pith : ueluti uisceralibus Vin 11 Herodes] Hic Herodes VinS : hic del. Sc I Augusti] Augusti Imperatoris VinS : Imperatoris del. Sc 12 Herodiani S2Pith : Herodis VinS I Herodis S2Pith : Herodiani VinS I sabbata S2Pith : sabbati VinS 13 ponunt S2Pith : ponebant VinS 17 desudaret SPith : insudaret Vin 20 hoc scholium om. S, add. S2; habet Vin 21 quodl quod omnes S : omnes del. Sc I nubiles S2Pith : nobiles aut VinS 25 Vesuuio SPith : Vesunio Vin 26 Roma SPith : de Roma Vin 27 calido SPith : callido Vin

APPENDIX I 7. Hibernat) Saeuit, vel a nauigiis vacat. Sicut enim naues hibernare dicimus: sic & mare, cum non nauigatur. 10. Cor iubet hoc Enni) Hunc versum ad suum Carmen de Ennii carminibus transtulit. 24. Turdarum n o s e saliuam) Cognoscere turdorum sapores. Solent enim quidam gulae dediti, tantae subtilitatis habere palatum, vt dignoscant turdos, an cellarius, an terrarius sit: an masculus, an femina. Turdarum dixit abusiue, cum turdorum debuerat, vt Horatius ponit: Pene macros, arsit, dum turdos versat in igni. 30. Ingentes de puppe Dei) Nauium tutelam dicit, quam in puppibus habent, vel pingunt. 35. Ossa inodora) Sine vnguentis: vel, inhonora, sepulturae honore carentia. 40. Crassu uitiarunt vnguine) Solent rustici cum oleum defuerit, adipem pecudum in pultem misso pro oleo vti. 55. Accedo Bouillas) Bouillae sunt vicus ad vndecimum lapidem Appiae viae: quia aliquando in Albano monte ab ara fugiens taurus iam consecratus, ibi comprehensus est. Inde Bouillae dictae. 56. Cliuumque ad Virbi) Quatuor millibus ab vrbe est Virbii cliuus, qua iter est ad Ariciam, & ad nemus Dianae, vbi Virbius colitur, id est Hippolytus, quod bis in vitam prolatus sit. Nota autem apud Virgilium fabula est. ib. Munnius) Mannium dicit deformem & ignotum hominem, eo quod Maniae dicuntur indecori vultus personae, quibus pueri terrentur. 61. Qui prior es cur me) Apud Athenas cum iuuenes ludos cursu celebrabant, qui victor esset, primus facem tollebat: deinde sequenti se tradebat, & secundus tertio: similiter omnes, donec currentium numerus impleretur. 67. Foenoris accedat merces) Tractum est hoc a patribus, qui dicunt filiis suis; hoc, quod vobis lucri de foenore accessit, ad fructum, id est, ad vsum vitae vobis proficiat: reliquum vero pecuniae reseruate integrum.

1 enim S2 Pith : et VinS I hibemare S2Pith : hibernant VinS 1-2 sic et mare S2Pith : om. VinS 2 nauigatur S2Pith : nauigant VinS 4 cognoscere SPith : ut cognoscant Vin 4-5 turdorum sapores-turdos S2Pith : turdos S : . . . ut turdorum sapores discernam. soleat enim gulae quidam dediti-ut cognoscant turdos Vin 6 terrarius VinSPith : uiuarius S2Pith2 I an masculus an femina S2Pith : et si masculus sit an femina Vin : om S I dixit abusiue SPith : abusiue posuit Vin 7 Horatius Pith : Oratius VinS 9 quam] quam quasi VinS : quasi del. Sc I habent uel PithSVin : uel habent uel S2 11 hoc scholium om. S , habent VinS2 I sepulturae-carentia S2Pith : id est mortis honore carentia, sine sepultura Vin 12 hoc scholium om. S, habent VinF I Solent--cum S2Pith : quia cum rusticis Vin I adipem PithVin : adipe S2 13 pultem S2Pith : pultes Vin I miss0 . . . uti S2Pith : missum. . . accipiunt Vin 19 Nota-est om VinS, add. S2 20 Maniae S2Pith : mannii VinS 21 personae VinPith : et personae S 22-23 cum-primus SZPith: ludi celebrabantur in quibus c u m iuuenes certabant et qui uictor primus erat VinS 24 post omnes: faciebant er sibi inuicem tradebant VinS : del. Sc I impleretur SPith : compleretur Vin 26 accessit VinSlPith : accedit S

175

5

10

15

20

25

176

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

77. Cuppadocas rigidu) Gladiatores dicit. Nam apud antiquos, venales gladiatores in catasta ponebantur, vt in eis possent omnia membra inspici. Vel quia Cappadoces dicerentur habere studium naturale ad falsa testimonia proferenda: qui nutriti in tormentis a pueritia, equuleum sibi facere dicuntur, vt in eo se inuicem torqueant, & 5 cum in poena perdurarent, ad falsa testimonia se bene uenundarent. ib. Pauisse) Legitur et plausisse: quoniam venales antequam in catasta imponantur, cantant vniuersi pariter more gentis suae. 80. Inuentus Chrysippe) Chrysippus philosophus Stoicus Syllogismum o o p h p vocauit, quem per adiectionem & detractionem ex acerui frumentarii similitudine 10 ostendit. FINIS.

1 dicit SZPith : significat VinS I uenales gladiatores S'Pith : gl. uen. VinS 2 inspici S'Pith : conspici VinS 2-3 Cappadoces dicerentur SZPith : Cappadocas dicerent VinS 3-4 in tormentis a pueritia S'Pith : a puer. in torm. VinS 4-5 in ewperdurarent VinSPith : del. Sc 5 bene VinSZPith : om. S 6 Pauisse non habet Vin 8 ante syllogismum: cruhhoy S , del. S1 9 uocauit] posuit et uocauit VinS : posuit et del. S' I ex VinS'Pith : om. S

APPENDIX I

177

The apparatus provided here demonstrates that, despite the differences between Vinet’s edition of 1563 and Pithou’s of 1585, the latter is descended, with at least two intervening stages of correction, from the former. With a very few exceptions, the text as written by Scaliger is the same as in Vinet, allowing for orthographic changes and the minor alterations necessary in making excerpts. The most significant departures of Scaliger’s text from Vinet’s are the following: 1.12 omnes add. S 1.28 at Vin : sed S (lemma) 1.82 cui cum Vin : cum ei S 1.95 Epicureorurn Vin : epicorum S 2.13 item add. S 2.26 impetratione Vin : in patratione S 2.36 Licinum Vin : Licinium S 2.59 solet Vin : solebat S 2.72 uocabatur Vin : dicebatur S 2.72 appellatus Vin : uocatus S 3.1 luxuriam diuitum Vin : diu. lux. S 3.13 sepiam add. S 3.28 militatibus Vin : militaribus S 4.10 dubiae lancis Vin : lan. dub. S 4.28 celebrant Vin : celebrabant S 5.14 belli autem tempore Vin : in bello S 5.140 f. s. n. Vin : fundus sententia nobis S 5.185 insudaret Vin : desudaret S 6.1 de Roma Vin : Roma S 6.1 callido Vin : calido S 6.24 abusiue posuit Vin : dixit abusiue S 6.61 compleretur Vin : impleretur S 6.67 acceesit VinSl : accedit S Scaliger may have derived some of these readings from another manuscript with scholia, either by deliberate collation or from memory. Celebrabant (4.28) is perhaps an obvious correction, but it is also the reading of RMLU; the deletion of de (6.1) is proper grammar, but it is also the reading of LU, while desudaret (V 185) is found in RMLUB and calido (6.1) in all manuscripts known to me; the expansion of the abbreviated verse$ s. n. at 5.140 will have been taken from Nonius or Isidore. Other readings may be purely conjectural-a indeed mistakes. The correction of accedit back to accessit at 6.67 may be indicative in this regard; we may also consider the rearrangements of words and the minor abridgments to be Scaliger’s own contribution to the text. The same is probably true of such changes as dicebatur or uocatus at 2.72. Only two of Scaliger’s readings are clearly deliberate conjectures: epicorum at 1.95 for the Epicureorurn of Vinet and most manuscripts (U reads heroicorum, clearly a conjecture) is clearly correct, and in patratione at 2.26, while probably wrong, is certainly worth considering; in this passage the manuscripts and early editions vary between imperatione, impetratione and in

178

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

paratione. But the divergences of Scaliger from Vinet are on the whole minor, and are more than matched by the rare and bad readings that Scaliger has taken from Vinet, including what must be typographical errors among them. Thus 1.4 uerbo de uerbo, 1.6 temperetur, 1.26 poetam, 1.99 Illyriorum, 2.19 tutor pupillarius, 2.36 quis putet, 2.42 ad saturarum. Such readings, combined with the presence of Vinet’s page numbers in the margin, should leave no doubt that Scaliger excerpted the Glossae from Vinet’s printed edition. Determining the sources of Pithou‘s readings is not so easy: it is evident that he used more than one source. In several cases, he simply added more material from Vinet’s edition; thus at 3.48, 5.47, 104, 137, 153 and 186. In none of these cases is there any significant difference between Vinet’s text and Pithou’s: note that they share the error sceua for sena at 3.48. Pithou did however combine two sections of Vinet’s text at 5.47. Not all Pithou’s additions are from that source, however: the scholium on 1.11 in not found in Vinet, although it is in MLUR and the vetus codex of the 1601 edition. Part of Pithou’s addition to the note on 1.12 is in MLU (although reading popoyshGvzaG instead of yovoysp6vvza~ ),but pulmone iactari is not, nor is the reading tradunt. The same combination of sources is evident in the addition to 1.16, although in this case the last part of the note, ueste-dicitur, is also found in KQ. The most striking use of a source other than Vinet’s edition is Pithou’s note on 3.37, for which the only readily apparent source is Pithou’s own manuscript of Persius, Montpellier 125, in which (as noted above) this is one of the very few notes written by the hand that also wrote the scholia to Juvenal. It is possible that other notes and variant readings in the Glossae that have no obvious source were drawn from the late (15th century?) commentary in that manuscript, which I have not collated. It is impossible to determine whether the readings introduced by Pithou had a single proximate source; some of them, particularly those in his notes and those left in the margins of S, were probably conjectural,’ but in terms of the early history of the scholia, it is evident that they derive from more than one tradition. Many of them are found in all four major manuscripts, but no significant ones are found in R alone; it is clear that Pithou’s source was closer to MLU than to R-but then, all the sets of marginal scholia that I have examined are closer to MLU than to R. Such readings include 1.4 ridiculose (MLUR); 26 posita est (MLUR); 2.36 credimus (MLUR); 42 car0 del. (om. MLU); et ideo (MLUR); 56 fuerunt ( M R ) ; 72 dexteriorem (ML); 3.13 figulinis (MLU); 18 lacta (MLU); 45 moriatur (MLU); 48 sena (MLU); 4.28 uel uetusta (MLUR); 5.145 se del. (om. MLUR); 161 ex (MLUR); 6.24 uiuarius (MLUR); 77 dicerentur (MLU). On the other hand, several readings clearly derived from the tradition represented by KQ: 1.16 ueste-dicitur (see above); 5.138 lingua Gallorum; 145 hie genus liquoris est quod del. S2, om. K; unde; liquore eius; 6.77 dicit. At 1.16 soleat is found both in K and in Bern.

On the other hand, the fact that he altered ac to et, the reading of MLURB, at 2.42, should make one hesitate to ascribe even the slightest changes to conjecture.

APPENDIX I

179

265, and that manuscript also shares the following readings with Pithou: Prol. 14 MELOS . . . nectar; 2.72 Marcus del. S", om. Bern 265; 4.28 iugafracta; 6.7 enim. Since Bern. 265 is, at least in its earlier sections, related to K (see above, p. 55-56), it is likely that all these readings are derived from another manuscript, related to both of them. Furthermore, given the fact that K and related manuscripts invariably have a text of Comm. of the MLU type, we may be justified in believing that Pithou was using only a single immediate source other than Vinet, probably a late manuscript of the B tradition. The main purpose of this section, however, is not to define precisely all the possible sources used by Pithou-they are probably late and of little textual value--but to expose the relative worthlessness of the Glossae as a source for the Commentum. Far from being the earliest stage of the commentary, as once was thought, they are a set of excerpts from a printed edition, with only minor changes and additions, most of which were simply the result of abridgement. They contain a few excellent readings, notably Scaliger's conjectures, but none indicates the use of a source any better than our extant early manuscripts.

APPENDIX 11. THE COMMENTARY OF REMIGIUS OF AUXERRE What survives of the commentary of Remigius of Auxerre on Persius is preserved as the final section of Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 1560, a manuscript, probably French and probably of the tenth century, which contains several other works of Remigius.’ The commentary is found on foll. 141-147; 147’ is extremely worn and hard to read, suggesting that although the text breaks off in mid-sentence, this was for a long time the final page of a volume. As the leaf preceding the fragment is also extremely worn (140’), however, it seems likely that these works were not always parts of the same manuscript, even though the date and hands are very similar. The fragment of the Commentary was written by one or two hands-my own sense from the photographs is that there is more difference in the sharpness of the pen than in the hands themselves-who wrote both the text and the very copious interlinear notes and corrections. The interlinear notes are often continuations or amplifications of the commentary rather than collations or corrections; they are contemporary, probably by the same hand(s), and almost certainly have the same source (whether oral or written) as the text itself. The heading of the Vita which precedes the fragment describes it as secundum Remigium, and an interlinear note on the phrase ‘rara auk’ in the commentary on 1.46 also reads secundum remigium, suggesting that the text is not directly that of a written commentary by Remigius, but is either closely dependent on it or is based on dictation or lectures rather than simply on a written text. The style is clearly that of the classroom, and typical of Remigius: simple glosses-and glosses on glosses-interspersed within sentences that are, because of the number of parenthetical explanations, not always easy to construe as sentences. The form of much of the commentary is a loose stringing together of the words of the text of Persius separated by elucidations, generally introduced by idest or scilicet; it is the sort of quasi-commentary that one associates with oral exposition. In modem times, it is perhaps more frequently perpetrated by students than teachers (although by no means always); the clearest parallel that I know to the effect of reading this fragment is the version of Horace, Odes 3.5.1-4 produced by the unfortunate Beetle in Kipling’s ‘Regulus’:’

’

The manuscript was studied by the late J. P. Elder, who kindly gave me not only his photographs of the MS but his very detailed notes on its palaeography and structure. See further J. P. Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus on Persius’ 240-48; Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 145-61 (who strangely describes the MS as a palimpsest; it is not): CTC 237-39; Munk Olsen 212 (Persius 93) describes it as tenth century, probably written at Fleury or Auxerre. * Rudyard Kipling, ‘Regulus’ in The Complete Stalky & Co. (Garden City 1930) 188.

APPENDIX I1

181

‘Credidimus, we-believe-we have believed,’ he opened in hesitating slow time, ‘tonantem Jovem, thundering Jove-regnare, to reign-caelo, in heaven. Augustus, Augustus-habebitur, will be held or considered-praesens divus, a present Godadjectis Britannis, the Britons being added-imperio, to the Empire-gravibusque Persis, with the heavy-er, stem Persians.’ The following text is based on my transcription of photographs of V, checked against Clausen’s transcription of V itself, from the readings of which I disagree in only two or three places. So far as I know, this is the first time the text has been printed in full; excerpts, some extensive, are given by Elder and Mariani. I have retained the orthography of the manuscript, although I have printed ae for e (which is used consistently) and have expanded abbreviations without any note in the apparatus3 I have capitalized proper names in modem fashion, but I have also retained the capital letters used for punctuation in the manuscript. In other matters of punctuation and structure, I have not followed the manuscript, but have tried to make the text (more or less) comprehensible, somewhat in the fashion of Kipling.

Thus s. is used for scilicet throughout, sub (with crossed b) for subaudis in all but one instance, .i. for idest in all but two instances. I have printed idest as a single word whenever it is abbreviated, and as two words when it is not.

182

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

[141“] INCIPIT VITA AVLII FLACCI PERSII SATYRIC1 SECVNDVM REMIGIVM Aules dictus est Persius ab Aulide ciuitate, Flaccus dictus est ex nomine patris et est illi prenomen, Persius proprium nomen. In Aethruria ciuitate Vulterris natus et 5 nobilissimo genere ortus fuit; Flaccus uero pater suus eum moriens dimisit pupillum fere sex annorum. Postea autem Fuluia Sisenna mater illius nupsit Fulcio equiti Romano. hic igitur Persius studuit Vulterris usque ad annum aetatis suae duodecimum. Deinde adductus est Romam et ibi primum studuit apud grammaticum Remmium Palemonem, Secundum apud Bassum philosophum, Ad ultimum apud 10 Cornutum poetam qui tunc temporis satyricus erat. Iste igitur Persius ut a scolis declinauit, lecto uidelicet Lucilii satyrici libro decimo, satyras componere studuit. Cuius libri principium imitatus sibi primum et postea omnibus detrectaturus, cum tanta recentium poetarum insectatione, idest reprehensione, inchoauit ut etiam Neronem tunc temporis principem occulte inculpauerit. cuius uersus in eum est 15 ‘Auriculas asini Mida rex habet.’ Sed a Cornuto fuit emendatus ita: ‘Auriculas asini quis non habet?’ (1.121) ne Nero in se arbitraretur dictum fuisse. Et sciendum est quia iste Persius anno aetatis suae tricesimo hominem exiuit uitio stomachi corruptus.

20

25

30

35

VITA EXPLICIT. ANNOTATIO INCIPIT. Satyrae proprium est ut humiliter loquatur sicut iste, qui ‘caballino’ dixit, non ‘equino’, et in sequentibus ‘semipaganus’, idest semiuillanus, non pompatice, idest non superbe, et omnia sana faciat, idest omnia dicat iuxta mensuram. Cum enim modum, idest mensuram, excedunt poete, quodammodo insaniunt. Satyra genus est clarni uel lancis. Clamus autem dicitur discus uel mensa multis ac uariis / [141”] frugum generibus referta. Ergo satyra dicitur quasi satura a saturitate, eo quod uitiis et insectationibus, idest reprehensionibus, multorum sit plena. In hac igitur prefatione dicit se Persius non esse se poetam set epeponem, idest famelicum et esurientem, et nimia fame coactus sicut et alii poaete ad hunc librum describendum aspirasse fertur, sicut ille ponit exemplum de auibus que fame uentris coactae formant, idest resonant, humanam uocem. et non est dubium quod de se ips0 dicit quin de omnibus dicat. I 1 Haec satyra scribitur de his qui publice captant famam ex fauore eloquentiae imperitorum, et hoc uelud dialogi genus in principio ex persona interrogantis inducit. Videns Persius multos libidinari in scribendo ad hoc tantum ut laudem et fauorem populi adquirerent, reprehendendo cum indignatione et admiratione Inchoauit et ipse ex abrupto, idest ex aspero, dicens 0 curas horninurn, subaudis inanes, uacuae et 10 temporis Vc : ternpore V I satyricus] uel tragicus Vc supra 15 sed V‘ : set V 27 describendum V‘ : decribendurn V 35 dicens Vc : docens V

APPENDIX I1

183

inutiles, quia sine fructu laborant. Semet ipsum ergo redarguit primum, quod relinquat succedentibus carmina quae uulgus lecturum non sit, quia non sunt uulgaria et minime conueniunt libidini. 0 quantum est in rebus inane idest uacuae. Cum dicit in rebus, oson to kenon greca figura est; deest enim 'humanis'. 2 Alloquitur suam satyram: 0 satyra, quis leget haec scilicet mea carmina quae ego 5 compono, quia non sunt uulgaria? Respondet satyra min tu istud ais?, idest michine hoc dicis, ego tibi respondebo Nemo hercule nemo, idest nullus nullus per herculem. Item P.: uel duo, scilicet legent, uel, scilicet unus. SA.: nemo. P.: turpe est si non legerint nisi duo, et miserabile si nullus legerit. SA.: quare?, idest propter quam causam? Persius: ideo ne pretulerint michi, idest ne exaltauerint uel posuerint ante 10 me, Polidal [ 142'1 mas et Troiades nuge Labeonem. Polidamas populus est loquax et inbellis recitator Labeonis, et interpretatur multinuba, et ponitur hic pro Nerone qui inbellis fuit, idest non fuit ausus bellari. Et multinuba quia multas feminas stuprauit, etiam et matrem suam. Troiades, idest femine Romanae, nuge idest inutiles. hic apellat romanos feminas inutiles, quia carrnina Labeonis, que mollia erant et neminem 15 carpebant, idest reprehendebant, et libidinosa erant, recitabant et diligebant. Labeo poeta fuit qui transtulit Iliaden, idest subuersionem Troiae, et Odisian, idest errorem Vlixis, de Greco in Latinum, non sensum de sensu sed uerbum de uerbo satis ridiculose. Potius enim uerba secutus est quam sensum. Cuius uersus est talis: 'Crudum manduces Priamum Priamusque pisinnos.' Non habet enim ullum sensum. 20 5 Inuehit, idest transportat se, ad aliquem poetam laudis cupidum dicens: 0 poeta, non accedas, idest non consentias non assentias non credas, siquid, idest si aliquid, eleuet te, scilicet laudando, turbida Roma. Turbida tractus sermo est ab aqua. Turbida ideo dicitur quia multis gentibus est repleta. 7 Castiges, idest preponderes et mensures et probes, examen tuum, idest iudicium 25 tuum, inprobum, idest importunum, quia nulli parcit in illa trutina, idest in illa populi sententia. Talis est sensus: Quicquid illi dicant de te, tu proba uitam tuam et cognosce qualis es. Castigare proprie est libram digito percutere. Examen est lingua lancis uel linum quod tenet mediam hastam ad equanda pondera. Ponitur ergo pro iudicio, quia sicut examen equalitatem demonstrat ita et uerum iudicium ueritatem ostendit. 30 Trutina est foramen intra quod linum est unde fit examinatio. Nec te quesiueris extra, idest noli de te iudicium extrinsecus querere; quae est Chilonis sententia. 8 Nam quis non est Romae subaudis doctus et indoctus. hic occulte reprehendit Neronem. In populo, inquit, Romano quis non rudis uel imperitus? ac si fas est I [142"] idest si licitum est, michi dicere, tunc est doctus et indoctus Rome. cum risu 35 dicendum est hoc quod sequitur. sed tum fas est mihi dicere, idest tunc licitum est michi dicere, cum aspexi, idest cum aspicio, ego ad caniciem, idest ad senes poetas et

3 libidini V : libini V 6 min tu istud ais] uel dicisne tu hoc mihi? interrogasne me? in margine Vc 9 nullus Vc in ras. : ******non V 13 bellari V' : bellart V 16 erant add. Vc supra 17 hit] quem indigne laudabant Romani v" supra 26 quia v" : qui V 31 unde fit] de quo Vcsupra

184

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

ad uitam illorum et cum aspicio nostrum istud uiuere triste, idest nostram istam uitam tristem. Ac tunc licitum est michi dicere cum sapimus patruos, idest cum aequiperamus patruorum sapientiam uel seueritatem. Patrui enim seueri sunt circa fratrum filios quando inhoneste eos uident ambulare; sic Cicero obiurgauit Celium ut 5 quidam patruus censor. 11 Tunc tunc ignoscite idest permittite me ut dicam. uel tunc tunc scilicet debeo dicere cum respicio patruorum doctrinam. No10 scilicel ridere uel dicere amplius talia. 12 Quid faciam? scilicet si non risero? quasi non possit risum tenere. naturale michi 10 est. ideo iteratur tune tunc ignoscite. 12 Sed sum petulanti splene cachinno idest luxurianti pectore; et non me contineo lasciuiore risu, petulanti splene sum. Talis, inquid, naturae sum ut rideam. secundum phisicos dicit qui dicunt hominem splene ridere, felle irasci, iecore amare, corde sapere. ‘cachinno cachinnonis’ nomen est; ‘Cachinno cachinnas’ uerbum est. item 15 cachinnus est risus lasciuior cum uoce. 13 Scribimus inclusi idest ab omni cura remoti, aut certe metri lege coacti. Aut ordo uerborum est: Cum ad caniciem uenerimus, tunc scribimus inclusi. Ille, scilicet aliquis poeta, scribit numeros, idest uersus. dicti numeri a numero temporum. hic, scilicet alter poeta, liber est pede, idest absolutus est a metro quod pedibus constat, et 20 scribit prosam. 14 Grande aliquid quod anhelet, idest quod tribuit uel inflet, prelargus, idest ualde magnus, et uento abundans sermone non humili. pulmo idest flatus animae. hec per yroniam dicit secundum iudicium illorum qui scribunt. ferunt enim phisici quod ex pulmone flatus accipitur et emittitur ad instar follis fabri. 25 15 Scilicet haec idest carmina, scribis tu populo, ut populi iudicio digna sint qui numquam / [143’] recte iudicat. pexus tu, idest pexo capite habens, ornatus uel pectinatus uel tonsus: unde Virgilius ‘Inpexis barbis’ idest intonsis. Togaque recenti idest cum noua uel nitida toga. toga uestis est militaris qua utebantur romani tempore pacis. 30 16 Tandem legens illa carmina sede celsa, idest in sede excelsa, in pulpit0 uidelicet uel in rostris. albus tu, idest pallidus, uel pauore recitandi uel labore scribendi seu propter uestem candidam necdum consul factus nec purpureum adeptus uestimentum quod laticlauium dicitur. cum nutalicia sardoniche idest cum pretiosa gemma. Sardonix est gemma pretiosa quam patronus filiolo suo donat in die natalis I et cum aspicio] grega figura est ////toecsis idest defectio supru Vc (uerbis posf est erasis) 2 post tristem: Et [c.20 lift.] facimus nos quecumque, idest omnia, relictis nucibus, idest dimissis ludis puerilibus. per nuces designatur stultitia; pueri enim multum amant nuces. i l k ergo nuces linquit qui omnem stultitiam et pueritiam dimittit. Vc in m r g . superiore (circa xx litterue abscisue sunf.) 6 Tunc tunc’] tunc tunc ignoscite significat rem (lege rationem) ualere tunc praecipue cum seueritatem aetas aspexerit. uel tunc tunc asseueratio dolentis, ut me me adsum qui feci. Vc in margine. 7 nolo] toetic idest defectio Vc supra I dicere Vc : decere V 11 petulanti] luxurianti V‘ supra I cachinno] idest irrisor uel delusor Vc supra 13 amare scripsi : amore V 17 inclusi] Grande aliquid idest magnum et altum carmen V‘ supra lineam sequentem 18 uel sd Vc in marg. 25 populo] idest imperitis VEsupra 32 uestem scripsi: uestestem V 33 pretiosa] uel noua Vc supra

APPENDIX I1

185

sui, quam Romani in anulis suis ferre solebant. et est nigra candida et rubra. dicta autem sardonix a sardio et oniche, quod utriusque colorem habeat. hoc autem dicit quod talis poeta recitaturus carmen adomatus et festiuus incedebat ut corporis habitu se audientibus commendaret. et collueris tu, idest purgaueris et laueris, mobile, idest tremulum, guttur cum liquido, idest claro, plasmate fractus, idest dissolutus et effeminatus, patranti ocello, idest luxurioso et adulanti oculo. plasma dicitur medicamenturn quo fauces recreantur clamore sauciate. idem dicitur et fonascus a greco quod est phone, idest uox. Idem est et gargarismus. Patranti ocello: Patrare proprie est rem ueneriam peragere. Est autem ypallage, idest fracto ocello. Nimia enim luxuria facit oculos distortos et prauos: Vnde Virgilius ‘Transuersa tuentibus hyrcis.’ 19 Hie, idest in auditorio, in pulpito, in archifora, neque uideas trepidare, idest gaudere, ingentes Titos, idest magnos scolasticos siue Romanos, probo more, idest honesto usu, nee uoce serena, scilicet audies, cum intrant, idest tangunt et penetrant, lumbum tua carmina et ubi scalpuntur, idest et cum mouentur et titillantur et in libidinem excitantur, intima, idest interiora cordis, tremulo uersu, idest modulanti et fragili uoce, uel sententiae libidini apte. / [ 143’1 cum dicit nec uoce serena insectatur letitiam laudantium, cum aut tumultuose clamant aut obscenos motus edunt ad dulcedinem carminum qui effeminant aures in tantum ut audientium quoque animi soluantur. Carmen enim mali poetae qui ad hoc recitabat ut fauorem populi caperet Neminem carpebat, sed ad libidinem potius prouocabat. 20 Zngentes Titos appellat Romanos a Tito Tatio rege Sabinorum. Vel titos dicit scolasticos eo quod uagi sint neque uno magistro contenti, idest sufficientes, et in libidinem proni sicut aues quibus comparantur. Nam titi columbe sunt agrestes, quibus rustici auditores designantur. illa autem carmina lumbum dicit intrare non animum, quia in lumbis est libido et illa carmina effeminata et libidini apta representant ipsos concubitus. Zntima dicit, quia quomodo tactus mulierum mouet uitia intima, sic et uersus enerues non animum intrant sed lumbum. 22 0 uetule, idest stulte, tun’ colligis escas auriculis alienis, idest querisne tu laudes ab imperitis auriculis, idest hominibus? scribis tu non quod te delectat sed ut plaudatur tibi a pueris euiratis, ideo laboras, palles, otia tibi denegas. Auriculis dico quibus et dicas tu perditus cute ohae, idest illis hominibus stultis a quibus laudem querebas, postea insultabis et dices tu ipse perditus cute, idest uigiliis et sollicitudine aut senectute pallidus. Vel manifeste cute perditus, ut uitium quod intrinsecus habes in cute etiam possis habere. Ohe autem interiectio est cum admiratione stomachosa percontantis. 4-5 mobile--guttur] quasi caput in pronuntiatione agitans V‘ supra 9 post autem littera una erasa est V‘ 12 Hic] uel pro tunc Vc supra I in aud.-wchifora] in ambone, in pirco, in analogio, in leterico Vc supra I uideas] pro uidebis Vc supra 17 spatiurn c. xii lift. vacatpost apte infine paginae 29 tun’+xas] pro tune queris laudes Vc supra I auriculis] scilicet ab V‘ supra I alienis] idest irnperitis Vc supra 30 auriculis] sinodoche est a parte toturn Vc supra

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

186

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

24 Quo didicisse, uerba poete ad quem loquitur, sed yronicos. scaema etiam est antipofora kepara prosdoscia, cum poeta transit per suam in illius poete uocem quem corripit, nec tamen recedit a sua persona. Quo didicisse.? idest ad quid didicisti? quid profuit? nisi ut exierit hoc fermentum et caprifcus quae intus semel innata est rupto 5 iecore? metafora est a ferment0 et ca/ [144'] prifico: Sicut enim fermentum massam rumpit et caprificus saxa, its ingenium pectus tibi rumpit nec potes te continere nisi ipsum ingenium diuulges, idest manifestes. phisici dicunt caprificum radicibus pullulare, idest crescere, ita ut etiam si transplantata fuerit super tumulum mortui eum perforare et radices suas emittere per tumulum dicunt. Sic etiam et fama penetrat 10 corda stultorum. Et bene posuit caprificum, quae cum exierit nullos fructus affert. sic et laus stultorum nullam utilitatem habet. 26 En pallor: ad hoc inquid palluisti, ut laudem consequereris. Effronesis est per indignationem. Pallor est quaedam anxietas animi, premagnam faciens senectutem. Ecce senium, scilicet tuum. Ecce mores, scilicet peruersi. usque adeone tuum scire 15 nichil est, nisi hoc sciat alter te scire. In tantum est scientia tua ad nichilum redacta ut aliquid te scire nescias, nisi alterius iudicium de ea consulas. 28 At pulcrum est digito monstrari, scilicet aliquem, et dicier hic est, scilicet poeta. Antipophora est, idest obiectio stulti poete: Magna, inquid, gloria est dum aliquis monstratur digito pretereuntium, sicut Demostenes cum transiret et a mercennario 20 cuiusdam tabemariae digito monstraretur laetatus est quod non solum a nobilibus sed etiam ab ignobilibus cognoscebatur. 30 Pendasne, idest iudicas et ducas, pro nichilo te fuisse dictata, idest materiam, centum cirratorum, idest scolasticorum uel catamitorum? ten pro tene dixit. Occulte carpit Neronem, cuius carmina celebrabantur per scolas unde scolastici sumebant 25 materiam. Mos erat antiquorum magistrorum ex aliquo libro materiam dare [dare] discipulis. Potest autem ex persona Persii ridicule admirantis hoc accipi; potest et ab ill0 poeta, cum dicit: Numquid pro nichilo duceres quod centum cirrati de te dictarent carmina? cirrati autem sunt scolastici uel catamiti. cirri enim dicuntur capilli, et illi scolastici crines habebant in honorem Veneris, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni 30 daeae Veneris consecrabant. uel cirrati dicuntur cinedi, idest pueri ueterum. 30 Ecce querunt romulide saturi, idest ebrii, inter pocula, idest inter sua conuiuia, ubi sunt instrumenta libidinis, quid narrent dia, idest sancta, magnifica et Clara poemata, idest carmina poetarum; uel quid / [ 144'1 sentiendum sit de poematibus, aut qualia nunc poemata celebrentur. 35 31 Hic, idest Rome uel in ill0 conuiuio, aliquis, subaudis diues uel potens interest, cui est hyaccintina lena, idest uestis serica uel purpura coloribus mentita,

14 peruersi] uel defecti V" supra I usque adeone] idest nurnquid usque adeo Vc supra 17 At pulcrurn est] sed magna gloria est Vc supra I dicier] adiectio syllabica V' supra 19 a add. Vc 23 centurn] numerum finitum pro infinito V' supra 25 dare bis V 26 discipulis V' : descipulis V 31 romulide] romani a Rornulo sicut Aenaeidae ab Enea Vc supra 32 idest sancta] sicut dia Camilla V' supra 36 lena] idest palla uel sagum V' supra

APPENDIX I1

187

circa suos humeros, idest circa suum dorsum. Qualitatem posuit de ueste, ut per corporis cultum animi cultum demonstraret. quiddam, scilicet carmen, rancidulum, idest putidum et fetidum, malesonorum, scilicet locutus ille diues de balba nare. De lingua est tractum; linguae enim est proprium balbutire, sed uox eius uidetur per nares emitti, quia ebrius est. et eliquat ille diues, idest exprimit, dicit, siue cum lenocinio cantat, Phyllidas uatum et Ipsypilas uatum, idest fabulas quas poete fecerunt de Phyllide et Ypsypile, ac supplantat, idest minuit, interloquitur mutatis acentibus uel opicizat uerba tenero palato, idest in molli et fragili, et corrupt0 propter uinum. Opicizare est uerba minuere, Vnde et diminutores litterarum opici dicuntur. 34 Phyllis regina tracum fuit. Quae triste ferens peregrinationem Demofontis apud Troiam, quia die statuto non remeauit ob amorem illius uersa est in truncum amigdali. Ille uero ueniens rem gestam cum cognouisset, magno dolore arreptus illum truncum amplexatus est suis manibus er desuper lacrimauit. Tunc illa quasi sentiens aduentum sponsi sui statim euiruit et folia emisit. Vnde et a nomine illius philla dicuntur apud grecos folia; Nam antea petala uocabantur. Ypsipilis similiter regina fuit, uxor Bellorofontis. Qui cum in bello Thebano ab hostibus fuisset captus, illa se tradidit pro eo et sua morte eum redemit. Vel ut alii referunt una fuit ex Lemnidibus mulieribus, filia Tohantis, neptis Liberi patris. Postquam eam duobus filiis factis apud Lemnas ciuitatem Iason reliquid, qui eo tempore cum Argonautis uenerat, nec ad eam rediit ex Colchis, Comperto postea illum ad suam patriam remeasse seque neglectam, ingratum eius amorem diu secum fleuit. his itaque siquid simile / [145'] carminibus suis defleuerunt poaete, its sine uocis asperitate pronuntiant tam suaue ut aures audientium emolliant. et ponunt historias et ea nomina quae in carminibus necessaria non sunt, sed quia acaritide et amatorie sunt, ideo ponuntur, et si aliquid flebile est quia amarissime cantant poete. 36 Assensere uiri, idest adulatores, auditores, assenserunt, idest consenserunt omnes diuiti recitanti carmen, dicentes: Nunc nunc felix ille cinis poete. Cinis felix dicitur quotiens bene de mortuis recitatur. et non leuior, scilicet sed felicior cippus qui nunc inprimit ossa, scilicet illius poaete. Veteres enim dixerunt pregrauari corpora eorum qui tantum studentes corpori nichil memorabile reliquerunt. cippus dicitur lapis uel lignum quod super ponitur sepulchris, sed hic pro sepulchro posuit. 38 Laudant conuiuae, scilicet uersus releuatos ab uno conuiua. Iterum facit uocem illius recitantis in conuiuio, estimantis atque dicentis felicem poetam esse. dicit ille recitator: Nunc non, idest nonne, nascentur uiole, idest res uoluntariae et amaene, e manibus illis, idest ex ossibus illius poete? et nonne nascentur uiole e tumulo illius,

3 malesonorurn] uel asperum Vc supra I de balba nare] idest blesa quia ebrius est Vc supra; in margine add. V' : fit corrupta uino uel deuitiata 5 eliquat] si quid idest si aliquid est plorabile Vc in marg. I exprimit] uel rnanifestat V supra I dicit] uel narrat Vc supra 7 minuit] confrangit Vc supra 10 Demofontis] scilicet uiri sui Vc supra 11 illius] suspendio se interemit et Vc supra 16 Bellorofontis Vc in marg. : Bellos.ofontis V ut uid. 20 patriam om. V, add. Vc supra 27 nunc-felix2] uerba auditorurn adulantiurn refert Persius per irrisionern Vc supra 29 corpora Vc : corpori V ut uid. 32 Laudant conuiuae] persona poete est Vc supra I post uersus] poaete Vc supra I post conuiua] persona pcete (uel Persii) est V : del. Vc

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

188

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

idest ex sepulcro illius? et nonne nascentur uiole de fortunata fauilla, idest de felici corpore illius? In sepulchris enim illorum qui bene meruerunt uiole nasci memorantur. et hic antipofora est, idest contra locutio culpati poete ad Persium: o Persi, rides ait? idest dicis tu hoc affirmando uel inidendo? quasi ipse responderet 5 sibi. Certe rides, idest certe irrides me, et nimis indulges uncis, idest curuis, naribus, id est nimium das operam cachinno. Soluto enim risu incuruamus et contrahimus nares. 41 An erit, scilicet aliquis poeta, qui recuset uelle meruisse 0s populi? eritne aliquis poeta qui uelit linquere, idest derelinquere et dimittere, carmina nee scombros 10 metuentia nec tus, idest illa carmina quae non ament scombros neque tus. locutus ille poeta digna, scilicet carmina, cedro, idest talia carmina quae digna sint inungi oleo cedrino. Mos erat apud ueteres ut cartae in quibus nobilia carmina scriberentur I [145"] oleo cedrino inungerentur ut diu durarent et a tineis saluarentur. Cartae autem in quibus uilia carmina erant incidebantur ad tus inuoluendum uel ad scombros 15 seruandos. Scombri autem sunt Pisces de quibus fit optimum garum, sicut nos facimus piperatam. Per scombros ergo significant salmentarios et per tus ungentarios. 44 Iterum eam inducit personam quam ab initio induxit, et est inimica et comica exclamatio. Loquitur autem ad quemlibet poetam laudis cupidum: o poeta, quisquis es modo quem fas est michi dicere ex aduerso, idest te licitum est michi ex contrario 20 dicere, id est quem in hoc libro affatum simillaui aduersarium, qui michi obicis risum importunum, idest qui me dicis ridere superuacuum? audi: Non metuam ego laudari, scilicet ab aliquo, cum scribo carmina si forte quid aptius exit, idest si aliquid elegantius et honestius uel pulchrius exierit de meis carminibus et de meo sensu. Non effugio, inquit, laudem si aliquid gratum et laudabile uersibus faciam. Neque enim est 25 michi cornea fibra, idest non est michi cor uel pectus lapideum, scilicet sed humanum. Duram quoque et adamantinam dicimus frontem improbam. Non tam, inquit, ab humanitate dissentio ut ea quae humanitatis sunt solus spernam, idest ut possim non laetari laudatus, nec dolere culpatus. 46 Quando haec auis rara est, idest raro inuenitur, scilicet niger cignus et albus 30 coruus; Prouerbium est antiquum. Raram autem auem dicit uel perfectum poetam uel uerum iudicem et sine assensione aurium. et est translatio a fenice. et hoc uerecunde Persius: raro se commode dicit scribere. Nam et fenix raro uidetur, quae circa Indiae partes moratur. 46 Si quid tamen aptius exierit, scilicet de meo sensu et de meis carminibus. 35 48 Finem recti, scilicet quero ego, et extremum recti idest extremitatem et finem rectitudinis. I [146"] hoc dicit: laudem quidem amo, sed non falsam, sed quae ad finem recti, idest ad ueritatem tendat. Finemque extremumque dicit secundum

5 indulges] idest operam das Vc supra 8 qui-populi] idest qui nolit laudari et qui nolit haberi (corr. in -ere) fauorem a populo V' supra I eritne V' : erine V 9 2 u e l 3 litt. eras. post uelit 10 metuentia] timntia Vc supra 11-12 cedrum dicunt genus ligni quod dignum biblioteca h a k tu r Vc in rnarg. 29 scilicet niger cignus] secundum Remigium Vc supra 34 Si quid tamen] idest si aliquid V' supra 37 extremumque : extremum V; -que add. V" supra

APPENDIX I1

189

philosofos, qui dicunt summum bonum in recto atque honesto constare. Item sed recti finemque: neque enim tantum durat sensus scribere ut statim me recte fecisse crediderim cum tuum euge et belle audiero, et recuso ego tuum euge et tuum belle. Laudationem, inquit, tuam non put0 diffinitionem. non enim, inquit, scribentes hoc fine debent esse contenti, idest sufficientes, ut tuum euge et belle audiant. hoc dici solet Labeoni Attio. Ita dicit: Euge tuum et belle esse recuso, quasi in his summum iudicium sit. Solebant namque laudantes euge et belle respondere recitantibus. 49 Nam hoc tuum belle excute totum: Translatio est a uestimento sentibus pleno, quod dum excussum fuerit quicquid habetur absconditum proicit. 50 Quid nun habet, scilicet mali uel reprehensionis et derisionis, intus, idest in tuum euge? hic, idest in mea satyra, in meo libro, non est Ilias Atti ebria uoratro, idest elleboro. Attius ipse est Labeo, et fuit indoctus poeta. nam sic fedissime composuit Iliaden, idest subuersionem Troie, et Odisian de Homeri uersibus, qui fuit poeta grecorum, ut nec ipse intelligere potuit quoadusque purgatus fuit helleboro. Ebria, idest uitiis plena, uel nimis insana uel propter elleborum. 51 Nun sunt hic, scilicet in mea satyra siqua ligidia, idest si aliqua carmina diuina uel misera dictarunt crudi, idest indigesti et temulenti proceres. Elegos grece, miseros latine; inde elegiacum Carmen dicitur Carmen miserorum. Antiqui enim poaete suas anxietates et miserias elegiac0 carmine describebant. quasi diceret: Nolo, inquit, ut me laudes uerbis quibus soles laudare elegos principum uersus; Nun, scilicet est, hic, idest in meo carmine, quicquid scribitur, scilicet a nobilibus, in citreis lectis, idest in spondis de citro arbore factis. Apud antiquos citreis tabulis parietes ornabantur quas et incerabant. Similiter et spondas cerabant ut ibi noctu si quid recte in mentem ueniret notarent. 53 Item apostrofam facit ad poetam laudis cupidum: 0 poeta, scis tu ponere, idest ministrare et apponere, calidum sumen ante tuos conuiuas, scilicet ut te laudant. hoc dicit: Nosti captare animos audientium carminibus tuis dum eos sic pascis. scis tu donare comitem horridulum I [146"] trita lacerna, idest uetusto aliquo panno uel birro, scilicet ad hoc das illi ut te laudat. hoc uerbum quod est 'donare' trait ablatiuum casum, quando in persona habet accusatiuum, ut 'dono te auro'. quando uero in persona habet datiuum casum, in re trait accusatiuum, ut 'dono tibi aurum'. et inquis tu, idest dicis tu: Verum amo, idest cupidus sum ueri iudicii, Verum dicite michi de me, idest de mea scriptura. Illis hoc dicis et interrogas quibus non habenda est fides: plus enim laudabunt te propter gulam quam propter ueritatem. 3 recuso] idest despicio V' supra I tuum euge] idest tuam laudem V" supra I tuum belle] idest tuum fauorem V' supra 8 totum-uestimento] quia nolo tuum euge et tuum belle Vc supra 10 scilicetreprehensionis] uel ineptiarum et turpitudinis Vc supra 13 Odisian] idest errores Vlixis V" supra 16 ligidia-diuina] alii dicunt eligidia diriuatum ab elogis (corr. in elegis) Vc supra 17 dictarunt] pro dictauerunt Vc supra I proceres] idest seniores Vc supra 25 apostrofam] idest conuersionem V' supra 26 calidum sumen] idest crassum uentrem Vc supra 27 durn-pascis] multi enim sunt amici mense V" supra 28 donare] tribuere V' supra I comitem] idest socium Vc supra I horridulum] idest trementem Vc supra : in margine scis comiti birrum attritum dare V' 29 birro] idest cappa Vc supra 30 casum] in re add. Vc supra 31 aurum] Vnde Virgilius: hac te nos fragili donabimus ante cicuta Vc supra 33 de rnea scriptural uel de meis carminibus Vc supra

5

10

15

20

25

30

190

5

10

15

20

25

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

56 Qui pole uis dicam: quomodo uis ut uerius dicam tibi? nugaris certe, idest deliras, erras in scribendo carmina, 0 calue, ideo erras cum extet tibi, idest quia extenditur tibi, pinguis aqualiculus, idest crassus uenter tuus, propenso sesquipede, idest ultra mensuram sex pedum. Quomodo potes sapere o calue, idest stulte, cum sis nugigerulus et cum pinguescas habundantia ciborum et uentrem habeas ultra sex pedes extensum. 58 Mod0 apostrofam facit ad Ianum, idest ad aliquem poetam sapientem, et interponuntur quinque uersus per parantesin. 0 Iane quem nulla ciconia pinsit, idest feriit et percussit a tergo. Ianus depingitur bifrons oculatus ante et retro, quod ideo fit quia finis est preteriti anni et initium sequentis. Per Ianum ergo intelligitur quiuis sapiens qui ante et retro uidet, nec potest reprehendi absens nec praesens et non potest ei sanna a tergo, idest a dorso, fieri. Tria genera sannarum, idest inlusionum, erant apud antiquos: Primum genus faciebant a tergo recedentibus in modum rostri ciconini motitantes manus: Secundum faciebant ad instar aurium asinorum mouentes manum, pollice in tempore infixo; Tertium extrahentes linguam uelud canis sitiens. nec imitata est tibi mobilis manus auriculas albas. Sinodochicos dixit auriculas albas; est enim interior pars aurium alba. nec tante, idest tantum prolate sunt linguae ad tuam inisionem quantum sitiat canis appula. Appulia regio est estuosa cuius canes pre nimio calore extrahunt linguas suas. 61 0 uos patricius sanguis, quos fas est uiuere, idest quos licitum est uiuere, propter honorem et nobilitatem, / [147'] uel quorum uita exemplum debet esse aliorum, occurrite, idest succurite, occipiti ceco, idest stultitiae et ignorantiae uestrae: subaudis ne irrideamini posticae sannae. Postica dicitur posterior pars capitis. dicit ergo: 0 genus nobilissimorum senatorum, qui non sentitis uos a tergo irrideri et qui non estis Iani, idest perfecti poaetae, date operam ut non irrideamini a postica sanna, idest a subsannatione quae retro fit sicut supra scriptum est de tribus generibus illusionum. 63 Ad personam illius poete redit quem superius carpsit dicentem "Verum michi dicite de me." Interrogat ille poeta aliquem adulatorem: Quis est sermo populi?

I Qui pote uis dicam] idest quomodo potius dicam V' supra 2 calue] idest stulte V' supra I erras] uel nugaris Vc supra 3 pinguis aqualiculus] proprie tamen uenter porci Vc supra, er in niarg.: aqualiculus proprie uenter porci I propenso] idest extenso Vc supra 4 quomodo-cum] idest quomodo potes intendere in sapientia et componere carmina uel esse sapiens Vc supra 8 ciconia] idest aliquis reprehensor Vc supra I pinsit: in pilo apud ueteres frumenta tundebantur. inde pistores dicti sunt quasi pinsores a pindendo idest a feriendo. nam pindo est ferio V' in marg. 8-9 pinsit-depingitur] assidue percussit. h u m posuit hic pro perfecto poeta Vc supra 9 a tergo] idest retro V" supra 11-12 et-sannarum] sanna est turpis sonitus narium uel sanna est 0s distortum cum uultu Vc supra 15 tertium] scilicet faciebant V' supra 16 nec-auriculas] scilicet ad tuam irrisionem apposito temporibus pollice V' supra I albas] idest asininas V' supra 16-17 sinodochicos-pars] similiter populum dicimus album eo quod folia eius una parte sint alba, altera uiridia V' supra et in marg. sin. 18-19 Appulia-suas] dicit ergo Persius quia nec in tantum potuit Ianum, idest perfectum poetam, ullus umquam reprehendere Vc supra 23 posticae sannae] idest a postica sanna V" supra I postica--capitis] ceca dicitur quia nullus uidet retro nisi uerso capite V' supra 23-24 dicit ergo] Romanis Vc supra 24 non sentitis] pro non uidetis Vc supra I irrideri] et deludi Vc supra 25-26 date-subsannatione] idest studete in legendo ut uidere possitis retro sicut et ante uelud Ianus V' supra 28 Ad-illius] huc usque parentesis est Vc supra 29 populi] scilicet de me V' supra

APPENDIX I1

191

responsio cuiusdam adulatoris: Quis enirn? nisi fzuere nunc dernurn carmina, scilicet tua, rnolli nurnero ut effundat, idest uelut dirigat iunctura seueros ungues marmorariorum per leue. talis est sensus: Quis alius sermo esset de te nisi quod tua carmina inoffensa defluunt et ungues seuorum iudicum non formidant? solent enim marmorarii iuncturam marmorum unguibus probare. hoc dicunt populi de te: Scit ille 5 poeta, scilicet ita, tendere, idest cudere et componere, uersurn non secus ac si dirigat, scilicet carpentarius, rubricarn suarn cum uno oculo, scilicet aperto et altero clauso. 0 bone poaeta, dat, idest tribuit, tibi nostro poaetae rnusa, idest satyra, dicere res grandes, idest magna carmina siue opus, idest carmen tuum, fuerit in mores siue in luxum siue in prandia regurn. Comos grece, uilla latine; Inde comaedia dicuntur 10 carmina de uillanis et uilibus rebus composita. Satyra dicitur sicut supra dictum est a saturitate. Tragoedia dicuntur carmina pro quibus ircus dabatur in premio, et sunt lacrimis digna. hic dicende sunt fabulae de Tyreo et Atreo siue Oreste. Tyreus fuit quidam rex cuius uxor fuit Prognes, quae habuit sororem nomine Filomelam, sed non in una regione. Illa itaque ob amorem sororis suae ardens suum seniorem rogauit ut 15 pergeret et adduceret eam sibi ad uidendum. Quod et fecit. Sed in suo itinere eam stuprauit, et incidit ei linguam ne enuclearet sorori suae rem gestam. Illa uero sanguine suo denotauit in suo linteo et ostendit sorori suae. quod illa sentiens occidit Ittin filium suum et coxit deditque / [ 147'1 patri comedendum [. ....]que habui[c. 15 litt.] quesiuit eum. Cui dixit mater: quem queris in uentrem habes. et propter hoc nefas 20 omnes [c. 10 litt.] aues. Tyreus uersus est in upupam, Prognes in hirundinem, Ittis filius [....I in farsam, Filomela in luciniam. Nam sanguis eius apparet adhuc in pectore illius. Atreus similiter rex fuit qui uiolauit uxorem fratris sui Tigestis. Quod ille cognoscens occidit filium suum et apposuit auunculo ad uescendum. propter hoc peccatum retraxit se sol ab illa ciuitate, idest a Thebis. Orestes uero occidit matrem 25 suam Clitemestram quia ipsa occiderat patrem ipsius nomine Agamemnon cum reuerteretur de Troia. Nota est fabula in Virgilio. det..a!ju?orgn......com.. diant poaetae [ ....]p-ed[...I idest carmina lacrimosa. 69 Adhuc de malis poetis loquitur. ecce uidernus mod0 adferre, idest proferre, heroas sensus, idest fortes et acutos intellectus, et uidemus illos nugari grece, idest delirare et 30 errare in greca lingua, solitos, idest per consuetudinem. Videmus, inquit,

1 quis] scilicet esset Vc supra I fluere] idest prodire V" supra I nunc demum] idest mod0 et ad ultimum Vc supra 2 molli numero] idest amoeno et suaui uersu V supra I iunctura] scilicet marmorum Vc supra 3 per leue] idest per planum et nitidum Vc supra I esset] scilicet in populo Vc supra 4-5 solent-unguibus] et ita leuis est et amaena iunctio uestrorum carminum Vc supra 5-6 scit-poeta] uox illius adulatoris V' supra 6 non secus] idest non aliter Vc supra I ac si] idest quasi Vc supra 7 rubricam--clauso] idest lineam. rubrica dicitur linea carpentariorurn eo quod apud antiquos rubrei coloris fiebat Vc supra 7-8 +tibi] hironice dicit hoc Persius ad illum poetam V supra 8 dicere] idest componere Vc supra 9 magna] et alta Vc supra I in mores] idest in comediam Vc supra 9-10 in luxum] idest in satyram Vc supra 10 in prandia regum] idest in tragoediarn, ut puta Orestis et Tyrei V' supra 10-11 comos--carmina] comedia satyra exprimit mores hominum exprimit et conuersationem V" supra 11-12 satyra-saturitate] inuectionem hominum Vc supra 12 tragoedia-ircus] tragoediae cenarum facinorosarum Vc supra I dabatur-sunt] tragos grece hircus latine Vc supra 18 denotauit] descripsit Vc supra 24 ille] tigestis Vc supra 24-28 lifterarum reliquiae incerrae sunt 29 uidemus mod01 scilicet nostros poetas V' supra I proferre] V' supra non liquet

192

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

eos qui hoc tantum, idest grecas nugas uerbis componere, uolunt, uelle tamen etiam nobiles et fortes sensus carminibus pangere, cum neque uilia carmina digni sunt explicare. 70 Nec, scilicet uidemus eos, artifices, idest doctos et idoneos, ponere lucum, idest 5 describere nemora, ita ut uarietates arborum decenter enumerarent. nec uidemus eos idoneos laudare rus saturum, ubi sunt corbes et ubi est focus et porci et Palilia fumosa faeno. fertilem agrum [c. 18 litt.] habet corbes in quibus semina portantur et porcos et palilia et omnia instrumenta. Palilia sunt festa Palis daeae in quibus rustici saliebant quia credebant se expiare [...I sacrificio. Quae festa fumosa fen0 dicuntur 10 quia pastores in honore illius deae ante ostia stabulorum incendebant faeni manipulos quasi inde purgarentur. Item Palilia dicitur dies sacer in honore Iliae quae Remum et Romulum peperit. et dicimus Palilia quasi Parilia. Palilia uero tam priuata sunt quam publica, et est genus hilaritatis et lusus. 73 Vnde idest ex rusticis [Remus scilicet] natus est, et tu, o Quinti I 15 cetera desunt

2 digni] idest apti Vc supra 6 laudare-sunt] Vc supra nun liquet 14 Vnde-Quinti] Romanos ex rusticis et pastoribus originem ducere Vc supra I Remus scilicet suppleui

hic latenter tangit

APPENDIX 111. ADDITIONAL SCHOLIA TO PERSIUS The organization of this appendix violates all that I have written above about the strong distinction to be made between commentary and marginalia, and about the need to view sets of marginal annotations as wholes rather than as collections of discrete notes. But for anyone interested in the nature of Carolingian exegesis of Persius, the present appendix may provide a useful supplement to Clausen-Zetzel. My additional intention is to demonstrate more fully what is shown in Chapter 5 , that there is no clear distinction to be drawn between an ‘A tradition’ and a ‘B tradition’: some notes are clearly tied to a particular branch of the scholiastic tradition, but it is equally clear that some notes floated freely from one manuscript to another and that affiliations change and blend. I hope that the collection and identification of notes characteristic of one or another part of the tradition undertaken here will aid others in the further classification of manuscripts of scholia to Persius. It should be stated at once (and should in any case be abundantly clear) that the set of scholia which follows is by no means exhaustive. What it does provide is a text of scholia found in the six manuscripts discussed in Chapter 5 (WO, KQ, PN) that are not found in the major manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn itself. To these, I have added a few more: the few non-Cornrnenturn notes found in Leiden BPL 82 (F) in which the scholia break off after Sat. 1.88,’ and non-Cornrnenturn notes found in the later tradition of the Comrnenturn itself. Other manuscripts doubtless have other notes, or other versions of the notes given here; but from what I have seen, they are not worth repeating. There is an unavoidable degree of arbitrariness in deciding which scholia to include. The vast majority of notes in all the manuscripts used here are in fact related to those in the Cornrnenturn, but most of them show changes of wording, abridgments, and other slight variations. For the most part, I have omitted scholia that contain little or nothing that could not have been derived from the Cornmenturn; some notes containing only a few non-Cornrnenturn words are printed in full, but often I have given only the phrases that are significantly different, with a reference to the appropriate note in the Cornrnenturn itself. Where possible, I have given a single version (with variants in the apparatus) of a note found in slightly different forms in several manuscripts; but where that has seemed too unclear, the lists of manuscripts for each note will indicate that they are alternate forms. I have been equally arbitrary in the inclusion of interlinear scholia: those in KQ and P are consistently omitted; those in WO are sometimes included, since it is fairly clear that both interlinear and marginal scholia have the same relationship to the Cornrnenturn itself and rarely overlap. Orthographic peculiarities have for the most part been silently regularized except for proper names, and not all minor variants are included Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 202; CTC 222-23.

194

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

in the apparatus. I have emended rarely, and only when the change was both obvious and necessary. At the start of each scholium, I indicate in brackets the manuscripts from which it is drawn and occasionally an indication of source or parallel; it should be noted that in many cases, one or more manuscripts do not contain the whole note; their omissions are indicated in the apparatus. It should be stressed that defining the absence of all or part of a note from a given manuscript as ‘omission’ is merely for editorial convenience; in many cases, it is quite clear that the shorter form of a note is just as likely to be the transmitted text as the longer form. The attachment of scholia to notes found in the Commentum is indicated by + 1.2(3) or . . . 1.2(3) . . ., giving the reference to Clausen-Zetzel.

Adn. 1 a) [WOK(partially damaged)QPNF] Satira est genus clami uel lancis multis ac uariis frugum generibus plena. clarnus potest appellari discus uel mensa quae referta sacrificiis Veneri consueuit inferri. est autem dicta satira a saturitate. b) [OKQ] Vnde in choro Liberi patris ministri uino atque epulis pleni saturi 5 appellantur. hinc descriptura poematis satirici hunc titulum accepit, quod personis factisque satiata abundare uideatur. c) [WOKQPF] Satira igitur a saturitate quod plena sit conuiciis et reprehensionibus hominum. d) [OKQ] Persius diu admodum haesitans utrum potius militiae an poetriae 10 incumberet, tandem ad satiram scribendam animum conuertit, nec adeo uoluptuose. unde et quasi subtristis scribere cum rabulatione inchoat. fuit autem senator, scientia nobilis, genere Tuscus, discipulus Bassi philosophi; et de moribus hominum multa conquestus est. rabulatio dicitur altercatio cum ira. Prol. 1 a) [OKQPNF] Apologiam facit mod0 poeta et excusat se quodammodo non 15 ideo scripsisse ut poeta appareret, sed potius inpulsu quodam mentis, quia uidebat tunc multos poetriae incumbere, et per transitum ostendit se primum coepisse scribere causa uictus, ut salarium mereretur. nam salarium est uictus unius diei. b) [WKQ] Non potaui de ill0 fonte ut poeta fierem sicut Ascraeus, qui bibens de fonte Pegaseo mox poeta factus est. 20 c) [PNF] Ascraeus de eo fonte potauit et ideo poeta factus est. ego autem ut ita fierem non potaui.

.

1 clarni uel lancis] lancis id est discis F 1-2 multis-plenaposr mensa 0 1-3 multis-saturitate om.W 2 clarnus-mensa om.F I uel] id est cihi 0 3 referta om. F I Veneri] ueneris F I inferri KQ : offerri PNO : afferri F I est-dicta] dicta uero est haec 0 I saturitate] saturitate id est abundantia 0 4 Liberiministri] ministri liberi patris 0 5 descriptura] inde scriptura 0 7 Satira igitur om.P : et dicitur W : satyra dicta 0 : id est ut poeta fierem F I a saturitate om. P I quod] eo quod WP : id est quod F I plena sit] sit plena F 8 hominum] hominum et nulli parcat F : om. 0 10 conuertit] impulit 0 I1 rahulatione] trihulatione K 13 rahulatio-ira om. 0 14 modo facit poeta PN : modo poeta facit F I et] id est 0 15 quia] qua N 16 ostendit] ascendit 0 16-17 coepisse scribere] scripsisse 0 : coepisse PNF 17 uictus ut] uitii uelut 0 I nam om. KQ I nam-diei om. 0 18-19 sicut-fonte] potauit ascraeus de eo fonte W 19 factus] creatus Q 20 de] ex F 20-21 ut-potaui] non potaui ut F

APPENDIX I11

195

d) [KQ; cf. Myth. Vat. 2.112f.l Pegasus uolucer equus ungula sua fontem fecit et Musk sacrauit, ex quo potantes poetae fiebant. e) [OK(damaged)QPN; cf. Fulg. Myth. 1.26, Myth. Vat. 1.130, 2.112f.l Necfonte hic tamen fabulam tangit. Forcus rex tres filias Gorgonas fertur habuisse, Stenno, Euryalen, et Medusam. erant autem tantae pulchritudinis ut intuentes se uerterent in lapides. una autem illarum praeferebat se reliquis in pulchritudine crinium maxime, id est Medusa; quam Perseus adhibito cristallino clipeo interfecit et caput illius abscidit et secum deportauit. quod intuentes quoque homines in lapides uertebantur. unde cum uenisset ad Atlantem regem Mauritaniae et noluisset eum hospitio suscipere, ostendit ei caput Gorgonae; qui statim uersus est in montem sui nominis secundum fabulam. fuerunt autem locupletes nimis, unde Gorgones dicuntur quasi georges, id est terrae cultrices: ge enim graece terra, orgio cultura. mortuo autem patre successit Medusa in regno, quam auxilio Mineruae interfecit Perseus rex Asiae et de sanguine eius egressus est Pegasus equus, qui pede suo terram percutiens produxit fontem nomine Pegasum sicut fabula finxit Graeca. qui fons dicatus est poetis et Musis. hinc Martianus: ‘Et fons Gorgonei tulit caballi’ (2.119). hoc fabulosum est; est tamen ueritas quaerenda. Gorgo terror, Stenno debilitas, Euryale lata profunditas, Medusa obliuio interpretatur. haec omnia terrorem hominibus faciunt. quae omnia Perseus occidit, qui latine uirtus interpretatur. cum auxilio Mineruae, id est sapientiae, interfecit, quia uirtus auxiliatrice sapientia omnes terrores uincit. de cuius sanguine egressus equus Pegasus est. Pegasus enim fama dicitur, quia uirtus omnia superans famam sibi conquirit. de quo potant poetae, quia in laudem uirtutis uidentes eam uictricem prosiliunt. hinc Ovidius ‘et nihil est quod non opinio captus amore hausit nec capiunt in causas pectora flammas.’ f) [F] Hoc metrum choriambicum dicitur ideo qui in vii” pede a longa incipiat. nam iambus in sexto pede a breui incipiat. 2. a) [KQ] Bicipitem dicit quia mons Pamasus diuiditur in duo iugera in Elicona et duorum capitum. mons in tria diuiditur, in iuga in latera in radices. b) [KQN(interlinear); cf. Serv. Buc. 6.641 Somniasse sicut somniauit Gallus, ut in Virgilio habetur, et factus est poeta. c) [K(interlinear)QF] Mons Cretae; et habet duo capita uel cornua, id est Cirram et Nisam. in Cirram colitur Apollo, in Nisa Liber pater.

3 Nec fonte om. OPN 4 tamen om. OKQ I forcus OQ : focus K : porticus PN I filias iii 0 I fertur habuisse gorgonas N I stenno 0 : stemnon KQ : stennio PN 5 eurialen Q : euriale OPN I medusa OVPN : medula K : creusa Q1 5-10 erant-fabulam om. 0 5-11 erant-unde om. PN 9 athiantem K : athlantem Q I noluisset] uoluisset K I hospitio] ospicio Q 11 dicuntur] dicunt Q1 I george OPN 12 graece om. OPN I orgio] orgia OQPN I cultural cultura dicitur Q I mortuo autem] sed mortuo OPN I successit] successit ei OQPN 15 fabula-graeca] finxit graecia 0 : graeca K 1 hinc] unde PN 16 estl om. QPN I est tamen] sed 0 17 quaerenda KQ : inquirenda est 0 : habet ha: et est inquirenda P : habet hoc N I stenno 0 : stemnon Q : stennio KPN I mediadusa 0 18 interpretatur om OPN I hominibus KQ : in hominibus PN : hominibus in terrorem 0 19 qui latine uirtus interpretatur Q : qui latine uir K : perseus graece, latine uirtus OPN I id est sapientiae om. OPN 20 uincit] uicit Q 20-21 de cuius-Pegasus est om. 0 21 egressus] natus PN 22 quo] qua ON 23-24 hinc-flammas om. KQPN, cf Ov.,Met. 6.465-66 30 habetur] legitur N 31 mons cretae Q : parnasus mons est cretae F I et habet] habens F I capita uel om. F I id est om. F 32 cirra F

5

10

15

20

25

30

196

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

4. a) [QIPirenei montes sunt ubi poetae carmina componebant et propter assiduam meditationem pallebant. Pirene mons Musis sacer est. b) [QN(interlinear)F, Vat. Reg. 15601 Helicon mons Boetiae Musis consecratus. 5. [K] Ambiunt, id est cupiunt, coronant et ligant, serpendo tangunt. 5 6. a) [KQPNF] Hederae semper uirides sunt et ideo hedera coronabantur poetae quoniam nomen eorum semper manet. b) [O] Hederae semper uirides sunt et ideo quia hedera coronabantur poetae Capitolium intrantes. 6 . a) [KQN; cf. Serv. Geo. 2.3821 Pagos dicitur &dTOO nqyq, id est a fonte. pagos 10 enim uilla, pige fons. unde et pagani dicuntur quasi ex uno fonte potantes. b) [PF] Semipaganus semiuillanus id est non integre doctus. ego autem inter poetas et rusticos mediocris sum. pagus enim uilla uel fons, unde et pagani dicuntur uillani quasi ex uno fonte potantes. 8. a) [KQPNF cf. Solin. 52.43-45, Isid. 12.7.241 Psittacus auis solummodo in Indiae 15 partibus gignitur colore uiridi, torque puniceo, grandi lingua et ceteris auibus latiore, unde articulata uerba exprimit ita ut si earn non prospexeris hominem loqui putes. quae auis pro munere regibus offertur. ex natura autem salutat dicens xaips, id est aue. hinc est illud XaTps KaToap ~ V L K O S ,id est aue Caesar inuictissime. nam cetera nomina institutione, id est doctrina, discit. hinc est illud: ‘Psittacus a uobis aliorum 20 nomina disco; hoc didici per me dicere: Caesar aue’ (Mart. 14.73). b) [KQ] Cuius auis rostrum tantae duritiae est ut cum se praecipitat e sublimi in saxum, nisu oris sui se excipiat et quasi quodam utatur praesidio. caput uero tam ualens est ut si quando ad discendum sit admonitus plagis dum pullus est, ferrea clauicula sit uerberandus. nam studet ut loquatur id quod homines atque ideo intra 25 alterum annum aetatis quae monstrata sunt et citius discit et tenacius retinet. maior est paulo segnior et obliuiosus et indocilis. inter nobiles et plebeios discretionem facit numerus digitorum: qui meliores sunt, quinos digitos habent, ceteri uero ternos. c) [F] Hinc est illud kere caesar id est aue caesar inuictissime. sicut enim auis humana edit uerba non per naturam sed propter uentris egestatem, sic poetae non 30 omnes naturaliter sed propter salarium poetriae incumbunt. d) [Q] Signat aues nostra posse sonare dicta; uoces inquit quas natura negat fames attulit uentris. 9. [Vin] Venter. apologiam facit poeta. nam excusat se non inuidiose scripsisse, ut poeta appareret, sed causa uictus, ut salarium mereretur. nam salarium est uictus 35 unius diei. uoces. humanas. 11. a) “(interlinear)] Humanas uoces quas natura negauit fames et uenter attulit imitari. 3 musk consecratus QVat. Reg. 1560 : dicatur musk N : musk dicatus F 5 hederae sequaces hederae F 6 quoniam] quod N I nomen eorurn] poetae nomen F 9-10 pagos-fons om. N 9 pagos] pagosus KQ I apotu pige KQ 11 id est] uel F 12 enim om. P 14 solummodo om. PNF 15 et om. F 16 putes hominem loqui F 16-17 quae4ffertur om. PNF 17 salutat-aue] salutans et (et om. F) dicens aue uel chere, quae ( q p q quod F) pro munere offertur (effertur F) regibus PNF I ~ a ~ p pKQ e 17-18 hinc-inuictissime om PNF I K C L L ~ Zq o a p amroq KQ(arucoq) 19 discit] dixit F I disco] discit Q 21 e Kissel : in KQ 22 sui om. Q 24 clauicala K 25 aetatis annum Q I discit bis K

APPENDIX III

197

b) [O; cf 12d] Id est imitaris, scilicet humanas quas natura negauit fames et uenter attulit. unde et quidam-doctus erit. 12. a) [OKQN(interlinear)F] Dolosi, id est dolos ingerentis tam ei cui fraudatur quam illi qui fraudat; cuius specie decipiuntur homines. b) [O] Id est decipientis uel callidi, scilicet si spem habuerint ut nummum adquirant; 5 si putauerint poetae se pro poemate nummos accepturos, omnes poetizabunt. c) [KQPNF] Id est si spem habuerint ut nummum adquirant pro poemate, omnes poetizabunt. d) [KQ; cf. Eugen. Toled., Opusc. Praet VI, Contra crapularn 101 Vnde et quidam dicit: ‘Castiget uentrem, tunc homo doctus erit.’ 10 Sat. 1.1. a) [WKQPNF] Videns Persius multos libidinari in scribendo ad hoc tantum, ut fauorem populi adquirerent, reprehendendo cum increpatione inchoat ex abrupto. nam ante philosophiae studuerat apud Bassum quidem primo, deinde apud Cornutum. b) [KQPNF] Genus hominum plenum est curis et sollicitudinibus, dum magna student de quibus cupiunt laudari. c) [KQPNF] Multi sic exponunt, ut o curas horninurn hyronicos esse dictum hominum cogitationes. alii dicunt cum admiratione dictum. d) [KQPNF] 0 curas horninurn quorum sollicitudo usque in diuinarum rerum tractatum uolunt peruenire, qui etiam de diuinis rebus tractare uoluerunt. +1.1(2) e) [KQPNJ 0 curas suspense legendum. declamationem omnium hominum ponit; et tractus est iste uersus de Lucilio. cura dicitur eo quod cor urat. quantum inane, id est quantum inanitatis habet et uanitatis. < inane autem> uacuum et ratione carens. inane 8oov 76 K W ~ Vgraece dicitur. uocat autem hoc coelum inane et hunc aerem, quod utique uacuum est a rebus. f) [Q] Interrogatiue proloquitur, et arguit semet ipsum quod relinquit . . . (1[ 11). g) [PF] uacuum dictum est caelum aer quod utique uacuum est a rebus. 2. a) [KQ] Scilicet quae scripsi cum magno labore. b) [KQ] Quae ergo utilitas est scribendi ea quae nullus leget? quid enim inanius et quid inutilius quam si nemo hoc in quo labor0 legerit? c) [KQ] Rursus Persius repetit interrogando, si carmina eius uel duo uel tres lecturi sint.

3-4 Dolosi-fraudat KQ : procliui ad facinus ONF 3 id est om. K 7 Id est om. PN : uel F I habuerint poetae PNF I adquirant nummum F 8 poetizabant K 13 fauorem] fauorem quia laudem W I increpatione] indignatione WPNF 14 apud*-Comutum om. PNF I quidem om. W 15 humanum PF 17 exponunt] cupiunt exponi F I hyronicos-hominum om. F I esse dictum] dictum sit PN : dicant KviC. 18 alii4ictuml alii uero cum admiratione dicunt dictum PNF 19 quorum om. K : quasi P I in] ad PN 20 uolunt] uoluit N I etiam de diuinis] de diuinis etiam F I uoluerunt] uoluerunt et exponunt quantum est in ipsis inquit tractationibus inane ridendum PNF 21 ponit hominum Q 21-23 et tractus-uanitatis om. P 22 id est om. K 22-24 id est-aerem om. N 23 habet-uanitatis om. K I uacuum om. KQ 24 OCONTO KHNHN KQ; cf 1.1(5) 24-25 graece-rebus om. P 25 uacuatum N 27 utique P : eham F 28 Scilicet om. Q 29 est om. Q 30 legerit] legens K 32 sint] sunt Q

15

20

25

30

198

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

3. [KQ] Quoniam potest contingere ut aliqui legant licet pauci uel rari haec quae nimio labore composui. 4. a) [KQPN] Labeo poeta Latinus fuit, ut Fulgentius in libro aethimologiarum ait, qui carmen et opus Homeri conuertit in Latinum et placuit non minus auditoribus quam lectoribus de quibus scribebat; id est Polidamanti et mulieribus Troianis. b) [O] Quemcumque poetam alloquitur; ne quaerat fauorem populi. c) [KQ] Si ergo, inquit, mea carmina non sunt legenda neque Labeonis carmina meis praeferantur. cuius carminibus mea multo sunt praestantiora. ille enim carmen alienum in Latinum transtulit, ego de moribus et propria curo. d) [PN] Ego autem meliora compono carmina quam Labeo, quia ille carmen taticumt transtulit, ego de moribus et propria cudo. 7.[KQPNF] Si quis te laudauerit extra te ipsum, non eleues, id est nemini credideris in laude nisi tibi, et ne dicas te esse quod non es, uel ne quaeras laudem populi. tale est illud yv60t O E ~ V T ~ Vid,est scito te ipsum. 8. a) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear)] Cum consider0 grauitatem priorum et lasciuiam praesentium uirorum, est fas dicere seueritatem qui utique seuerissimi fuerunt et utilitatis amatores et ad morem praesentium et ad grauitatem priorum. item fas est dicere Romae sapientes et fatuos fuisse. b) [QPN(interlinear)] Nam Roma multarum gentium populos habet. c) [O] Cum aspicio seueritatem ueterum et nostram miserabilem uitam, fas est mihi haec dicere. d) [O] Laudat seueritatem ueterum et exprobrat uitia moderni temporis. 10. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. BUC. 8.301 Nucum ludis delectantur pueri, cum turpibus et obscenis actibus uacant; cum uero adulti fuerint et in robur uirile uenerint, postponunt illa turpia sectando meliora. b) [OPNF] Ac nucibus: pueri meritorii id est catamiti quibus licenter utebantur antiqui recedentes a turpi seruitio nuces spargebant ut significarent se puerilia cuncta spernere et in robur uirile uenire. 11. [KQ] Cum aliquid habemus ex moribus patruorum, qui cum seueritate nepotes nutriunt; si quidem antiquae consuetudinis . . . + 1.1 l(7-8). There is a largely illegible extra note in Wfollowing l.ll(3):id est . . . -unt contra . . . scribere . . . illorum indicium qui scribunt. 12. [KQ] Responsum petulantis atque lasciui poetae uel potius Persii: talis sum . . . +

1.12(8-9).

3 ut-ait om. PN I libri K 4 latinum sermonem PN I minus] magis QPN 5 de quibus-troianis om. KQ; Q ad 1.4(7) pergif 10 quia] quod N 12 non] ne Q I credideris] credas PN 13 nisi tibi K : et non constituas in aliorum iudicio PN : et ne statuas te in aliorum iudicio F : om. Q 13-14 et ne dicas-te ipsum om. PF I tale-te ipsum om. N 14 RJOe1CCHhOyeON K : rHBICCHhOyBON Q 16-18 est fasfuisse om. PN 17 utilitas K I morem] amorem KQ I praesentium (pesentium K)post priorum KQ 18 et fatuos fuisse] esse et fatuos Q 19 romam Q I gentium om. P I populos om. Q I habent Q 23 ludis] laudis Q 25 proponunt K I illa om. Q 26 Ac nucibus om. ONF I catamimi PN I libentur 0 27 seruitio id est ludo pueritiae 0 I spargebat nuces 0 28 et-uenire om. 0 30 nutrierunt K 33 Persius K

APPENDIX I11

199

13. [Q] Mod0 incipit poeta stultos carpere. Hoc per yroniam. 14. [WKQPNF] Ferunt physici quod ex pulmone flatus concipitur ita ut recipiat pulmo flatum, ueluti follis aerem recipit et reddit. inflantur superbi et uidelicet cum laudari coeperint; nihil enim iuuat scribere, nisi laudetur a populo. 15. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 19.24.31 Toga dicta sic quod operimento corpus tegat et 5 cooperiat; est enim Romanum pallium. b) [PI Populo ablatiuus est et cum naso . . . 1.15(2) . . . stultus est. 16. a) [WOKQ] Natalicia gemma est quam patronus filiolo suo in die natalis sui donat; quam illi poetae in digito suo gestabant, ut inde magis stulti mirarentur eos non solum in carminibus sed in habitu recognoscantur inter ceteros. ambiguitas est in 10 natalicia. . . +1.16(9). b) [KQ; cf. Isid. 16.841 Surdonix lapis est pretiosus compositus ex sardio, id est comiola, et onyce. nascitur in Arabia. c) [WOPNF] Surdonix est gemma pretiosa dicta a sardio et onice quod utriusque habeat colorem quam in anulis suis Romani ferre solebant. et est nigra, candida et 15 rubra. d) [WKQP(interlinear)N(interlinear); cf. Gloss. Vet., Remig.] Albus scilicet ueste candida, nondum purpureum adeptus uestimentum, quod laticlauium dicitur. e) [KQ] Et est sensus: necdum cum lato clauo, id est purpurea toga, quae laticlauium uel lataclauia dicuntur, sed cum pura toga, id est alba. 20 17. a) [KQPN] Plasma-sauciatae (1.17(9)). dicitur autem funascus a graeco, quod est fone, id est uox. poetae enim recitantes propter crebram recitationem perfundebant guttura quodam medicamine, quod funascus uocatur. b) [KQ] Id est humore ex medicamine quo arteriae leuigantur. 18. a) [KQ; cf. Joannes Scotus Erigena PL 122.130D (Expos. super Zerarchiam 25 Caelestem S. Dionysii, c. l)] Effectum libidinis ostendit; patrare est libidinari. inde secundum quosdam pater a patrando dicitur, sed melius quasi & m a q p 6 v , id est omnia seruans. b) [WKQF; cf. Remig., Serv. Buc. 3.8.1 Nimia luxuria facit oculos prauos et distortos. hinc Virgilius: ‘transuersa tuentibus hircis’ (Buc. 3,8). 30 20. a) [KQ; cf. 1.20(2)] Titus Tatius rex fuit Romanorum, a quo uocantur Romani Titi. uel titos dicit scolasticos . . . 1.20(13). nam titi columbae sunt agrestes, quibus rustici designantur homines.

2 concipitur KQ : accipitur et emittitur (remittitur F) in modum follis PNF : accipitur et emittitur in modum follis. anhelet, id est . . . [non liquef] leuet, cum laudari a populo coeperunt W 2-4 ita ut--populo om. WPNF 5 sic] est Q 8 Natalicia om. W I filiolo] folio WO 9-1 1 qua-natalicia.. .. om. WO 9 suo om. Q I gestant Q I mirentur Q 14 est om. PNF 15 colorem habeat OF I quam] quos F I anulis] manibus F 1516 et est-rubra om. PNF 16 rubra] rara 0 17 Albus scilicet om. PN I scilicet om. W 18 necdum W I dicitur] dicitur latine W 19 cum lato] conlato KQ 21 dicitur-funascus] fonascus dicitur PN funasgus Q 22 uox] uox inde enim uox purgatur PN 22-23 poetae-uocatur om. PN 26 ostendit] exprimit Q 27-28 xchvtu rqp6v] nm-eaxip K : xuv6uxtp Q 29’prauos Remig. : paruos WQF : patruos K 29-30 hinc-hircis om. F 30 trans uersis K

200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [KQ] Cum penetrant carmina recitantium interiora audientium. c) [WOKQPN] Carmen mali poetae qui ad hoc recitabat ut fauorem populi caperet; neminem carpebat, sed ad libidinem potius prouocabat. d) [KQ] Signat seuero carmine pauere Romanos, quod etiam interiora eorum penetraret; nam satirici nulli parcebant. 21. [PN(interlinear)] Ypallage est tremulum quasi pronuntiatione agitans. 22. a) [KQ] Cum senio conflictae poeta alloquitur quendam poetam uetulum, qui cum esset senex, laudari cupiebat. sensus est: parum miror, si iuuenes cupiunt laudari, quibus ad hoc feruet sanguis. sed nimium ex uetulo miror, quia gaudet laudibus. b) [KQ] 0 uetule, requiris escas, fauores ab alienis auriculis, id est parasitis. parasiti fautores uocabantur, quod uidelicet a populo cibarentur. para enim Graece praepositio significatur, sitos uero frumentum dicitur. unde et sitharchium uas cibariis aptum. dicitur parasitus quasi apud me cibatus uel apud me frumentatus. c) [WOF] Tun uetule: De iuuenibus inquit non miror si laudem ipsi requirant, sed tu ne o uetule colligis escas delectationis et fauoris ab alienis auribus, id est parasitis, et cunctis talibus quibus postea insultabis ne ipsum et dices: ohe. perditus ohe id est uerecundatus quod huiuscemodi secreta tua manifestaueris, scilicet uerecundantes commutare solent cutem de pallore in ruborem. d) [WOF; cf. 1.22(9-lo)] Scribis enim quod < non> te delectat, sed ut plaudatur tibi a pueris euiratis; ideo laboras, palles, otia tibi denegas. 23. a) [WF] Aut auriculas alienas pascis aut auriculis alienis pasceris. b) [W] Vel spurcissimis quibus postea insultabis. c) [KQ] Perditus cute, id est rubor uultus tui honestate esse perditum qui mala carmina recitas. d) [PN; cf. Juv. 7.631 Vox exultantis, unde Iuuenalis ‘satur est cum dicit Horatius hoe’; ohe interiectio . . . 1.23(4) . . . percontantis. 24. a) [Q] Id est laus humana. quare didici nisi ut inde accipiam fauorem? b) [WOKQF] Sicut fermentum-pectus (1.24(3)), nec potes te continere nisi ipsum diuulges. c) [F] Cuprificus herba est cuius radices tantae uirtutis sunt ut etiam sepulchra mortuorum penetrent, per quam uult intellegi luxuriam et auiditatem legendi carmina. et bene caprifico carmina eius conparat, quae cum exierit nullurn fructum profert sicut nec eius carmina. d) [F] Vox mali poetae respondentis: quid scilicet profuit didicisse nisi ex his quae didicit laudem captat et remunerationem? 26. a) [K] In senibus est grauitas, quibus deest sanguis.

2 Carmen autem WO I qui ] quia 0 : om. K I recitabit K 3 carpebat om. 0 I potius om. PN I prouocabat] prouocabat et hinc iuuenalis. . . 1.21(3) 0 7 Cum-conflictae] tun senio conflictate KviE. 11 fauoribus Q 12 uocabuntur K 13 sitarchium Q 15-17 Tun-talibus om. WO 17 ne ipsum O J ~0. 17-19 perditus-ruborem om. WO 20 enim F : tu WO I quod non] non quod WO : quod F I delectant WO 24 rubor om. Q I esse perditum K : perditus Q I male K 27 ohe] hohe N

APPENDIX I11

20 1

b) [KQF] Ad hoc, inquit, palluisti diu meditando, ut laudem consequereris. c) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear)] Id est, usque in tantum nihil credis te scire, nisi omnes sapiant, ut inde lauderis? in tantum est . . . 1.26(6). 28. [WOKQ] Magna, inquit, gloria est dum aliquis monstratur digito praetereuntium. 29. a) [KQ] Sensus hic est: numquid pro nihilo duces te fuisse dictata centum cirratorum, id est quod centum cirrati de te loquebantur? certe multum laetari debes, quia maxima gloria est laudari a centum cirratis, id est scolasticis. apud antiquos . . . 1.29(5) . . . aetatem et ab ipsis crinibus cirrati dicebantur; cirri enim dicuntur capilli. uel etiam cirratis cinaedis, quia omnes cinaedi cirrati erant. nam cinaedi sunt pueri ueterum, qui habebant cirros, id est crines, in honorem Veneris sacratos, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni deae Veneris consecrabant. constat autem dictasse multum cinaedos. occulte uero carpit . . . 1.29(11). b) [F] Cirrati enim erant pueri cinaedi qui et catamiti uocabantur, qui cirros id est crines nutriebant in capite quos Veneri dicabant eosque statuto tempore deponentes igne Veneris incendebant. de hoc dicit poeta: an pro nihilo ducas fuisse te dictata centum cirratorum, quasi dixisset: cur non debes tu laetari? maxima gloria est laudari a centum cirratis. c) [W] Numquid pro nihilo ducas quod centum cirrati de te dictarent . . . d) [WOPN] Cirrati sunt scolastici uel catamiti; cirri enim dicuntur capilli, et illi crines habebant in honorem Veneris, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni deae uniuersi consecrabant. 30. [Q; cf. 1.30(2)] Carmina, inquid, ipsa quae uix a ieiunis possent discerni; de his expetitur iudicium ab ebriosis et uinolentis. 31. a) [ KQ; cf. Isid. 5.161 Satira a saturitate dicta, quasi diuitiarum dea. b) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear); cf. Serv. Aen. 11.6571 Sancta, diuina. proprie autem dia dicitur generosa uel eugenes, sicut dia Camilla. 32. [WOKQ] Diues, inquit, ebrius suscipit carmen mali poetae et legit et sic ab auditoribus laudatur non propter poetam sed propter personam diuitis recitantis, nec ex uirtute poematis felicem dicunt esse poetam, sed ex eo quod ab ill0 diuite recitatum est. 34. a) [KQPNVin; cf. Serv. Buc. 5.10, Myth. Vat. 1.159, 2.2141 Phyllis regina Tracum fuit. haec Demophontem Thesei filium regem Atheniensium redeuntem de Troiano proelio dilexit et in coniugium suum rogauit. ille autem ait ante se ordinaturum rem suam et sic ad eius nuptias reuersurum. profectus itaque cum tardaret, Phyllis putans

1 diu palluisti F 1 consequaris F 2 Id est om. PN 3 in tantum est . . . om. PN 4 praetereuntium sicut demostenes, qui cum . . . 1.28(2) WO 6 loquebar Q I multum om. Q 7 a centum laudari cirratis Q 8 ipsis] illis K 9 cirrati] cirrete K 10 sacratos] consecratos Q I quos] quo Q 20 uniuersi] ueneris WO 21 consecrabant uel cirrati dicuntur cinaedi id est pueri ueterum W 25 Sancta diuina om. KQP 26 sicutCamilla om. PN 27 mali om. 0 I mali-legit om. WO 28 laudatur] recipitur et laudatur 0 I personam diuitis] diuitem WO 28-30 recitantis-recitatum est om. WO 31-202.1 Phyllis-suspendit om. Vin 31-32 fuit tracum Q 32 demephontem Q : demophoontem PN 32-33 troiano proelio] traiano prae ac Q 34-202.1 putans-uicta] amoris impatientia quod (quo N) se spretam credebat PN

5

10

15

20

25

30

202

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

se esse spretam impatientia amoris et impulsu doloris uicta se suspendit et conuersa est in arborem amygdalum sine foliis. postea reuersus Demophoon cognita re amplexus est eius truncum, qui uelut sponsi aduentum sentiret, folia emisit. unde et postea phylla dicta sunt Graece folia amygdali, quae antea petala dicebantur. b) [WO; cf. 34a.31-202.21 Phillis regina Tracum fuit, quae ob amorem Demofontis . . . suspensa uersa est in amigalum. c) [WOKQ] Hipsipila fuit uxor Bellerophontis, qui cum bello Thebano ab hostibus captus fuisset, uxor sua se tradidit pro eo et sua morte redemit eum. 35. [WOKQ] Opizat: opizare enim uerba minuere, unde et diminutores literarum opizizi dicuntur. 37. [KQ] Cippi dicuntur lapides qui sunt indices sepulturae uel sepulchrorum, uel stipes qui ponebantur super sepulcra mortuorum. 39. [KQ] Quia ponebantur antiquitus flores super sepulchrum poetae ad gloriam manifestandam uel quia in sepulchra eorum . . . 1.39( 1). 40. [KQ] Bene dixit uncis . . . 1.40(3) . . . contrahimus. uncis naribus uero sumus, cum reprehendimus aliquem; curuamus etenim nares subsannando aliquem. 41. [KQ] Dicit ergo: an erit aliquis qui fauorem populi non uelit et locutus carmina digna cedro, carmina dico non metuentia tus neque scombros, uelit ipsa nihili pendere, id est relinquere sine laude, ut ita sint uilia atque despecta ut in ea religentur tus et scombri? 42. [KQ] Carmina digna cedro dicit, quia libri philosophorum et poetarum uel etiam cartae antiquorum cedria, hoc est succo cedri, aspergebantur propter tineas ut perpetuo durarent. 43. a) [KQ] Sunt autem scombri Pisces, de quibus fiunt muria, id est salsamenta. facit autem hoc murium et haec muria. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Geo. 1.571 Tura a tundendo dicta esse uoluerunt, a glebis tunsis, cum quibus dicitur fluens de arboribus coalescere. 46. a) [KQ] Dicit autem hoc Persius uerecunde, quia sicut raro euenit ut coruus sit albus et cignus niger, sic ipse raro scribere se commode et utiliter dicit. b) [WO(interlinear)] Si quando sit cignus niger et albus coruus secundum Remigium. c) [WO] Prouerbium antiquum: raram auem dicit uel bonum poetam uel uerum iudicem, et sine assensione aurium . . . +1.45(4-6) d) [PI Item fenix auis arabica, dicta quod feniceum colorem habet uel quia singular< . ..> in toto orbe. arabica namque lingua fenix singularis dicitur.

1 se suspendit] laqueo se suspendit Q : laqueo uitam finiuit PN 2 amicdalum K I postea om. Vin I demophon Vin I re] eius ne Q : ea Vin 3 eius om. Vin I aduentum sentiret] aduentum sentiens Vin : sentiret aduentum QPN 3-4 unde-dicebantur om. Vin 3 et] etiam PN 4 phylla] phyllida KQ : folia PN I graece-amygdali] a phillide PN : amicdali K I quae] nam PN 7 Hipsiphilas K : isiphilis W : ypsiphilis 0 I uxor bellerophontis fuit W I bellorophontis KQ I tebano K 8 uxor sua] illa W O 9 Opizat] opizzat W : opizizat imminuit uel interloquitur 0 I opizare] opizizare WO I enim] est WOQ 9-10 unde-dicuntur om. KQ 11 ueP] seu Q 12 stippes K 18 neque] nec Q 19 in ea] mea K 2 I dicit digna cedro Q 28 autem] aut K 30 sit] scit W 31 uell om. W

APPENDIX I11

203

47. a) [KQ] d e q u e enim mihi cornea fibra est> sed humana, ut laudem possim appetere; non enim habeo lapideum cor, sed carneum. b) [WO] Non lapideum mihi est sed humanum pectus. 50. [O(interlinear)] Atheniensis Labeonis qui casus Iliae describit. 52. a) [KQ] Apud antiquos citreis tabulis spondae fiebant quas et cera incerabant . . . 5 1.52(3) . . .ueniret per noctumum tempus statim . . . 1.52(3) . . . periret. dicit ergo quia non sunt talia qualia illa, quae super lectulos a diuitibus ebriis fiebant. b) [PN] Senatorum quidam habebant spondas citreas cera inlitas in quibus scribebant carmina quae nocte cogitabant ne uis ingenii periret. c) [BVin post 1.52(8); cf. Isid. 20.11.31 Belle igitur et euge contigisse saepe 10 locupletibus dicit, crudis et super lectulos citreos discumbentibus. unde dicit tuum euge et belle recuso, id est carmina quae interim componis, dum tibi dicitur euge. sponda autem exterior pars lecti, pluteus interior. 53. a) [KQ] Persius inutili poetae dicit: uentrem imples laudatoris, id est mercede laudatores conducere < scis> . 15 b) [Q; cf. 1.53(2)]Nosti dare cibum adulatori ut laudet tuum carmen. c) [Q; cf. Nonius 458.2M.13 Sumen a sumendo dictum; nam et mulieris mammam ueteres sumen dicebant. d) [O] Pars uentris ubi mamillae fiunt et dictum a sugendo. 54. [BVin post 1.54(4);cf. Isid. 19.24.131 Lacerna pallium fimbriatum, quo olim soli 20 milites uelabantur. penula autem est pallium cum fimbris longis. 56. a) [KQ] Cum tu . . . 1.56(3) . . . crassitudine possis acutum habere ingenium et scribendis carminibus operam dare? b) [KQ] Aqualiculus dicitur ut ttestimoniumt quod iuxta uentriculum est. c) [BVin post stulti 1.56(6)] 0 Zane a tergo: Ianus dicitur bifrons esse, qui nec potent 25 derideri, nec ei a tergo sanna fieri; per quem uult quemuis sapientem intelligi. d) [W] Ianus est sapiens qui duas habet facies nec poterit derideri nec ei a tergo fieri sanna. e) [O] Ianus est bifrons, per quem intellegitur quis sapiens qui non potest reprehendi. f) [Q] Adulatoribus suis imperat uera dicere de se. 30 57-63. [KQ: marginal title; cf. p. 1211Parentesis. 58. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 1.1791 Pinso pinsas uerbum, unde et pinsores dicebantur a pinsando, unde et pistores uocantur, quia olim non molis sed pilis agebant et molebant. hinc pistrillum dicitur. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 7.607, Isid. 5.55.3, 8.11.371 Signat autem istum poetam per 35 comparationes non facile ab aliquo posse derideri, utpote praecedentia et posteriora respicientem. Ianus enim dicebatur deus bifrons propter ingressum et exitum anni. Ianus bifrons et quadrifrons pingitur.

5 incerabant] linibant Q 7 fiebant] fiunt Q 10 loc. contigisse saepe B 11 discumbentibus] discumbentes faciant mala carmina B 14 laudatoriis KQ 24 ut] in Q 25 esse bifrons B 33 agebant] aiebant KQ 34 pistillum Q 36 posse ab aliquo facile Q

204

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

c) [PN] Per Ianum intellege bonum poetam, qui a nullo potest facile derideri, qui uidet ante et retro sicuti Ianus qui dicitur esse bifrons. Per ciconiam reprehensiones malos signamus. d) [KQ] Enimuero allegoricos signat bonum poetam, nullum ei inrogare posse conuicium uel iocum; qui aequaliter principium medium finemque sui carminis sine reprehensione componit. e) [KQ] Nullus carmen tuum ita derisum habuit, sicut Mida rex derisus est propter auriculas asininas. f) [O]Carmen tuum non est ita deridendum ut Mida rex propter aures asininas. 60. a) [KQ] Est autem Apulia regio aestuosa, cuius loci homines atque pecudes frequenter linguam extra 0s prae nimia siti proferunt. sic etiam irridentes solent proferre foras linguam. b) [PN] In Apulia enim pecudes frequenter solent extra 0s linguam pro siti eicere; similiter imdentes solent facere. c) [O] Ridentes autem linguam solent foras protrahere. 61. a) [KQ] Mod0 exprimit quod dixerat de Iano: o Romani nobiles, o Ianus patriciorum, qui nobiles estis, qui a tergo uidere non potestis, quorum uita exemplum debet esse posteris suis, uidete ne derideamini. b) [W] Vos qui non sentitis a tergo uos derideri, et qui non estis Iani, date operam ut irrideamini. c) [PN(interlinear); cf. 1.61(4)] Qui non sentitis uos a tergo derideri, subuenite irrisioni ne derideamini. 62. a) [KQ] Sannam dicit, quia irridentes faciunt sannas, id est subsannationes. antiqui enim dicebant sannam facis quod nunc subsannationes dicimus. b) [KQPN] Posticam dicunt quidam Persium non bene fecisse quod penultimam produxit. Antiqui fores . . . 1.62(3) . . . hinc tractum hoc est. c) [O] Posticam proprium est ostium iuxta portam; ponitur pro posteriore parte capitis. d) [Q] Oportet qui laudamini a fautoribus occurrite posticae sannae, id est posteriorum iram uidete. in praesenti laudamini a uestris adulatoribus sed dum absentes estis ab istis deturpamini. 63. a) [KQ] Talia itaque carmina facis, ut possint ad unguem probari ueluti marmor, quae mollitie . . . 1.63(3) . . . formidant. b) [KQ] Sermo est de te, carmina leni structura procedere, quod gratum est omnibus. c)[KQ] Sic facis carmen perleue et inreprehensibile ut eiciat iunctura seueros ungues, id est seueros exploratores. et est tractus sermo per metaphoram a marmorariis, qui

1 inteilige N 4 posse om. Q 5 conuicium] conuiuium K 10 Est-regio] apulia est regio Q 13 linguam om. P 16 exprimit] exponit Q I ianus] genus Q 25 Posticam] posticae P I Persium om. PN 26 produxit Persius PN I antiqui-hoc est om PN 30 posteriorum iram incerturn 32 Talia] aha KQ I unguem] anguem Q

APPENDIX III

205

unguibus iuncturas mannorum explorant in pauimento. sic autem conueniunt sibi carmina quemadmodum iuncturae marmorum in pauimento. d) [Q] . . . 63(1) . . . uerum mihi dicite de me. Vel Persius ironice. e) [W(interlinear)O] Parentesis est huc usque: poeta uanus uel diues interrogat. 64. [PN(interlinear)] (per leue): quasi per planum exploratores cum in iudicium 5 currunt. 66. a) [KQ] Rubrica linea carpentariorum a rubro colore dicta quo tinguitur. b) [Q] Quia qui rectum intendit uno oculo clausa limitem respicit. 70. [KQ] Ironicos: qui nescis minimum ponere et uis magna carmina fabricare. 73. a) [Q] Sunt multi qui nobilia carmina uolunt imitari et ipsi uilia componunt. 10 b) [KQ] Dictare dicimus imperare; hinc dictator imperator. unde in euangelio: ‘Exit edictum,’ id est generale praeceptum. 76. [KQ; aliud-incipit as title in Q] Aliud thema incipit: est nunc quem uenosus liber Brisei Atti moretur. 79. [KQ] Cum uideas malos patres et stultos, cur quaeris unde uenerit haec corruptio 15 loquendi? 81. [KQ] Tale, inquit, carmen componis tu, o poeta, unde ipsi equites, id est plebei et uulgares, tibi insultent. 85. [KQPN] Antitheta dicuntur contrariae ut illud: semper egentes, multos autem locupletantes. item antitheta sunt illa quae . . . 1.85(6) . . . illinc stuprum. 20 87. [KQ] Ceuere est proprie agitare clunes. hic autem ponitur pro uituperare. 88. a) [KQ; cf 1.88(3)] Haec . . . 1.88(2) . . . cantant. dicit autem: numquid si naufragus cantet, assem ei protulerim, id est si sola cantilena me ad misericordiam flectere uoluerit, ut ei dem assem, id est nummum uel aliquid tale, et non potius ostenderit mihi miseriam suae calamitatis? non utique sic et poeta non meretur a me 25 laudem qui figuris uersuum studeat neglecta carminis materia. b) [WO] . . . 1.88(3) . . . quia naufragi solebant depingere anxietates suas et miserias in tabulis. 94. a) [KQPN] Nerea delphin: Orionem dicit citharoedum qui dum captus esset a piratis et uellent eum mittere in mare, impetrauit ut cithara caneret. uenientes autem 30 delphines proiecit se in mare et susceptus est ab illis ad litus usque deductus. b) [O] Arionem dicit citharoedum. nota fabula apud Virgilium. 95. [KQ] Quasi dixisset: sic nouimus obseruare, ne longus sit uersus, ut contra consuetudinem ceterorum in heroic0 uersu quinto loco ponamus spondeum, quia si dactilum posuissemus, ad instar Appennini montis quasi longus existeret uersus. et 35 dicit Persius hoc ex persona maledictantis, qui cum reprehenditur quare posuerit quinto loco spondeum, dicit breuitatis causa se hoc sponte fecisse, cum potius hoc ignoranter fecisset. 4 poeta-interrogat o m W 5-6 iudicium currunt] iudi N 13 uenosus] uenos K 19 contrariae figurae N 21 uitupere K 23 ad misericordiam] ad nudam K 25 meretur] moretur KQ 29 Nerea delphin om. PN I orionem] orientem PN I citharoedum om. PN I esset] est N 30 cithara] citaram N 31 est om. PN I deductus] perductus est PN 32 uigilium 0 33 ut] sin K 34 ceterorum] ueretorum K 36 maledictantis] maledictum sapientis K

206

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

96. [KQ] Ab insipiente poeta reprehenditur Virgilius, quasi non bonos composuerit uersus sed asperos. 99. a) [KQ] Isti quatuor uersus sunt absque sensu et sunt causa exempli positi a Persio, uel ab ips0 uel a quolibet indocto poeta compositi. b) [WOKQ; cf. 1.99(5-7)] Illirici cum dimicarent cum Macedonibus et iam plurimam partem exercitus amisissent, mulieres suas coturnis omauerunt in modum bacchantium; sicque illi credentes exercitum aduentare fugerunt. hinc Illirici mimallones sunt dicti apo tu mesto, id est ab imitatione, quod imitarentur furorem Liberi patris. Mimallo ipse est Bacchus. cornua uero appellat initia carminis sui, id est ita resonant capita suorum carminum uel uersuum, alienis compta dictis, sicut resonant carmina more Bacchi composita. 102. a) [Q; cf. 1.102(3)] Et euhion ingeminaf. Eu uox dolentis, hion filius. incompositum est nomen euhion. b) [Q; cf. 1.101(4-5)]Dictum autem bassaris uestis et uulpes bassares dictae sunt. 104. [K] Yronice uel ex persona indocti poetae. 106. a) [KQ] Pluteum scamnum dicit, quamquam et plancae hoc nomine dicantur. non, inquit, malus poeta caedit, id est percutit scamnum sicut faciunt meditantes, nec mordet ungues suos sicut cogitantes. b) [KQ] Ac per hoc in suis carminibus plurimum inreprehensibilis appareret. c) [BVin; cf. Isid. 20.11.31 Lecticae siue plutei lecti. sponda est exterior pars lecti, pluteus interior. 107. [KQP] Satira dicit reprehendens Persium, apud quem ut supra dictum est inductis personis locutus est. uera sunt, inquit, o Persi, quae dicis; sed minime est opus, id est non oportet, laedere teneras aures diuitum. bene dicit mordaci: ueritas enim mordet et odium creat. bene mordaci uero . . . 1.107(4) . . . et odium parit. unde Terentius: ‘obsequium amicos ueritas odium parit’ (Andria 68). 108. [KQ] Id est, ne repellaris a domibus nobilium absens quis a limine frigescit ipsum limen praesens uero calescit. 109. [KQ] Sicut aliquis uolens intrare in domum arcetur a canibus, ita tu repelleris a domibus diuitum quos carpis. 112. a) [KQVin] Oletum dicit locum putidum in quo solebant pueri mingere. ubi dum tabernarii stationem ponebant, pingebant duos angues, ut pueros per hoc terrerent ne ibi accederent. per quod designat satyram. quomodo, inquit, pueri si uiderint pictos dracones, sacrum locum aestimantes fugiunt, ita ego, si dixeris quae oporteat uitia non reprehendi, de illis silebo.

6 amiserant WO I coturnis] cum coturnis et tirsis WO 7 fugiebant W 7-1 1 binc-composita om. WO 8 mamillones Q 10 carminum uel om. Q 17 nec] non Q 18 suos--cogitantes] ut meditantes Q 19 Ac] hac KQ 20 est] aut B 24-25 bene-parit om. Q 24-26 bene-Terentius om. P 26 amicus K I parit] creat P 29 Sicut] si KQ I aliquis] quis Q I in om. Q 31 dicit om. Vin I solent Vin I ubi] ibi Q 31-33 ubiaccederent om. Vin 33 satyram quomodo] sacrum quoniam Vin I uideant Vin 34 fugiunt] fugium K 3435 fugiunt-silebo] mingere illic cessabunt. ita uolo, ut nullus poeta faciant oletum, id est, satyram, apud me Vin

APPENDIX I11

207

b) [KQ] Persius respondit, id est si uis potentes a me non reprehendi, dic quae uitia non carpam et cessabo, sicut pueris monstratur locus ubi non debent mingere. 114. [PN] Reprehendit Lucilius et scripsit mores et uitia Romanorum et non solum carpsit sed etiam alios necauit et uulnerauit. et fregit genuinum illorum et hoc nil ei nocuit. 119. [KQ] Persius conquerens aliis licuisse quod non sibi. 120. [KQ] Pro Mida rege posuit, sed a Cornuto iste uersus ita translatus est. nam Persius sic dixerat: auriculas asini Mida rex habet. 121. [W] Numquid tantae obiectionis ac uilitatis habes carmen meum, o lector, ut nec alicuius Iliade aeqiperes, illud scilicet uel Neronis uel Labeonis. hi enim Iliades scripserunt. 123. [KQ] Quicumque inflaris perlecto Cratino audaci et iratum legisti Eupolidem et palles recitando senem praegrandem Aristophanem, lege et haec, uel tibi mouendo istud meum nil, id est non commuto pro his quibus inflaris. 127. a) [KQ] Crepidue proprie sunt calciamenta uetusta Graiorum poetarum quibus utuntur, uel saxa constructa ad sedendum, unde: crepidasque situ marcidas. b) [O] Crepidus dicuntur calciamenta philosophorum uel sedes doctorum uel saxa constructa ad sedendum. c) [TBVin] Crepidis Graeci a se repertis usi sunt. est autem genus calciamenti singulari forma, et idem utrique pedi aptum, uel dextro uel sinistro. crepidas autem dictas, quod cum sono stringantur: siue a pedum crepitu in ambulando. cothurni sunt, quibus calciabantur tragoedi, qui in theatro dicturi erant. 129. [W] Superbus, erectus. hoc dicit de Nerone qui inuehitur contra tragoediographos. 130. [W] Emina est mensura continens dimidium sextarii, aedilis dicebatur qui praeerat curis aedium. 131. [KQ(interlinear)] Mensa uel etiam lignum geometrorum, id est tabula in mensa geometricali. abacus.. . 1.131(3-5). 132. [PI Sicinici dicuntur poetae a communi uita.

5

10

15

20

25

Sat. 2.1 a) [O] In hac satira alloquitur Macrinum amicum diuitem et potentem. 30 b) [WO] Veteres singulos annos et dies uitae suae lapillis numerabant, et bonos quidem candidis, malos uero nigris, ut uidelicet scirent quot dies in anno letos uiderant et eos . . . 2.1(3) . . . testificabantur. uixit annos tot; quod Cretenses maxime faciebant. 3. a) [WO] Multa creduntur diis non ita ut homines audiant propter turpitudinem. 35 b) [O] Genius dicitur qui cum homine nascitur.

2 sicut-mingere om. Q 4 alios] aliquos N I nihil N 7 isto K 13 mouendo] non uendo Kvic'. 19 Crepidas . . . repertas TB I a se] ante TB I usi] uisi B I autem] aut B 20 forma singulari TB 1 utroque B I uell-sinistro om. Vin I uell om. T I autem] ideo T 21 crepita T 21-22 cothurni . . . tragoedi] coturnus tragei om. T 27 Mensa'] mensam K usi sunt T 22 qui-rant

208

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

c) [0]Emax dicitur qui multa emit. 5. [WO] u i c e r r o ab urbe Campaniae; uas turarium uel arca uel patera in qua libabatur + 5(7). 8. a) [KQ] M.b . 5 : ista tacite diues homo rogat deos. b) [KQ] Non tacite, inquit, rogat deos nisi super his quae non possit impetrare a diis, utpote interfectionem alicuius uel tale aliquid. nam cetera aperte rogat ut bonam spem et similia. 11. [KQPN] Seria quando est fixum significat ollam; quando uero mobile et facitserius, seria, serium significat honestum uel utile; et dicimus serium aliquando ponderatum honeratum. 12. [O]Ego qui hereditatem debeo habere, si filius defuerit. 14. [K] pro conducitur adquiritur uel moritur ac sepelitur; et mihi prima tam diu uiuit. 15. [KQ] Quisquis . . . 2.15(1) . . . petieris. est autem yronia ad eum qui hoc petit, simulque reprehendit eos qui deos uotis ad mala instigant. 18. a) [KQ] Aelius . . . 2.18(2) . . . utrumque. Dicit ergo poeta: numquid praeponimus ttuo uaret Iouem Stagio ut maiorem reuerentiam ei impendas? non utique, quia non audes talia orare Stagium qualia Iouem. b) [N] Aelius , . . 2.18(2) .. . utrumque. Quasi audierit tales imprecationes clamabit aduersus Iouem, sed Iuppiter non clamabit. 21. [KQ] Staius audiendo hoc clamat Iouem; Iouis audiens non potest ipse < se> inuocare? 24. [KQ] Sulfurem posuit pro fulmine, quia loca ubi crebro fulmina cadunt sulfuris odorem imitantur. 26. [K] namque ouium praesagabantur futura. 27. [WO] Bidental bis fulminatum uel locus bis tactus, quia locus bis fulminatus uix euadet damnum. Dental dicitur fulmen Iouis quid in similitudinem humani dentis sit. 29. [KPN(interlinear)] Auriculas deorum emere dicebatur qui facile exaudiebatur. 30. [WO] Lactes sunt partes intestinorum et pluraliter proferuntur. 3 1.a) [O]Aliud poema inchoat de superstitione mulierum reprehendenda. b) [KQ: marginal title] Thema de superstitione. 39. [KQPN] Verba Persii: ego, qui sum contemptor diuitiarum, ueto meam nutricem aliqua uota meo optare puero. 41. a) [KQ] Opem numero singulari auxilium, plurali diuitias dicimus. b) [KQ] Fortitudo duobus modis fit uel in tolerandis aduersis praeparatio animi, uel in superandis laboribus roboratio corporis. 42. a) [KQ; cf. Fulg. Exp. 411 Tuceta dicuntur escae regiae sicut Callimorphius dicit in piseis: ambrosio redolent tuceta fauore. uel tuceta sunt carnes bubalinae 2 arca est 0 3 libatur W 4 M.b. f. om. K 8 significat ollam est fixum Q I uero om. Q 9-10 aliquo pondere honeratum PN : ponderatum, honoratum KviE. 12 ac] hac K 14 petieris] petere solitum Q 15 instigant] infugat K 16-17 praeponimus tuo uare] praeponis tu auare KviE. 17 stagio] stadio Q 18 stagium] statium Q 26 bidental om. 0 27 in] ad 0 28 dicibatur K 3 I Tema K 32 ego om. N 33 optare me0 puero N 34 pluralis K 35 in tolerandis] intolerantes Q 38 ambrosiore K I tucetal] taceta Q

APPENDIX I11

209

condimentis . . . 2.41(4) . . . toto anno durant. quia, inquit, nimium comedis, ideo non potes esse sanus nec diu uiuere. b) [OW] Tuccetu sunt carnes concisae uel carnes bubalae . . . -2.41(6) c) [O] Aliquando enim delicati cibi generant morbos. 50. [KQ] Spe deciperis quia putas augeri rem tuam, cum semper decrescat. tam diu, inquit, deciperis, donec nummum non inuenies in arca. 52. [KQ] De his nunc dicit qui arbitrantur sic delectari deos auro sicut homines. et dicit: si tibi . . . 2.52(2) . . . laetum. 55. [KQ] Auro ouato siue quod . . . 2.55(2) . . . melius inhaerescat, ut statuis non prius bratea haeret nisi prius ouis fuerit delibuta. 57. a) [KQ] Pituitu est purgatio cerebri, id est minuta saliua. et dicitur pituita a purgatione flegmatis: dicunt enim physici somnum ante mediam noctem uanum fieri; illud autem posse fieri uerum, quod fit post mediam noctem purgato cerebro iam a pituita. uel aliter: pituita est morbus gallinarum . . . 2.57(2-3) . . xideant. b) [N(interlinear)] Ablatiui dicitur mutata saliua; moribus scilicet gallinarum. 59. a) [WOKQ] Reprehendit superfluitatem uasorum, quae ex auro fiebant. omnia, inquit, uasa quae antiquitus fiebant ex aere et terra, iam fiunt ex auro in templis deorum. b) [O] Catinum quod apud Numam fuit cuius tempore aerea erant uasa, unde et aerarium et quo et nauis Saturni erat picta et nauis Iani. 61. [KQ: marginal title] Exclamat. 63. a) [KQ] Pulposos dicimus crassos; hinc pulpam supeffluitatem intellige. b) [BVin; cf. Isid. 11.1.81, 20.2.271 Pulpa est car0 sine pinguedine, dicta quod palpitet. resilit enim saepe, et uiscum uocatur propter quod glutinosa sit. pulpa dicta quod cum pulte mixta olim uescebatur; unde et pulmentarium et pulmentum dictum. 64. a) [KQ] Reprehendit mulieres unguenta facientes et uestes tinguentes causa ambitionis. una, inquit, earum corrumpit casiam et oliuam ad unguenta facienda; alia corrumpit lanam et inficit eam purpura; alia quoque iubet colligere perulos a conchis iematheriet auri, id est massam coqui causa ambitionis. b) [WO] Vna corrumpit casiam et oliuum ad unguenta faciunda ut melius redolent; alia lanam intinguit purpura; item alia colligit perulos a conchis et massam auri coqui iubet causa ambitionis. c) [KQ] Cassia est arbor aromatica, eadem et fistula, quam iungit oliuo ad medicamenta conficienda, vel ad tinguendum. et nota quod cassia per duo s dicitur frutex, casia uero per unum s dicitur species aromatica.

1 nimium] nimis Q 2 potest Q I sanus] fortis Q 5 Spes te decipit Q 6 arca] archa tua Q 7 auro] aureos Q 9 statuis KviE. : staius K : statius Q 10 bratea] brantea K I ouis om. K 12 somnium KviE. I uanum] uanam K 13 uerum posse fieri Q 16 ex auro fiebant] fiunt ex auro WO 17 antiquitus-terra] olim ex aere uel terra fiebant WO I templis] templo W 20 saturni] saturnis 0 22 intellige] intelligere K 24 uocatur] uocant B I propter] propterea B 25 quod cum] quia a B I pulpamentarium Vin 27 facienda] facientia Q 28 inficit] non ficit K I perulos a KviE. : perusola KQ 29 et materiem KviE. 30 oliuum-redolent 0 : oleum adiungent W 31 intinguit 0 : intingit W I alia] aliud 0 33 arbor est Q I iungit] ungit Q 34 quod] quia Q I duo s] duo s s Q 35 s dicitur om. Q

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

210

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

d) [WO] Cassia per duo s frutex, per unum s species aromatica, eadem et fistula. e) [OKQ: marginal title in KQ] Aliud thema inchoat. 65. [KQ] Calabria regio est ubi lana abundant, unde Calabrum uellus dicitur, speciem scilicet pro genere. . . . +2.65(4) 66. a) [KQ] Baccam conchae: bacca dicitur quae in concha nascitur marina; in conchis enim marinis margaritae inueniuntur. b) [KQ] Stringere uenas dicit quod aurum quando conflatur si aspergatur ei cinis testae conchae stringat, uel certe quia hoc puluere matronae leuigant faciem suam. 68. a) [WKQ] Non mirum, si mulieres haec ambiunt aurum; sed de uobis mirum est, o pontifices, qui nihil terrenorum ambire debetis, cur studetis habere aurum in templis . b) [KQ] Nempe illud agit, quod pupae donatae Veneri a puellis deuirginatis uel a uirginibus. supertlue enim deae uoluptatum et libidinum uirginalia signa donantur. uel quia solitae erant uirgines quae paruulae emisissent tempore nuptiarum Veneri donantur. c) [KQ] Puellae, quando deuirginandae erant, faciebant popas et statunculas quasdam ex uestibus factas, quas offerebant Veneri ut eis auxiliaretur in ill0 discrimine. est autem sensus: scio, inquit, quod respondebitis hoc facere aurum in templis quod faciunt popae Veneri datae, id est auxiliari eos qui dant; sed ego dicam uobis, quid facere debeatis diis. c) [WO] Pupae statunculi quos puellae de uestibus suis faciunt in honorem Veneris quando deuirginandae sint. 71. a) [KQ] Sensus hic est: ego non offer0 diis aurum uel argentum sicut faciunt diuites, sed hoc do quod diuites donare non possunt, uidelicet iustitiam et puram mentem. b) [KQ] Hic Messala locuples ditissimus et durissimus fuit, qui semper amplos apparatus sacrificiis adhibebat. c) [WO] Iste Mesala cocta fuit messalium, qui tam otiosos oculos . . . 2.71(3). d) [WO] : stulta non uidens quae uentura sunt uidelicet tenebris auaritiae obcaecata.

Sat. 3.3 a) [KQ] Scolasticus insaniens uel bacchans respondit, et est praesens pro futuro. tam diu, inquit, stertimus dormientes quo usque uinum, quod ore bibimus, digestum est. 35 b) [WO] . . . 3.3(3) . . . ubi nascitur uinum magnae uirtutis; inde et Falernum uocatur.

1 duo s] duo s s W 2 tema K 3 unde et Q I uellus dicitur] uellera dicit Q S bacca] albam K I dicitur] dicit Q 7 cinis] pullis K 8 puluere] pellere K 9 Non] non est inquit W I mirum-haec] simul mirum si haec mulieres K I haec om. W I ambiunt] ambiant W I de uobis] hoc W 9-10 est 01 si W 10 debetis] debent W 10-11 cur-templis] aurum in templis habere desiderent W 12 deuirginatis] de uirginitatis Q I a] de Q 14-15 uel q u i a a o n a n tu r om. K 18 quod] quia Q 19 eos] illos Q 21 Pupae om.0 22 quando] quod W 24 donare non possunt] non possunt dare Q 27 adhibebant Q 28 cocta] cocta uel cocus W 29 uidens] uides 0 33 domientes K I ore] heri Kvid: 34 est] sit Q

APPENDIX I n

21 1

4. [W] : hora in horologio gnominis in hora quinta diei. 5. [KQ] Canicula est ardentissimum sidus quod et Sirius uocatur, more canis quae mense Iulio urere segetes dicitur easque maturescere facit. insanam dicit, quod . . . 3.5(2). . . aegrotent. 6. [KQ] Patula spatiosa, cuius umbra sit latior. inter patulum autem et patens hoc 5 interest, quod patulum est coniunctis omnibus partibus una parte separatum, patens autem in totum a se diuisum sed longo intemallo. 8. a) [KQ] Bilis dicitur fel. uitream autem bilem dicit aut uitrei coloris aut re uera uitream id est fragilem, quia non poterat se continere ab ira dum non habebat qui ei daret calciamenta. 10 b) [Q; cf. 3.8(1-2)] Vitrea eo quod uirides et pallidos facit homines, ac ut apparet in uitreo uase quicquid apposueris, sic qui patitur. 9. a) [KQ] Archadiae: asinos dicit qui in Archadia abundant. sic, inquit, clamabo tpirat ut dicas et putes rudere, id est rugire uel mugire, asinos Archadiae. hoc autem pecus pecoris et pecora de maioribus, ueluti bos et asinus; haec pecus pecudis pecudes 15 de minutis; hoc pecu huius pecu et hoc pecuare huius pecuaris et haec pecuaria de maioribus. b) [PI Ruditus proprie asinorum est. 10. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 11.1.4-51 Bicolor membrana crocea et alba: tinguebatur enim membrana qua scribebant croco uel qualibet tinctura. membrana dicitur quod ex 20 membris animalium excorticatur, pergamenum uero a Pergama ciuitate in qua primo usus illius inuentus est; nam ante in corticibus et biblis scribebant. b) [KQ] Antiquitus haec cartes huius cartae, sicut Beronices Beronicae, Magdalenes Magdalenae, Agathes Agathae dicebantur; sed moderni haec carta. 25 c) [O] Iam arripit suum librum. 11. [Q] Harundo res tdbriit, quod nos proferimus per femininum genus. 13. a) [KQ] Sepia genus est piscis maritimi de cuius corio olim atramentum id est nigra tinctura fiebat ad scribendum quod mod0 de quoque corio fit; unde sepia pro atramento ponitur. b) [O; cf. 3.13(1)] <Sepia>: pro atramento posuit quamuis non ea utamur ut Iudei 30 faciunt sed ex fuligine . . . c) [K] Et est sensus: discipulus, inquit, nolens studere in scribendo dicit quod nimis est tinctura sua aqua infusa et ideo non possit scribere. 14. [BVin] Dilutas querimur g. q. $ dissolutas nimia aqua fistula geminet. 15. a) [KQPN] 0 miser: Responsio paedagogi. paedagogus Graece, Latine puerorum 35 ductor.

2 ardentissirnus Q I quod] quae Q I more] in ore Q 3 maturascere Q I quod] quo Q 6 parte] ex parte Q 7 diuisum a se Q 8 uitrei] uierei K I a&] ut K 9 uitream id est] uitre ama K I ei] ibi K 14 mugire] mugire seu sonare Q 19 enim] enim pueris Q 20 croco] croca K 21 ciuitate] ciuite K 23 magdales Q 27 piscis] picis K 27-28 id est nigra tinctura om. K 28 quod] quae Q I de quoque] decoctumque K 33 infusa] infusu K 34 g. q. f.] id est Vin 35 0 miser om. KPN I pedagogi o miser PN I graece] dicitur graece Q 36 ductor] doctor K

212

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [WO] Peda graece, puer latine, gogo duco, unde paedagogus, id est puerorum ductor. c) [O] Semper miser et in aeternum miser. d) [OKQPN] Huccine rerum uenimus? numquid ad has peruenimus? et est figurata locutio, yronice. hic est sensus: usque dum pepercisti mammis et titis matris tuae, sic delicatus es ut hic morari cupias utpote filius regis. 18. [KQ] Lmture recusus, id est cur non uis sugere mammas matris tuae? melius, inquit, tibi fuerat ut infantem et uagientem te fingeres atque ubera sugentem quam ad tantam miseriam deuenires nolens studere lectioni. 19. [QPN; cf. 3.19(3)] Quid istis succinis ambages. Quid mihi istas accusationes succantas id est murmuras, cum tibi fatuo tempus praeterit? 21. [W] <Maligne>: non bene tfornucet. sensus est: scio quia non incalescas propterea quae loquor, sed sicut uas fictile non adhuc coctum non bene sonat sed rauce, sic et tu, quia uitium non est expulsum a te. 22. a) [KQ] Fidelia est urceolus uel olla. per translationem autem hoc dicit, nam uasa inutilia non resonant. olla enim non bene cocta, si percussa fuerit, uitiose, id est rauce, sonat; ita, inquit, et tu. et sicut illa properatur acri rota figuli, ita et tu properandus es quia adhuc molle lutum es. atque ideo disciplina urgendus et castigandus es a magistro, quoniam non uides ea quae uidere debes. o puer, dum uiuis, studere artibus. nam sicut figulus, qui rotam semper gyrat dum uas figlinum facit, non cessat donec uas peragatur, ita tu animum sub disciplina in fontem sapientiae semper mittere debueras. b) [WO] Sicut rotam semper girans non cessat donec uas peragatur, ita tu semper animum disciplinali submittere studio in fontem scientiae debueras. c) [TBVin] Ambiguum est cum non sit uitium sonare et cum non sit proprium fideliae respondere. 28. a) [KQ] Stemma est series cognationis uel filum longum quo cingebant sacerdotes capita, unde flamines quasi filamines dicuntur. b) [KQ] Noli, inquit, gloriari quod genus a Tusca nobilitate ducis quoniam a longinquo est hoc iam millesimus effectus. c) [KQ] Censores dicuntur qui mores senatorum censebant, id est iudicabant, et quosdam a senatu propter morum uitia repellebant non in perpetuum, sed ad certum tempus. censorem ergo dicit magistrum uel consulem et iudicem. 29. a) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 19.24.8; Jahn, Persius 2891 l’rabea erat togae species ex purpura et cocco qua operti nobiles Romanorum initio praecedebant. trabea autem 1 unde] inde 0 I id est om. 0 4 Huccine] hincine Q I Huccine-et om. PN 4-5 Huccine-yronice om. 0 4 has] has res Q 5 sic] si 0 6 es ut hic PN : hic OQ : hoc K I morari] morderi N I cupias] cupis 0 7 suggere Q 8 ut te fingeres infantem et uagientem Q 9 deuenire Q 10 Quid-ambages Q : respondit pedagogus PN 11 succantas] succinctas Q I id est] et N 16 fuerit percussa Q 20 rotam om. K I figlinum] figulum KQ 21-22 animum-mittere] semper animum sub disciplina mittere in fontem sapientiae Q 23 Sicut-cessat om. W 27 Sthemma Q 28 capita] caput Q 30 mellesimus Q 31 dicuntur] dicebantur Q 34-35 erat-cocco] uestis T 35 cocco] tocto B I nobiles om. T I procedebant B I trabea autem om. T

APPENDIX I11

213

dicta quod in maiori gloria hominem transbearet, hoc est, ultra et in posterum ampliori dignitate honoris beatum faceret. b) [W] Trabea dicitur a transbeando eo quod transtulit hominem de inferiori loco ad superiorem. 30. [KQ] Faleras sunt ornamenta equorum proprie. facit hoc falerum generis neutri et 5 haec falera. est autem antiquum prouerbium quasi superflua est haec pompa. 32. a) [KQ] Verecundatur, quia stupor stulti est, pudor uero sapientis, ut Boetius: ‘pudore an stupore . . . ? mallem pudore.’ (Cons. Phil. 1.2). b) [OKQP] Pingue ideo dicit quia pinguedo stultos et hebetes facit homines. inpinguatum cor habet, ideo non curat legere. pingue neutri generis est et semper in 10 idoneis inuenitur rebus. pingue enim cor hebetes facit homines, quod probatur ex onagro: onager enim ceteris animalibus pinguius cor habet et ideo stultius omnibus, ut ferunt physici, est animalibus. 33. [KQ] Translatio est a naufragis, qui dum submerguntur in profundum postmodum superna non repetunt. 15 35. a) [KQ] Haec inuocatio ad hoc pertinet ut pueri nobiles stulti apt0 tempore studia disciplinae neglegentes postea paeniteant et uirtutem aliorum in scientia uidentes tabescant. hoc est qualem uirtutem amiserunt quorum uirtute carent. b) [Pithou, Glos. Vet., from Montpelier 1251 Metaphora a lana quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reuerti non potest. 20 39. a) [WKQP] An maiora . . . 3.39(1) . . . inclusos aera propter homines intus positi uel in boue an grauior . . . 3.39(1) . . . torsit sub gladio pendenti quam torquentur qui huiusmodi cogitationibus deprimuntur. b) [KQ(bis)] Dionisius fuit quidam tirannus Siciliae, cuius securitatem cum quidam philosophus laudaret, fecit eum sedere super quandam cathedram et nudum gladium 25 super caput eius seta suspendit et interrogauit eum, utrum securus esset. qui respondit ei se statim mori timere. et ille: tali, inquit, ego securitate fruor. c) [WO; cf. Oros. 1.201 Phalaris artifex bouem aeneum fecit Agrigentinorum regi qui Phalaris dicebatur, in quo homines punirentur. cui rex gratia, inquit, tibi excogitanti ttantum autem primust eius tormentum experieris, unde Orosius de eo dicit: ‘cum 30 multos iniuste puniret, unum tamen iuste puniuit.’ d) [WO] Democritus quidam philosophus fuit qui contempnebat regias epulas et nulli dicebat eas proficere utilitati, sed et animam et corpus in praecipitium uertere. quod

1-2 hoc-faceret om T 1 est om. B 5 Faleras] faleres Q 9 Pingue] pinguedo K I ide-homines om. OP I quia] qui K 10 inpinguatum] id est in pinguatum Q : pinguatum P : om. 0 I habet cor 0 10-11 pinguerebus] pinguedo enim non est latinum OP 11 facit homines hebetes 0 I probatur] probamus OQP 12 onager enim] nam onager 0 I cor om. Q I stultius] stultior OQP I ut] sicut Q 12-13 ut-anirnalibus KQ : esse uidetur P : uidetur ewe 0 14 submergeruntur K 15 supernal supera Q : supernis K 17 disciplinae om. K I uirtute K 21-22 An maiora-boue om. W I aera-boue om. P 21 intus positi] inter politi K 22 qui om. KW 23 huiuscemodi WQ I deprimuntur] cum decipi intellegunt nec tamen corrigantur W 24 Dionisius-uidam om QPr I siciliae] seu ciliae K 25 super] supra Qd‘ 27 ego om. K 28 Falaris W 30 tormentum eius W 32 Democrates W

214

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Dionisius audiens pendente a laquearibus supra uerticem sibi ense ea quae contempserat compulit esse. 41. [PI Magis ac magis currimus in praecipitium. 42. [WKQP] Id est quantum infelicitatis suae dolore et neglegentiae poenitentia torqueatur. 44. a) [WKQ; similar note in PI Moriturum Catonem minorem dicit, qui apud Vticam periit, qui etiam praecepta uitae dedit et accept0 ueneno dixit: non uidebo Iulium imperatorem. b) [WO] Cat0 censorius fuit auunculus, Cat0 Vticensis nepos. 47. a) [KQ] Quae pater adductis: pueris reuertentibus a scholis parentum domos <...>. rogabant patres eorum uicinos sapientes et amicos ut iudicarent utrum filii essent philosophi. b) [WO] . , , 3.47(1) + sudans prae gaudio si doctus filius sine neglectus pudore rogabat uicinos et sapientes urbis qui quando revertebatur a scola et tunc recitante puero iudicabant illi quid quaereret, utrum philosophus appellaretur an alea luderet. d) [KQ] Sudans autem dicit, quia parentes sudant recitantibus filiis aut pudore aut gaudio. 48. a) [KQ] Senionem appellat tesellam quae per tabulas currit. b) [KQ] Dicit ergo Persius quia dum paruus erat non curabat de rebus philosophicis, sed alea et tesserae ac trochus erat eius studium; quem trochum Virgilius turbinem appellat. c) [WKQP] Senio ludus tesserae. genus ludi dum se magis amare quam studium legendi donec puer fuit. ludus tesserarum apud ueteres lusores a numero uocabatur, ut unio, trio, quatrio, senio. nunc appellatio singulorum mutata est et unionem canem, trionem pupum, quatrionem < planurn> , senionem < Venerem> uocauerunt. 49. [KQ] Dampnosa canicula id est assis quo luditur ad similitudinem denarii facta. dampnosam autem eam uocat propter lites et contentiones quae inde procreantur. 50. a) [KQ] Orca est amphorae species minor uas uasculo urceolus diminutiue urceolus; id ipsum est et fristrillum. Est autem fristillum ad quod pueri ludere solent. b) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 20.6.51 . . . cuius minore uocabulo orcius, diminutiuo orculus est. c) [O; cf. 3.50(2-3)] Inde orceus hinc urceolus. orca species est amphorae quae in ludo nucum ponitur, in quo qui in angusto orcae collo certo iactu iacit ipse uictor existit. 52. [KQ] Id est non est tibi inexpertum reprehendere uel intelligere qui sunt corrupti mores.

4 quantum] quantum intus W 5 torquetur W 7 periit] petiit K I qui-accept01 sumpto W I dixit] quia

dixit W 8 imperatorem] imperantem WP 9 auunculi W 10 adductis om. K I reuertentibus] reuerentibus K 13 sudans om. 0 I sine] si 0 14 qui om. W I reuertebat W 22-23 S e n i e f u i t om. WKQ 2 2 tessera P 23 ludus] iactus quisque W I ludum tesserarum tesserarum K I uocabantur KQ 24 quatrio] quadrio Q I nunc OM. P 25 pupum] puppum K : pupam W I quadrionem Q I planum el Venerem suppl. KviC; ~ f Isid. 18.65 I senionem om. P : pupum W I uocauerunt] appellauerunt K 27 dampnosum K 28 minorurceolus] minori uocabulo urceus Q 29 fristillum] fristrillum K (his) I ludere solent] ludunt Q 30 orcius] ouecuit B I orculus] urciolus B 34 Id est om. K

i

APPENDIX I11

215

53. [KQ] Atheniensem . . . 3.53(1) . . . uenerant. uel historiae orientalium populorum. metaforice autem sapiens porticus dicit, quia sapientes . . . 3.53(2) . . . philosophabantur. illita ipsa porticus braccatis Medis, quia uidelicet induti sunt bracis; ex qua etiam . . . 3.53(2) . . . dicitur. 54. a) [K] Illi quibus ceteris philosophi fieri cupiebant, intonsi manebant usque dum scirent studia eorum; unde nunc dicit detonsa iuuentus. b) [PI Qui iuuenes intonso capite fiebant dum scirent studia eorum. 55. [WOKQP] Alfita ordeacea farina est, pollis uero qui digitis efficitur panis, polenta uero ipsa est farina sed hic proprie pro pane posuit. inde dicit grandi pasta polenta, id est naturali cibo. 56. a) [WOKQP] Y literam dicit quam Samius Pitagoras inuenit instar humanae uitae, cuius sinistra decliua, dextra uero ardua, Y. qua similitudine . . . 3.56(4). ultimam partem eius assimilauit iuuentuti adolescentis. tale autem est ac si dicat: tu dextrum ramum Y tenuisti, non sinistrum. b) [BVin post 3.56(6)] Quem utrumque limitem quisquis ab anno sextodecimo obtinebit, in hoc staturus erit. c) [Q at top of page; cf. Matthew 7: 131 Haec spatiosa uia Arta uia est uerae est quae mortis quae ducit ad atria uitae ducit ad ima 60. a) [KQ; cf. L in app. crit. to 3.60(1)] An eris uagus sicut coruus, o puer, ut secundum libitum tuum feraris? corui etenim pro libitu feruntur. sic et tu sine dispositione uiuis, et sicut uagantur corui passim et non curant in qua arbore sedeant, ita et tu non attendis nec est tibi cura quid agas? an in testa an in loco nitido an in stercore sedeas? id est non curas quid boni maliue facias, quia bona et stulta eadem putas. 61. [WOPVin] Corui enim instabiles sunt, huc illuc transuolantes, et non curant aut in alta arbore sedere, aut in palustribus, in aquaticisque locis: et adulteros figurant. 63. [WO] Sic et de neglegenti intellegendum est: tardum enim est illi quod se recognoscit. 66. [O] Exortatio poetae. 71. [Q] Quem id est qualem scilicet rationem et capacem disciplinae, non otiarium sed bonum. nam stulti aliquando contraria optant.

y

2 dicit] dixit Q I quia] quoniam Q 3 medis braccatis Q I induti] inducti K 4 etiam] porticu Q 5 fieri KviE. : fidei K 8 Alfita om. P I uero qui digitis K : uero qua digitus Q : qua rigidus WOP 9 uero om. W I est om. WO I proprie om. WOP 9-10 inde-cibo om. WOP 11 Y om. KQP I instar] ut star K 12 decliua] declina K I uero om. WO I Y om. P 12-14 ultimam-sinistrum om. WOP 13 abolescentis Q I autem om. Q I dextrum] dexterum Q 14 tenuisti Y Q 21 ut] et K 22 libitum tuum] libidinem tuam K I etenim] enim Q I feruntur] fununtur K 24 tibi] cibi K 25 quia] qua K 27 enim om. WOP I illuc] illucque WOP I et om. WO 27-28 aut-sedere Vin : aut in alteram arborem descendant WO : ut in alteram descendant arborem P 28 in aquaticisque-figurant om. P : imis aquae locis resideant WO 29 est enim 0 I quod] quando 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

216

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

79. [KQ] Erumnosi autem dicit uel laboriosi quia Salon exul a patria periit. 81. [KQ] Murmuru id est sententiam diu meditatam quam habent in corde, iam cum murmure magno, id est cum magna affluentia et cum rabie illam sententiam quasi illud silentium proferunt et ostendunt audientibus cogitationes atque inuentiones suas. 82. [Q] Sapientes enim tarde et circumspecti loquuntur quasi laudantes. 83. a) [KQ] Quia aegroti diu iacentes pro uacuitate et inanitate corporis inania uident somnia. somnia appellat uoluptates eorum philosophorum et uanas superstitiones, quae ualde uanae sunt. philosophi uero ita loquuntur uelut infirmi, qui sibi fingunt somnia sanitatis. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Buc. 6.311 Epicurei dicunt mundum non de nihilo sed de athomis creatum esse, ideoque non in nihilum posse resolui sed rursum in athomis. dicunt enim duo rerum esse principia, corpus et inane. omne namque quod est aut continetur aut continet. et corpus uolunt esse athomos, id est quasdam minutissimas particulas, quae thomum, id est sectionem, non recipiunt, unde athomi sunt dictae, quas Lucretius minutiores esse dixit illis corporibus, quae infusis per fenestram radiis solis uidemus. inane uero dicunt spatium in quo sunt athomi; de quibus duobus participibus uolunt procreari ignem, aerem, terram, aquam et ex his cetera. uaria est opinio philosophorum de mundi creatione. quidam dicunt omnia ex igne procreari, alii ex humore ut Tale Milesius, nonnulli ex quatuor elementis ut Lucretius. Epicurei uero dicunt duo esse principia, athomos et inane. athomi uero sunt corpora breuia et insecabilia, inane uero est illa uacuitas in qua athomi errant. an ergo gignitur de nihilo nihilum? quia mundus non de nihilo est sed de athomis, non potest resolui in nihilum sed potius in id unde originem trahit. ex quatuor enim elementis conditus est mundus iste maior; unde microcosmus appellatur minor mundus, id est homo qui similiter ex quatuor elementis constat. c) [WO] Stoici dicunt mundum non de nihilo sed de athomis creatum, ideoque non in nihilum posse resolui sed rursum in athomos. 88. a) [KQ] Vox est infirmi ad medicum loquentis . . . 3.88(2) . . . neglegat. aliquanti enim propter delicias quas non possunt assequi secundum suum uelle aegrotant; aliquanti propter amorem, aliquanti propter cupiditatem. b) [W] Aliud thema inchoat. de his . . . 3. 88[l]) . . . 89. [WOP; cf. Isid. 10.245)] Sodules dicuntur simul edales. 90. [W] Iubet medicus ut tribus noctibus requiescat et postquam tertia nox compositas uiderit, id est quieti datas demonstretque uenas tunc deliciosas sibi epulas

2 habent] habebant Q 7 corporis om. K 13 quod] quo K 15 thomum] thomicum K 16 minutissimas dixit esse Q 16 infusis] infisis K I solis] solem K 17 sunt] sunt sunt Q 18 participibus] participiis Q : principiis KviE. I aquam et] et aquam Q 19 creatione mundi Q I ex igne omnia Q I procreari] constare Q 20 ut om. Q I quattuor Q 21 principia esse Q 21 athomos] athomum K I uero om. K 21-22 et insecabilia] quae athomi id est insecabilia Q 22 est om. K I errant] erant KQ 23 quia] qua K I non om. Q 24 trahit] habuit Q I enim om. K 25 microcosmus] micros mod0 K 27 dicunt om. 0 I de2 om. W 30 suum] tuum K

APPENDIX I11

217

et in omni pigmento precioso indulcoratas praeparet ut inde satur balneum ingrediatur ac post sibi notus uinum praeparari et commanifestabitur infirmitas. 91. [WOKQP] Vsque ad tertium diem aegritudo non intellegitur quae sit uel quanta sit. 92. [PI Vas est lagos graece, latine lepus. 5 95. [W] Regius morbus uel quia regali cibo curandus est, uel quia regiam morienti aperit arcuatus etiam necatur. 97. [KQ] Aut tu alter tutor es aut quem sepeliam et aut est uox aegroti dicentis ad medicum: tu alter tutor es? aut certe uox est medici cum indignatione interrogantis: 10 restas tu, id est resistis. 98. [Vin] Vt Iuuenalis ‘turgidus et crudum pauonem in balnea portas’ (1.143). 99. a) [QP] Fetores malos scilicet crudum eructando cibum. b) [O] Sulphur dicitur quasi soli pyro. 100. a) [WOKQP] Triens calix dicitur tribus nummis emptus. triental est calix qui . . . 15 3.100(1) . . . heminas. b) [WKQP] Signa mortis sunt, si dentibus frendit infirmus et tremunt manus et cetera membra. 103. [O] Pretiosis uidelicet uestimentis quibus operiebatur. 104. [WOKQP] Arnornum flos est, cinnamomum cortex. 105. [K] Ita enim efferuntur mortui, ut pedes contra ianuam habeant. 20 109. [Q] Dicens si forte id est si habes spem accipiendae pecuniae. 114. [KQP] Beta dicitur secundum olus in orto, sicut beta secunda litera in scriptura. ac si diceret: secunda medicina non potest curare illud ulcus. 115. [W] Stare fecit, unde Virgilius ‘steteruntque comae’ (Aen. 2.774). 118. [W(damaged at end)KQP] Orestes in tantum insanus effectus est ut matrem suam 25 occideret, qui et post ipsam interfectam mansit furens, et ipse non faceret uel diceret quae tu facis. Sat. 4.1. [KQ] Alcibiaden alloquitur, cuius tutor erat Pencles, ambiebat autem Alcibiades honores publicos. 30 8. [WO] Quiris lingua Sabinorum hasta dicitur, unde Romani a Romulo qui hastam semper in manu gestabat Quirites dicuntur. 9. [KQ] Iudiciarium sententiam insinuat, qua cernitur quod iustum est quodue uideatur iniustum. 11. [KQ] Ancipitis librae, id est gemino iudicio discretionis iusti et iniusti, sicubi 35 controuersia oborta fuerat.

3 Vsque enim Q I ad] in WOP I aegritudo] infirmitas WOP 8 alter tutor] aut tator K 9 certe uox est] est et K 12 Fetores malos] malos odores Q 15 heminas] minas Q 19 sinamomum WO 22 Beta dicitur Q 23 illud curare Q 25 Orestes qui W I effectus am. W 26 ipsam interfectam] sponsa interfecta Q : sponda interfecta K I furens] furiense Q I et om.W I faceret uel diceret] diceret uel faceret P : diceret uerba huius modi nec faceret [. . .] W 31 unde] inde W 32 gestabant W 33 iudiciarum sententia K 36 fuerit Q

218

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

15. [KQ] Ante diem etiam id est ante xxx annos; non enim erat licitum apud Romanos quemlibet ante triginta annos senatorem uel consulem fieri uel publicae potestati praeesse. 16. a) [KQ] Anticyras meracas dicit helleborum merum, id est purum, quod ita 5 sumptum interficit; sin autem mixtum fuerit pigmentis, fit salubre antidotum. b) [KQ] Melius est tibi mori bibito helleboro quam sic iudicari. 17. [WP] Per unctam patellam significat lautiores epulas. 19. a) [KQ: marginal title] Persius. b) [WOKQ] Id est inspice si . . , 4.19(2) . . . respondeat et id ipsum sentiat 10 summumque bonum in uictu et uoluptate corporis manere iudicet. anus dicitur sine ratione; nam nous est summa pars animae, id est ratio. est autem nous masculini generis et habet accusatiuum nous et ablatiuum nou. non aliud, inquit, respondebit anus quam ego. 21. [KQ] Baucis proprium nomen est aniculae, uxoris quondam Philemonis. Iupiter 15 enim et Mercurius hominum figuras uersi in regione Frigiae cum animos incolarum experti a nullo exciperentur hospitio, a Philemone quodam paupere et Baucide uxore eius hospitalissime sunt excepti et cum maxima uoluntate rebus humillimis ad uictum necessariis simplicissimos animos pauperum experti sunt. ergo ut numina hanc uim ostenderent suam, seuocatis senibus in excelsiorem collem casam eorum in templum 20 conuerterunt eosque antistites sacrati loci praefecerunt, ut cum senectute in arbores conuerterentur; Philemon cederet in fruticem, Baucis in tiliam. oppidum autem eorum quos ceteros inhospitales ciues habuerat cum multitudine obrutum stagnum factum est. laudatur igitur Baucis quod diis libenter ministrauerit. pannucea uero dicitur propter pauperiem. 25 22. [KQ] Verna compositum est ex tribus corruptis, id est ex bono et herede et nato. ergo uerna dicitur bonus, ereditarius, natus. 23. a) [KQ: marginal title] Poeta exclamat. b) [O]Quomodo nemo ad sua uitia flectit uisum. Aesopus . . .4.23(2). 29. [KQ] Limum id est uinum densum prae uetustate sicut limus. 30 31. [KQ; cf. Isid. 17.10.121 Caephal siue caepha Graece, Latine caput dicitur; unde et Cephalus siue capito. hinc et cepe a principali sui parte, id est capite, dicitur, quo reciso reliquum corpus flaccens et inutile redditur. facit hoc caepe singulari numero indeclinabile, plurali numero hae caepae declinabile. 32. [KQ] Pannosam fecem morientis sorbet aceti: tunicatum cepe mordens cum sale 35 et farratam ollam apponit pueris plaudentibus, qui diuitias eis potuerit apponere. 37. a) [PI Balanatum est unguentum uel genus pomi unde fit unguentum; proprie genus glandis. 2 triginta annos] annos xxx Q I publicae] primae Q 6 est om. Q 7 uncta patella P 9-10 Id est-iudicet WO 10 uoluptate] uoluntate Q I anus] auus K I dicitur om. WO I sine] siue K 11 nous] noy K : noys enim WO I est om.W I id est ratio om. W I ratio] ratyon K 12 accusatiuum om. K I nou] noy KQ 14 Baucis] buccis K (passim) I iuppiter Q 15 hominum] in hominum KviE. 16 experti a] exper na K I exciperentur] exorperentur K 17 eius om. K 18 numina] numen KQ 19 ostenderent] ostendent K I templum] templo Q 20 ut] ita ut Q 21 in tiliam] italiam KQ 22 habuerant K 25 tribus om. K 31 siue] sine Q I capito] capite KQ I principali] principaliori Q 32 numero singulari Q om.

APPENDIX I11

219

b) [WO] Balanum autem genus unguenti uel genus pomi unde unguentum fit. unde et mire balanum unguentum pretiosum. proprie tamen genus glandis unde unguentum conficitur. c) [Q] Vel dicitur balanum genus pomi quo unguentum fit. d) [KQ] Guusupe uestis uillosa est. gausape . . . 4.37(3-4) . . . defricatum balano, cur 5 ab inguine tuo pilos euellis? cur, inquit, inducis corpori cum uillosa uestis uobis sit? e) [KQ: marginal title] Persius ad uoluptuosum. 41. [KQ] Filix herba . . . 4.39(1) . . . funditus extricat, quia postquam semel radicauerit, difficile abrumpitur. ita et ingenitae radices pilorum difficile euelluntur qui renascuntur. filicem enim uel pilos dicit uel ipsam libidinem. 10 43. [KQ] In subterioribus, inquit, partibus corporis turpiter peccas; praecinctus enim erat balteo simulans se fortem et bellicosum uirum, cum esset eneruis et euiratus. 49. [KQ] Puteal locus erat apud senatum uel ante theatrum, in quem debitores uerberibus solui cogebantur. 15 Sat. 5.1 [KQ] Hanc , . . 5.1(1) . . . tragoedias, in qua etiam exsequitur Cornuti magistri sui laudes. 5. a) [P(interlinear)] At quod optas, o poeta, qui tot quaeris uoces in tua carmina? b) [PI Offuproprie est aliqua cum pane commixtio quae uulgo tortella nominatur. c) [O; cf. 5.5(2)] Sed licet hoc primum dixerit ob tumorem uatum postea tamen dicit 20 quia satyricus simpliciter ad singulorum uitia centum linguis non posse sufficere. 7. [KQ] Illi, inquit, qui fictas tragoediarum et sceleratas scribunt fabulas, potius Eliconis inuocent numina, id est Musas, ut eloquentia sua cum admiratione spectantium torpeant animi. 8. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. Buc. 6.78, Geo. 4.15; Myth. Vat. 1.4, 2.2171 Thereus cum 25 Pandionis Atheniensis regis filiam Prognem duxisset uxorem et illa sororem desiderasset, petiit a marito ut accersiret sororem. qui cum commeatum Philomelae accepisset a socero ut cum ea ueniret, uim ei intulit, cumque illa prodituram se sorori indicasset, linguam ei abstulit, cuius illa sanguine scelus scripsit in pectore suo et cum ad sororem uenisset, scissa ueste legendum praebuit. quo dolore commota Prognes 30 filios, quos ex Tereo habuit, patri apposuit comedendos. quo comperto cum eas insequeretur, ipse in upupam uersus dicitur, Prognes in lusciniam, cuius etiam nunc lugubris uox est, Philomela in hirundinem, quae pectus infecta sanguine madet. Atreus cum fratris sui Europam corrupisset uxorem, ille simulata gratia occidit illius filios et coctos fratri comedendos praebuit, quod cum faceret Thiestes sol dicitur 35 auersatus refugisse. b) [O; cf. 5.8(3)] Notum apud Virgilium quomodo Atreus Thiestis fratris filios . . . 1 genus unguenti] unguentum 0 2-3 proprie-conficitur om. W 5 uestis-est] genus est uestis uillosa Q I gausape2] gautisape K I defricatam Q 6 pillos K I inquit om. Q 9 euelluntur] eualluntur K 10 quilibidinern om. K l l partibus] partes K 13 locus] lucus K 13-14 debitores-solui] debitae res solui uerberibus Q 18 At] ad P 22 scribunt] scribit K 25 thereus] theseus K 26 regis om. K I illa Q2 : ille KQ1 27 accersiret] accersitet K 27-28 philomelae accepisset] philomene accessisset Q 28 ueniret] qiueret K I prodituram illa Q 31 tereo] there0 Q 34 athreus Q I ille] illa Q' 35 comedendos] commedos K

220

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

9. [KQ] Hic . . . 5.9(1) . . . temporibus qui saepe cenam Thiestae suae inferebat tragoediae. 13. a) [Q] Stloppum genus poculi quod faucibus prodest. b) [Q] Tumidarum inquit rerum nihil sequeris. et est translatio a fabris ferrariis. 14. a) [Q] Verba: uerba togae . , . 5.14(1). 14. b) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 19.24.3-51 Toga est dicta quod uelamento suo corpus tegat atque operiat. est autem purum pallium forma rotunda et fusiore atque inundante sinu et sub dextro ueniens super humerum sinistrum ponitur; cuius similitudinem in operimentis simulacrorum uel picturarum aspicimus easque statuas togatas uocamus. toga uero Romani in pace utebantur; belli autem tempore paludamentis. mensura togae iuste senas ulnas habebat. toga palmata dicebatur quam merebantur hi qui portabant de hostibus palmas. c) [PI Callidus: peritus uerba iungere uersui. 20. [Q; cf. 5.20(3)] Allegoricos significat per fumum res uanas et leues et tam uilissimas ut dicantur posse extolli a fumo. 22. a) [Q] Pars animae, id est qui sum dimidia pars animae tuae. b) [O; cf. 5.22(3)] . . . respondet ‘et serues . . . meae’, quod et Horatius de Virgilio. 24. [Q] Translatio est a uasis fictilibus . . . 5.25(1). 30. [KQ: marginal title] Persius. 38. [KQ] Regula id est norma rectitudinis. doces, inquit, norma iustitiae rectum sequi et mores peruersos emendas. 39. [KQ] Animus dicitur apo tu animo, id est a uento, quod uelocissima sit cogitatio eius et ad similitudinem uenti motu celeri peruagatur. fit autem ex appetitu animae pro desiderii qualitate permotus. 40. [KQ] Artzjkem uultum . . . 5.40(2) . . . finguntur. est autem translatio ab his qui cerea simulacra componunt. 42. [KQ] Primus nodes . . . 5.42(1) . . . primaque oriens et signat eum saepe epulatum. 46. [KQ] Hoc dicunt mathematici, quod eodem signo nati perpetuam inter se concordiam habeant. unde coniectat se et Cornutum uno eodemque sidere natum. insinuat se magistro aequiparare in omnibus. 47. [KQ] Quod horoscopum aut in Libra aut in Geminis habemus; nam aequinoctium mense Septembri est in Libra, solstitium autem mense Iulio est in Geminis. 48. [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 1.22, Fulg. Myth. 1.8, Myth. Vat. 2.141 Parcae tres sunt, Cloto, Lachesis, et Atropos. et haec est interpretatio earum: Cloto euocatio, Lachesis sors, Atropos sine ordine. uocamur enim ex non esse in esse; deinde accipimus sortem uiuendi; ad extremum succedit mors, quae sine ordine cuncta aufert. unde 6 in uelamento T 6-7 corpus-operiat] contegat corpus T 7 est-pallium] pallidum est purum T I et] atque B I fusiore atque om. T I atque] et B I sinu] sinum B 8 similitudine B 10-1 1 toga-habebat] quae toga tempore belli palludam dicebatur T 10 tempore] ipse B 11 dicebatur] fuit T 12 hostibus] hostiis TB 20 id est om. K 21 et mores-emendas om. Q 23 et om. K 24 pro] per K I qualitate permotus] qualitatem K 27 oriens om. K : moriens Q 32 in geminis] ingenis K 35 est om. Q 37 sortem] fortitudinem K

APPENDIX I11

22 1

quidam: mors nulli parcit; omnia namque rapit. ueri tenucem dixit Parcam, quia non possunt propositum suum fata mutare. unde et Parcae dictae sunt eo quod nulli parcant. tria sunt autem genera fatorum: primum amobile, secundum quod potest differri, tertium quod flectitur. 50. [KQ] Zouefrungimus, id est pro Iouis appositione compescimus et temperamus. 5 53. [KQ] Suum arbitrium unicuique sua uoluntas est. inde Horatius . . . 5.52(1) . . . milia. ab omnibus, sed multis uotis. unde et Terentius . . . 5.52(1) sententiae et Virgilius . . . 5.53(1) . . . uoluptas. et hoc dicit: ut uariae figurae . . . 5.52(3) . . . omnes. 55. [KQ] K l M l N O Y N Graece, Latine cuminum uocatur. 10 56. [KQ] Dicunt phisici morbos euenire ex cibi et potus nimietate uel mutatione et nimiis uigiliis atque multa sollicitudine. 57. a) [KQ] Aut campo Martio ut fauorem carpat uel captet, aut campo id est ludis et exercitationibus . . . 5.57(2) . . . militiae. b) [KQ] Decoquit consumit uel nudat. 15 c) [KQ] Unus, inquit, arat, alius militat. alter assiduo coitu Veneris efficitur. . . 5.57(4-5) . . . conficitur propter turpitudinem prae nimia assiduitate libidinis. 58. a) [KQ] Cyrugru dolor est qui manus contorquet et cordi logmata facit; Zupidosu autem dicit nodosa, dura, quae inflat articulos. Kyrra Graece, manus Latine; hinc cyragra contractio uel dolor manuum, sicut podagra dolor pedum; pos enim Graece, 20 pes Latine. b) [TBVin] Artus enim membra sunt maiora. c) [Q] Quia sicut uenti quassant ramos arborum et curuant, ita et morbus articularis manus ac digitos frangit ac tortuosos facit ut sint similes ueteris fagi ramis in quibus obtunse et sine ratione uixerint. 25 60. [KQ] Crussos dies dicit . . . 5.60(2) . . . uixerunt. uel aliter crassos dies id est nebulosos dicit uel opulentos. palustrem autem dicit lucem pluinosam, sordidam, lutulentam, a uoluptate obscuram propter . . .5.60(3) . . . transfertur. 62 [KQ: marginal title] Ad Cornutum. 65. [KQ] Finem unimo, id est consolationem aegrae senectutis. cunos enim pro 30 senectute posuit quia qui morti uicina est et uelut profectura e uita dixit uiatica. 66. [KQ: marginal title] Neglegentis uox. 69. [KQ] Egerit, consumit, praeteriit. dum, inquit, differtur in crastinum annus egeritur uel unus uel plurimi anni. uituperat ergo eos qui dilationibus student. 71. [KQ] Cunthurn axem dixit uel circulum ipsum totius populi. et canthum Graece 35 dicit quam Latini feminini generis tuitiumt dicunt. haec ?uicust id est curuatura.

1 omnia] cuncta K 2 proposito suo K 3 amobile] immobile KviE. 5 frangimus] frangimur K I iouis om. K I appositione] aposicione K 10 K l M l N o y M Q 12 sollicitudine] sollitudine K 13 carpet KQ 18 Kvragra Q I est am. Q 19 cyra K 20 ciragra Q 22 enim om. T 26-27 id--opulentos] dicit nebulos uel epulentos K 30 senectuti Q 31 quia qui] quiet K I el ei K I uiatica] uitiata K 33 consumit, praeteriit] abicit, praeterit, exhaurit Q I crastinum] castrinum K 34 egeritur] egreditur K 36 dicit] dicitur K I quam] quem K I latini] latine K I feminini] femini K I haec-curuatura om K

222

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

72. [KQ] Secundo axe, id est prospere, uel quia sunt et antipodes. quamuis, inquit, prope zodiacum ambules, tamen ipse axis quem sequeris necesse est ut uelocius te currat, quanto eius rotatu posterius curris; ille enim interior est. omnis enim pars nostra uel plaga obliquum axem habet. 73. a) [KQ] Apud ueteres mos erat ut ciues Romani ad tesseram, in qua nomen tribus fuisset scriptum, panem acciperent. ergo liberti priusquam tesserae mererentur panem minime accipiebant. b) [O] Libertus est liberi arbitrii potestas. c) [W] Aliud thema inchoat, hoc est materies carminis uel compositionis causa. 75. [WO] Quia manumissione serui liberi fiebant per praetoris uertiginem, hoc est per capillos semel uertebantur, et dabat eis unam alapam et post liberi fiebant. 76. a) [KQ] Vertigo a uertendo; qui enim manumittuntur, in girum ducuntur et alapam accipiunt. b) [Q; cf. 5.76(2)] Tressis nullius meriti ut nullius nummus ualere concedatur. c) [KQ: marginal title] Poeta. 77. [KQ] Tenuifarragine, pane uel foeno; tenui, inquit, cibo mentitur. 78. [Q] Verterit id est apud imperatorem manumiserat. 79. a) [KQ] Marcus Duma: ita cum praenomine uocabatur libertus. tam, inquit, prouectuose prouehitur, ut praenomine notetur Marcus Dama, ut Marcus quondam nobilis. b) [P(interlinear)] : poeta nobilissimus Romanus fuit. 80. [KQ] Palles, id est trepidas, cum libertus fuerit iudex. accusat autem uitia temporum, quod subito libertinis tanta fides sit quanta nobilibus. 81. [KQ] Cuiusdam uox: signa, inquit, testamentum. 82. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 19.30.5, 31.51 Pilleum a tpillet dictum. libertos autem dicit qui pillea merentur, quia serui calceos, liberti pilleos habebant, quod erat signum uictoriae. b) [WO] Serui calceis et liberi pilleis utebantur et capita pilleis induentes. 83. [Q; cf. 5.83(1)] Verba liberti sunt: numquid alius liber est nisi ille cui licuit uitam ducere sicut placuit? 85. [O] Omnia quae de libertate sunt bona sunt, except0 hoc quia licet ut uolo uiuere; illud ergo tollatur. 90. a) [WKQ] Rubricu, id est norma uel lex mansura; ipse enim Mansurus fecit legem. b) [O] Regula Romanorum hoc est: Massuri ipse enim fecit legem contra audaciam puerorum. 91. [KQ] Sunna noue dicit, id est subsannationem, quia si quid displicet naso et ore contract0 indicamus. 1 ut om. Q 3 rotatu] rotata K 3-4 omnis-habet om. K 5 erat] et ast K 6 teserae K 10 manusmissione 0 11 dabatur eis una alapa 0 12 manummittuntur Q 17 manummiserat Q 18 Marchus Q I pronomine KQ 19 profectuose Q I pronomine K 22 Pallas Q' 23 sit om. K 25 pille] pilo uel pelle KviE. 29 ille] illi Q 33 uel] haec est W I mansura] masuri W 33-34 ipse-legem om. Q 33 mansurus] masurus W 34 legem contra audaciam puerorum W 38 indicamus] iudicamus K

APPENDIX I11

223

95. a) [KQ] Sambuca instrumentum musicum uel genus . . .5.95(4) . . . componuntur. b) [W] Calon graece lignum latine. c) [WOKQ] Calones sunt serui militum lignarii uidelicet eo quod ligna ferant quod lisca dicitur et hinc similiter liscae dicuntur. 99. [KQP] Vetitos actus, id est insipientiam uel aliLid quodlibet malum quod hominibus per naturam uetitum est. sententia generalis ut pro uetito habeatur id quod fieri nescitur. 100. a) [KQ] Vetat natura hominem medicum esse, nisi discat; mensurae enim ignarus elleborum dabit pro ueneno, quod cum ratione datum medetur. b) [WO] Puncto id est mensura qua medici acres herbas aliis commiscentes aut compensant aut connumerant. 102. [KQ] Per0 calciamentum rusticum ex pelle. Virgilius: ‘Nudus tegit pero’ (Aen. 7.690). 103. [KQ] Luciferi, id est ignarus siderum, quae nautae sciunt. sero est stella Vesper, nocte media Venus, mane Lucifer, quae Graece Phosphoros dicitur quod lucem ferat. inter alia autem sidera praeter solem et lunam umbram fertur corporibus nocte defendere. 104. [TBVin] Tali sunt dicti a talo. nam talus est eminens rotunditas, unde et fastigium templi rotundi talus uocatur. 106. [O] Quia qui faciunt paracaraximus obtegunt eos. 108. [KQ] Creta bona notantur, carbone autem mala; quae, inquit, forent sequenda albo notabas colore, quae uero incommoda nigro. 109. a) [KQ] Modestus es neque nimis cupidus in uoto, parua re familiari. et hoc dicit: etiam in parua substantia dulcis es amicis tuis. b) [PI Id est ad uoluntatem ipsorum quia frequenter domum eorum adis. c) [P: marginal title; cf. 5.113(1)] Dinumeratis eis quae sapiens sequi uel spemere debeat. 111. [KQ] Praeterire, inquit, possis nummum in luto positum, quod utique auari non faciunt qui lucrum de quauis turpitudine petunt et statim rapiunt. 112. a) [KQ; cf. Myth. Vat. 2.421 Mercurius dicitur quasi mercatorum dptoq. b) [P: marginal title] Verba correcti. 116. [WOKQVin; cf. Jeremiah 13:23] Hoc tractum est ab Aethiope qui non mutat pellem suam, nec pardus uarietatem suam: sed in qua pelle natus est, in ea moritur. prouerbium taliter prolatum: si, inquit, sub specie recti fraudulentiam uulpis retinueris quem ante laudabamus, mox laudis nostrae funem recipiemus. facie bonum simulans mente dolum machinaris; uulpes enim dolosum est animal. aspectu bonum te esse simulas, mente malum machinaris ut uulpes; quod animal satis est defessum. 3 sunt-militurn] dicuntur militares serui KQ I lignarii] lignarurn K I eo-ferant] ex eo ligno WO I quod om. K I ferant om. K 4 et-dicuntur om. W I hinc] hi 0 5 Vetitos-id est om. P I quodlibet] prohibet P 6-7 sententia-nescitur om. P 8 nisi discat medicurn esse Q 10 Puncto id est om. 0 12 nudus] crudus Verg. 15 phosgoros Q 22 albo] allo K I nigra K 29 et] sed KQ 30 n u p p u q KQ 32 Hoc om. WVin I est om. KQVin I qui] quia 0 I rnutat] rnutat ethiops 0 33 pardo WO I sed in om. W I qua pelle natus est om. KQ I in ea WOVin : ipsa KQ 33-37 prouerbiudefessurn o m WOVin 36-37 aspectu-defessurn om. K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

224

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

122. [PI Cetera aduerbium est, id est ad ultimum. 131. a) [KQ] Strigiles sunt proprie pectines de ferro; et strigiles . . . 5.126(1) . . . tergendo. alii etiam sabana et linteamen dicunt quibus sudor corporis siccatur post balneum. huius Crispini temporibus nominatum balneum fuit et ipse erat imperiosus dominus. b) [WO] Strigil graece pecten latine. strigilas genus piscis uel strigil dicitur lignum quo athletae sudorem tergebant; aut pro sabano dixit, hoc est linteamen quo se balneati tergebant. c) [KQ] Scutica est flagellum lori, unde et scuta dicimus quod corio ambiantur; nam aurei et aerei clipei dicebantur. 132 [P: marginal title] Aliud thema. 135. a) [KQ] Castores sunt fibri, id est canes ponti quorum testiones apti sunt medicaminibus; propter quos ubi senserint se requiri semet ipsos morsibus secant. de his Cicero: ‘Redimunt se ea parte corporis propter quain maxime expetuntur’ (Pro Scauro fr. p; cf. Serv. Geo. 1.59, Isid. 12.2.21); Iuuenalis: ‘Qui se eunuchum ipse facit, cupiens euadere dampno testiculorum’ (12.34sq.). castores ergo a castrando dicti sunt, unde et castorinae pelles uel castoreum, genus unguenti quod ex testiculis fibri fit. b) [KQ] Hebenus arbor est Indiae quae caesa in lapidem uertitur; et est nigri coloris. dicitur autem ebenus tam lapis quam arbor. c) [PI Lignum quod siccatum durescit in lapidem. 138. [WKQ] Bur0 uel uaro, id est fatue, stulte. lingua Gallorum uarones dicuntur . . . 5.137(5) . . . stultorum, unde et iste stultissimus uocatur. 140. [TBVin; cf Isid. 20.6.11 Et oenophorum aptas: oenophorum uas uinum ferens. oinos enim uinum est; de quo est illud ‘uertitur oenophori f. s. n.’ (Lucil. 139M). 142. [KQ] Sollers luxuria assueta uoluptas et torpor. 142. [P: marginal title] Verba luxurie. 145. [KQ] Cicuta est herba frigidissimae naturae adeo ut contusa et apposita renibus effetos faciat. 147. [WOQ] Tu potabis malum uinum in malo uase. 148. [KQ; cf. Macrob. Sat. 5.211 Obba calix est nauticus resticulis factus et pice oblitus et sessilis; uinum enim uetus ita fit in picta lagoena missa supra fumum. quam lagoenam obbam uocat; obbae namque, oriae, crati, sciphi, carchesia, cimbia, cululli genera sunt poculorum et uini.

2 proprie] per Q 3 siccatur om. K 7 quo W : in quo 0 I sabano W : sabana 0 9 est om. Q I corio ambiantur Q : coruo ambiatur K 12 id est om. Q I ponti] pontici KviC I testiones] testes Kvid: 14 redimunt] redimit K I expetuntur] expetunt K 18 fibri] fibris KQ 19 est’ om. Q 22 Baro---fatue om. W I stulte fatue Q 22-23 uarones-uocatur om. W 23 iste om. K 24 uinum om. T 24-25 ferens-uinum om. B : h e n s eno uero uinum B2 25 oinos] eno T 28 est post naturae Q I frigidissimae Q : foedissimae K 29 effetos faciat Q : effectos facit K 30 portabis W I in-uase om. Q 3 1 reresticulis K 32 missa om.K 33 uocat K : dicit Q I crati] cyathi KviE. I carchesia om. K I cululli] cululi Q : culuci K 34 sunt om. Q I et uini om. K

APPENDIX I11

225

149. [KQ] Quincunx genus est ponderis quinque unciarum. hoc, inquit, quaeris, ut quinque unciae quas modeste conquisisti aliubi decem uncias tibi adquirant? an pecunia . . . 5.149(1) . . . praestet? deunces dicitur quasi dempta uncia una undecim uncias. 151. [KQ] Inuitat eum uoluptati ac genio indulgere. genio enim melle et nucleo dulcium libaturi diis ut bene sit genio. 152. [KQ] Fubulufies, id est in terra et in puluerem reuerteris. morituri, inquit, de uita bona cogitemus. ac si . . . 5.152(1) . . . licet. 154. a) [KQ] Conuenit, inquit, ut si utramque sequi uolueris ancipiti uia uel seruitio utriusque obsequaris. b) [WQ] Auaritia uocat ad laborem, luxuria ad requiem. 157. a) [KQ] Cum semel, inquit, uitiorum iugum abieceris et lapsus sis, iterum ne dicas ‘abrupi onus uitiorum,’ cum partem horum habeas. b) [KQ] Obnoxios, inquit, etiamsi nolint seruire, post poenam cogit ipsa conditio; nam licet . . . 5.157(3) . . . trahit et iterum constringitur. 161. a) [KQ] Verba adolescentis quasi ad seruum; Dauus enim nomen est serui hominis. b) [Q] Introducit autem Cherestratum iuuenem amantem. c) [WO] Adolescens: personae mutatae sunt, nam Chaerestratum posuit pro Phaedria, Dauum pro Parmenone. sic enim uocantur apud Terentium. 162. [KQ] Crudum unguem dicit nudum uel cami adhaerentem; nam quod eminet, incrementurn uocatur. 166. [KQ] Praestolabantur amatores ante fores meretricum extincta face donec admitterentur. 168 a) [P: title over Duue] Verba adolescentis. b) [P: marginal title] Verba Daui ad Cherestratum. 169. [KQ] Deliras, inquit, uapulabis de solea rubra, id est de flagello fact0 de tergore alexandrino. 176. [PI Aliter: pulpo, id est qui palpando hoc est timendo blanditur fauentibus. 177. a) [KQ] Cicer enim calefacit homines ac in Venerem salaces facit uel reddit, siue, ut quidam dicunt, et ista consuetudine quod aediles certis ludis populum pascebant cicere et ceteris leguminibus. nam in ludis Floralibus omnis semina spargebantur, ut . . .5.177(2) . . . placaretur. ludos enim terrae colebant. b) [PI Quod in festis Florae deae multa munera concedebantur populo. 179. a) [P: marginal title] Hic de superstitionibus tractat.

3 dicitur K : dicuntur Q 5 ac genio om. K 6 dulcium om. K 7 fies Q : fides K I in terra et in Q : intra K 8 cogitamus K 9 utrique Q 11 uocat om. W 12 abieceris Q : obieris K 13 abrumpi Q 14 cogit om. Q 16 enirn om. K 19 Adolescens om. 0 21 unguern crudurn Q 22 incrernentum K : excrementurn Q 23 ante fores meretricurn amatores Q 27 flagello K : flagro Q 28 alexandrino Q : alexandrio K 30 ac om. Q I salaces] salares KQ 31 consuetudine] consuetudinem KQ I aediles] elides KQ 32 pascebant] pacebant K : pascebat Q 33 ludos-colebant om. K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

226

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [KQ] Aprici senes, id est calidi, luxuriosi, adhuc amantes; apricum enim dicimus calidum. et ipsa aprica loca gaudebant. vel aliter apricos . . .5.177(4) . . . consuetos. 180. a) [KQ] Herodis dies uel Apriles dicit Kalendas Veneri sacratas uel ab eo quod lucheros, id est cupido, Herodis dies cupidineos dixit, id est festos, uoluptuosos. 5 b) [P: marginal title] Hic de superstitionibus dicit. 18 1 . [KQ] Disponebantur enim lucernae in domibus. inducit Iudaeorum festa, in quibus accurate et cum lucernis prandebant. 182. [Q] Rubrum fictile quod est argiennum, id est ex argilla quod ait aut breuitatem catini aut magnitudinem tinni ostendit. 10 184. [KQ] Recutita, id est ueretri pelle recisa; quia Iudaei qui sabbata colunt extremam partem ueretri non habent. 185. [KQ; cf. Aug. Civ. Dei 9.111 Lemures laruales umbrae a laribus dictae, id est manes, quoniam corporibus ill0 tempore tribuuntur quo fit prima conceptio. et postquam nascuntur, isdem corporibus delectantur atque cum his manentes lemures 15 appellantur. qui si uitae prioris adiuti fuerint honestate, in lares domorum uel urbium post mortem corporis uertuntur. si autem deprauantur ex corpore, laruae perhibentur ac lamiae. laruae autem sunt mali dii, lamiae mali demones. 186. [KQ] Isidis sacerdotem dicit luscam, corpore minutam uelut indignam, sistrum in manu tenentem. est enim sistrum species instrumenti quod maxime circa Nilum 20 siue Aegyptum inuenitur. est enim genus ludi quo ad ioca pueri solent prouocari.

Sat. 6.10. a) [Q] Hennius enim poeta somniauit se esse Homerum, et sic longo tempore tenuit se fuisse in bello Troiano. b) [WO] Expergefactus est a somno; somniauit enim se esse Homerum et fuisse in bello Troiano. 25 11. [PI Quintus ideo aut quintus ab ill0 erat, aut cognomento. 19. [OQ] Solis natalibus id est una hora natiuitatis. aliter: introduxit uaro duos fratres aequis natalibus sed diuersis studiis. 21. [BVin] Sacrum piper quod parcitate sua sacrum aestimat. b) [PI Vt ponderosius in lance carius uendat. 30 33. [P: interlinear title] Verba auari. 39. [Q] Nostrum inquit mare hoc non habet postquam sapientia Graecorum et diuersa condimenta translata sunt ad urbem nostram. 47. [Q] Esseda uehiculorum genera sunt uel carpenta Gallica in quibus uehebantur molliter mulieres. ut Virgilius, Belgica . . . 6.47(1) . . . collo.

1 id est om. K I amantes K : amantestes Q 2 calidum Q : calididum K I aprica loca K : apric locis Q 3 Apriles] aptiles KQ I dicit K : dixit Q I sacratas Q : sacratus K 4 festos K : festiuos Q 10 ueretri K : ueteri Q 1 I partem ueretri K : ueretri autem Q 14 isdem Q : eiusdem K 15 lares] lare KQ 17 sunt om. K 18 in corpore Q I ueluti Q 19 enim K : autem Q I instrumenti] indumenti KQ 20 enim K : etiam Q 23 enim om. W 26-27 aliter-studiis om. Q 28 Sacrum piper B : ipse sacrum irrorans Vin I aestimat B : existimat Vin

APPENDIX I11

227

50. a) [Q] Coniueo, coniues, coniuet, id est consentio. coniuere est proprie oculos claudere; coniuere est ergo uel nutibus oculorum consentire. b) [Q] Artocreae condimenta sunt ex pane et carnibus: artos panis, crea caro. c) [WO] . , . 56(1) . . . Dianae, ubi ille colitur. Virbius autem Ippolitus est quem Esculapius suscitauit. nota autem apud Virgilium fabula quomodo a Fedra nouerca 5 amatus thalamos patris noluit uiolare. unde dolo nouercae iratum patrem effugiens equis eius focas Neptuni in litore expauescentibus in praecipitium cadens mortuus est. 68 [P: marginal title] Verbum heredis. b) [Q] Verba filii respondentis cum indignatione. 10 73. [PI Id est ego sim inde macer, et illi sit pinguius uenter. 77. [K(damaged)Q] Genus tormenti quo sancti cruciebantur apud Capadoces, ex uirgis ferreis contextum uel genus ludi quo qui iocantur magis precentur. 78. [P: marginal title] Verba auari. 79. [KQ] Fac paragraphum ubi finem capiam amoris negotiorum et depone modum . . 15 . 6.79(1) . . . augeam substantiam. 80. a) [KQ] HOCdicit: sicut non potest inueniri definitor syllogismi Chrysippi, ita non potest inueniri qui possit ponere finem cupiditati auari. b) [O] 0 Crisippe utrum inuentus finitor tui acerui.

5 fedra W : fedria 0 11 cruciabantur Q 16 definitor Q : diffinitor K I Chrysippi K : Chrisippi Q

LIST OF WORKS CITED Baswell, Christopher. Virgil in Medieval England (Cambridge 1995). Berger, A. ‘Zum sogenannten Comuti Commentum’, Wiener Studien 32 (1910) 157-59. Budelmann, Felix. ‘Classical Commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on Ancient Greek Literature’, in Gibson and Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary, 141-69. Cadili, Luca, ed., Scholia Bernensia in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica, Vol. 11, Fasc. 1 (Amsterdam 2003). Chevrou, Gaston, ed., A la MLmoire du Saintongeais Elie Vinet, Principal du Coll2ge de Guyenne, 1509-1587 (Barbezieux 1910). Ciccolella, Federica. Donatus graecus: Learning Greek from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Diss. Columbia, New York 2004). Clausen, W. V., ed., A. Persi Flacci Saturarum Liber (Oxford 1956). Clausen, W. V. and J. E. G. Zetzel, eds., Commenturn Comuti in Persium (Munich and Leipzig 2004). Condello, E. ‘Ai margini di Virgilio: paleografia e codicologia degli Scholia veronensia’, in V. Fera, G. Ferraii, S. Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginaliafrom papyri to print (Messina 2002) 1: 59-81. Desgraves, Louis. Elie Vinet, humaniste de Bordeaux, 1509-1587: vie, bibliographie, correspondance, Bibliothkque Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance, no. 156 (Geneva 1977). Dessein, Edouard. Un grand Maire de la Renaissance: Jehan Roussat 1543-1607 (Paris 1939). Dezeimeris, Reinhold and Paul Courteault. ‘Lettres d’Elie Vinet’, in Chevrou, ed., A la MLrnoire du Santongeais Elie Vinet, 134-73. Elder, J. P. ‘A Mediaeval Comutus on Persius’, Speculum 22 (1947) 240-48. Fera, V., G. Ferraii, S. Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginalia from papyri to print (2 vols, Messina 2002). Fisher, William W. 111. ‘The Growth of intellectual property: a history of the ownership of ideas in the United States’, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/ iphistory.pdf; also published as ‘Geistiges Eigentum+in ausufemden

230

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE Rechtsbereich: die Geschichte des Ideenschutzes in den Vereinigten Staaten’, in H. Siegrist and D. Sugarman eds., Eigentum im internationalen Vergleich: 18.-20. Jahrhundert (Groningen 1999) 265-91.

Frier, B. W. A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict (Atlanta 1989). Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents, trans. Joan Rivibre (New York and London 1961). Gibson, R. K. and C. S. Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory (Leiden 2002). Goebel, A. ‘Ueber eine Wiener Persius-handschrift s. X, init glossen und scholien’, Philologus 14 (1859) 170-80,379-87. - Iuvenaliana und Persiana aus einer Wiener Pergament-Handschr$t

des X.

Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1859). Goold, G. P. ‘Servius and the Helen Episode’, HSCP 74 (1970) 101-68. Goulet-CazC, M.O., ed., Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation (Paris 2000). Grafton, Anthony. Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, MA 2001). Greetham, David. Textual Transgressions: essays toward the construction of a biobibliography (New York 1998). Greetham, David, ed., Scholarly Editing: A guide to research (New York 1995). Hagen, H. Der Jurist und Philolog Peter Daniel aus Orleans (Bern 1873). Haugen, Kristine. Richard Bentley: scholarship and criticism in eighteenth-century England (Diss. Princeton 2001) Havet, L. Manuel de critique verbale appliquke aux textes latins (Paris 1911). Hermann, K. F. Analecta de aetate et usu scholiorum Persianorum. (Gottingen 1846). Holtz, Louis. ‘Les manuscrits latins h gloses et 2 commentaires: de I’antiquitt h 1’Cpoque carolingienne’, in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli, eds., I1 Libro e il testo (Urbino 1984) 139-67.

- ‘Le r6le des commentaires d’auteurs classiques dans I’Cmergence d’une mise en page associant texte et commentaire’, in Goulet-CazC, ed., Le Commentaire, 10117. Huygens, R. B. C. Ars edendi: A practical introduction to editing medieval Latin texts (Turnhout 2000). Jahn, Otto, ed., Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum Liber cum scholiis antiquis (Leipzig 1843; reprint Hildesheim 1967).

LIST OF WORKS CITED

23 1

Jannaccone, Silvia. ‘Rapporti di codici nella tradizione degli scolii a Persio’, GIF 12 (1959) 198-213. Kantorowicz, H. Einfuhrung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkntischen Grundsatze fur Philologen und Juristen (Leipzig 1921). Kenney, E. J. The Classical Text (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974). Kipling, Rudyard. The Complete Stalky & Co. (Garden City 1930). Kissel, A. Specimen criticum continens Auli Persii Flacci Codicum MSS. Leidensium Collationem (Zalt-Boemel 1848). KviEala, J. Scholiorum Pragensium in Persii satiras delectus (Prague 1873). Kraus, C. S. ‘Reading Commentaries/Commentaries as Reading’, in Gibson and Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary, 1-27. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. ‘Textual Scholarship and General Theories of History and Literature’, Text 3 (1987) 1-9. Kurz, E. Die Persius-Scholien nach den Bernerhandschriften (Burgdorf 1889; collection of three pamphlets, originally published Burgdorf 1875, Burgdorf 1888, and Burgdorf 1889). Liebl, H. Beitrage zu den Persius-Scholien (Straubing 1883). Lofstedt, E. Syntactica (ed. 2, Lund 1956). Lowe, E. A. Palaeographical Papers (Oxford 1972). Maas, P. Textual Criticism, trans. B. Flower (Oxford 1958). Maniaci, M. “‘La serva padrona”: interazioni fra testo e glossa sulla pagina del manoscritto’, in V. Fera, G. Ferraii, S . Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginalia from papyri to print (Messina 2002), 1: 3-35. Marchesi, C. ‘Gli Scoliasti di Persio’, RFIC 39 (191 1) 564-85; 40 (1912) 1-36, 193-215. Mariani, F. ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre e 1’Adnotatio secundum Remigium’, GIF 18 (1965) 145-61. McGann, Jerome. A Critique of Modem Textual Criticism (ed. 2, Charlottesville 1992). - The Textual Condition (Princeton 1991).

Morgan, M. H. A Bibliography of Persius (Cambridge, MA 1909). Most, G., ed., Commentaries-Kommentare (Gottingen 1999). Munk Olsen, B. L’Etude des auteurs classiques latins aux Xf et X I f sidcles, 3 vols. (Paris 1982-1989).

232

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

- 'Les titres dans les manuscrits des pobtes classiques latins copiCs du IX" au XIIc

sibcle', in J.-C. Fredouille et al., eds, Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques (Paris 1997) 51 1-27. Murgia, Charles E. Prolegomena to Sewius 5: The Manuscripts (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1975). Noske, G. Quaestiones Pseudoacroneae (Diss. Munich, 1969). Pasquali, G. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (ed. 2, Florence 1952). Perutelli, A. Frustula poetarum (Bologna 2002). PrCaux, Jean. 'Propositions sur l'histoire des textes des Satires de Perse et du Cornmenturn Cornuti', in G. Cambier, ed., Hommages ci Andre' Boutemy, Collection Latomus 145 (Brussels 1976) 299-314. Quadri, R., ed., I Collectanea di Eiric di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense 11 (Fribourg 1966). Renouard, Philippe. Re'pertoire des imprimeurs parisiens : libraires, foundeurs de caract2res et correcteurs d'imprimerie, depuis l'introduction de l'imprimerie ci Paris, 1470,jusqu'd lafin du seizi2me sikcle (Paris 1965). Reynolds, L. D., ed., Texts and Transmission (Oxford 1983). Reynolds, L. D. and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars (ed. 3, Oxford 1991). Robathan, Dorothy M. and F. Edward C r a m 'A. Persius Flaccus', in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, ed. P. 0. Kristeller and F. E. Cranz, 8 volumes (Washington 1960--), 3 (Washington 1976) 201-312. Scarcia Piacentini, Paola. Saggio di un censimento del manoscritti contenenti il testo di Persio e gli scoli e i commenti a1 testo, Studi su Persio e la scoliastica Persiana 3.1 (Rome 1973). Stephan, C. De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis (Bonn 1882). Talmon, Shemaryahu. 'Double Readings in the Massoretic Text', Textus 1 (1960) 14484. - 'Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran

Manuscripts', Textus 4 (1964) 95-132. Tarrant, R. J. 'Classical Latin Literature', in Greetham, ed., Scholarly Editing, 95-148. Tarrant, R. J., ed., P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses (Oxford 2004). Timpanaro, S. La Genesi del metodo del Lachmann (ed. 2 revised, Padova 1985). Traube, L. Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (ed. 2, Munich 1910).

LIST OF WORKS CITED

233

- Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen (Munich 1910-20), Vol. DI: Kleine Schrifen, ed.

S. Brandt (Munich 1920).

van Buren, Veronika, ‘Une Cdition critique de Solin au Ix“ sikcle’, Scriptorium 50 (1996) 22-87. Wessner, Paul, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’, WKPh 34 (1917) 473-80,496-502. Wessner, Paul, ed., Scholia in Iuuenalem Vetustiora (Leipzig 1931). West, M. L. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Stuttgart 1973). Wiener, Claudia. ‘Auf der Suche nach Cornutus. Die mittelalterliche PersiusKommentierung und Elie Vinets Arbeit an der Edition des Commentum Cornuti (1563)’, in B. Korkel, T. Licht, J. Wiendlocha, eds., Mentis Amore Ligati (Festgabefiir Reinhard Diichting) (Heidelberg 2001) 571-84. Zetzel, James E. G. ‘On the History of Latin Scholia’, HSCP 79 (1975) 335-54. - ‘The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the Meaning of

Emendatio’, CP 75 (1980) 38-59. -‘On the History of Latin Scholia II: The Commentum Cornuti in the Ninth Century’,

Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1981) 19-31. - Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York 1981). - ‘Religion, Rhetoric, and Editorial Technique: Reconstructing the Classics’, in

G. Bornstein and R. G. Williams eds., Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities (Ann Arbor 1993) 99-120. Zillober, M. Eine neue Handschrifr der sechs Satiren des Aulus Persius Flaccus (Augsburg 1862).

APPENDIX I. PIERRE PITHOU AND THE COMMENTUM CORNUTI 1. The older scholia in the Codex Pithoeanus

As has been stated before, one of the puzzles of the early tradition of exegesis on Persius is the absence of any equivalent in the margins of the text of Persius to the extensive scholia found in the margins of the text of Juvenal in the famous manuscript that belonged to Pierre Pithou, now Montpellier, FacultC de MCdecine 125. What appears in the margins of Persius in that manuscript is, for the most part, a commentary written by a much later hand which is not unlike the Commentum but has notes neither as full nor as good as those in MLUR.’ There are, however, two small sets of notes in relatively early hands that deserve to be mentioned. One set, published by C. Stephan in 1882, consists of the following individual notes on Satires 2 and 3;’ the fact that the same notes with relatively minor textual differences are also found in Sangallensis 870 suggests that they, like the scholia uetera on Juvenal, come from an ancient source. I have removed orthographic peculiarities, italicized lemmata, and expanded some abbreviations.

2.1: Hunc Macrine d. n. Olim sapientes dies pacificos numerabant adponentes lapillos albos. dies autem malos lapillis nigns conputabant. 2.3: Funde merum g. ‘Merum genio’ quod uinum eius uendebant. 2.8: Mens bona. Mens bona et conscientia pura publice oriit cuius fama clarior est. bona nam qui praua postulat sub lingua murmurat. 3.37: Mouerit in. g. $ t. Metafora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinam colorem non potest reuerti; sic et isti. 3.39: Anne magis s. g. ae. i. Falaris et ipse nihilominus rex Siciliae uno eodemque ritu in poenis delectabatur. Vnus ex ciuibus ipsius aerarius cupiens placere fabricatus est uaccam aeream; obtulit principi. Interrogatus a rege istud quid

Prkaux, ‘Propositions’ 304-05 uses the (late) scholia in P as evidence for the Cornmenturn; they are clearly related, but of no textual value whatsoever. Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 502 described them rightly as ‘a partially interpolated excerpt from the Cornmenturn’ and suggested that they might have been written by Pithou himself; from the handwriting, that seems unlikely. Stephan. De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis gives the text of these notes on pp. 14-15; a full collation of the Sangallensis on p. 22.

APPENDIX I

163

profecerit, ille respondit ‘calefactam missus reus uoces poenae ipsa reddit.’ istud placuit regi; iussit calefaci et ipsum ibi mitti. 3.40: Laquearibus ensis. Dionisius rex fuit Siciliae. iste nouo poenae genere homines adficiebat. Democritus philosopus iste dixit quietam uitam esse regibus; ille audito uocauit ad prandium, exhibuit delicias, et supra caput eius in filo equino ligatum gladium iussit pendere. ille propter casum et uocem fili illius cum nimio terrore coepit comedere. post consumptum prandium interrogatus a principe dixit cum nimio metu prandidisse. ait illi rex ‘sub gladio uita principum deputata est.’ None of these scholia is found in the Commenturn, nor does any of them resemble closely any of the equivalent notes found in other manuscripts of marginal scholia (see Appendix 3). Stephan believed that the note on 3.37 was from the Commentum, but that is because it entered the Commentum from the Glossae Veteres, and Pithou’s source for the note was almost certainly the Pithoeanus itself. The odd language of some of these notes led Stephan to the unlikely hypothesis that they were originally written in Greek.3 What is clear is that they come from two small groups of verses, 2.1-8 and 3.37-40; that suggests that they were taken from a scrap or scraps of a fuller collection-which is now otherwise entirely lost. The second early set of notes in the Pithoeanus was also written in the ninth or tenth century, and consists of five notes on 1.1-4. As Stephan observes, they are taken from the Commentum itselfi4 what he could not know is that in the disordered notes of this passage the Pithoeanus sides decisively (and wrongly) with MLU against R. In this, they share the textual affiliations of all the sets of marginal scholia that I have seen. As they supply nothing new, there is no point in reproducing them here.’ 2. The Glossae Veteres

One of the first collections of scholia on Persius to be printed was the so-called Glossae Veteres included by Pierre Pithou in his 1585 edition of Juvenal, Persius and Sulpicia. These glosses are a small collection-they occupy only twelve pages in the original edition-but they are of considerable interest, and include many of the more substantive scholia of the Commentum. These Glossae, as printed, correspond to no known manuscript, although in substance most, but not all, are clearly related to the Commentum. Their source, therefore, has been a matter of considerable speculation, and it is necessary for any editor of the Commentum to decide whether they are, in fact, an independent witness, and if they are not, how they are related to the extant manuscripts. My intention here is to show that they are of virtually no value at all, as they are largely derived from the edition of the Commentum published in 1563 by Vinet. As the text is so Stephan, De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis 23, n.1, using the evidence of Johannes Lydus to show that there were Greek scholia on Persius. Stephan, De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis 15-16. Stephan does not give the text; I copied the notes in Montpellier in 1976.

’

164

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

short, it is worth giving it in full in order to show precisely what elements derive from what source. Part of the mystique of the Glossae arises from their having been printed by Pithou together with the ancient scholia to Juvenal which he had found in Montpellier 125. The Juvenal scholia in this manuscript are justly famous-they are still the basis of any edition-but, as shown above, the Persius scholia are with a few exceptions late and worthless. Pithou, in speaking of the source of his Juvenal scholia,was proud to identify his own manuscript; but he was remarkably vague about the source of the Glossae Veteres. On the one hand, he implies that he used his manuscript for both sets of scholia; on the other, he says that he had help from his friends: Non ignoro . . . Probo tribui commentaria non in Iuuenalem modo, sed et in A. Persii satiras illa, quorum hic quoque bonam partem emendatiorem damus, usi etiam hac in re consilio iudicioque amicorum, atque in primis 10s. Scaligeri uiri incomparabilis. . . . [cited in CTC 2361 Scaliger himself was not so reticent about his help to Pithou. Twenty years later, he wrote to Isaac Casaubon about the Glossae Veteres, which Casaubon had printed in his edition of Persius: Scito illas ita a nobis excerptas a Pithoeo editas fuisse. Chirographum earum meum . . . in aedibus meis Aginni invenies apud Puteanos fratres, si mod0 non periit. Patri enim eorum dedi, et fortasse Pithoeus quaedam aliter edidit ac ego scripsi, quod tamen non puto. Ego illarum omnium glossarum eclogarius fui. [CTC 236f.l It is not entirely surprising that neither Pithou nor Scaliger is completely truthful; each exaggerates his part in the work. But by a fortunate chance, it is possible to show exactly what each of the two did. For Scaliger‘s autograph of the Glossae, while no longer in Agen, is still among the papers of the Dupuy family in the Bibliothkque Nationale, Fonds Dupuy 394 (ter), foll. 218-224. These pages contain a collection entitled Glossae Veteres in Persium. Most of the contents, including that title, are written unmistakably in Scaliger’s hand. A second hand, Pithou’s, added another title, Ex Veteribus Glossis in Satiras Persii, and contributed a number of corrections and additions to Scaliger’s notes. At the top of fol. 225‘, which contains some emendations of Persius in Scaliger’s hand, Pithou has written: Accepi v Id. Jan. MDLXXXIIII Vesannae petreco[. . .]. The place mentioned here is Perigueux, and the date is one year before the publication of his edition! Before giving the text of the Glossae, it is worth noting one feature of Scaliger’s manuscript: it is supplied with numbers in the left-hand margin, which do not refer to lines of the text. Rather, they are page numbers, and with a few exceptions they are the Jahn, ed. Persius ckiv-xlxvi was already suspicious about the origin of the Glossue; see also Wessner, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’ 502.

APPENDIX I

165

same as the page numbers of Vinet’s edition of 1563, but they are never more than one page wrong, and always one number too The obvious inference from the numbers is that Scaliger was copying from a printed text, and in fact it will emerge that with very few exceptions the only notes or readings not drawn from Vinet‘s edition are those added or changed by Pithou. For the text that follows I have printed Pithou’s text of 1585, giving a complete apparatus for the text of the scholia, but not for the lemmata, as these received a certain amount of abridgement and traasposition in the course of excerpting. The lemmata are given as in Pithou’s edition; in Scaliger’s manuscript, they are written in capital letters. The sigla used are as follows: Pith. = ed. Pithou, 1585, pp. 148-159 Pith* = notes and variants in that edition, pp. 288-289 S = the first hand (Scaliger) in Dupuy 394 (ter), foll. 218-224 S’ = corrections and additions by Scaliger S* = corrections and additions by Pithou Sc = corrections (primarily deletions) in which the hand cannot be identified securely; I suspect that these are almost invariably by Pithou. Vin = Commentum Cornuti, ed. Vinet, 1563 It should be noted (1) that I have modernized typography but not spelling (although I have not reported such variants as physici : phisici); (2) that while Pithou numbers the Prologue and Satire I continuously, I have used the standard numeration; (3) that, obviously, I have not noted Scaliger’s omissions from Vin, and where nothing is reported, it should be assumed that VinSPith all agree; (4) that I have not included the Vita given by Pithou, which is not included in Scaliger’s manuscript.

’Exceptions: 1.43 is on p. 10, not 9 as in the manuscript; 1.54 on 12, not 11, 1.56 and 58 on 13, not 12; 1.81 on 17, not 16; 5.53 and 54 on 63, not 62; 5.161 on 71, not 70; 6.80 on 81, not 80.

166

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE IN SATYR. I 9. Verba nostra conari) Et blandiri, legitur. 14. Pegaseium melos) In aliis est, nectar.

5

10

15

20

25

30

1. Quantum est in rebus inane) Graecum est, 6oov d K E V ~ V . 2. Quis leget haec) Hunc versum de Lucillii primo transtulit. 4. Labeonem) Labeo transtulit Iliada & Odysseam verbum ex verbo, ridicule satis, quod verba potius quam sensum secutus sit. Eius est ille versus: Crudurn manduces Priamum, Priamique phisingos. 6. Examenue improbum) Examen est lingua, vel lignum, quod mediam hastam ad pondera adaequanda tenet. Castigare autem est digito libram percutere, vt temperetur, & prae agitatione post aequum conquiescat. Trutina vero est foramen, intra quod est lingula, de qua examinatio est. 9. Nostrum istud viuere triste) Figura Graeca est, pro, nostram vitam tristem. 11. Cum sapimus patruos) Sic Cicero: Obiurgavit Caelium, vt quidam patruus Censor. 12. Petulanti splene cachinno) Cachinno nomen est, & declinatur per omnes casus, hic Cachinno, huius Cachinnonis. Cachinnus est cum voce risus lasciuior, quem Graeci * povoysp6v~aqdicunt. Et secundum Physicos dixit, qui tradunt homines splene ridere, felle irasci, iecore amare, corde sapere, pulmone iactari. 14. Animae praelargus) Animae praelargus dicit vento abundans. 16. Et natalitia t. c. s. albus) Ambiguitas in natalitia, vtrum eam natali suo, munere acceperit, an tantum eo die gerere soleat: quia quidam habent anulos, quos die tantum natali gerunt. &, albus, aut festiua veste indutus, aut recitandi pauore, ac meditandi & scribendi taedio perfunctus: uel veste candida nondum purpureum adeptus vestimentum, quod laticlauium dicitur. 18. Patranti) Patratio est rei venereae perfectio, vel consummatio. vnde & patres dicti, eo quod patratione filios procreant. ib. Ocello) Per 6~0~6pt0pc~: quia illum contrahendo minorem facit. Iuuenalis, -0culosque in fine trementes. 21. Et tremulo scalpuntur) In libidinem excitantur. Iuuenalis, -Quod enim non excitat inguen Vox blanda, & nequam? digitos habet.

3 rnelos S2Pith : nectar VinS I nectar SzPith : rnelos VinS 5 Lucillii SPith : Lucili Vin 6 uerbum S2Pith : uerbo VinS I ridicule VinSPith : ridiculose SZPithZ 8 phisingos VinSPith : pisennos (ut uid.) Sz : pisinnos PithZ 9 lingua uel lignum VinSPith : ligua uel linum S2PithZ 11-12 est lingula de qua VinSPith : linurn est de quo S* : aliter lignum S 2 : est h u m de quo Pithz 14 scholium om. VinS, add. Sz 16 omnes om. Vin 17-19 Cachinnus est-iactari om. VinS, add. S2 18 tradunt S2 in muug. : dicunt S2 in confextu 22 soleat S'Pith : solebat VinS 23-25 et albus-dicitur om. VinS, add. S2 27 patratione] patratione peracta VinS : peracta del. Sc I Posr hoc scholium sequitur in VinS: INGENTES TREPIDARE TITOS OUVEK~OXLK$I)S Titos scholasticos: quod sint uagi; del. Sz

APPENDIX I 26. Vsque adeone Scire tuum) Haec periodus apud Lucillium posita est * vt me scire volo mi mi conscius sum, ne damnum faciam. Scire hoc se nescit, nisi alios id scire scierit. 28. At pulchrum est d. m.) Hic requiritur historia Demosthenis, qui, cum transiret, & a mercenario tabernae digito monstraretur, fertur laetatus esse, quod ab ignobilibus sciretur. Et Horatius libro quarto Carminum sic posuit: Totum muneris hoc tui est, Quod monstror digito praetereuntium. 29. Ten Cirratorum) Occulte tangit Neronem, cuius carmina, quia imperabat, per scholas celebrabantur. 39. Nunc nun e tumulo) Tumulus dicitur terrae aggestio, vbi nulla est memoria. 43. Nec scornbros met. car. nec tus) Quae carmina nullum periculum habeant apud salsamentarios & turarios. Per scombros significat salsamentarios, per tus pigmentarios. 44. Quisquis es, o modo quem) Mimica & Comica exclamatio: quoniam poetae nonnumquam omisso recto sermone, extra scenam soli loquuntur, sustinentes personam suam, aut aliquorum hominum verba interponunt. 50. Nun est hic Zlias Acci) Accius Labeo Iliadem Homeri versibus foedissime composuit. 54. Scis comitem horridulum) Scis birrum attritum comiti condonare. Lacerna, pallium fimbriatum, quo olim soli milites velabantur. Penula, pallium cum fimbriis longis. 56. Qui pote?) Tractus sensus ex Graeco versu, quo significatur, ex ventre crass0 tenuem sensum non nasci. 58. Nulla Ciconia) Tria genera sannarum: aut manu significare ciconiam, aut opposito temporibus pollice, auriculas asininas, aut linguam sitientis canis. Sanna autem dicitur 0s distortum cum vultu, quod facimus, cum alios deridemus. Inde sanniones dicti, qui non rectum vultum habeant. 72. Palilia) Varro: Palilia tam priuata, quam publica sunt apud rusticos: vt congestis cum faeno stipulis ignem magnum transiliant, his Palilibus se expiari credentes. 82. Trossulus) Trossulum oppidum fuit Hetruriae, non longe a Volscis. HOCequites Romani sine peditibus expugnauerunt Numio quodam duce. Vnde equites Romani Trossuli dicti sunt.

1 haec] haec est VinS : est del. S' I Lucillium SPith : Lucilium Vin I posita est SzPith : poetam VinS 4 At VinPith : SED S 5 mercenario SPith : mercennario Vin 8 monstror SPith : monstrer Vin 13 tus VinPith : THUS S 14 pigmentarios VinSPith : unguentarios SzPithz 21 fimbriis SPith : fimbris Vin 23 xa@a yacrrr)p k m b v 06 rima v6ov S' (ut uid.) in marg., Pithz 25-26 opposito temporibus pollice om. VinS, add. Sz 26 asininas STith : asini VinS 29 sunt et VinS : et del. S1 30 faeno Pith : foeno VinS 31 Hetruriae SPith : Etruriae Vin 33 Post hoc scholium sequitur in VinS: PEDIVS QVID? Pedius damnatus repetundarum, cum ei [cui cum Vin] crimen obiectum esset furti, non se fortiter respondendo purgauit : del. SC

167

5

10

15

20

25

30

168

5

10

15

20

25

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

86. Librat in anithetis) Antitheta sunt haec: Fortia neglecti velabant colla capilli: Et per neglecti volitabant colla capilli. Aut quotiens vmbra porrexi brachia mota: Aut quotiens vmbra redduxi brachia mota. Antitheta autem ista sunt, quae contra se ponuntur: vt, hinc pudor, illinc petulantia: hinc pudicitia, illinc stuprum: istinc fraudatio, illinc fides. 95. Sic costam longo) Omnia Epicorum carmina, ita fere sunt composita, vt proximus pes ab vltimo dactylus sit, exceptis admodum paucis, quos m o v 6 a ~ ~ o v zappellant, a~ vt apud Cornelium Seuerum: Pinea frondosi coma murmurat Apennini. 97. Subere coctum) Suber cortex arboris. Virgilius: Huic natam libro, & syluestri subere clausam. 99. Torua mimalloneis) Versus Neronis sunt. ib. Mimalloneis) Mimallones dicuntur ministri Liberi patris, &7d zqq y~pfi~iloso~. Calandrus Illyriorum rex ad Macedoniam cum exercitu uenit: Macedones cum paruum exercitum haberent, plurimas mulieres cothumis & thyrsis in modum Baccharum ornauerunt. Illi credentes exercitum aduentare, discesserunt. 101. Bassaris) Bassarides, Bacchae: quibusdam videtur a genere vestis, qua Liber pater vtitur, demissa ad talos, quam Thraces Bassarin. Quidam a vulpibus, quarum pellibus Bacchae succingebantur. Vulpes Thraces Bassares dicunt. 119. Nec cum scrobe) Midae historiam tangit. 122. Nulla tibi vendo Iliade) Non tibi illud dem, si mihi Iliada Labeonis, aut Neronis Troicon tradas. Scripsit Nero Troicon. 133. Nonaria) Nonaria dicta meretrix. quia apud veteres a nona hora prostabant, ne mane omissa exercitatione ill0 irent adolescentes.

IN SATYR. 11. Hunc Macrine diem) Alloquitur Plotium Macrinum, hominem sane eruditum, & patemo se affectu diligentem, qui in domo Seruilii didicerat, a quo agellum 30 comparauerat, indulto sibi precio aliquanto. 13. Proximus expungum) Tractum a militibus, qui expuncti dicuntur, dum foras a militia emittuntur. Item metaphora a bello, in quo, cadente qui primus est, succenturiatur alius.

2 uelabant VinSPith : uolitabant Pith2 3 neglecti uolitabant colla capilli Pith : neglectos uelabant c. capillos VinS : neglectos ulitabant c. capillos S1 (uf uid.) : neglectos uolitabant c. capillos Pith2 4-5 aut (bis) VinSPith : ah S1 (ut uid.), Pith2 I brachia VinS'Pith : bracchia S 6 redduxi SPith : reduxi Vin 6-7 ut hinc pudor-fides SZPitb : ut hac parte pugnet petulantia; hinc pudicitia: hinc stuprum, hinc castitas: hinc fides, illinc fraudatio VinS 8 epicorum SPith : Epicureorum Vin 9 anov6af(ovta< SPith : spondaizontas Vin 11 murmurat VinSPith : sibilat Charisium S1 in marg.: sibilat apud Charis. Pith2 20 demissa SPith : dimissa Vin 21 bassares] Hesych S' in marg. : Vide Hesychium Pith2 28 S' in marg. non liquet I Plotium SPith : om. Vin 30 precio SPith : pretio Vin 32 item om. Vin

APPENDIX I

169

14. Nerio iam tertia) Nerius morte coniugum locupletatus, foenerator est factus notissimus: de quo Horatius, Scribe decem Nerio. Dos enim a ciue Romano data, non patrio dicta nomine, si repudium non interuenerit, post mortem vxoris ad maritum pertinet. 19. Vis Staio) Staius tutor pupillarius fuit: Gutta & Albus, & caeteri praepositi, fuerunt iudices: qui in Iuniano iudicio cormpti, Oppianicum damnauerunt. 26. An quia nonfibris) In vsu fuit, vt augures, vel aruspices adducti de Etruria, certis temporibus fulmina transfigurata in lapides infra terram absconderent, cuius in patratione rei oues immolabantur. 27. Bidental) Locus sacro percussus fulmine, qui bidente ab aruspicibus consecratur, quem calcare nefas est. 36. Nunc Licini in campos) Licinius Crassus inter Romanos locupletissimus, ideo Dives cognominatus. Alii volunt Licinium tonsorem ac libertum Augusti Caesaris significari prqdiuitem: cuius monimentum est pretiosi operis via Salaria prope vrbem, ad lapidem secundum. De hoc non inuenustum Varronis Epigramma fertur: Marmoreo Licinus tumulo iacet: at Cat0 paruo: Pompeius nullo. quis putet esse Deos? 39. Non mando) Verbo vsus est aruspico, cum eis dicitur: Mando tibi, vt maximum Iouem audias. Vt quemadmodum procurationis assertio fit, ita fiat & in sacris, & in prece. 42. Tucetaque crassa) Tuceta apud Gallos Cisalpinos bubula dicitur, condimentis quibusdam crassis oblita, ac macerata: & ideo toto anno durat. Solet etiam porcina eodem genere condita seruari, aut ad saturarum iura. Hinc Plotius Virgilii amicus in eadem regione est nominatus Tuceta. 56. Nam fratres inter ahenos) Acron tradit, quod in porticu Apollinis Palatini fuerunt Danaidum effigies, & contra eas sub diuo totidem equestres filiorum Aegisthi. Ex iis autem statuis quaedam dicebantur postulantibus per somnum dare oracula. 59. Saturniaque impulit aera) Aes in aede Satumi condebatur, nondum argent0 auroque signato. Vnde aerarium nomen accepit. Fuit autem assis libralis, & dipondius. quod hodie in vsu remansit. & solebat pensari potius quam numerari: vnde & Dispensatores dicti prorogatores. 70. Donatae a uirgine puppae) Solebant virgines ante, quam nuberent, quaedam virginitatis suae dona Veneri consecrare. Hoc & Varro scribit.

1 est factus Pith : factus est VinS 2 Horatius SPith : Oratius Vin I a ciue Pith : a ciui VinS 3 dicta Pith : dictata VinS 7 Probus in Iuuenalem et Lucan. S1 (ut uid.) in marg. : del. Sc 8-9 in patratione SPith : impetratione Vin 13 Licinium SPith : Licinum Vin 14 monimentum SPith : monumentum Vin I pretiosi VinPith : preciosi S 15 hoc] hoc homine VinS : homine del. S’ 17 quis putet] credimus S2 : in quibusdam codicibus ‘Credimus esse Deos’ Pithz 21 dicitur] dicitur car0 VinS : car0 del. Sc 22 et ideo SZPith : ac ideo VinS 23 ad saturarum VinSPith : assaturarum S2PithZ I Sz in marg. non liquet 25 fuerunt SZPith : fuerit SVin 30 solebat SPith : solet Vin

5

10

15

20

25

30

170

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

72. Messalae lippa propago) Cottam Messalinum dicit, qui tam vitiosos oculos in senectute habuit, vt palpebrae eius in exteriorem partem verterentur. Hic ab Aurelio Cotta adoptatus, Aurelius Maximus dicebatur, originem trahens ab Aurelio Messala, qui septies fuit consul. qui cum a quodam Gallo ad monomachiam in praelio vocaretur, coruus super galeam in capite eius sedit, & victo hoste Coruinus vocatus est.

IN SATYR. 111. Nernpe hoc adsidue) Hanc satyram poeta ex Lucillii libro quarto transtulit, castigantis diuitum luxuriam & vitia. 10. Bicolor mernbrana) Bicolor, quod pars crocea, pars glutinata apud antiquos erat. 13. Vanescat sepia) Sepiam pro atramento, a colore, posuit: quamuis non ex ea vt Afri, sed ex fuligine ceteri conficiant atramentum. 18. Lallare) Nutrices infantibus, vt dormiant, solent dicere saepe, Lalla, lalla, lalla. Aut dormi, aut lacte. 21. Contemnere) Haec ab Horatio male translata intempestiua sunt --quin tu Inuidiam placare pares, virtute relicta? Contemnere miser. ib. Et sonat) Vt Virgil. Nec vox hominem sonat. 26. Cultrixque foci) Quia delibantiae dapes in ea positae, ad focum feruntur. 28. Sternmate quod Tusco) An oportet tu arrogantia inflatum dissilire, quod in aliquo nobili Tusco stemmate, millesimus a magno auctore nuniereris, & ramum aliquem ac lineam successionis a genealogo in stemmate numeratus obtineas? vel in equitum Romanor. recognitione trabeatum censorem donis militaribus insignis salutes? Cognitio enim equitum Romanorum Censoribus erat subiecta, quae nunc Consulum est officii. 37. Feruenti tincta veneno) Metaphora a lana, quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reuerti non potest. 45.Morituro verba Catoni) Merito, inquit, mihi lippitudinem arcessebam, ne Catonis deliberatiuam orationem recitarem, vtrum moriatur, an non: aut quibus verbis vti potuit, cum se destinaret interficere.

2 exteriorem VinSPith : dexteriorem FPith2 I post uerterentur] Fuit enim et multis deditus uitiis (diuitiis Sz ut uid.) VinS : lineam infra posuir Sc : om. Pith 3 Aurelius] Marcus Aurelius VinS : Marcus del. S' I dicebatur SPith : uocahatur Vin 5 uccatus SPith : appellatus Vin 8 Lucillii SPith : Lucilii Vin 9 diuitum luxuriam SPith : lux. diu. Vin 11 Sepiam om. Vin 12 fuligine VinSPith : figulinis Sz : Al. ex figulinis, male Pith2 13 Nutrices SPith : a nutrice . . . quae Vin 14 lacte VinSPith: lacta S2 15 translata Pith : traslata VinS 19 Et-hominern sonat om VinS, add. Sz 22 millesimus SPith : milesimus Vin I auctore Pith : autore VinS 24 militaribus SPith : militatibus Vin 26 Post hoc scholium add. S2: DISCINCTI VIVERE NATTAE fictum n o m n ah Oratio. Alii dicunt luxuriosum : non habent VinSPith 27 hoc scholium non habent VinS; add. S2 in marg. inferiore 29 arcessabam SPith : accersebam Vin 30 moriatur Pith : moriretur VinS

APPENDIX I

171

48. Quid dexter senio) Senio maior missus: vt Sceua, Immerito, inquit, flebam istas, cum semper laudarem. 89. Inspice sodes) Sodes, antiquae affectationis est: adeo vt soluto eo quidam vsi sint, vt Plautus, qui per solutionem sic ait: Dic mihi, si audes, quae est, quam ducere vis vxorem? 5 103. Tandemque beatulus) Ambitionem imdet, non quia ~ ! C K C C ~ &&< p ~ h p t o t dicuntur mortui. non est enim Romanae consuetudinis. sed quia pretiosa in funeribus veste stragula, caeterique etiam pauperculi exponebantur. Beatulus autem, qui nunquam splendidiore habitu fuit. aut certe, quia Romanae consuetudinis fuit simpliciter sepelire. 10 106. Hesterni capite induto) Hestemi, ait, a defunct0 pridie manumissi, id est liberti, & ciuis Romani facti. ib. Capite induto) Quia manumissi ante manumissoris corpus pileati incedebant. 112. Populi cribro decussa farina) Farinam, panem non delitiosius cribro discussum, sed plebeium, de populi annona, id est, fiscalem, dicit. 15

IN SATYR. 1111. Scis etenim iustam) Reuera scis iustitiam in lance pensare, & ipsius lancis dubiae rectitudinem calles discernere, & curuam regulam momentare, vbi inter curua subit, donec in liquido stet sententia. Regulam dicit ipsum momentaneae stilum. 13. Nigrum praefgere Theta) Iudices literam Theta apponunt ad eorum nomina, quos 20 supplicio afficiunt. Merito. 6qza &&I TOO Bavhzou, eo quod quasi habeat telum sum. ideoque triste intelligitur: vel mortis signum: vnde quidam ait, 0 multum ante alias infelix litera Theta. 18. Curata cuticula sole) Curata, scilicet a Chromatiariis. Nam Chromatiarii dicuntur colorarii, vel qui toto die in arena sunt, vel in sole. Antiqui enim vngebant se, & in 25 sole erant, vt oleum corpus imbiberet: vt Iuuenalis, Nostra bibat vernum contracta cuticula Solem, Effigiatque togam. 26. Quantum non miluus oberret) Secundum prouerbium: Quantum milui volant. 30

1 HOCscholium habent VinPith, om. S, add. Sz in marg. inferiore I sceua VinSzPith : sena Pith* I istas SzPith : istarn Vin 3 adeo bis S :pr. del. Sc 7 pretiosa VinPith : preciosa S 8-10 beatulus-sepelire habent VinS2, om. S 8 autern om. VinSZ 9 h i t pr. SzPith : fuerit Vin 11 pridie SzPith : prius VinS 12 ciuis Pith : ciues VinS 13 pileati incedebant SzPith : praeibant pileati VinS 14-15 non delitiosius cribro discussum sed SZPith: gregalem et S : utrumque Vin 17 lancis dubiae SPith : dub. lanc. Vin 19 donec-sententia SzPith (alibi Vin) : om. S 24 lemma bis S : pr. del. S1 25 arena Pith : harena VinS 28 effigiatque togam VinS2Pith : om S

172

5

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

28. Pertusa ad compita) Compita sunt loca in quadriuiis, quasi turres, vbi sacrificia, finita agricultura, rustici celebrabant. Merito pertusa, quia per omnes quatuor partes pateant, vel vetusta. vel compita non solum sunt in vrbe loca, sed etiam viae publicae ac diuerticula aliquorum confinium, vbi aediculae consecrantur patentes. In his iuga fracta ab agricolis ponuntur, emeriti & elaborati operis indicium. 44. Caecum vulnus habes) De gladiatoribus tractum, qui accept0 vulnere, inaurato balteo tegunt. 49. Puteal) Foeneratores ad puteal Scribonis Licinii, quod est in porticu lulia ad Fabianum arcum, consistere solebant.

10 1NSATYR.V. Caenanda Glyconi) Glycon Tragoedus populo mire placuit: & ideo a Nerone manumissus est, datis Virgilio Tragoedo domino eius, pro parte dimidia, quam possidebat, sestertiorum tercentis millibus. Hic fuit staturae longae, fusci corporis, labio inferiori demisso: antequam subornaretur deformis: nescius iocari, propter quod 15 eum insulsum Persius dixit. 14. Verba togae sequeris) Toga est pumm pallium, forma rotunda & fusiore, atque inundante sinu: & sub dextro veniens, super humerum sinistrum ponitur: cuius similitudinem in operimentis simulacrorum, vel picturamm aspicimus, easque statuas togatas vocamus. Toga vero Romani in pace vtebantur, in bello paludamentis. 20 Mensura togae iustae senas vlnas habebat. 22. Quandoque nostrae Pars tua sit Cornute animae) Sententia a Pythagora tracta, dimidiam animae suae partem dicit Cornutum, vt Horatius Virgilium: Et serues animae dimidium meae. 3 1, Succinctis laribus) Quia Gabino habitu, cinctuque Dii Penates formabantur, 25 obuoluti toga super humerum sinistrum, dextro nudo. 33. Candidus vmbo) C Z ~ V E K ~ O Xpro I K ~toga. ) S Alioquin & in praetexta candidus vmbo est. 47. Nostra vel aequali) Hoc secundum Astrologos dicit. Et hic sensus tractus est ab Horatio: Seu libra, seu me scorpius aspicit. 30 52. Mille hominum species) Et Horatius: Quot capitum viuunt, totidem studiorum Millia.

2 celebrabant SPith : celebrant Vin 3 uel uetusta SZPith : om. VinS I non solum sunt Pith : sunt non solum VinS 4-5 iuga fracta SzPith : fracta facta VinS 8 Scribonis Licinii VinSPith : Scribonii Libonis S' : Al. Libonis Pith2 9 arcum VinSPith : circum S2Pith2 13 tercentis SPith : trecentis Vin : sexcentis S2Pith2 19 in bello paludamentis SPith : belli autem tempore pallundamntis Vin 21 hoc scholium om. VinS, add. S2 I sententia-tracta] Sic Horatius Virgilium S2, qui deinde deleuit et sententia-tracta scripsit 24 cinctuque VinSPith : cinctique SZPith* 25 dextro nudo] al. et sub dextro Sz in marg. : del. S' 28 hoc scholium om.S, add. Sz (hoc-dicit et sensus-aspicit habet Vin, sed non eodem loco) 29 Horatio Pith : Oratio S2 31 Et Horatius S'Pith : ut Oratius Vin : ut Horatius S 33 millia Pith : milia VinS

APPENDIX I

173

Et Terentius, Quot capita, tot sententiae. 53. Velle suum cuique est) Et Virgilius: -trahit sua quemque voluptas. 54. Sub sole recenti) Est hic sensus ab Horatio tractus: Hic mutat merces surgente a sole. 73. Quisque Velina) Velina tribus numero aliarum tribuum accessit: & qui circa Velinum lacum habitabant, Romam translati sunt. Romae autem erat consuetudo, vt qui ex manumissione ciues Romani efficiebantur, in numero ciuium Romanorum frumentum publicum acciperent. 75. Quibus vna Quintem) Quos manumittebant, eos alapa percussos circumagebant, & liberos confirmabant. Vnde manumissio dicta, quod manu mitteretur. Quiritem autem singulariter abusiue dixit, licentia poetica. Nam sicut pater conscriptus non dicitur, its nec Quiritem dicere possumus. 88. Vindicta) Virga est, qua manumittendi a Praetore in capite pulsantur: ideo dicta, quod eum vindicat libertati. Masurius autem hic Sabinus legis consultus fuit: & Rubricas, vocat minium, quo tituli legum annotabantur. 100. Certo compescere puncto) Non ad trutinam, sed ad stateram retulit, quae punctis, & vnciis signatur. 104. Frontem de rebus) Pudorem. Templum enim pudoris est frons. 112. Mercurialem) Ideo dixit, quia ipsum Deum lucri dicunt. Vnde & cum sacello pingitur, & a negotiatoribus plurimum colitur. 119. Digitum exere) Digito sublato ostende, victum te esse a vitiis. Tractum a gladiatoribus, qui victi, ostensione digiti veniam a populo postulabant. 123. Moueare Bathylli) Bathyllus pantomimus fuit, Maecenatis libertus. 137. Verte aliquid) Negotiare, & speciem pro specie commuta. 138. Baro, regustaturn) Lingua Gallorum barones, vel varones dicuntur serui militum. qui vtique stultissimi sunt, serui videlicet stultorum. 140. Et oenophorum aptas) Oenophorum vas vinum ferens. o%oq enim vinum est, de quo est illud: Vertitur oenophoris fundus sententia nobis. 145. Vrna cicutae) Cicuta calorem in nobis frigoris sui vi extinguit Vnde sacerdotes Cereris Eleusiniae liquore eius vngebantur, vt a concubitu abstinerent.

5 Horatio SPith : Oratio Vin 7 et SzPith : nam VinS I qui] omnes qui VinS : omnes del. Sc 9 efficiebantur S2Pith : fiebant VinS 11 Quos Pith : quoties S : quotiens Vin 12 manu] manu eius VinS : eius del. Sc 1617 Masurius-annotabantur habent VinS2Pith : om. S 16 Masurius autem hic S2Pith : hic Masurius Vin 20 hoc scholium om. S : habenr VinS2Pith 21 sacello VinPith : saccello S 26 hoc scholium om. S : habent VinS2Pith 27 Lingua-uel om. VinS : add. S2 28 serui-stultorum om. S, add. S2 (haber Vin) 31 fundus sententia nobis SPith : f. s. n. Vin 32 post Cicuta habenr VinS : hic genus liquoris est quod : del. S2 I unde S2Pith : ideoque VinS 33 liquore eius S2Pith : quibus usus Veneris interdicebatur, hoc liquoris genere VinS I abstinerent] se abstinerent VinS : se del. S"

5

10

15

20

25

30

174

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

153. HOCquod loquor inde est) Horatius: Dum loquimur fugit inuida aetas. 161. Duue cito hoc credus) Hunc locum ex Menandri Eunucho traxit, in quo Dauum seruum Chaerestratus adolescens alloquitur, tanquam amore Chrysidis meretricis 5 derelictus: idemque tamen ab ea reuocatus ad illam redit. Apud Terentium personae immutatae sunt. 165. Et vdus Chrysidis) Vdas fores dixit, quas amatores solent vnguento perfundere, & ante ianuam illarum noctem vigiliis, & cantu transigere. 177. Vigilu & cicer) Ludis Floralibus omnia semina spargebantur in populum, vt 10 Tellus velut muneribus suis placaretur. 180. Herodis venere dies) Herodes apud Iudaeos regnauit temporibus Augusti, in partibus Syriae. Herodiani ergo diem natalem Herodis obseruant, vt etiam sabbata: quo die lucernas accensas, & violis coronatas in fenestris ponunt. 184. Recutituque subbutu) Instituta Iudaeorum significat, propter circuncisionem: 15 quam, auctores suos secuti, faciunt. 185. Ouoque periculu rupto) Sacerdotes, qui explorandis periculis sacra faciebant, obseruare solebant ouum igni impositum, vtrum in capite, an in latere desudaret. Si autem ruptum effluxerat, periculum ei portendebat, pro quo factum fuerat, vel rei familiari eius. 20 186. Cum sistro luscu sucerdos) Sistrum sacerdotes Isidis portant. Lusca autem, ideo, quod nubiles deformes cum maritos non inuenerint, ad ministeria Deorum se conferant.

IN SATYR. VI. Admouif) Hanc satyram scribit Persius ad Caesium Bassum poetum Lyricum, quem 25 fama est, in praediis suis positum, ardente Vesuuio monte Campaniae, & late ignibus abundante, cum villa sua vstum esse. Hic ergo dum viueret, Roma ad Sabinos necessario transibat, vbi brumali tempore in calido loco carmina scribebat. 6. Mihi nunc Ligus ora) Seipsum Persius significat secessisse in Liguriae fines, videlicet propter Fuluiam Sisenniam matrem suam, quae post mortem prioris viri ibi 30 nupta erat.

1 hoc scholium om. S , habenr VinS2 I Horatius S2Pith : Oratius Vin 2 fugit S2Pith : fugerit Vin 3 ex S2Pith : de VinS 5-6 Apud-sunt om. VinS, add. S2, qui post sunt scripsit Nam pro Ch, deinde deleuit 8 illarum Pith : earum VinS 9 hoc scholium om. S, add. Sz; simile habet Vin I spargebantur in populum S2Pith : super p. spargebant Vin 10 uelut muneribus S2Pith : ueluti uisceralibus Vin 11 Herodes] Hic Herodes VinS : hic del. Sc I Augusti] Augusti Imperatoris VinS : Imperatoris del. Sc 12 Herodiani S2Pith : Herodis VinS I Herodis S2Pith : Herodiani VinS I sabbata S2Pith : sabbati VinS 13 ponunt S2Pith : ponebant VinS 17 desudaret SPith : insudaret Vin 20 hoc scholium om. S, add. S2; habet Vin 21 quodl quod omnes S : omnes del. Sc I nubiles S2Pith : nobiles aut VinS 25 Vesuuio SPith : Vesunio Vin 26 Roma SPith : de Roma Vin 27 calido SPith : callido Vin

APPENDIX I 7. Hibernat) Saeuit, vel a nauigiis vacat. Sicut enim naues hibernare dicimus: sic & mare, cum non nauigatur. 10. Cor iubet hoc Enni) Hunc versum ad suum Carmen de Ennii carminibus transtulit. 24. Turdarum n o s e saliuam) Cognoscere turdorum sapores. Solent enim quidam gulae dediti, tantae subtilitatis habere palatum, vt dignoscant turdos, an cellarius, an terrarius sit: an masculus, an femina. Turdarum dixit abusiue, cum turdorum debuerat, vt Horatius ponit: Pene macros, arsit, dum turdos versat in igni. 30. Ingentes de puppe Dei) Nauium tutelam dicit, quam in puppibus habent, vel pingunt. 35. Ossa inodora) Sine vnguentis: vel, inhonora, sepulturae honore carentia. 40. Crassu uitiarunt vnguine) Solent rustici cum oleum defuerit, adipem pecudum in pultem misso pro oleo vti. 55. Accedo Bouillas) Bouillae sunt vicus ad vndecimum lapidem Appiae viae: quia aliquando in Albano monte ab ara fugiens taurus iam consecratus, ibi comprehensus est. Inde Bouillae dictae. 56. Cliuumque ad Virbi) Quatuor millibus ab vrbe est Virbii cliuus, qua iter est ad Ariciam, & ad nemus Dianae, vbi Virbius colitur, id est Hippolytus, quod bis in vitam prolatus sit. Nota autem apud Virgilium fabula est. ib. Munnius) Mannium dicit deformem & ignotum hominem, eo quod Maniae dicuntur indecori vultus personae, quibus pueri terrentur. 61. Qui prior es cur me) Apud Athenas cum iuuenes ludos cursu celebrabant, qui victor esset, primus facem tollebat: deinde sequenti se tradebat, & secundus tertio: similiter omnes, donec currentium numerus impleretur. 67. Foenoris accedat merces) Tractum est hoc a patribus, qui dicunt filiis suis; hoc, quod vobis lucri de foenore accessit, ad fructum, id est, ad vsum vitae vobis proficiat: reliquum vero pecuniae reseruate integrum.

1 enim S2 Pith : et VinS I hibemare S2Pith : hibernant VinS 1-2 sic et mare S2Pith : om. VinS 2 nauigatur S2Pith : nauigant VinS 4 cognoscere SPith : ut cognoscant Vin 4-5 turdorum sapores-turdos S2Pith : turdos S : . . . ut turdorum sapores discernam. soleat enim gulae quidam dediti-ut cognoscant turdos Vin 6 terrarius VinSPith : uiuarius S2Pith2 I an masculus an femina S2Pith : et si masculus sit an femina Vin : om S I dixit abusiue SPith : abusiue posuit Vin 7 Horatius Pith : Oratius VinS 9 quam] quam quasi VinS : quasi del. Sc I habent uel PithSVin : uel habent uel S2 11 hoc scholium om. S , habent VinS2 I sepulturae-carentia S2Pith : id est mortis honore carentia, sine sepultura Vin 12 hoc scholium om. S, habent VinF I Solent--cum S2Pith : quia cum rusticis Vin I adipem PithVin : adipe S2 13 pultem S2Pith : pultes Vin I miss0 . . . uti S2Pith : missum. . . accipiunt Vin 19 Nota-est om VinS, add. S2 20 Maniae S2Pith : mannii VinS 21 personae VinPith : et personae S 22-23 cum-primus SZPith: ludi celebrabantur in quibus c u m iuuenes certabant et qui uictor primus erat VinS 24 post omnes: faciebant er sibi inuicem tradebant VinS : del. Sc I impleretur SPith : compleretur Vin 26 accessit VinSlPith : accedit S

175

5

10

15

20

25

176

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

77. Cuppadocas rigidu) Gladiatores dicit. Nam apud antiquos, venales gladiatores in catasta ponebantur, vt in eis possent omnia membra inspici. Vel quia Cappadoces dicerentur habere studium naturale ad falsa testimonia proferenda: qui nutriti in tormentis a pueritia, equuleum sibi facere dicuntur, vt in eo se inuicem torqueant, & 5 cum in poena perdurarent, ad falsa testimonia se bene uenundarent. ib. Pauisse) Legitur et plausisse: quoniam venales antequam in catasta imponantur, cantant vniuersi pariter more gentis suae. 80. Inuentus Chrysippe) Chrysippus philosophus Stoicus Syllogismum o o p h p vocauit, quem per adiectionem & detractionem ex acerui frumentarii similitudine 10 ostendit. FINIS.

1 dicit SZPith : significat VinS I uenales gladiatores S'Pith : gl. uen. VinS 2 inspici S'Pith : conspici VinS 2-3 Cappadoces dicerentur SZPith : Cappadocas dicerent VinS 3-4 in tormentis a pueritia S'Pith : a puer. in torm. VinS 4-5 in ewperdurarent VinSPith : del. Sc 5 bene VinSZPith : om. S 6 Pauisse non habet Vin 8 ante syllogismum: cruhhoy S , del. S1 9 uocauit] posuit et uocauit VinS : posuit et del. S' I ex VinS'Pith : om. S

APPENDIX I

177

The apparatus provided here demonstrates that, despite the differences between Vinet’s edition of 1563 and Pithou’s of 1585, the latter is descended, with at least two intervening stages of correction, from the former. With a very few exceptions, the text as written by Scaliger is the same as in Vinet, allowing for orthographic changes and the minor alterations necessary in making excerpts. The most significant departures of Scaliger’s text from Vinet’s are the following: 1.12 omnes add. S 1.28 at Vin : sed S (lemma) 1.82 cui cum Vin : cum ei S 1.95 Epicureorurn Vin : epicorum S 2.13 item add. S 2.26 impetratione Vin : in patratione S 2.36 Licinum Vin : Licinium S 2.59 solet Vin : solebat S 2.72 uocabatur Vin : dicebatur S 2.72 appellatus Vin : uocatus S 3.1 luxuriam diuitum Vin : diu. lux. S 3.13 sepiam add. S 3.28 militatibus Vin : militaribus S 4.10 dubiae lancis Vin : lan. dub. S 4.28 celebrant Vin : celebrabant S 5.14 belli autem tempore Vin : in bello S 5.140 f. s. n. Vin : fundus sententia nobis S 5.185 insudaret Vin : desudaret S 6.1 de Roma Vin : Roma S 6.1 callido Vin : calido S 6.24 abusiue posuit Vin : dixit abusiue S 6.61 compleretur Vin : impleretur S 6.67 acceesit VinSl : accedit S Scaliger may have derived some of these readings from another manuscript with scholia, either by deliberate collation or from memory. Celebrabant (4.28) is perhaps an obvious correction, but it is also the reading of RMLU; the deletion of de (6.1) is proper grammar, but it is also the reading of LU, while desudaret (V 185) is found in RMLUB and calido (6.1) in all manuscripts known to me; the expansion of the abbreviated verse$ s. n. at 5.140 will have been taken from Nonius or Isidore. Other readings may be purely conjectural-a indeed mistakes. The correction of accedit back to accessit at 6.67 may be indicative in this regard; we may also consider the rearrangements of words and the minor abridgments to be Scaliger’s own contribution to the text. The same is probably true of such changes as dicebatur or uocatus at 2.72. Only two of Scaliger’s readings are clearly deliberate conjectures: epicorum at 1.95 for the Epicureorurn of Vinet and most manuscripts (U reads heroicorum, clearly a conjecture) is clearly correct, and in patratione at 2.26, while probably wrong, is certainly worth considering; in this passage the manuscripts and early editions vary between imperatione, impetratione and in

178

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

paratione. But the divergences of Scaliger from Vinet are on the whole minor, and are more than matched by the rare and bad readings that Scaliger has taken from Vinet, including what must be typographical errors among them. Thus 1.4 uerbo de uerbo, 1.6 temperetur, 1.26 poetam, 1.99 Illyriorum, 2.19 tutor pupillarius, 2.36 quis putet, 2.42 ad saturarum. Such readings, combined with the presence of Vinet’s page numbers in the margin, should leave no doubt that Scaliger excerpted the Glossae from Vinet’s printed edition. Determining the sources of Pithou‘s readings is not so easy: it is evident that he used more than one source. In several cases, he simply added more material from Vinet’s edition; thus at 3.48, 5.47, 104, 137, 153 and 186. In none of these cases is there any significant difference between Vinet’s text and Pithou’s: note that they share the error sceua for sena at 3.48. Pithou did however combine two sections of Vinet’s text at 5.47. Not all Pithou’s additions are from that source, however: the scholium on 1.11 in not found in Vinet, although it is in MLUR and the vetus codex of the 1601 edition. Part of Pithou’s addition to the note on 1.12 is in MLU (although reading popoyshGvzaG instead of yovoysp6vvza~),but pulmone iactari is not, nor is the reading tradunt. The same combination of sources is evident in the addition to 1.16, although in this case the last part of the note, ueste-dicitur, is also found in KQ. The most striking use of a source other than Vinet’s edition is Pithou’s note on 3.37, for which the only readily apparent source is Pithou’s own manuscript of Persius, Montpellier 125, in which (as noted above) this is one of the very few notes written by the hand that also wrote the scholia to Juvenal. It is possible that other notes and variant readings in the Glossae that have no obvious source were drawn from the late (15th century?) commentary in that manuscript, which I have not collated. It is impossible to determine whether the readings introduced by Pithou had a single proximate source; some of them, particularly those in his notes and those left in the margins of S, were probably conjectural,’ but in terms of the early history of the scholia, it is evident that they derive from more than one tradition. Many of them are found in all four major manuscripts, but no significant ones are found in R alone; it is clear that Pithou’s source was closer to MLU than to R-but then, all the sets of marginal scholia that I have examined are closer to MLU than to R. Such readings include 1.4 ridiculose (MLUR); 26 posita est (MLUR); 2.36 credimus (MLUR); 42 car0 del. (om. MLU); et ideo (MLUR); 56 fuerunt ( M R ) ; 72 dexteriorem (ML); 3.13 figulinis (MLU); 18 lacta (MLU); 45 moriatur (MLU); 48 sena (MLU); 4.28 uel uetusta (MLUR); 5.145 se del. (om. MLUR); 161 ex (MLUR); 6.24 uiuarius (MLUR); 77 dicerentur (MLU). On the other hand, several readings clearly derived from the tradition represented by KQ: 1.16 ueste-dicitur (see above); 5.138 lingua Gallorum; 145 hie genus liquoris est quod del. S2, om. K; unde; liquore eius; 6.77 dicit. At 1.16 soleat is found both in K and in Bern.

On the other hand, the fact that he altered ac to et, the reading of MLURB, at 2.42, should make one hesitate to ascribe even the slightest changes to conjecture.

APPENDIX I

179

265, and that manuscript also shares the following readings with Pithou: Prol. 14 MELOS . . . nectar; 2.72 Marcus del. S", om. Bern 265; 4.28 iugafracta; 6.7 enim. Since Bern. 265 is, at least in its earlier sections, related to K (see above, p. 55-56), it is likely that all these readings are derived from another manuscript, related to both of them. Furthermore, given the fact that K and related manuscripts invariably have a text of Comm. of the MLU type, we may be justified in believing that Pithou was using only a single immediate source other than Vinet, probably a late manuscript of the B tradition. The main purpose of this section, however, is not to define precisely all the possible sources used by Pithou-they are probably late and of little textual value--but to expose the relative worthlessness of the Glossae as a source for the Commentum. Far from being the earliest stage of the commentary, as once was thought, they are a set of excerpts from a printed edition, with only minor changes and additions, most of which were simply the result of abridgement. They contain a few excellent readings, notably Scaliger's conjectures, but none indicates the use of a source any better than our extant early manuscripts.

APPENDIX 11. THE COMMENTARY OF REMIGIUS OF AUXERRE What survives of the commentary of Remigius of Auxerre on Persius is preserved as the final section of Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 1560, a manuscript, probably French and probably of the tenth century, which contains several other works of Remigius.’ The commentary is found on foll. 141-147; 147’ is extremely worn and hard to read, suggesting that although the text breaks off in mid-sentence, this was for a long time the final page of a volume. As the leaf preceding the fragment is also extremely worn (140’), however, it seems likely that these works were not always parts of the same manuscript, even though the date and hands are very similar. The fragment of the Commentary was written by one or two hands-my own sense from the photographs is that there is more difference in the sharpness of the pen than in the hands themselves-who wrote both the text and the very copious interlinear notes and corrections. The interlinear notes are often continuations or amplifications of the commentary rather than collations or corrections; they are contemporary, probably by the same hand(s), and almost certainly have the same source (whether oral or written) as the text itself. The heading of the Vita which precedes the fragment describes it as secundum Remigium, and an interlinear note on the phrase ‘rara auk’ in the commentary on 1.46 also reads secundum remigium, suggesting that the text is not directly that of a written commentary by Remigius, but is either closely dependent on it or is based on dictation or lectures rather than simply on a written text. The style is clearly that of the classroom, and typical of Remigius: simple glosses-and glosses on glosses-interspersed within sentences that are, because of the number of parenthetical explanations, not always easy to construe as sentences. The form of much of the commentary is a loose stringing together of the words of the text of Persius separated by elucidations, generally introduced by idest or scilicet; it is the sort of quasi-commentary that one associates with oral exposition. In modem times, it is perhaps more frequently perpetrated by students than teachers (although by no means always); the clearest parallel that I know to the effect of reading this fragment is the version of Horace, Odes 3.5.1-4 produced by the unfortunate Beetle in Kipling’s ‘Regulus’:’

’

The manuscript was studied by the late J. P. Elder, who kindly gave me not only his photographs of the MS but his very detailed notes on its palaeography and structure. See further J. P. Elder, ‘A Mediaeval Cornutus on Persius’ 240-48; Mariani, ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre’ 145-61 (who strangely describes the MS as a palimpsest; it is not): CTC 237-39; Munk Olsen 212 (Persius 93) describes it as tenth century, probably written at Fleury or Auxerre. * Rudyard Kipling, ‘Regulus’ in The Complete Stalky & Co. (Garden City 1930) 188.

APPENDIX I1

181

‘Credidimus, we-believe-we have believed,’ he opened in hesitating slow time, ‘tonantem Jovem, thundering Jove-regnare, to reign-caelo, in heaven. Augustus, Augustus-habebitur, will be held or considered-praesens divus, a present Godadjectis Britannis, the Britons being added-imperio, to the Empire-gravibusque Persis, with the heavy-er, stem Persians.’ The following text is based on my transcription of photographs of V, checked against Clausen’s transcription of V itself, from the readings of which I disagree in only two or three places. So far as I know, this is the first time the text has been printed in full; excerpts, some extensive, are given by Elder and Mariani. I have retained the orthography of the manuscript, although I have printed ae for e (which is used consistently) and have expanded abbreviations without any note in the apparatus3 I have capitalized proper names in modem fashion, but I have also retained the capital letters used for punctuation in the manuscript. In other matters of punctuation and structure, I have not followed the manuscript, but have tried to make the text (more or less) comprehensible, somewhat in the fashion of Kipling.

Thus s. is used for scilicet throughout, sub (with crossed b) for subaudis in all but one instance, .i. for idest in all but two instances. I have printed idest as a single word whenever it is abbreviated, and as two words when it is not.

182

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

[141“] INCIPIT VITA AVLII FLACCI PERSII SATYRIC1 SECVNDVM REMIGIVM Aules dictus est Persius ab Aulide ciuitate, Flaccus dictus est ex nomine patris et est illi prenomen, Persius proprium nomen. In Aethruria ciuitate Vulterris natus et 5 nobilissimo genere ortus fuit; Flaccus uero pater suus eum moriens dimisit pupillum fere sex annorum. Postea autem Fuluia Sisenna mater illius nupsit Fulcio equiti Romano. hic igitur Persius studuit Vulterris usque ad annum aetatis suae duodecimum. Deinde adductus est Romam et ibi primum studuit apud grammaticum Remmium Palemonem, Secundum apud Bassum philosophum, Ad ultimum apud 10 Cornutum poetam qui tunc temporis satyricus erat. Iste igitur Persius ut a scolis declinauit, lecto uidelicet Lucilii satyrici libro decimo, satyras componere studuit. Cuius libri principium imitatus sibi primum et postea omnibus detrectaturus, cum tanta recentium poetarum insectatione, idest reprehensione, inchoauit ut etiam Neronem tunc temporis principem occulte inculpauerit. cuius uersus in eum est 15 ‘Auriculas asini Mida rex habet.’ Sed a Cornuto fuit emendatus ita: ‘Auriculas asini quis non habet?’ (1.121) ne Nero in se arbitraretur dictum fuisse. Et sciendum est quia iste Persius anno aetatis suae tricesimo hominem exiuit uitio stomachi corruptus.

20

25

30

35

VITA EXPLICIT. ANNOTATIO INCIPIT. Satyrae proprium est ut humiliter loquatur sicut iste, qui ‘caballino’ dixit, non ‘equino’, et in sequentibus ‘semipaganus’, idest semiuillanus, non pompatice, idest non superbe, et omnia sana faciat, idest omnia dicat iuxta mensuram. Cum enim modum, idest mensuram, excedunt poete, quodammodo insaniunt. Satyra genus est clarni uel lancis. Clamus autem dicitur discus uel mensa multis ac uariis / [141”] frugum generibus referta. Ergo satyra dicitur quasi satura a saturitate, eo quod uitiis et insectationibus, idest reprehensionibus, multorum sit plena. In hac igitur prefatione dicit se Persius non esse se poetam set epeponem, idest famelicum et esurientem, et nimia fame coactus sicut et alii poaete ad hunc librum describendum aspirasse fertur, sicut ille ponit exemplum de auibus que fame uentris coactae formant, idest resonant, humanam uocem. et non est dubium quod de se ips0 dicit quin de omnibus dicat. I 1 Haec satyra scribitur de his qui publice captant famam ex fauore eloquentiae imperitorum, et hoc uelud dialogi genus in principio ex persona interrogantis inducit. Videns Persius multos libidinari in scribendo ad hoc tantum ut laudem et fauorem populi adquirerent, reprehendendo cum indignatione et admiratione Inchoauit et ipse ex abrupto, idest ex aspero, dicens 0 curas horninurn, subaudis inanes, uacuae et 10 temporis Vc : ternpore V I satyricus] uel tragicus Vc supra 15 sed V‘ : set V 27 describendum V‘ : decribendurn V 35 dicens Vc : docens V

APPENDIX I1

183

inutiles, quia sine fructu laborant. Semet ipsum ergo redarguit primum, quod relinquat succedentibus carmina quae uulgus lecturum non sit, quia non sunt uulgaria et minime conueniunt libidini. 0 quantum est in rebus inane idest uacuae. Cum dicit in rebus, oson to kenon greca figura est; deest enim 'humanis'. 2 Alloquitur suam satyram: 0 satyra, quis leget haec scilicet mea carmina quae ego compono, quia non sunt uulgaria? Respondet satyra min tu istud ais?, idest michine hoc dicis, ego tibi respondebo Nemo hercule nemo, idest nullus nullus per herculem. Item P.: uel duo, scilicet legent, uel, scilicet unus. SA.: nemo. P.: turpe est si non legerint nisi duo, et miserabile si nullus legerit. SA.: quare?, idest propter quam causam? Persius: ideo ne pretulerint michi, idest ne exaltauerint uel posuerint ante me, Polidal [ 142'1 mas et Troiades nuge Labeonem. Polidamas populus est loquax et inbellis recitator Labeonis, et interpretatur multinuba, et ponitur hic pro Nerone qui inbellis fuit, idest non fuit ausus bellari. Et multinuba quia multas feminas stuprauit, etiam et matrem suam. Troiades, idest femine Romanae, nuge idest inutiles. hic apellat romanos feminas inutiles, quia carrnina Labeonis, que mollia erant et neminem carpebant, idest reprehendebant, et libidinosa erant, recitabant et diligebant. Labeo poeta fuit qui transtulit Iliaden, idest subuersionem Troiae, et Odisian, idest errorem Vlixis, de Greco in Latinum, non sensum de sensu sed uerbum de uerbo satis ridiculose. Potius enim uerba secutus est quam sensum. Cuius uersus est talis: 'Crudum manduces Priamum Priamusque pisinnos.' Non habet enim ullum sensum. 5 Inuehit, idest transportat se, ad aliquem poetam laudis cupidum dicens: 0 poeta, non accedas, idest non consentias non assentias non credas, siquid, idest si aliquid, eleuet te, scilicet laudando, turbida Roma. Turbida tractus sermo est ab aqua. Turbida ideo dicitur quia multis gentibus est repleta. 7 Castiges, idest preponderes et mensures et probes, examen tuum, idest iudicium tuum, inprobum, idest importunum, quia nulli parcit in illa trutina, idest in illa populi sententia. Talis est sensus: Quicquid illi dicant de te, tu proba uitam tuam et cognosce qualis es. Castigare proprie est libram digito percutere. Examen est lingua lancis uel linum quod tenet mediam hastam ad equanda pondera. Ponitur ergo pro iudicio, quia sicut examen equalitatem demonstrat ita et uerum iudicium ueritatem ostendit. Trutina est foramen intra quod linum est unde fit examinatio. Nec te quesiueris extra, idest noli de te iudicium extrinsecus querere; quae est Chilonis sententia. 8 Nam quis non est Romae subaudis doctus et indoctus. hic occulte reprehendit Neronem. In populo, inquit, Romano quis non rudis uel imperitus? ac si fas est I [142"] idest si licitum est, michi dicere, tunc est doctus et indoctus Rome. cum risu dicendum est hoc quod sequitur. sed tum fas est mihi dicere, idest tunc licitum est michi dicere, cum aspexi, idest cum aspicio, ego ad caniciem, idest ad senes poetas et

3 libidini V : libini V 6 min tu istud ais] uel dicisne tu hoc mihi? interrogasne me? in margine Vc 9 nullus Vc in ras. : ******non V 13 bellari V' : bellart V 16 erant add. Vc supra 17 hit] quem indigne laudabant Romani v" supra 26 quia v" : qui V 31 unde fit] de quo Vcsupra

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

184

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

ad uitam illorum et cum aspicio nostrum istud uiuere triste, idest nostram istam uitam tristem. Ac tunc licitum est michi dicere cum sapimus patruos, idest cum aequiperamus patruorum sapientiam uel seueritatem. Patrui enim seueri sunt circa fratrum filios quando inhoneste eos uident ambulare; sic Cicero obiurgauit Celium ut 5 quidam patruus censor. 11 Tunc tunc ignoscite idest permittite me ut dicam. uel tunc tunc scilicet debeo dicere cum respicio patruorum doctrinam. No10 scilicel ridere uel dicere amplius talia. 12 Quid faciam? scilicet si non risero? quasi non possit risum tenere. naturale michi 10 est. ideo iteratur tune tunc ignoscite. 12 Sed sum petulanti splene cachinno idest luxurianti pectore; et non me contineo lasciuiore risu, petulanti splene sum. Talis, inquid, naturae sum ut rideam. secundum phisicos dicit qui dicunt hominem splene ridere, felle irasci, iecore amare, corde sapere. ‘cachinno cachinnonis’ nomen est; ‘Cachinno cachinnas’ uerbum est. item 15 cachinnus est risus lasciuior cum uoce. 13 Scribimus inclusi idest ab omni cura remoti, aut certe metri lege coacti. Aut ordo uerborum est: Cum ad caniciem uenerimus, tunc scribimus inclusi. Ille, scilicet aliquis poeta, scribit numeros, idest uersus. dicti numeri a numero temporum. hic, scilicet alter poeta, liber est pede, idest absolutus est a metro quod pedibus constat, et 20 scribit prosam. 14 Grande aliquid quod anhelet, idest quod tribuit uel inflet, prelargus, idest ualde magnus, et uento abundans sermone non humili. pulmo idest flatus animae. hec per yroniam dicit secundum iudicium illorum qui scribunt. ferunt enim phisici quod ex pulmone flatus accipitur et emittitur ad instar follis fabri. 25 15 Scilicet haec idest carmina, scribis tu populo, ut populi iudicio digna sint qui numquam / [143’] recte iudicat. pexus tu, idest pexo capite habens, ornatus uel pectinatus uel tonsus: unde Virgilius ‘Inpexis barbis’ idest intonsis. Togaque recenti idest cum noua uel nitida toga. toga uestis est militaris qua utebantur romani tempore pacis. 30 16 Tandem legens illa carmina sede celsa, idest in sede excelsa, in pulpit0 uidelicet uel in rostris. albus tu, idest pallidus, uel pauore recitandi uel labore scribendi seu propter uestem candidam necdum consul factus nec purpureum adeptus uestimentum quod laticlauium dicitur. cum nutalicia sardoniche idest cum pretiosa gemma. Sardonix est gemma pretiosa quam patronus filiolo suo donat in die natalis I et cum aspicio] grega figura est ////toecsis idest defectio supru Vc (uerbis posf est erasis) 2 post tristem: Et [c.20 lift.] facimus nos quecumque, idest omnia, relictis nucibus, idest dimissis ludis puerilibus. per nuces designatur stultitia; pueri enim multum amant nuces. i l k ergo nuces linquit qui omnem stultitiam et pueritiam dimittit. Vc in m r g . superiore (circa xx litterue abscisue sunf.) 6 Tunc tunc’] tunc tunc ignoscite significat rem (lege rationem) ualere tunc praecipue cum seueritatem aetas aspexerit. uel tunc tunc asseueratio dolentis, ut me me adsum qui feci. Vc in margine. 7 nolo] toetic idest defectio Vc supra I dicere Vc : decere V 11 petulanti] luxurianti V‘ supra I cachinno] idest irrisor uel delusor Vc supra 13 amare scripsi : amore V 17 inclusi] Grande aliquid idest magnum et altum carmen V‘ supra lineam sequentem 18 uel sd Vc in marg. 25 populo] idest imperitis VEsupra 32 uestem scripsi: uestestem V 33 pretiosa] uel noua Vc supra

APPENDIX I1

185

sui, quam Romani in anulis suis ferre solebant. et est nigra candida et rubra. dicta autem sardonix a sardio et oniche, quod utriusque colorem habeat. hoc autem dicit quod talis poeta recitaturus carmen adomatus et festiuus incedebat ut corporis habitu se audientibus commendaret. et collueris tu, idest purgaueris et laueris, mobile, idest tremulum, guttur cum liquido, idest claro, plasmate fractus, idest dissolutus et effeminatus, patranti ocello, idest luxurioso et adulanti oculo. plasma dicitur medicamenturn quo fauces recreantur clamore sauciate. idem dicitur et fonascus a greco quod est phone, idest uox. Idem est et gargarismus. Patranti ocello: Patrare proprie est rem ueneriam peragere. Est autem ypallage, idest fracto ocello. Nimia enim luxuria facit oculos distortos et prauos: Vnde Virgilius ‘Transuersa tuentibus hyrcis.’ 19 Hie, idest in auditorio, in pulpito, in archifora, neque uideas trepidare, idest gaudere, ingentes Titos, idest magnos scolasticos siue Romanos, probo more, idest honesto usu, nee uoce serena, scilicet audies, cum intrant, idest tangunt et penetrant, lumbum tua carmina et ubi scalpuntur, idest et cum mouentur et titillantur et in libidinem excitantur, intima, idest interiora cordis, tremulo uersu, idest modulanti et fragili uoce, uel sententiae libidini apte. / [ 143’1 cum dicit nec uoce serena insectatur letitiam laudantium, cum aut tumultuose clamant aut obscenos motus edunt ad dulcedinem carminum qui effeminant aures in tantum ut audientium quoque animi soluantur. Carmen enim mali poetae qui ad hoc recitabat ut fauorem populi caperet Neminem carpebat, sed ad libidinem potius prouocabat. 20 Zngentes Titos appellat Romanos a Tito Tatio rege Sabinorum. Vel titos dicit scolasticos eo quod uagi sint neque uno magistro contenti, idest sufficientes, et in libidinem proni sicut aues quibus comparantur. Nam titi columbe sunt agrestes, quibus rustici auditores designantur. illa autem carmina lumbum dicit intrare non animum, quia in lumbis est libido et illa carmina effeminata et libidini apta representant ipsos concubitus. Zntima dicit, quia quomodo tactus mulierum mouet uitia intima, sic et uersus enerues non animum intrant sed lumbum. 22 0 uetule, idest stulte, tun’ colligis escas auriculis alienis, idest querisne tu laudes ab imperitis auriculis, idest hominibus? scribis tu non quod te delectat sed ut plaudatur tibi a pueris euiratis, ideo laboras, palles, otia tibi denegas. Auriculis dico quibus et dicas tu perditus cute ohae, idest illis hominibus stultis a quibus laudem querebas, postea insultabis et dices tu ipse perditus cute, idest uigiliis et sollicitudine aut senectute pallidus. Vel manifeste cute perditus, ut uitium quod intrinsecus habes in cute etiam possis habere. Ohe autem interiectio est cum admiratione stomachosa percontantis. 4-5 mobile--guttur] quasi caput in pronuntiatione agitans V‘ supra 9 post autem littera una erasa est V‘ 12 Hic] uel pro tunc Vc supra I in aud.-wchifora] in ambone, in pirco, in analogio, in leterico Vc supra I uideas] pro uidebis Vc supra 17 spatiurn c. xii lift. vacatpost apte infine paginae 29 tun’+xas] pro tune queris laudes Vc supra I auriculis] scilicet ab V‘ supra I alienis] idest irnperitis Vc supra 30 auriculis] sinodoche est a parte toturn Vc supra

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

186

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

24 Quo didicisse, uerba poete ad quem loquitur, sed yronicos. scaema etiam est antipofora kepara prosdoscia, cum poeta transit per suam in illius poete uocem quem corripit, nec tamen recedit a sua persona. Quo didicisse.? idest ad quid didicisti? quid profuit? nisi ut exierit hoc fermentum et caprifcus quae intus semel innata est rupto 5 iecore? metafora est a ferment0 et ca/ [144'] prifico: Sicut enim fermentum massam rumpit et caprificus saxa, its ingenium pectus tibi rumpit nec potes te continere nisi ipsum ingenium diuulges, idest manifestes. phisici dicunt caprificum radicibus pullulare, idest crescere, ita ut etiam si transplantata fuerit super tumulum mortui eum perforare et radices suas emittere per tumulum dicunt. Sic etiam et fama penetrat 10 corda stultorum. Et bene posuit caprificum, quae cum exierit nullos fructus affert. sic et laus stultorum nullam utilitatem habet. 26 En pallor: ad hoc inquid palluisti, ut laudem consequereris. Effronesis est per indignationem. Pallor est quaedam anxietas animi, premagnam faciens senectutem. Ecce senium, scilicet tuum. Ecce mores, scilicet peruersi. usque adeone tuum scire 15 nichil est, nisi hoc sciat alter te scire. In tantum est scientia tua ad nichilum redacta ut aliquid te scire nescias, nisi alterius iudicium de ea consulas. 28 At pulcrum est digito monstrari, scilicet aliquem, et dicier hic est, scilicet poeta. Antipophora est, idest obiectio stulti poete: Magna, inquid, gloria est dum aliquis monstratur digito pretereuntium, sicut Demostenes cum transiret et a mercennario 20 cuiusdam tabemariae digito monstraretur laetatus est quod non solum a nobilibus sed etiam ab ignobilibus cognoscebatur. 30 Pendasne, idest iudicas et ducas, pro nichilo te fuisse dictata, idest materiam, centum cirratorum, idest scolasticorum uel catamitorum? ten pro tene dixit. Occulte carpit Neronem, cuius carmina celebrabantur per scolas unde scolastici sumebant 25 materiam. Mos erat antiquorum magistrorum ex aliquo libro materiam dare [dare] discipulis. Potest autem ex persona Persii ridicule admirantis hoc accipi; potest et ab ill0 poeta, cum dicit: Numquid pro nichilo duceres quod centum cirrati de te dictarent carmina? cirrati autem sunt scolastici uel catamiti. cirri enim dicuntur capilli, et illi scolastici crines habebant in honorem Veneris, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni 30 daeae Veneris consecrabant. uel cirrati dicuntur cinedi, idest pueri ueterum. 30 Ecce querunt romulide saturi, idest ebrii, inter pocula, idest inter sua conuiuia, ubi sunt instrumenta libidinis, quid narrent dia, idest sancta, magnifica et Clara poemata, idest carmina poetarum; uel quid / [ 144'1 sentiendum sit de poematibus, aut qualia nunc poemata celebrentur. 35 31 Hic, idest Rome uel in ill0 conuiuio, aliquis, subaudis diues uel potens interest, cui est hyaccintina lena, idest uestis serica uel purpura coloribus mentita,

14 peruersi] uel defecti V" supra I usque adeone] idest nurnquid usque adeo Vc supra 17 At pulcrurn est] sed magna gloria est Vc supra I dicier] adiectio syllabica V' supra 19 a add. Vc 23 centurn] numerum finitum pro infinito V' supra 25 dare bis V 26 discipulis V' : descipulis V 31 romulide] romani a Rornulo sicut Aenaeidae ab Enea Vc supra 32 idest sancta] sicut dia Camilla V' supra 36 lena] idest palla uel sagum V' supra

APPENDIX I1

187

circa suos humeros, idest circa suum dorsum. Qualitatem posuit de ueste, ut per corporis cultum animi cultum demonstraret. quiddam, scilicet carmen, rancidulum, idest putidum et fetidum, malesonorum, scilicet locutus ille diues de balba nare. De lingua est tractum; linguae enim est proprium balbutire, sed uox eius uidetur per nares emitti, quia ebrius est. et eliquat ille diues, idest exprimit, dicit, siue cum lenocinio cantat, Phyllidas uatum et Ipsypilas uatum, idest fabulas quas poete fecerunt de Phyllide et Ypsypile, ac supplantat, idest minuit, interloquitur mutatis acentibus uel opicizat uerba tenero palato, idest in molli et fragili, et corrupt0 propter uinum. Opicizare est uerba minuere, Vnde et diminutores litterarum opici dicuntur. 34 Phyllis regina tracum fuit. Quae triste ferens peregrinationem Demofontis apud Troiam, quia die statuto non remeauit ob amorem illius uersa est in truncum amigdali. Ille uero ueniens rem gestam cum cognouisset, magno dolore arreptus illum truncum amplexatus est suis manibus er desuper lacrimauit. Tunc illa quasi sentiens aduentum sponsi sui statim euiruit et folia emisit. Vnde et a nomine illius philla dicuntur apud grecos folia; Nam antea petala uocabantur. Ypsipilis similiter regina fuit, uxor Bellorofontis. Qui cum in bello Thebano ab hostibus fuisset captus, illa se tradidit pro eo et sua morte eum redemit. Vel ut alii referunt una fuit ex Lemnidibus mulieribus, filia Tohantis, neptis Liberi patris. Postquam eam duobus filiis factis apud Lemnas ciuitatem Iason reliquid, qui eo tempore cum Argonautis uenerat, nec ad eam rediit ex Colchis, Comperto postea illum ad suam patriam remeasse seque neglectam, ingratum eius amorem diu secum fleuit. his itaque siquid simile / [145'] carminibus suis defleuerunt poaete, its sine uocis asperitate pronuntiant tam suaue ut aures audientium emolliant. et ponunt historias et ea nomina quae in carminibus necessaria non sunt, sed quia acaritide et amatorie sunt, ideo ponuntur, et si aliquid flebile est quia amarissime cantant poete. 36 Assensere uiri, idest adulatores, auditores, assenserunt, idest consenserunt omnes diuiti recitanti carmen, dicentes: Nunc nunc felix ille cinis poete. Cinis felix dicitur quotiens bene de mortuis recitatur. et non leuior, scilicet sed felicior cippus qui nunc inprimit ossa, scilicet illius poaete. Veteres enim dixerunt pregrauari corpora eorum qui tantum studentes corpori nichil memorabile reliquerunt. cippus dicitur lapis uel lignum quod super ponitur sepulchris, sed hic pro sepulchro posuit. 38 Laudant conuiuae, scilicet uersus releuatos ab uno conuiua. Iterum facit uocem illius recitantis in conuiuio, estimantis atque dicentis felicem poetam esse. dicit ille recitator: Nunc non, idest nonne, nascentur uiole, idest res uoluntariae et amaene, e manibus illis, idest ex ossibus illius poete? et nonne nascentur uiole e tumulo illius,

3 malesonorurn] uel asperum Vc supra I de balba nare] idest blesa quia ebrius est Vc supra; in margine add. V' : fit corrupta uino uel deuitiata 5 eliquat] si quid idest si aliquid est plorabile Vc in marg. I exprimit] uel rnanifestat V supra I dicit] uel narrat Vc supra 7 minuit] confrangit Vc supra 10 Demofontis] scilicet uiri sui Vc supra 11 illius] suspendio se interemit et Vc supra 16 Bellorofontis Vc in marg. : Bellos.ofontis V ut uid. 20 patriam om. V, add. Vc supra 27 nunc-felix2] uerba auditorurn adulantiurn refert Persius per irrisionern Vc supra 29 corpora Vc : corpori V ut uid. 32 Laudant conuiuae] persona poete est Vc supra I post uersus] poaete Vc supra I post conuiua] persona pcete (uel Persii) est V : del. Vc

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

188

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

idest ex sepulcro illius? et nonne nascentur uiole de fortunata fauilla, idest de felici corpore illius? In sepulchris enim illorum qui bene meruerunt uiole nasci memorantur. et hic antipofora est, idest contra locutio culpati poete ad Persium: o Persi, rides ait? idest dicis tu hoc affirmando uel inidendo? quasi ipse responderet 5 sibi. Certe rides, idest certe irrides me, et nimis indulges uncis, idest curuis, naribus, id est nimium das operam cachinno. Soluto enim risu incuruamus et contrahimus nares. 41 An erit, scilicet aliquis poeta, qui recuset uelle meruisse 0s populi? eritne aliquis poeta qui uelit linquere, idest derelinquere et dimittere, carmina nee scombros 10 metuentia nec tus, idest illa carmina quae non ament scombros neque tus. locutus ille poeta digna, scilicet carmina, cedro, idest talia carmina quae digna sint inungi oleo cedrino. Mos erat apud ueteres ut cartae in quibus nobilia carmina scriberentur I [145"] oleo cedrino inungerentur ut diu durarent et a tineis saluarentur. Cartae autem in quibus uilia carmina erant incidebantur ad tus inuoluendum uel ad scombros 15 seruandos. Scombri autem sunt Pisces de quibus fit optimum garum, sicut nos facimus piperatam. Per scombros ergo significant salmentarios et per tus ungentarios. 44 Iterum eam inducit personam quam ab initio induxit, et est inimica et comica exclamatio. Loquitur autem ad quemlibet poetam laudis cupidum: o poeta, quisquis es modo quem fas est michi dicere ex aduerso, idest te licitum est michi ex contrario 20 dicere, id est quem in hoc libro affatum simillaui aduersarium, qui michi obicis risum importunum, idest qui me dicis ridere superuacuum? audi: Non metuam ego laudari, scilicet ab aliquo, cum scribo carmina si forte quid aptius exit, idest si aliquid elegantius et honestius uel pulchrius exierit de meis carminibus et de meo sensu. Non effugio, inquit, laudem si aliquid gratum et laudabile uersibus faciam. Neque enim est 25 michi cornea fibra, idest non est michi cor uel pectus lapideum, scilicet sed humanum. Duram quoque et adamantinam dicimus frontem improbam. Non tam, inquit, ab humanitate dissentio ut ea quae humanitatis sunt solus spernam, idest ut possim non laetari laudatus, nec dolere culpatus. 46 Quando haec auis rara est, idest raro inuenitur, scilicet niger cignus et albus 30 coruus; Prouerbium est antiquum. Raram autem auem dicit uel perfectum poetam uel uerum iudicem et sine assensione aurium. et est translatio a fenice. et hoc uerecunde Persius: raro se commode dicit scribere. Nam et fenix raro uidetur, quae circa Indiae partes moratur. 46 Si quid tamen aptius exierit, scilicet de meo sensu et de meis carminibus. 35 48 Finem recti, scilicet quero ego, et extremum recti idest extremitatem et finem rectitudinis. I [146"] hoc dicit: laudem quidem amo, sed non falsam, sed quae ad finem recti, idest ad ueritatem tendat. Finemque extremumque dicit secundum

5 indulges] idest operam das Vc supra 8 qui-populi] idest qui nolit laudari et qui nolit haberi (corr. in -ere) fauorem a populo V' supra I eritne V' : erine V 9 2 u e l 3 litt. eras. post uelit 10 metuentia] timntia Vc supra 11-12 cedrum dicunt genus ligni quod dignum biblioteca h a k t u r Vc in rnarg. 29 scilicet niger cignus] secundum Remigium Vc supra 34 Si quid tamen] idest si aliquid V' supra 37 extremumque : extremum V; -que add. V" supra

APPENDIX I1

189

philosofos, qui dicunt summum bonum in recto atque honesto constare. Item sed recti finemque: neque enim tantum durat sensus scribere ut statim me recte fecisse crediderim cum tuum euge et belle audiero, et recuso ego tuum euge et tuum belle. Laudationem, inquit, tuam non put0 diffinitionem. non enim, inquit, scribentes hoc fine debent esse contenti, idest sufficientes, ut tuum euge et belle audiant. hoc dici solet Labeoni Attio. Ita dicit: Euge tuum et belle esse recuso, quasi in his summum iudicium sit. Solebant namque laudantes euge et belle respondere recitantibus. 49 Nam hoc tuum belle excute totum: Translatio est a uestimento sentibus pleno, quod dum excussum fuerit quicquid habetur absconditum proicit. 50 Quid nun habet, scilicet mali uel reprehensionis et derisionis, intus, idest in tuum euge? hic, idest in mea satyra, in meo libro, non est Ilias Atti ebria uoratro, idest elleboro. Attius ipse est Labeo, et fuit indoctus poeta. nam sic fedissime composuit Iliaden, idest subuersionem Troie, et Odisian de Homeri uersibus, qui fuit poeta grecorum, ut nec ipse intelligere potuit quoadusque purgatus fuit helleboro. Ebria, idest uitiis plena, uel nimis insana uel propter elleborum. 51 Nun sunt hic, scilicet in mea satyra siqua ligidia, idest si aliqua carmina diuina uel misera dictarunt crudi, idest indigesti et temulenti proceres. Elegos grece, miseros latine; inde elegiacum Carmen dicitur Carmen miserorum. Antiqui enim poaete suas anxietates et miserias elegiac0 carmine describebant. quasi diceret: Nolo, inquit, ut me laudes uerbis quibus soles laudare elegos principum uersus; Nun, scilicet est, hic, idest in meo carmine, quicquid scribitur, scilicet a nobilibus, in citreis lectis, idest in spondis de citro arbore factis. Apud antiquos citreis tabulis parietes ornabantur quas et incerabant. Similiter et spondas cerabant ut ibi noctu si quid recte in mentem ueniret notarent. 53 Item apostrofam facit ad poetam laudis cupidum: 0 poeta, scis tu ponere, idest ministrare et apponere, calidum sumen ante tuos conuiuas, scilicet ut te laudant. hoc dicit: Nosti captare animos audientium carminibus tuis dum eos sic pascis. scis tu donare comitem horridulum I [146"] trita lacerna, idest uetusto aliquo panno uel birro, scilicet ad hoc das illi ut te laudat. hoc uerbum quod est 'donare' trait ablatiuum casum, quando in persona habet accusatiuum, ut 'dono te auro'. quando uero in persona habet datiuum casum, in re trait accusatiuum, ut 'dono tibi aurum'. et inquis tu, idest dicis tu: Verum amo, idest cupidus sum ueri iudicii, Verum dicite michi de me, idest de mea scriptura. Illis hoc dicis et interrogas quibus non habenda est fides: plus enim laudabunt te propter gulam quam propter ueritatem. 3 recuso] idest despicio V' supra I tuum euge] idest tuam laudem V" supra I tuum belle] idest tuum fauorem V' supra 8 totum-uestimento] quia nolo tuum euge et tuum belle Vc supra 10 scilicetreprehensionis] uel ineptiarum et turpitudinis Vc supra 13 Odisian] idest errores Vlixis V" supra 16 ligidia-diuina] alii dicunt eligidia diriuatum ab elogis (corr. in elegis) Vc supra 17 dictarunt] pro dictauerunt Vc supra I proceres] idest seniores Vc supra 25 apostrofam] idest conuersionem V' supra 26 calidum sumen] idest crassum uentrem Vc supra 27 durn-pascis] multi enim sunt amici mense V" supra 28 donare] tribuere V' supra I comitem] idest socium Vc supra I horridulum] idest trementem Vc supra : in margine scis comiti birrum attritum dare V' 29 birro] idest cappa Vc supra 30 casum] in re add. Vc supra 31 aurum] Vnde Virgilius: hac te nos fragili donabimus ante cicuta Vc supra 33 de rnea scriptural uel de meis carminibus Vc supra

5

10

15

20

25

30

190

5

10

15

20

25

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

56 Qui pole uis dicam: quomodo uis ut uerius dicam tibi? nugaris certe, idest deliras, erras in scribendo carmina, 0 calue, ideo erras cum extet tibi, idest quia extenditur tibi, pinguis aqualiculus, idest crassus uenter tuus, propenso sesquipede, idest ultra mensuram sex pedum. Quomodo potes sapere o calue, idest stulte, cum sis nugigerulus et cum pinguescas habundantia ciborum et uentrem habeas ultra sex pedes extensum. 58 Mod0 apostrofam facit ad Ianum, idest ad aliquem poetam sapientem, et interponuntur quinque uersus per parantesin. 0 Iane quem nulla ciconia pinsit, idest feriit et percussit a tergo. Ianus depingitur bifrons oculatus ante et retro, quod ideo fit quia finis est preteriti anni et initium sequentis. Per Ianum ergo intelligitur quiuis sapiens qui ante et retro uidet, nec potest reprehendi absens nec praesens et non potest ei sanna a tergo, idest a dorso, fieri. Tria genera sannarum, idest inlusionum, erant apud antiquos: Primum genus faciebant a tergo recedentibus in modum rostri ciconini motitantes manus: Secundum faciebant ad instar aurium asinorum mouentes manum, pollice in tempore infixo; Tertium extrahentes linguam uelud canis sitiens. nec imitata est tibi mobilis manus auriculas albas. Sinodochicos dixit auriculas albas; est enim interior pars aurium alba. nec tante, idest tantum prolate sunt linguae ad tuam inisionem quantum sitiat canis appula. Appulia regio est estuosa cuius canes pre nimio calore extrahunt linguas suas. 61 0 uos patricius sanguis, quos fas est uiuere, idest quos licitum est uiuere, propter honorem et nobilitatem, / [147'] uel quorum uita exemplum debet esse aliorum, occurrite, idest succurite, occipiti ceco, idest stultitiae et ignorantiae uestrae: subaudis ne irrideamini posticae sannae. Postica dicitur posterior pars capitis. dicit ergo: 0 genus nobilissimorum senatorum, qui non sentitis uos a tergo irrideri et qui non estis Iani, idest perfecti poaetae, date operam ut non irrideamini a postica sanna, idest a subsannatione quae retro fit sicut supra scriptum est de tribus generibus illusionum. 63 Ad personam illius poete redit quem superius carpsit dicentem "Verum michi dicite de me." Interrogat ille poeta aliquem adulatorem: Quis est sermo populi?

I Qui pote uis dicam] idest quomodo potius dicam V' supra 2 calue] idest stulte V' supra I erras] uel nugaris Vc supra 3 pinguis aqualiculus] proprie tamen uenter porci Vc supra, er in niarg.: aqualiculus proprie uenter porci I propenso] idest extenso Vc supra 4 quomodo-cum] idest quomodo potes intendere in sapientia et componere carmina uel esse sapiens Vc supra 8 ciconia] idest aliquis reprehensor Vc supra I pinsit: in pilo apud ueteres frumenta tundebantur. inde pistores dicti sunt quasi pinsores a pindendo idest a feriendo. nam pindo est ferio V' in marg. 8-9 pinsit-depingitur] assidue percussit. h u m posuit hic pro perfecto poeta Vc supra 9 a tergo] idest retro V" supra 11-12 et-sannarum] sanna est turpis sonitus narium uel sanna est 0s distortum cum uultu Vc supra 15 tertium] scilicet faciebant V' supra 16 nec-auriculas] scilicet ad tuam irrisionem apposito temporibus pollice V' supra I albas] idest asininas V' supra 16-17 sinodochicos-pars] similiter populum dicimus album eo quod folia eius una parte sint alba, altera uiridia V' supra et in marg. sin. 18-19 Appulia-suas] dicit ergo Persius quia nec in tantum potuit Ianum, idest perfectum poetam, ullus umquam reprehendere Vc supra 23 posticae sannae] idest a postica sanna V" supra I postica--capitis] ceca dicitur quia nullus uidet retro nisi uerso capite V' supra 23-24 dicit ergo] Romanis Vc supra 24 non sentitis] pro non uidetis Vc supra I irrideri] et deludi Vc supra 25-26 date-subsannatione] idest studete in legendo ut uidere possitis retro sicut et ante uelud Ianus V' supra 28 Ad-illius] huc usque parentesis est Vc supra 29 populi] scilicet de me V' supra

APPENDIX I1

191

responsio cuiusdam adulatoris: Quis enirn? nisi fzuere nunc dernurn carmina, scilicet tua, rnolli nurnero ut effundat, idest uelut dirigat iunctura seueros ungues marmorariorum per leue. talis est sensus: Quis alius sermo esset de te nisi quod tua carmina inoffensa defluunt et ungues seuorum iudicum non formidant? solent enim marmorarii iuncturam marmorum unguibus probare. hoc dicunt populi de te: Scit ille poeta, scilicet ita, tendere, idest cudere et componere, uersurn non secus ac si dirigat, scilicet carpentarius, rubricarn suarn cum uno oculo, scilicet aperto et altero clauso. 0 bone poaeta, dat, idest tribuit, tibi nostro poaetae rnusa, idest satyra, dicere res grandes, idest magna carmina siue opus, idest carmen tuum, fuerit in mores siue in luxum siue in prandia regurn. Comos grece, uilla latine; Inde comaedia dicuntur carmina de uillanis et uilibus rebus composita. Satyra dicitur sicut supra dictum est a saturitate. Tragoedia dicuntur carmina pro quibus ircus dabatur in premio, et sunt lacrimis digna. hic dicende sunt fabulae de Tyreo et Atreo siue Oreste. Tyreus fuit quidam rex cuius uxor fuit Prognes, quae habuit sororem nomine Filomelam, sed non in una regione. Illa itaque ob amorem sororis suae ardens suum seniorem rogauit ut pergeret et adduceret eam sibi ad uidendum. Quod et fecit. Sed in suo itinere eam stuprauit, et incidit ei linguam ne enuclearet sorori suae rem gestam. Illa uero sanguine suo denotauit in suo linteo et ostendit sorori suae. quod illa sentiens occidit Ittin filium suum et coxit deditque / [ 147'1 patri comedendum [. ....]que habui[c. 15 litt.] quesiuit eum. Cui dixit mater: quem queris in uentrem habes. et propter hoc nefas omnes [c. 10 litt.] aues. Tyreus uersus est in upupam, Prognes in hirundinem, Ittis filius [....I in farsam, Filomela in luciniam. Nam sanguis eius apparet adhuc in pectore illius. Atreus similiter rex fuit qui uiolauit uxorem fratris sui Tigestis. Quod ille cognoscens occidit filium suum et apposuit auunculo ad uescendum. propter hoc peccatum retraxit se sol ab illa ciuitate, idest a Thebis. Orestes uero occidit matrem suam Clitemestram quia ipsa occiderat patrem ipsius nomine Agamemnon cum reuerteretur de Troia. Nota est fabula in Virgilio. det ..a!ju?orgn......com.. diant poaetae [ ....]p-ed[...I idest carmina lacrimosa. 69 Adhuc de malis poetis loquitur. ecce uidernus mod0 adferre, idest proferre, heroas sensus, idest fortes et acutos intellectus, et uidemus illos nugari grece, idest delirare et errare in greca lingua, solitos, idest per consuetudinem. Videmus, inquit,

1 quis] scilicet esset Vc supra I fluere] idest prodire V" supra I nunc demum] idest mod0 et ad ultimum Vc supra 2 molli numero] idest amoeno et suaui uersu V supra I iunctura] scilicet marmorum Vc supra 3 per leue] idest per planum et nitidum Vc supra I esset] scilicet in populo Vc supra 4-5 solent-unguibus] et ita leuis est et amaena iunctio uestrorum carminum Vc supra 5-6 scit-poeta] uox illius adulatoris V' supra 6 non secus] idest non aliter Vc supra I ac si] idest quasi Vc supra 7 rubricam--clauso] idest lineam. rubrica dicitur linea carpentariorurn eo quod apud antiquos rubrei coloris fiebat Vc supra 7-8 +tibi] hironice dicit hoc Persius ad illum poetam V supra 8 dicere] idest componere Vc supra 9 magna] et alta Vc supra I in mores] idest in comediam Vc supra 9-10 in luxum] idest in satyram Vc supra 10 in prandia regum] idest in tragoediarn, ut puta Orestis et Tyrei V' supra 10-11 comos--carmina] comedia satyra exprimit mores hominum exprimit et conuersationem V" supra 11-12 satyra-saturitate] inuectionem hominum Vc supra 12 tragoedia-ircus] tragoediae cenarum facinorosarum Vc supra I dabatur-sunt] tragos grece hircus latine Vc supra 18 denotauit] descripsit Vc supra 24 ille] tigestis Vc supra 24-28 lifterarum reliquiae incerrae sunt 29 uidemus mod01 scilicet nostros poetas V' supra I proferre] V' supra non liquet

5

10

15

20

25

30

192

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

eos qui hoc tantum, idest grecas nugas uerbis componere, uolunt, uelle tamen etiam nobiles et fortes sensus carminibus pangere, cum neque uilia carmina digni sunt explicare. 70 Nec, scilicet uidemus eos, artifices, idest doctos et idoneos, ponere lucum, idest 5 describere nemora, ita ut uarietates arborum decenter enumerarent. nec uidemus eos idoneos laudare rus saturum, ubi sunt corbes et ubi est focus et porci et Palilia fumosa faeno. fertilem agrum [c. 18 litt.] habet corbes in quibus semina portantur et porcos et palilia et omnia instrumenta. Palilia sunt festa Palis daeae in quibus rustici saliebant quia credebant se expiare [...I sacrificio. Quae festa fumosa fen0 dicuntur 10 quia pastores in honore illius deae ante ostia stabulorum incendebant faeni manipulos quasi inde purgarentur. Item Palilia dicitur dies sacer in honore Iliae quae Remum et Romulum peperit. et dicimus Palilia quasi Parilia. Palilia uero tam priuata sunt quam publica, et est genus hilaritatis et lusus. 73 Vnde idest ex rusticis [Remus scilicet] natus est, et tu, o Quinti I 15 cetera desunt

2 digni] idest apti Vc supra 6 laudare-sunt] Vc supra nun liquet 14 Vnde-Quinti] Romanos ex rusticis et pastoribus originem ducere Vc supra I Remus scilicet suppleui

hic latenter tangit

APPENDIX 111. ADDITIONAL SCHOLIA TO PERSIUS The organization of this appendix violates all that I have written above about the strong distinction to be made between commentary and marginalia, and about the need to view sets of marginal annotations as wholes rather than as collections of discrete notes. But for anyone interested in the nature of Carolingian exegesis of Persius, the present appendix may provide a useful supplement to Clausen-Zetzel. My additional intention is to demonstrate more fully what is shown in Chapter 5 , that there is no clear distinction to be drawn between an ‘A tradition’ and a ‘B tradition’: some notes are clearly tied to a particular branch of the scholiastic tradition, but it is equally clear that some notes floated freely from one manuscript to another and that affiliations change and blend. I hope that the collection and identification of notes characteristic of one or another part of the tradition undertaken here will aid others in the further classification of manuscripts of scholia to Persius. It should be stated at once (and should in any case be abundantly clear) that the set of scholia which follows is by no means exhaustive. What it does provide is a text of scholia found in the six manuscripts discussed in Chapter 5 (WO, KQ, PN) that are not found in the major manuscripts of the Cornrnenturn itself. To these, I have added a few more: the few non-Cornrnenturn notes found in Leiden BPL 82 (F) in which the scholia break off after Sat. 1.88,’ and non-Cornrnenturn notes found in the later tradition of the Comrnenturn itself. Other manuscripts doubtless have other notes, or other versions of the notes given here; but from what I have seen, they are not worth repeating. There is an unavoidable degree of arbitrariness in deciding which scholia to include. The vast majority of notes in all the manuscripts used here are in fact related to those in the Cornrnenturn, but most of them show changes of wording, abridgments, and other slight variations. For the most part, I have omitted scholia that contain little or nothing that could not have been derived from the Cornmenturn; some notes containing only a few non-Cornrnenturn words are printed in full, but often I have given only the phrases that are significantly different, with a reference to the appropriate note in the Cornrnenturn itself. Where possible, I have given a single version (with variants in the apparatus) of a note found in slightly different forms in several manuscripts; but where that has seemed too unclear, the lists of manuscripts for each note will indicate that they are alternate forms. I have been equally arbitrary in the inclusion of interlinear scholia: those in KQ and P are consistently omitted; those in WO are sometimes included, since it is fairly clear that both interlinear and marginal scholia have the same relationship to the Cornrnenturn itself and rarely overlap. Orthographic peculiarities have for the most part been silently regularized except for proper names, and not all minor variants are included Cf. Scarcia Piacentini, Censimento no. 202; CTC 222-23.

194

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

in the apparatus. I have emended rarely, and only when the change was both obvious and necessary. At the start of each scholium, I indicate in brackets the manuscripts from which it is drawn and occasionally an indication of source or parallel; it should be noted that in many cases, one or more manuscripts do not contain the whole note; their omissions are indicated in the apparatus. It should be stressed that defining the absence of all or part of a note from a given manuscript as ‘omission’ is merely for editorial convenience; in many cases, it is quite clear that the shorter form of a note is just as likely to be the transmitted text as the longer form. The attachment of scholia to notes found in the Commentum is indicated by + 1.2(3) or . . . 1.2(3) . . ., giving the reference to Clausen-Zetzel.

Adn. 1 a) [WOK(partially damaged)QPNF] Satira est genus clami uel lancis multis ac uariis frugum generibus plena. clarnus potest appellari discus uel mensa quae referta sacrificiis Veneri consueuit inferri. est autem dicta satira a saturitate. b) [OKQ] Vnde in choro Liberi patris ministri uino atque epulis pleni saturi 5 appellantur. hinc descriptura poematis satirici hunc titulum accepit, quod personis factisque satiata abundare uideatur. c) [WOKQPF] Satira igitur a saturitate quod plena sit conuiciis et reprehensionibus hominum. d) [OKQ] Persius diu admodum haesitans utrum potius militiae an poetriae 10 incumberet, tandem ad satiram scribendam animum conuertit, nec adeo uoluptuose. unde et quasi subtristis scribere cum rabulatione inchoat. fuit autem senator, scientia nobilis, genere Tuscus, discipulus Bassi philosophi; et de moribus hominum multa conquestus est. rabulatio dicitur altercatio cum ira. Prol. 1 a) [OKQPNF] Apologiam facit mod0 poeta et excusat se quodammodo non 15 ideo scripsisse ut poeta appareret, sed potius inpulsu quodam mentis, quia uidebat tunc multos poetriae incumbere, et per transitum ostendit se primum coepisse scribere causa uictus, ut salarium mereretur. nam salarium est uictus unius diei. b) [WKQ] Non potaui de ill0 fonte ut poeta fierem sicut Ascraeus, qui bibens de fonte Pegaseo mox poeta factus est. 20 c) [PNF] Ascraeus de eo fonte potauit et ideo poeta factus est. ego autem ut ita fierem non potaui.

.

1 clarni uel lancis] lancis id est discis F 1-2 multis-plenaposr mensa 0 1-3 multis-saturitate om.W 2 clarnus-mensa om.F I uel] id est cihi 0 3 referta om. F I Veneri] ueneris F I inferri KQ : offerri PNO : afferri F I est-dicta] dicta uero est haec 0 I saturitate] saturitate id est abundantia 0 4 Liberiministri] ministri liberi patris 0 5 descriptura] inde scriptura 0 7 Satira igitur om.P : et dicitur W : satyra dicta 0 : id est ut poeta fierem F I a saturitate om. P I quod] eo quod WP : id est quod F I plena sit] sit plena F 8 hominum] hominum et nulli parcat F : om. 0 10 conuertit] impulit 0 I1 rahulatione] trihulatione K 13 rahulatio-ira om. 0 14 modo facit poeta PN : modo poeta facit F I et] id est 0 15 quia] qua N 16 ostendit] ascendit 0 16-17 coepisse scribere] scripsisse 0 : coepisse PNF 17 uictus ut] uitii uelut 0 I nam om. KQ I nam-diei om. 0 18-19 sicut-fonte] potauit ascraeus de eo fonte W 19 factus] creatus Q 20 de] ex F 20-21 ut-potaui] non potaui ut F

APPENDIX I11

195

d) [KQ; cf. Myth. Vat. 2.112f.l Pegasus uolucer equus ungula sua fontem fecit et Musk sacrauit, ex quo potantes poetae fiebant. e) [OK(damaged)QPN; cf. Fulg. Myth. 1.26, Myth. Vat. 1.130, 2.112f.l Necfonte hic tamen fabulam tangit. Forcus rex tres filias Gorgonas fertur habuisse, Stenno, Euryalen, et Medusam. erant autem tantae pulchritudinis ut intuentes se uerterent in lapides. una autem illarum praeferebat se reliquis in pulchritudine crinium maxime, id est Medusa; quam Perseus adhibito cristallino clipeo interfecit et caput illius abscidit et secum deportauit. quod intuentes quoque homines in lapides uertebantur. unde cum uenisset ad Atlantem regem Mauritaniae et noluisset eum hospitio suscipere, ostendit ei caput Gorgonae; qui statim uersus est in montem sui nominis secundum fabulam. fuerunt autem locupletes nimis, unde Gorgones dicuntur quasi georges, id est terrae cultrices: ge enim graece terra, orgio cultura. mortuo autem patre successit Medusa in regno, quam auxilio Mineruae interfecit Perseus rex Asiae et de sanguine eius egressus est Pegasus equus, qui pede suo terram percutiens produxit fontem nomine Pegasum sicut fabula finxit Graeca. qui fons dicatus est poetis et Musis. hinc Martianus: ‘Et fons Gorgonei tulit caballi’ (2.119). hoc fabulosum est; est tamen ueritas quaerenda. Gorgo terror, Stenno debilitas, Euryale lata profunditas, Medusa obliuio interpretatur. haec omnia terrorem hominibus faciunt. quae omnia Perseus occidit, qui latine uirtus interpretatur. cum auxilio Mineruae, id est sapientiae, interfecit, quia uirtus auxiliatrice sapientia omnes terrores uincit. de cuius sanguine egressus equus Pegasus est. Pegasus enim fama dicitur, quia uirtus omnia superans famam sibi conquirit. de quo potant poetae, quia in laudem uirtutis uidentes eam uictricem prosiliunt. hinc Ovidius ‘et nihil est quod non opinio captus amore hausit nec capiunt in causas pectora flammas.’ f) [F] Hoc metrum choriambicum dicitur ideo qui in vii” pede a longa incipiat. nam iambus in sexto pede a breui incipiat. 2. a) [KQ] Bicipitem dicit quia mons Pamasus diuiditur in duo iugera in Elicona et duorum capitum. mons in tria diuiditur, in iuga in latera in radices. b) [KQN(interlinear); cf. Serv. Buc. 6.641 Somniasse sicut somniauit Gallus, ut in Virgilio habetur, et factus est poeta. c) [K(interlinear)QF] Mons Cretae; et habet duo capita uel cornua, id est Cirram et Nisam. in Cirram colitur Apollo, in Nisa Liber pater.

3 Nec fonte om. OPN 4 tamen om. OKQ I forcus OQ : focus K : porticus PN I filias iii 0 I fertur habuisse gorgonas N I stenno 0 : stemnon KQ : stennio PN 5 eurialen Q : euriale OPN I medusa OVPN : medula K : creusa Q1 5-10 erant-fabulam om. 0 5-11 erant-unde om. PN 9 athiantem K : athlantem Q I noluisset] uoluisset K I hospitio] ospicio Q 11 dicuntur] dicunt Q1 I george OPN 12 graece om. OPN I orgio] orgia OQPN I cultural cultura dicitur Q I mortuo autem] sed mortuo OPN I successit] successit ei OQPN 15 fabula-graeca] finxit graecia 0 : graeca K 1 hinc] unde PN 16 estl om. QPN I est tamen] sed 0 17 quaerenda KQ : inquirenda est 0 : habet ha: et est inquirenda P : habet hoc N I stenno 0 : stemnon Q : stennio KPN I mediadusa 0 18 interpretatur om OPN I hominibus KQ : in hominibus PN : hominibus in terrorem 0 19 qui latine uirtus interpretatur Q : qui latine uir K : perseus graece, latine uirtus OPN I id est sapientiae om. OPN 20 uincit] uicit Q 20-21 de cuius-Pegasus est om. 0 21 egressus] natus PN 22 quo] qua ON 23-24 hinc-flammas om. KQPN, cf Ov.,Met. 6.465-66 30 habetur] legitur N 31 mons cretae Q : parnasus mons est cretae F I et habet] habens F I capita uel om. F I id est om. F 32 cirra F

5

10

15

20

25

30

196

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

4. a) [QIPirenei montes sunt ubi poetae carmina componebant et propter assiduam meditationem pallebant. Pirene mons Musis sacer est. b) [QN(interlinear)F, Vat. Reg. 15601 Helicon mons Boetiae Musis consecratus. 5. [K] Ambiunt, id est cupiunt, coronant et ligant, serpendo tangunt. 5 6. a) [KQPNF] Hederae semper uirides sunt et ideo hedera coronabantur poetae quoniam nomen eorum semper manet. b) [O] Hederae semper uirides sunt et ideo quia hedera coronabantur poetae Capitolium intrantes. 6 . a) [KQN; cf. Serv. Geo. 2.3821 Pagos dicitur &dTOO nqyq, id est a fonte. pagos 10 enim uilla, pige fons. unde et pagani dicuntur quasi ex uno fonte potantes. b) [PF] Semipaganus semiuillanus id est non integre doctus. ego autem inter poetas et rusticos mediocris sum. pagus enim uilla uel fons, unde et pagani dicuntur uillani quasi ex uno fonte potantes. 8. a) [KQPNF cf. Solin. 52.43-45, Isid. 12.7.241 Psittacus auis solummodo in Indiae 15 partibus gignitur colore uiridi, torque puniceo, grandi lingua et ceteris auibus latiore, unde articulata uerba exprimit ita ut si earn non prospexeris hominem loqui putes. quae auis pro munere regibus offertur. ex natura autem salutat dicens xaips, id est aue. hinc est illud XaTps KaToap ~ V L K O S ,id est aue Caesar inuictissime. nam cetera nomina institutione, id est doctrina, discit. hinc est illud: ‘Psittacus a uobis aliorum 20 nomina disco; hoc didici per me dicere: Caesar aue’ (Mart. 14.73). b) [KQ] Cuius auis rostrum tantae duritiae est ut cum se praecipitat e sublimi in saxum, nisu oris sui se excipiat et quasi quodam utatur praesidio. caput uero tam ualens est ut si quando ad discendum sit admonitus plagis dum pullus est, ferrea clauicula sit uerberandus. nam studet ut loquatur id quod homines atque ideo intra 25 alterum annum aetatis quae monstrata sunt et citius discit et tenacius retinet. maior est paulo segnior et obliuiosus et indocilis. inter nobiles et plebeios discretionem facit numerus digitorum: qui meliores sunt, quinos digitos habent, ceteri uero ternos. c) [F] Hinc est illud kere caesar id est aue caesar inuictissime. sicut enim auis humana edit uerba non per naturam sed propter uentris egestatem, sic poetae non 30 omnes naturaliter sed propter salarium poetriae incumbunt. d) [Q] Signat aues nostra posse sonare dicta; uoces inquit quas natura negat fames attulit uentris. 9. [Vin] Venter. apologiam facit poeta. nam excusat se non inuidiose scripsisse, ut poeta appareret, sed causa uictus, ut salarium mereretur. nam salarium est uictus 35 unius diei. uoces. humanas. 11. a) “(interlinear)] Humanas uoces quas natura negauit fames et uenter attulit imitari. 3 musk consecratus QVat. Reg. 1560 : dicatur musk N : musk dicatus F 5 hederae sequaces hederae F 6 quoniam] quod N I nomen eorurn] poetae nomen F 9-10 pagos-fons om. N 9 pagos] pagosus KQ I apotu pige KQ 11 id est] uel F 12 enim om. P 14 solummodo om. PNF 15 et om. F 16 putes hominem loqui F 16-17 quae4ffertur om. PNF 17 salutat-aue] salutans et (et om. F) dicens aue uel chere, quae ( q p q quod F) pro munere offertur (effertur F) regibus PNF I ~ a ~ p pKQ e 17-18 hinc-inuictissime om PNF I K C L L ~ Zq o a p amroq KQ(arucoq) 19 discit] dixit F I disco] discit Q 21 e Kissel : in KQ 22 sui om. Q 24 clauicala K 25 aetatis annum Q I discit bis K

APPENDIX III

197

b) [O; cf 12d] Id est imitaris, scilicet humanas quas natura negauit fames et uenter attulit. unde et quidam-doctus erit. 12. a) [OKQN(interlinear)F] Dolosi, id est dolos ingerentis tam ei cui fraudatur quam illi qui fraudat; cuius specie decipiuntur homines. b) [O] Id est decipientis uel callidi, scilicet si spem habuerint ut nummum adquirant; 5 si putauerint poetae se pro poemate nummos accepturos, omnes poetizabunt. c) [KQPNF] Id est si spem habuerint ut nummum adquirant pro poemate, omnes poetizabunt. d) [KQ; cf. Eugen. Toled., Opusc. Praet VI, Contra crapularn 101 Vnde et quidam dicit: ‘Castiget uentrem, tunc homo doctus erit.’ 10 Sat. 1.1. a) [WKQPNF] Videns Persius multos libidinari in scribendo ad hoc tantum, ut fauorem populi adquirerent, reprehendendo cum increpatione inchoat ex abrupto. nam ante philosophiae studuerat apud Bassum quidem primo, deinde apud Cornutum. b) [KQPNF] Genus hominum plenum est curis et sollicitudinibus, dum magna student de quibus cupiunt laudari. c) [KQPNF] Multi sic exponunt, ut o curas horninurn hyronicos esse dictum hominum cogitationes. alii dicunt cum admiratione dictum. d) [KQPNF] 0 curas horninurn quorum sollicitudo usque in diuinarum rerum tractatum uolunt peruenire, qui etiam de diuinis rebus tractare uoluerunt. +1.1(2) e) [KQPNJ 0 curas suspense legendum. declamationem omnium hominum ponit; et tractus est iste uersus de Lucilio. cura dicitur eo quod cor urat. quantum inane, id est quantum inanitatis habet et uanitatis. uacuum et ratione carens. inane 8oov 76 K W ~ Vgraece dicitur. uocat autem hoc coelum inane et hunc aerem, quod utique uacuum est a rebus. f) [Q] Interrogatiue proloquitur, et arguit semet ipsum quod relinquit . . . (1[ 11). g) [PF] uacuum dictum est caelum aer quod utique uacuum est a rebus. 2. a) [KQ] Scilicet quae scripsi cum magno labore. b) [KQ] Quae ergo utilitas est scribendi ea quae nullus leget? quid enim inanius et quid inutilius quam si nemo hoc in quo labor0 legerit? c) [KQ] Rursus Persius repetit interrogando, si carmina eius uel duo uel tres lecturi sint.

3-4 Dolosi-fraudat KQ : procliui ad facinus ONF 3 id est om. K 7 Id est om. PN : uel F I habuerint poetae PNF I adquirant nummum F 8 poetizabant K 13 fauorem] fauorem quia laudem W I increpatione] indignatione WPNF 14 apud*-Comutum om. PNF I quidem om. W 15 humanum PF 17 exponunt] cupiunt exponi F I hyronicos-hominum om. F I esse dictum] dictum sit PN : dicant KviC. 18 alii4ictuml alii uero cum admiratione dicunt dictum PNF 19 quorum om. K : quasi P I in] ad PN 20 uolunt] uoluit N I etiam de diuinis] de diuinis etiam F I uoluerunt] uoluerunt et exponunt quantum est in ipsis inquit tractationibus inane ridendum PNF 21 ponit hominum Q 21-23 et tractus-uanitatis om. P 22 id est om. K 22-24 id est-aerem om. N 23 habet-uanitatis om. K I uacuum om. KQ 24 OCONTO KHNHN KQ; cf 1.1(5) 24-25 graece-rebus om. P 25 uacuatum N 27 utique P : eham F 28 Scilicet om. Q 29 est om. Q 30 legerit] legens K 32 sint] sunt Q

15

20

25

30

198

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

3. [KQ] Quoniam potest contingere ut aliqui legant licet pauci uel rari haec quae nimio labore composui. 4. a) [KQPN] Labeo poeta Latinus fuit, ut Fulgentius in libro aethimologiarum ait, qui carmen et opus Homeri conuertit in Latinum et placuit non minus auditoribus quam lectoribus de quibus scribebat; id est Polidamanti et mulieribus Troianis. b) [O] Quemcumque poetam alloquitur; ne quaerat fauorem populi. c) [KQ] Si ergo, inquit, mea carmina non sunt legenda neque Labeonis carmina meis praeferantur. cuius carminibus mea multo sunt praestantiora. ille enim carmen alienum in Latinum transtulit, ego de moribus et propria curo. d) [PN] Ego autem meliora compono carmina quam Labeo, quia ille carmen taticumt transtulit, ego de moribus et propria cudo. 7.[KQPNF] Si quis te laudauerit extra te ipsum, non eleues, id est nemini credideris in laude nisi tibi, et ne dicas te esse quod non es, uel ne quaeras laudem populi. tale est illud yv60t O E ~ V T ~ Vid,est scito te ipsum. 8. a) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear)] Cum consider0 grauitatem priorum et lasciuiam praesentium uirorum, est fas dicere seueritatem qui utique seuerissimi fuerunt et utilitatis amatores et ad morem praesentium et ad grauitatem priorum. item fas est dicere Romae sapientes et fatuos fuisse. b) [QPN(interlinear)] Nam Roma multarum gentium populos habet. c) [O] Cum aspicio seueritatem ueterum et nostram miserabilem uitam, fas est mihi haec dicere. d) [O] Laudat seueritatem ueterum et exprobrat uitia moderni temporis. 10. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. BUC. 8.301 Nucum ludis delectantur pueri, cum turpibus et obscenis actibus uacant; cum uero adulti fuerint et in robur uirile uenerint, postponunt illa turpia sectando meliora. b) [OPNF] Ac nucibus: pueri meritorii id est catamiti quibus licenter utebantur antiqui recedentes a turpi seruitio nuces spargebant ut significarent se puerilia cuncta spernere et in robur uirile uenire. 11. [KQ] Cum aliquid habemus ex moribus patruorum, qui cum seueritate nepotes nutriunt; si quidem antiquae consuetudinis . . . + 1.1 l(7-8). There is a largely illegible extra note in Wfollowing l.ll(3):id est . . . -unt contra . . . scribere . . . illorum indicium qui scribunt. 12. [KQ] Responsum petulantis atque lasciui poetae uel potius Persii: talis sum . . . +

1.12(8-9).

3 ut-ait om. PN I libri K 4 latinum sermonem PN I minus] magis QPN 5 de quibus-troianis om. KQ; Q ad 1.4(7) pergif 10 quia] quod N 12 non] ne Q I credideris] credas PN 13 nisi tibi K : et non constituas in aliorum iudicio PN : et ne statuas te in aliorum iudicio F : om. Q 13-14 et ne dicas-te ipsum om. PF I tale-te ipsum om. N 14 RJOe1CCHhOyeON K : rHBICCHhOyBON Q 16-18 est fasfuisse om. PN 17 utilitas K I morem] amorem KQ I praesentium (pesentium K)post priorum KQ 18 et fatuos fuisse] esse et fatuos Q 19 romam Q I gentium om. P I populos om. Q I habent Q 23 ludis] laudis Q 25 proponunt K I illa om. Q 26 Ac nucibus om. ONF I catamimi PN I libentur 0 27 seruitio id est ludo pueritiae 0 I spargebat nuces 0 28 et-uenire om. 0 30 nutrierunt K 33 Persius K

APPENDIX I11

199

13. [Q] Mod0 incipit poeta stultos carpere. Hoc per yroniam. 14. [WKQPNF] Ferunt physici quod ex pulmone flatus concipitur ita ut recipiat pulmo flatum, ueluti follis aerem recipit et reddit. inflantur superbi et uidelicet cum laudari coeperint; nihil enim iuuat scribere, nisi laudetur a populo. 15. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 19.24.31 Toga dicta sic quod operimento corpus tegat et cooperiat; est enim Romanum pallium. b) [PI Populo ablatiuus est et cum naso . . . 1.15(2) . . . stultus est. 16. a) [WOKQ] Natalicia gemma est quam patronus filiolo suo in die natalis sui donat; quam illi poetae in digito suo gestabant, ut inde magis stulti mirarentur eos non solum in carminibus sed in habitu recognoscantur inter ceteros. ambiguitas est in natalicia. . . +1.16(9). b) [KQ; cf. Isid. 16.841 Surdonix lapis est pretiosus compositus ex sardio, id est comiola, et onyce. nascitur in Arabia. c) [WOPNF] Surdonix est gemma pretiosa dicta a sardio et onice quod utriusque habeat colorem quam in anulis suis Romani ferre solebant. et est nigra, candida et rubra. d) [WKQP(interlinear)N(interlinear); cf. Gloss. Vet., Remig.] Albus scilicet ueste candida, nondum purpureum adeptus uestimentum, quod laticlauium dicitur. e) [KQ] Et est sensus: necdum cum lato clauo, id est purpurea toga, quae laticlauium uel lataclauia dicuntur, sed cum pura toga, id est alba. 17. a) [KQPN] Plasma-sauciatae (1.17(9)). dicitur autem funascus a graeco, quod est fone, id est uox. poetae enim recitantes propter crebram recitationem perfundebant guttura quodam medicamine, quod funascus uocatur. b) [KQ] Id est humore ex medicamine quo arteriae leuigantur. 18. a) [KQ; cf. Joannes Scotus Erigena PL 122.130D (Expos. super Zerarchiam Caelestem S. Dionysii, c. l)] Effectum libidinis ostendit; patrare est libidinari. inde secundum quosdam pater a patrando dicitur, sed melius quasi & m a q p 6 v , id est omnia seruans. b) [WKQF; cf. Remig., Serv. Buc. 3.8.1 Nimia luxuria facit oculos prauos et distortos. hinc Virgilius: ‘transuersa tuentibus hircis’ (Buc. 3,8). 20. a) [KQ; cf. 1.20(2)] Titus Tatius rex fuit Romanorum, a quo uocantur Romani Titi. uel titos dicit scolasticos . . . 1.20(13). nam titi columbae sunt agrestes, quibus rustici designantur homines.

2 concipitur KQ : accipitur et emittitur (remittitur F) in modum follis PNF : accipitur et emittitur in modum follis. anhelet, id est . . . [non liquef] leuet, cum laudari a populo coeperunt W 2-4 ita ut--populo om. WPNF 5 sic] est Q 8 Natalicia om. W I filiolo] folio WO 9-1 1 qua-natalicia.. .. om. WO 9 suo om. Q I gestant Q I mirentur Q 14 est om. PNF 15 colorem habeat OF I quam] quos F I anulis] manibus F 1516 et est-rubra om. PNF 16 rubra] rara 0 17 Albus scilicet om. PN I scilicet om. W 18 necdum W I dicitur] dicitur latine W 19 cum lato] conlato KQ 21 dicitur-funascus] fonascus dicitur PN funasgus Q 22 uox] uox inde enim uox purgatur PN 22-23 poetae-uocatur om. PN 26 ostendit] exprimit Q 27-28 xchvtu rqp6v] nm-eaxip K : xuv6uxtp Q 29’prauos Remig. : paruos WQF : patruos K 29-30 hinc-hircis om. F 30 trans uersis K

5

10

15

20

25

30

200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [KQ] Cum penetrant carmina recitantium interiora audientium. c) [WOKQPN] Carmen mali poetae qui ad hoc recitabat ut fauorem populi caperet; neminem carpebat, sed ad libidinem potius prouocabat. d) [KQ] Signat seuero carmine pauere Romanos, quod etiam interiora eorum penetraret; nam satirici nulli parcebant. 21. [PN(interlinear)] Ypallage est tremulum quasi pronuntiatione agitans. 22. a) [KQ] Cum senio conflictae poeta alloquitur quendam poetam uetulum, qui cum esset senex, laudari cupiebat. sensus est: parum miror, si iuuenes cupiunt laudari, quibus ad hoc feruet sanguis. sed nimium ex uetulo miror, quia gaudet laudibus. b) [KQ] 0 uetule, requiris escas, fauores ab alienis auriculis, id est parasitis. parasiti fautores uocabantur, quod uidelicet a populo cibarentur. para enim Graece praepositio significatur, sitos uero frumentum dicitur. unde et sitharchium uas cibariis aptum. dicitur parasitus quasi apud me cibatus uel apud me frumentatus. c) [WOF] Tun uetule: De iuuenibus inquit non miror si laudem ipsi requirant, sed tu ne o uetule colligis escas delectationis et fauoris ab alienis auribus, id est parasitis, et cunctis talibus quibus postea insultabis ne ipsum et dices: ohe. perditus ohe id est uerecundatus quod huiuscemodi secreta tua manifestaueris, scilicet uerecundantes commutare solent cutem de pallore in ruborem. d) [WOF; cf. 1.22(9-lo)] Scribis enim quod <non> te delectat, sed ut plaudatur tibi a pueris euiratis; ideo laboras, palles, otia tibi denegas. 23. a) [WF] Aut auriculas alienas pascis aut auriculis alienis pasceris. b) [W] Vel spurcissimis quibus postea insultabis. c) [KQ] Perditus cute, id est rubor uultus tui honestate esse perditum qui mala carmina recitas. d) [PN; cf. Juv. 7.631 Vox exultantis, unde Iuuenalis ‘satur est cum dicit Horatius hoe’; ohe interiectio . . . 1.23(4) . . . percontantis. 24. a) [Q] Id est laus humana. quare didici nisi ut inde accipiam fauorem? b) [WOKQF] Sicut fermentum-pectus (1.24(3)), nec potes te continere nisi ipsum diuulges. c) [F] Cuprificus herba est cuius radices tantae uirtutis sunt ut etiam sepulchra mortuorum penetrent, per quam uult intellegi luxuriam et auiditatem legendi carmina. et bene caprifico carmina eius conparat, quae cum exierit nullurn fructum profert sicut nec eius carmina. d) [F] Vox mali poetae respondentis: quid scilicet profuit didicisse nisi ex his quae didicit laudem captat et remunerationem? 26. a) [K] In senibus est grauitas, quibus deest sanguis.

2 Carmen autem WO I qui ] quia 0 : om. K I recitabit K 3 carpebat om. 0 I potius om. PN I prouocabat] prouocabat et hinc iuuenalis. . . 1.21(3) 0 7 Cum-conflictae] tun senio conflictate KviE. 11 fauoribus Q 12 uocabuntur K 13 sitarchium Q 15-17 Tun-talibus om. WO 17 ne ipsum O J ~0. 17-19 perditus-ruborem om. WO 20 enim F : tu WO I quod non] non quod WO : quod F I delectant WO 24 rubor om. Q I esse perditum K : perditus Q I male K 27 ohe] hohe N

APPENDIX I11

20 1

b) [KQF] Ad hoc, inquit, palluisti diu meditando, ut laudem consequereris. c) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear)] Id est, usque in tantum nihil credis te scire, nisi omnes sapiant, ut inde lauderis? in tantum est . . . 1.26(6). 28. [WOKQ] Magna, inquit, gloria est dum aliquis monstratur digito praetereuntium. 29. a) [KQ] Sensus hic est: numquid pro nihilo duces te fuisse dictata centum cirratorum, id est quod centum cirrati de te loquebantur? certe multum laetari debes, quia maxima gloria est laudari a centum cirratis, id est scolasticis. apud antiquos . . . 1.29(5) . . . aetatem et ab ipsis crinibus cirrati dicebantur; cirri enim dicuntur capilli. uel etiam cirratis cinaedis, quia omnes cinaedi cirrati erant. nam cinaedi sunt pueri ueterum, qui habebant cirros, id est crines, in honorem Veneris sacratos, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni deae Veneris consecrabant. constat autem dictasse multum cinaedos. occulte uero carpit . . . 1.29(11). b) [F] Cirrati enim erant pueri cinaedi qui et catamiti uocabantur, qui cirros id est crines nutriebant in capite quos Veneri dicabant eosque statuto tempore deponentes igne Veneris incendebant. de hoc dicit poeta: an pro nihilo ducas fuisse te dictata centum cirratorum, quasi dixisset: cur non debes tu laetari? maxima gloria est laudari a centum cirratis. c) [W] Numquid pro nihilo ducas quod centum cirrati de te dictarent . . . d) [WOPN] Cirrati sunt scolastici uel catamiti; cirri enim dicuntur capilli, et illi crines habebant in honorem Veneris, quos statuto tempore metebant et igni deae uniuersi consecrabant. 30. [Q; cf. 1.30(2)] Carmina, inquid, ipsa quae uix a ieiunis possent discerni; de his expetitur iudicium ab ebriosis et uinolentis. 31. a) [ KQ; cf. Isid. 5.161 Satira a saturitate dicta, quasi diuitiarum dea. b) [KQP(interlinear)N(interlinear); cf. Serv. Aen. 11.6571 Sancta, diuina. proprie autem dia dicitur generosa uel eugenes, sicut dia Camilla. 32. [WOKQ] Diues, inquit, ebrius suscipit carmen mali poetae et legit et sic ab auditoribus laudatur non propter poetam sed propter personam diuitis recitantis, nec ex uirtute poematis felicem dicunt esse poetam, sed ex eo quod ab ill0 diuite recitatum est. 34. a) [KQPNVin; cf. Serv. Buc. 5.10, Myth. Vat. 1.159, 2.2141 Phyllis regina Tracum fuit. haec Demophontem Thesei filium regem Atheniensium redeuntem de Troiano proelio dilexit et in coniugium suum rogauit. ille autem ait ante se ordinaturum rem suam et sic ad eius nuptias reuersurum. profectus itaque cum tardaret, Phyllis putans

1 diu palluisti F 1 consequaris F 2 Id est om. PN 3 in tantum est . . . om. PN 4 praetereuntium sicut demostenes, qui cum . . . 1.28(2) WO 6 loquebar Q I multum om. Q 7 a centum laudari cirratis Q 8 ipsis] illis K 9 cirrati] cirrete K 10 sacratos] consecratos Q I quos] quo Q 20 uniuersi] ueneris WO 21 consecrabant uel cirrati dicuntur cinaedi id est pueri ueterum W 25 Sancta diuina om. KQP 26 sicutCamilla om. PN 27 mali om. 0 I mali-legit om. WO 28 laudatur] recipitur et laudatur 0 I personam diuitis] diuitem WO 28-30 recitantis-recitatum est om. WO 31-202.1 Phyllis-suspendit om. Vin 31-32 fuit tracum Q 32 demephontem Q : demophoontem PN 32-33 troiano proelio] traiano prae ac Q 34-202.1 putans-uicta] amoris impatientia quod (quo N) se spretam credebat PN

5

10

15

20

25

30

202

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

se esse spretam impatientia amoris et impulsu doloris uicta se suspendit et conuersa est in arborem amygdalum sine foliis. postea reuersus Demophoon cognita re amplexus est eius truncum, qui uelut sponsi aduentum sentiret, folia emisit. unde et postea phylla dicta sunt Graece folia amygdali, quae antea petala dicebantur. b) [WO; cf. 34a.31-202.21 Phillis regina Tracum fuit, quae ob amorem Demofontis . . . suspensa uersa est in amigalum. c) [WOKQ] Hipsipila fuit uxor Bellerophontis, qui cum bello Thebano ab hostibus captus fuisset, uxor sua se tradidit pro eo et sua morte redemit eum. 35. [WOKQ] Opizat: opizare enim uerba minuere, unde et diminutores literarum opizizi dicuntur. 37. [KQ] Cippi dicuntur lapides qui sunt indices sepulturae uel sepulchrorum, uel stipes qui ponebantur super sepulcra mortuorum. 39. [KQ] Quia ponebantur antiquitus flores super sepulchrum poetae ad gloriam manifestandam uel quia in sepulchra eorum . . . 1.39( 1). 40. [KQ] Bene dixit uncis . . . 1.40(3) . . . contrahimus. uncis naribus uero sumus, cum reprehendimus aliquem; curuamus etenim nares subsannando aliquem. 41. [KQ] Dicit ergo: an erit aliquis qui fauorem populi non uelit et locutus carmina digna cedro, carmina dico non metuentia tus neque scombros, uelit ipsa nihili pendere, id est relinquere sine laude, ut ita sint uilia atque despecta ut in ea religentur tus et scombri? 42. [KQ] Carmina digna cedro dicit, quia libri philosophorum et poetarum uel etiam cartae antiquorum cedria, hoc est succo cedri, aspergebantur propter tineas ut perpetuo durarent. 43. a) [KQ] Sunt autem scombri Pisces, de quibus fiunt muria, id est salsamenta. facit autem hoc murium et haec muria. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Geo. 1.571 Tura a tundendo dicta esse uoluerunt, a glebis tunsis, cum quibus dicitur fluens de arboribus coalescere. 46. a) [KQ] Dicit autem hoc Persius uerecunde, quia sicut raro euenit ut coruus sit albus et cignus niger, sic ipse raro scribere se commode et utiliter dicit. b) [WO(interlinear)] Si quando sit cignus niger et albus coruus secundum Remigium. c) [WO] Prouerbium antiquum: raram auem dicit uel bonum poetam uel uerum iudicem, et sine assensione aurium . . . +1.45(4-6) d) [PI Item fenix auis arabica, dicta quod feniceum colorem habet uel quia singular<. ..> in toto orbe. arabica namque lingua fenix singularis dicitur.

1 se suspendit] laqueo se suspendit Q : laqueo uitam finiuit PN 2 amicdalum K I postea om. Vin I demophon Vin I re] eius ne Q : ea Vin 3 eius om. Vin I aduentum sentiret] aduentum sentiens Vin : sentiret aduentum QPN 3-4 unde-dicebantur om. Vin 3 et] etiam PN 4 phylla] phyllida KQ : folia PN I graece-amygdali] a phillide PN : amicdali K I quae] nam PN 7 Hipsiphilas K : isiphilis W : ypsiphilis 0 I uxor bellerophontis fuit W I bellorophontis KQ I tebano K 8 uxor sua] illa W O 9 Opizat] opizzat W : opizizat imminuit uel interloquitur 0 I opizare] opizizare WO I enim] est WOQ 9-10 unde-dicuntur om. KQ 11 ueP] seu Q 12 stippes K 18 neque] nec Q 19 in ea] mea K 2 I dicit digna cedro Q 28 autem] aut K 30 sit] scit W 31 uell om. W

APPENDIX I11

203

47. a) [KQ] d e q u e enim mihi cornea fibra est> sed humana, ut laudem possim appetere; non enim habeo lapideum cor, sed carneum. b) [WO] Non lapideum mihi est sed humanum pectus. 50. [O(interlinear)] Atheniensis Labeonis qui casus Iliae describit. 52. a) [KQ] Apud antiquos citreis tabulis spondae fiebant quas et cera incerabant . . . 1.52(3) . . .ueniret per noctumum tempus statim . . . 1.52(3) . . . periret. dicit ergo quia non sunt talia qualia illa, quae super lectulos a diuitibus ebriis fiebant. b) [PN] Senatorum quidam habebant spondas citreas cera inlitas in quibus scribebant carmina quae nocte cogitabant ne uis ingenii periret. c) [BVin post 1.52(8); cf. Isid. 20.11.31 Belle igitur et euge contigisse saepe locupletibus dicit, crudis et super lectulos citreos discumbentibus. unde dicit tuum euge et belle recuso, id est carmina quae interim componis, dum tibi dicitur euge. sponda autem exterior pars lecti, pluteus interior. 53. a) [KQ] Persius inutili poetae dicit: uentrem imples laudatoris, id est mercede laudatores conducere <scis>. b) [Q; cf. 1.53(2)]Nosti dare cibum adulatori ut laudet tuum carmen. c) [Q; cf. Nonius 458.2M.13 Sumen a sumendo dictum; nam et mulieris mammam ueteres sumen dicebant. d) [O] Pars uentris ubi mamillae fiunt et dictum a sugendo. 54. [BVin post 1.54(4);cf. Isid. 19.24.131 Lacerna pallium fimbriatum, quo olim soli milites uelabantur. penula autem est pallium cum fimbris longis. 56. a) [KQ] Cum tu . . . 1.56(3) . . . crassitudine possis acutum habere ingenium et scribendis carminibus operam dare? b) [KQ] Aqualiculus dicitur ut ttestimoniumt quod iuxta uentriculum est. c) [BVin post stulti 1.56(6)] 0 Zane a tergo: Ianus dicitur bifrons esse, qui nec potent derideri, nec ei a tergo sanna fieri; per quem uult quemuis sapientem intelligi. d) [W] Ianus est sapiens qui duas habet facies nec poterit derideri nec ei a tergo fieri sanna. e) [O] Ianus est bifrons, per quem intellegitur quis sapiens qui non potest reprehendi. f) [Q] Adulatoribus suis imperat uera dicere de se. 57-63. [KQ: marginal title; cf. p. 1211Parentesis. 58. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 1.1791 Pinso pinsas uerbum, unde et pinsores dicebantur a pinsando, unde et pistores uocantur, quia olim non molis sed pilis agebant et molebant. hinc pistrillum dicitur. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 7.607, Isid. 5.55.3, 8.11.371 Signat autem istum poetam per comparationes non facile ab aliquo posse derideri, utpote praecedentia et posteriora respicientem. Ianus enim dicebatur deus bifrons propter ingressum et exitum anni. Ianus bifrons et quadrifrons pingitur.

5 incerabant] linibant Q 7 fiebant] fiunt Q 10 loc. contigisse saepe B 11 discumbentibus] discumbentes faciant mala carmina B 14 laudatoriis KQ 24 ut] in Q 25 esse bifrons B 33 agebant] aiebant KQ 34 pistillum Q 36 posse ab aliquo facile Q

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

204

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

c) [PN] Per Ianum intellege bonum poetam, qui a nullo potest facile derideri, qui uidet ante et retro sicuti Ianus qui dicitur esse bifrons. Per ciconiam reprehensiones malos signamus. d) [KQ] Enimuero allegoricos signat bonum poetam, nullum ei inrogare posse conuicium uel iocum; qui aequaliter principium medium finemque sui carminis sine reprehensione componit. e) [KQ] Nullus carmen tuum ita derisum habuit, sicut Mida rex derisus est propter auriculas asininas. f) [O]Carmen tuum non est ita deridendum ut Mida rex propter aures asininas. 60. a) [KQ] Est autem Apulia regio aestuosa, cuius loci homines atque pecudes frequenter linguam extra 0s prae nimia siti proferunt. sic etiam irridentes solent proferre foras linguam. b) [PN] In Apulia enim pecudes frequenter solent extra 0s linguam pro siti eicere; similiter imdentes solent facere. c) [O] Ridentes autem linguam solent foras protrahere. 61. a) [KQ] Mod0 exprimit quod dixerat de Iano: o Romani nobiles, o Ianus patriciorum, qui nobiles estis, qui a tergo uidere non potestis, quorum uita exemplum debet esse posteris suis, uidete ne derideamini. b) [W] Vos qui non sentitis a tergo uos derideri, et qui non estis Iani, date operam ut irrideamini. c) [PN(interlinear); cf. 1.61(4)] Qui non sentitis uos a tergo derideri, subuenite irrisioni ne derideamini. 62. a) [KQ] Sannam dicit, quia irridentes faciunt sannas, id est subsannationes. antiqui enim dicebant sannam facis quod nunc subsannationes dicimus. b) [KQPN] Posticam dicunt quidam Persium non bene fecisse quod penultimam produxit. Antiqui fores . . . 1.62(3) . . . hinc tractum hoc est. c) [O] Posticam proprium est ostium iuxta portam; ponitur pro posteriore parte capitis. d) [Q] Oportet qui laudamini a fautoribus occurrite posticae sannae, id est posteriorum iram uidete. in praesenti laudamini a uestris adulatoribus sed dum absentes estis ab istis deturpamini. 63. a) [KQ] Talia itaque carmina facis, ut possint ad unguem probari ueluti marmor, quae mollitie . . . 1.63(3) . . . formidant. b) [KQ] Sermo est de te, carmina leni structura procedere, quod gratum est omnibus. c)[KQ] Sic facis carmen perleue et inreprehensibile ut eiciat iunctura seueros ungues, id est seueros exploratores. et est tractus sermo per metaphoram a marmorariis, qui

1 inteilige N 4 posse om. Q 5 conuicium] conuiuium K 10 Est-regio] apulia est regio Q 13 linguam om. P 16 exprimit] exponit Q I ianus] genus Q 25 Posticam] posticae P I Persium om. PN 26 produxit Persius PN I antiqui-hoc est om PN 30 posteriorum iram incerturn 32 Talia] aha KQ I unguem] anguem Q

APPENDIX III

205

unguibus iuncturas mannorum explorant in pauimento. sic autem conueniunt sibi carmina quemadmodum iuncturae marmorum in pauimento. d) [Q] . . . 63(1) . . . uerum mihi dicite de me. Vel Persius ironice. e) [W(interlinear)O] Parentesis est huc usque: poeta uanus uel diues interrogat. 64. [PN(interlinear)] (per leue): quasi per planum exploratores cum in iudicium currunt. 66. a) [KQ] Rubrica linea carpentariorum a rubro colore dicta quo tinguitur. b) [Q] Quia qui rectum intendit uno oculo clausa limitem respicit. 70. [KQ] Ironicos: qui nescis minimum ponere et uis magna carmina fabricare. 73. a) [Q] Sunt multi qui nobilia carmina uolunt imitari et ipsi uilia componunt. b) [KQ] Dictare dicimus imperare; hinc dictator imperator. unde in euangelio: ‘Exit edictum,’ id est generale praeceptum. 76. [KQ; aliud-incipit as title in Q] Aliud thema incipit: est nunc quem uenosus liber Brisei Atti moretur. 79. [KQ] Cum uideas malos patres et stultos, cur quaeris unde uenerit haec corruptio loquendi? 81. [KQ] Tale, inquit, carmen componis tu, o poeta, unde ipsi equites, id est plebei et uulgares, tibi insultent. 85. [KQPN] Antitheta dicuntur contrariae ut illud: semper egentes, multos autem locupletantes. item antitheta sunt illa quae . . . 1.85(6) . . . illinc stuprum. 87. [KQ] Ceuere est proprie agitare clunes. hic autem ponitur pro uituperare. 88. a) [KQ; cf 1.88(3)] Haec . . . 1.88(2) . . . cantant. dicit autem: numquid si naufragus cantet, assem ei protulerim, id est si sola cantilena me ad misericordiam flectere uoluerit, ut ei dem assem, id est nummum uel aliquid tale, et non potius ostenderit mihi miseriam suae calamitatis? non utique sic et poeta non meretur a me laudem qui figuris uersuum studeat neglecta carminis materia. b) [WO] . . . 1.88(3) . . . quia naufragi solebant depingere anxietates suas et miserias in tabulis. 94. a) [KQPN] Nerea delphin: Orionem dicit citharoedum qui dum captus esset a piratis et uellent eum mittere in mare, impetrauit ut cithara caneret. uenientes autem delphines proiecit se in mare et susceptus est ab illis ad litus usque deductus. b) [O] Arionem dicit citharoedum. nota fabula apud Virgilium. 95. [KQ] Quasi dixisset: sic nouimus obseruare, ne longus sit uersus, ut contra consuetudinem ceterorum in heroic0 uersu quinto loco ponamus spondeum, quia si dactilum posuissemus, ad instar Appennini montis quasi longus existeret uersus. et dicit Persius hoc ex persona maledictantis, qui cum reprehenditur quare posuerit quinto loco spondeum, dicit breuitatis causa se hoc sponte fecisse, cum potius hoc ignoranter fecisset. 4 poeta-interrogat o m W 5-6 iudicium currunt] iudi N 13 uenosus] uenos K 19 contrariae figurae N 21 uitupere K 23 ad misericordiam] ad nudam K 25 meretur] moretur KQ 29 Nerea delphin om. PN I orionem] orientem PN I citharoedum om. PN I esset] est N 30 cithara] citaram N 31 est om. PN I deductus] perductus est PN 32 uigilium 0 33 ut] sin K 34 ceterorum] ueretorum K 36 maledictantis] maledictum sapientis K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

206

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

96. [KQ] Ab insipiente poeta reprehenditur Virgilius, quasi non bonos composuerit uersus sed asperos. 99. a) [KQ] Isti quatuor uersus sunt absque sensu et sunt causa exempli positi a Persio, uel ab ips0 uel a quolibet indocto poeta compositi. b) [WOKQ; cf. 1.99(5-7)] Illirici cum dimicarent cum Macedonibus et iam plurimam partem exercitus amisissent, mulieres suas coturnis omauerunt in modum bacchantium; sicque illi credentes exercitum aduentare fugerunt. hinc Illirici mimallones sunt dicti apo tu mesto, id est ab imitatione, quod imitarentur furorem Liberi patris. Mimallo ipse est Bacchus. cornua uero appellat initia carminis sui, id est ita resonant capita suorum carminum uel uersuum, alienis compta dictis, sicut resonant carmina more Bacchi composita. 102. a) [Q; cf. 1.102(3)] Et euhion ingeminaf. Eu uox dolentis, hion filius. incompositum est nomen euhion. b) [Q; cf. 1.101(4-5)]Dictum autem bassaris uestis et uulpes bassares dictae sunt. 104. [K] Yronice uel ex persona indocti poetae. 106. a) [KQ] Pluteum scamnum dicit, quamquam et plancae hoc nomine dicantur. non, inquit, malus poeta caedit, id est percutit scamnum sicut faciunt meditantes, nec mordet ungues suos sicut cogitantes. b) [KQ] Ac per hoc in suis carminibus plurimum inreprehensibilis appareret. c) [BVin; cf. Isid. 20.11.31 Lecticae siue plutei lecti. sponda est exterior pars lecti, pluteus interior. 107. [KQP] Satira dicit reprehendens Persium, apud quem ut supra dictum est inductis personis locutus est. uera sunt, inquit, o Persi, quae dicis; sed minime est opus, id est non oportet, laedere teneras aures diuitum. bene dicit mordaci: ueritas enim mordet et odium creat. bene mordaci uero . . . 1.107(4) . . . et odium parit. unde Terentius: ‘obsequium amicos ueritas odium parit’ (Andria 68). 108. [KQ] Id est, ne repellaris a domibus nobilium absens quis a limine frigescit ipsum limen praesens uero calescit. 109. [KQ] Sicut aliquis uolens intrare in domum arcetur a canibus, ita tu repelleris a domibus diuitum quos carpis. 112. a) [KQVin] Oletum dicit locum putidum in quo solebant pueri mingere. ubi dum tabernarii stationem ponebant, pingebant duos angues, ut pueros per hoc terrerent ne ibi accederent. per quod designat satyram. quomodo, inquit, pueri si uiderint pictos dracones, sacrum locum aestimantes fugiunt, ita ego, si dixeris quae oporteat uitia non reprehendi, de illis silebo.

6 amiserant WO I coturnis] cum coturnis et tirsis WO 7 fugiebant W 7-1 1 binc-composita om. WO 8 mamillones Q 10 carminum uel om. Q 17 nec] non Q 18 suos--cogitantes] ut meditantes Q 19 Ac] hac KQ 20 est] aut B 24-25 bene-parit om. Q 24-26 bene-Terentius om. P 26 amicus K I parit] creat P 29 Sicut] si KQ I aliquis] quis Q I in om. Q 31 dicit om. Vin I solent Vin I ubi] ibi Q 31-33 ubiaccederent om. Vin 33 satyram quomodo] sacrum quoniam Vin I uideant Vin 34 fugiunt] fugium K 3435 fugiunt-silebo] mingere illic cessabunt. ita uolo, ut nullus poeta faciant oletum, id est, satyram, apud me Vin

APPENDIX I11

207

b) [KQ] Persius respondit, id est si uis potentes a me non reprehendi, dic quae uitia non carpam et cessabo, sicut pueris monstratur locus ubi non debent mingere. 114. [PN] Reprehendit Lucilius et scripsit mores et uitia Romanorum et non solum carpsit sed etiam alios necauit et uulnerauit. et fregit genuinum illorum et hoc nil ei nocuit. 119. [KQ] Persius conquerens aliis licuisse quod non sibi. 120. [KQ] Pro Mida rege posuit, sed a Cornuto iste uersus ita translatus est. nam Persius sic dixerat: auriculas asini Mida rex habet. 121. [W] Numquid tantae obiectionis ac uilitatis habes carmen meum, o lector, ut nec alicuius Iliade aeqiperes, illud scilicet uel Neronis uel Labeonis. hi enim Iliades scripserunt. 123. [KQ] Quicumque inflaris perlecto Cratino audaci et iratum legisti Eupolidem et palles recitando senem praegrandem Aristophanem, lege et haec, uel tibi mouendo istud meum nil, id est non commuto pro his quibus inflaris. 127. a) [KQ] Crepidue proprie sunt calciamenta uetusta Graiorum poetarum quibus utuntur, uel saxa constructa ad sedendum, unde: crepidasque situ marcidas. b) [O] Crepidus dicuntur calciamenta philosophorum uel sedes doctorum uel saxa constructa ad sedendum. c) [TBVin] Crepidis Graeci a se repertis usi sunt. est autem genus calciamenti singulari forma, et idem utrique pedi aptum, uel dextro uel sinistro. crepidas autem dictas, quod cum sono stringantur: siue a pedum crepitu in ambulando. cothurni sunt, quibus calciabantur tragoedi, qui in theatro dicturi erant. 129. [W] Superbus, erectus. hoc dicit de Nerone qui inuehitur contra tragoediographos. 130. [W] Emina est mensura continens dimidium sextarii, aedilis dicebatur qui praeerat curis aedium. 131. [KQ(interlinear)] Mensa uel etiam lignum geometrorum, id est tabula in mensa geometricali. abacus.. . 1.131(3-5). 132. [PI Sicinici dicuntur poetae a communi uita.

5

10

15

20

25

Sat. 2.1 a) [O] In hac satira alloquitur Macrinum amicum diuitem et potentem. 30 b) [WO] Veteres singulos annos et dies uitae suae lapillis numerabant, et bonos quidem candidis, malos uero nigris, ut uidelicet scirent quot dies in anno letos uiderant et eos . . . 2.1(3) . . . testificabantur. uixit annos tot; quod Cretenses maxime faciebant. 3. a) [WO] Multa creduntur diis non ita ut homines audiant propter turpitudinem. 35 b) [O] Genius dicitur qui cum homine nascitur.

2 sicut-mingere om. Q 4 alios] aliquos N I nihil N 7 isto K 13 mouendo] non uendo Kvic'. 19 Crepidas . . . repertas TB I a se] ante TB I usi] uisi B I autem] aut B 20 forma singulari TB 1 utroque B I uell-sinistro om. Vin I uell om. T I autem] ideo T 21 crepita T 21-22 cothurni . . . tragoedi] coturnus tragei om. T 27 Mensa'] mensam K usi sunt T 22 qui-rant

208

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

c) [0]Emax dicitur qui multa emit. 5. [WO] u i c e r r o ab urbe Campaniae; uas turarium uel arca uel patera in qua libabatur + 5(7). 8. a) [KQ] M.b . 5 : ista tacite diues homo rogat deos. b) [KQ] Non tacite, inquit, rogat deos nisi super his quae non possit impetrare a diis, utpote interfectionem alicuius uel tale aliquid. nam cetera aperte rogat ut bonam spem et similia. 11. [KQPN] Seria quando est fixum significat ollam; quando uero mobile et facitserius, seria, serium significat honestum uel utile; et dicimus serium aliquando ponderatum honeratum. 12. [O]Ego qui hereditatem debeo habere, si filius defuerit. 14. [K] pro conducitur adquiritur uel moritur ac sepelitur; et mihi prima tam diu uiuit. 15. [KQ] Quisquis . . . 2.15(1) . . . petieris. est autem yronia ad eum qui hoc petit, simulque reprehendit eos qui deos uotis ad mala instigant. 18. a) [KQ] Aelius . . . 2.18(2) . . . utrumque. Dicit ergo poeta: numquid praeponimus ttuo uaret Iouem Stagio ut maiorem reuerentiam ei impendas? non utique, quia non audes talia orare Stagium qualia Iouem. b) [N] Aelius , . . 2.18(2) .. . utrumque. Quasi audierit tales imprecationes clamabit aduersus Iouem, sed Iuppiter non clamabit. 21. [KQ] Staius audiendo hoc clamat Iouem; Iouis audiens non potest ipse <se> inuocare? 24. [KQ] Sulfurem posuit pro fulmine, quia loca ubi crebro fulmina cadunt sulfuris odorem imitantur. 26. [K] namque ouium praesagabantur futura. 27. [WO] Bidental bis fulminatum uel locus bis tactus, quia locus bis fulminatus uix euadet damnum. Dental dicitur fulmen Iouis quid in similitudinem humani dentis sit. 29. [KPN(interlinear)] Auriculas deorum emere dicebatur qui facile exaudiebatur. 30. [WO] Lactes sunt partes intestinorum et pluraliter proferuntur. 3 1.a) [O]Aliud poema inchoat de superstitione mulierum reprehendenda. b) [KQ: marginal title] Thema de superstitione. 39. [KQPN] Verba Persii: ego, qui sum contemptor diuitiarum, ueto meam nutricem aliqua uota meo optare puero. 41. a) [KQ] Opem numero singulari auxilium, plurali diuitias dicimus. b) [KQ] Fortitudo duobus modis fit uel in tolerandis aduersis praeparatio animi, uel in superandis laboribus roboratio corporis. 42. a) [KQ; cf. Fulg. Exp. 411 Tuceta dicuntur escae regiae sicut Callimorphius dicit in piseis: ambrosio redolent tuceta fauore. uel tuceta sunt carnes bubalinae 2 arca est 0 3 libatur W 4 M.b. f. om. K 8 significat ollam est fixum Q I uero om. Q 9-10 aliquo pondere honeratum PN : ponderatum, honoratum KviE. 12 ac] hac K 14 petieris] petere solitum Q 15 instigant] infugat K 16-17 praeponimus tuo uare] praeponis tu auare KviE. 17 stagio] stadio Q 18 stagium] statium Q 26 bidental om. 0 27 in] ad 0 28 dicibatur K 3 I Tema K 32 ego om. N 33 optare me0 puero N 34 pluralis K 35 in tolerandis] intolerantes Q 38 ambrosiore K I tucetal] taceta Q

APPENDIX I11

209

condimentis . . . 2.41(4) . . . toto anno durant. quia, inquit, nimium comedis, ideo non potes esse sanus nec diu uiuere. b) [OW] Tuccetu sunt carnes concisae uel carnes bubalae . . . -2.41(6) c) [O] Aliquando enim delicati cibi generant morbos. 50. [KQ] Spe deciperis quia putas augeri rem tuam, cum semper decrescat. tam diu, inquit, deciperis, donec nummum non inuenies in arca. 52. [KQ] De his nunc dicit qui arbitrantur sic delectari deos auro sicut homines. et dicit: si tibi . . . 2.52(2) . . . laetum. 55. [KQ] Auro ouato siue quod . . . 2.55(2) . . . melius inhaerescat, ut statuis non prius bratea haeret nisi prius ouis fuerit delibuta. 57. a) [KQ] Pituitu est purgatio cerebri, id est minuta saliua. et dicitur pituita a purgatione flegmatis: dicunt enim physici somnum ante mediam noctem uanum fieri; illud autem posse fieri uerum, quod fit post mediam noctem purgato cerebro iam a pituita. uel aliter: pituita est morbus gallinarum . . . 2.57(2-3) . . xideant. b) [N(interlinear)] Ablatiui dicitur mutata saliua; moribus scilicet gallinarum. 59. a) [WOKQ] Reprehendit superfluitatem uasorum, quae ex auro fiebant. omnia, inquit, uasa quae antiquitus fiebant ex aere et terra, iam fiunt ex auro in templis deorum. b) [O] Catinum quod apud Numam fuit cuius tempore aerea erant uasa, unde et aerarium et quo et nauis Saturni erat picta et nauis Iani. 61. [KQ: marginal title] Exclamat. 63. a) [KQ] Pulposos dicimus crassos; hinc pulpam supeffluitatem intellige. b) [BVin; cf. Isid. 11.1.81, 20.2.271 Pulpa est car0 sine pinguedine, dicta quod palpitet. resilit enim saepe, et uiscum uocatur propter quod glutinosa sit. pulpa dicta quod cum pulte mixta olim uescebatur; unde et pulmentarium et pulmentum dictum. 64. a) [KQ] Reprehendit mulieres unguenta facientes et uestes tinguentes causa ambitionis. una, inquit, earum corrumpit casiam et oliuam ad unguenta facienda; alia corrumpit lanam et inficit eam purpura; alia quoque iubet colligere perulos a conchis iematheriet auri, id est massam coqui causa ambitionis. b) [WO] Vna corrumpit casiam et oliuum ad unguenta faciunda ut melius redolent; alia lanam intinguit purpura; item alia colligit perulos a conchis et massam auri coqui iubet causa ambitionis. c) [KQ] Cassia est arbor aromatica, eadem et fistula, quam iungit oliuo ad medicamenta conficienda, vel ad tinguendum. et nota quod cassia per duo s dicitur frutex, casia uero per unum s dicitur species aromatica.

1 nimium] nimis Q 2 potest Q I sanus] fortis Q 5 Spes te decipit Q 6 arca] archa tua Q 7 auro] aureos Q 9 statuis KviE. : staius K : statius Q 10 bratea] brantea K I ouis om. K 12 somnium KviE. I uanum] uanam K 13 uerum posse fieri Q 16 ex auro fiebant] fiunt ex auro WO 17 antiquitus-terra] olim ex aere uel terra fiebant WO I templis] templo W 20 saturni] saturnis 0 22 intellige] intelligere K 24 uocatur] uocant B I propter] propterea B 25 quod cum] quia a B I pulpamentarium Vin 27 facienda] facientia Q 28 inficit] non ficit K I perulos a KviE. : perusola KQ 29 et materiem KviE. 30 oliuum-redolent 0 : oleum adiungent W 31 intinguit 0 : intingit W I alia] aliud 0 33 arbor est Q I iungit] ungit Q 34 quod] quia Q I duo s] duo s s Q 35 s dicitur om. Q

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

210

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

d) [WO] Cassia per duo s frutex, per unum s species aromatica, eadem et fistula. e) [OKQ: marginal title in KQ] Aliud thema inchoat. 65. [KQ] Calabria regio est ubi lana abundant, unde Calabrum uellus dicitur, speciem scilicet pro genere. . . . +2.65(4) 66. a) [KQ] Baccam conchae: bacca dicitur quae in concha nascitur marina; in conchis enim marinis margaritae inueniuntur. b) [KQ] Stringere uenas dicit quod aurum quando conflatur si aspergatur ei cinis testae conchae stringat, uel certe quia hoc puluere matronae leuigant faciem suam. 68. a) [WKQ] Non mirum, si mulieres haec ambiunt aurum; sed de uobis mirum est, o pontifices, qui nihil terrenorum ambire debetis, cur studetis habere aurum in templis . b) [KQ] Nempe illud agit, quod pupae donatae Veneri a puellis deuirginatis uel a uirginibus. supertlue enim deae uoluptatum et libidinum uirginalia signa donantur. uel quia solitae erant uirgines quae paruulae emisissent tempore nuptiarum Veneri donantur. c) [KQ] Puellae, quando deuirginandae erant, faciebant popas et statunculas quasdam ex uestibus factas, quas offerebant Veneri ut eis auxiliaretur in ill0 discrimine. est autem sensus: scio, inquit, quod respondebitis hoc facere aurum in templis quod faciunt popae Veneri datae, id est auxiliari eos qui dant; sed ego dicam uobis, quid facere debeatis diis. c) [WO] Pupae statunculi quos puellae de uestibus suis faciunt in honorem Veneris quando deuirginandae sint. 71. a) [KQ] Sensus hic est: ego non offer0 diis aurum uel argentum sicut faciunt diuites, sed hoc do quod diuites donare non possunt, uidelicet iustitiam et puram mentem. b) [KQ] Hic Messala locuples ditissimus et durissimus fuit, qui semper amplos apparatus sacrificiis adhibebat. c) [WO] Iste Mesala cocta fuit messalium, qui tam otiosos oculos . . . 2.71(3). d) [WO] : stulta non uidens quae uentura sunt uidelicet tenebris auaritiae obcaecata.

Sat. 3.3 a) [KQ] Scolasticus insaniens uel bacchans respondit, et est praesens pro futuro. tam diu, inquit, stertimus dormientes quo usque uinum, quod ore bibimus, digestum est. 35 b) [WO] . . . 3.3(3) . . . ubi nascitur uinum magnae uirtutis; inde et Falernum uocatur.

1 duo s] duo s s W 2 tema K 3 unde et Q I uellus dicitur] uellera dicit Q S bacca] albam K I dicitur] dicit Q 7 cinis] pullis K 8 puluere] pellere K 9 Non] non est inquit W I mirum-haec] simul mirum si haec mulieres K I haec om. W I ambiunt] ambiant W I de uobis] hoc W 9-10 est 01 si W 10 debetis] debent W 10-11 cur-templis] aurum in templis habere desiderent W 12 deuirginatis] de uirginitatis Q I a] de Q 14-15 uel q u i a a o n a n t u r om. K 18 quod] quia Q 19 eos] illos Q 21 Pupae om.0 22 quando] quod W 24 donare non possunt] non possunt dare Q 27 adhibebant Q 28 cocta] cocta uel cocus W 29 uidens] uides 0 33 domientes K I ore] heri Kvid: 34 est] sit Q

APPENDIX I n

21 1

4. [W] : hora in horologio gnominis in hora quinta diei. 5. [KQ] Canicula est ardentissimum sidus quod et Sirius uocatur, more canis quae mense Iulio urere segetes dicitur easque maturescere facit. insanam dicit, quod . . . 3.5(2). . . aegrotent. 6. [KQ] Patula spatiosa, cuius umbra sit latior. inter patulum autem et patens hoc interest, quod patulum est coniunctis omnibus partibus una parte separatum, patens autem in totum a se diuisum sed longo intemallo. 8. a) [KQ] Bilis dicitur fel. uitream autem bilem dicit aut uitrei coloris aut re uera uitream id est fragilem, quia non poterat se continere ab ira dum non habebat qui ei daret calciamenta. b) [Q; cf. 3.8(1-2)] Vitrea eo quod uirides et pallidos facit homines, ac ut apparet in uitreo uase quicquid apposueris, sic qui patitur. 9. a) [KQ] Archadiae: asinos dicit qui in Archadia abundant. sic, inquit, clamabo tpirat ut dicas et putes rudere, id est rugire uel mugire, asinos Archadiae. hoc autem pecus pecoris et pecora de maioribus, ueluti bos et asinus; haec pecus pecudis pecudes de minutis; hoc pecu huius pecu et hoc pecuare huius pecuaris et haec pecuaria de maioribus. b) [PI Ruditus proprie asinorum est. 10. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 11.1.4-51 Bicolor membrana crocea et alba: tinguebatur enim membrana qua scribebant croco uel qualibet tinctura. membrana dicitur quod ex membris animalium excorticatur, pergamenum uero a Pergama ciuitate in qua primo usus illius inuentus est; nam ante in corticibus et biblis scribebant. b) [KQ] Antiquitus haec cartes huius cartae, sicut Beronices Beronicae, Magdalenes Magdalenae, Agathes Agathae dicebantur; sed moderni haec carta. c) [O] Iam arripit suum librum. 11. [Q] Harundo res tdbriit, quod nos proferimus per femininum genus. 13. a) [KQ] Sepia genus est piscis maritimi de cuius corio olim atramentum id est nigra tinctura fiebat ad scribendum quod mod0 de quoque corio fit; unde sepia pro atramento ponitur. b) [O; cf. 3.13(1)] <Sepia>: pro atramento posuit quamuis non ea utamur ut Iudei faciunt sed ex fuligine . . . c) [K] Et est sensus: discipulus, inquit, nolens studere in scribendo dicit quod nimis est tinctura sua aqua infusa et ideo non possit scribere. 14. [BVin] Dilutas querimur g. q. $ dissolutas nimia aqua fistula geminet. 15. a) [KQPN] 0 miser: Responsio paedagogi. paedagogus Graece, Latine puerorum ductor.

2 ardentissirnus Q I quod] quae Q I more] in ore Q 3 maturascere Q I quod] quo Q 6 parte] ex parte Q 7 diuisum a se Q 8 uitrei] uierei K I a&] ut K 9 uitream id est] uitre ama K I ei] ibi K 14 mugire] mugire seu sonare Q 19 enim] enim pueris Q 20 croco] croca K 21 ciuitate] ciuite K 23 magdales Q 27 piscis] picis K 27-28 id est nigra tinctura om. K 28 quod] quae Q I de quoque] decoctumque K 33 infusa] infusu K 34 g. q. f.] id est Vin 35 0 miser om. KPN I pedagogi o miser PN I graece] dicitur graece Q 36 ductor] doctor K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

212

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [WO] Peda graece, puer latine, gogo duco, unde paedagogus, id est puerorum ductor. c) [O] Semper miser et in aeternum miser. d) [OKQPN] Huccine rerum uenimus? numquid ad has peruenimus? et est figurata locutio, yronice. hic est sensus: usque dum pepercisti mammis et titis matris tuae, sic delicatus es ut hic morari cupias utpote filius regis. 18. [KQ] Lmture recusus, id est cur non uis sugere mammas matris tuae? melius, inquit, tibi fuerat ut infantem et uagientem te fingeres atque ubera sugentem quam ad tantam miseriam deuenires nolens studere lectioni. 19. [QPN; cf. 3.19(3)] Quid istis succinis ambages. Quid mihi istas accusationes succantas id est murmuras, cum tibi fatuo tempus praeterit? 21. [W] <Maligne>: non bene tfornucet. sensus est: scio quia non incalescas propterea quae loquor, sed sicut uas fictile non adhuc coctum non bene sonat sed rauce, sic et tu, quia uitium non est expulsum a te. 22. a) [KQ] Fidelia est urceolus uel olla. per translationem autem hoc dicit, nam uasa inutilia non resonant. olla enim non bene cocta, si percussa fuerit, uitiose, id est rauce, sonat; ita, inquit, et tu. et sicut illa properatur acri rota figuli, ita et tu properandus es quia adhuc molle lutum es. atque ideo disciplina urgendus et castigandus es a magistro, quoniam non uides ea quae uidere debes. o puer, dum uiuis, studere artibus. nam sicut figulus, qui rotam semper gyrat dum uas figlinum facit, non cessat donec uas peragatur, ita tu animum sub disciplina in fontem sapientiae semper mittere debueras. b) [WO] Sicut rotam semper girans non cessat donec uas peragatur, ita tu semper animum disciplinali submittere studio in fontem scientiae debueras. c) [TBVin] Ambiguum est cum non sit uitium sonare et cum non sit proprium fideliae respondere. 28. a) [KQ] Stemma est series cognationis uel filum longum quo cingebant sacerdotes capita, unde flamines quasi filamines dicuntur. b) [KQ] Noli, inquit, gloriari quod genus a Tusca nobilitate ducis quoniam a longinquo est hoc iam millesimus effectus. c) [KQ] Censores dicuntur qui mores senatorum censebant, id est iudicabant, et quosdam a senatu propter morum uitia repellebant non in perpetuum, sed ad certum tempus. censorem ergo dicit magistrum uel consulem et iudicem. 29. a) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 19.24.8; Jahn, Persius 2891 l’rabea erat togae species ex purpura et cocco qua operti nobiles Romanorum initio praecedebant. trabea autem

1 unde] inde 0 I id est om. 0 4 Huccine] hincine Q I Huccine-et om. PN 4-5 Huccine-yronice om. 0 4 has] has res Q 5 sic] si 0 6 es ut hic PN : hic OQ : hoc K I morari] morderi N I cupias] cupis 0 7 suggere Q 8 ut te fingeres infantem et uagientem Q 9 deuenire Q 10 Quid-ambages Q : respondit pedagogus PN 11 succantas] succinctas Q I id est] et N 16 fuerit percussa Q 20 rotam om. K I figlinum] figulum KQ 21-22 animum-mittere] semper animum sub disciplina mittere in fontem sapientiae Q 23 Sicut-cessat om. W 27 Sthemma Q 28 capita] caput Q 30 mellesimus Q 31 dicuntur] dicebantur Q 34-35 erat-cocco] uestis T 35 cocco] tocto B I nobiles om. T I procedebant B I trabea autem om. T

APPENDIX I11

213

dicta quod in maiori gloria hominem transbearet, hoc est, ultra et in posterum ampliori dignitate honoris beatum faceret. b) [W] Trabea dicitur a transbeando eo quod transtulit hominem de inferiori loco ad superiorem. 30. [KQ] Faleras sunt ornamenta equorum proprie. facit hoc falerum generis neutri et 5 haec falera. est autem antiquum prouerbium quasi superflua est haec pompa. 32. a) [KQ] Verecundatur, quia stupor stulti est, pudor uero sapientis, ut Boetius: ‘pudore an stupore . . . ? mallem pudore.’ (Cons. Phil. 1.2). b) [OKQP] Pingue ideo dicit quia pinguedo stultos et hebetes facit homines. inpinguatum cor habet, ideo non curat legere. pingue neutri generis est et semper in 10 idoneis inuenitur rebus. pingue enim cor hebetes facit homines, quod probatur ex onagro: onager enim ceteris animalibus pinguius cor habet et ideo stultius omnibus, ut ferunt physici, est animalibus. 33. [KQ] Translatio est a naufragis, qui dum submerguntur in profundum postmodum superna non repetunt. 15 35. a) [KQ] Haec inuocatio ad hoc pertinet ut pueri nobiles stulti apt0 tempore studia disciplinae neglegentes postea paeniteant et uirtutem aliorum in scientia uidentes tabescant. hoc est qualem uirtutem amiserunt quorum uirtute carent. b) [Pithou, Glos. Vet., from Montpelier 1251 Metaphora a lana quae corrupta ad pristinum colorem reuerti non potest. 20 39. a) [WKQP] An maiora . . . 3.39(1) . . . inclusos aera propter homines intus positi uel in boue an grauior . . . 3.39(1) . . . torsit sub gladio pendenti quam torquentur qui huiusmodi cogitationibus deprimuntur. b) [KQ(bis)] Dionisius fuit quidam tirannus Siciliae, cuius securitatem cum quidam philosophus laudaret, fecit eum sedere super quandam cathedram et nudum gladium 25 super caput eius seta suspendit et interrogauit eum, utrum securus esset. qui respondit ei se statim mori timere. et ille: tali, inquit, ego securitate fruor. c) [WO; cf. Oros. 1.201 Phalaris artifex bouem aeneum fecit Agrigentinorum regi qui Phalaris dicebatur, in quo homines punirentur. cui rex gratia, inquit, tibi excogitanti ttantum autem primust eius tormentum experieris, unde Orosius de eo dicit: ‘cum 30 multos iniuste puniret, unum tamen iuste puniuit.’ d) [WO] Democritus quidam philosophus fuit qui contempnebat regias epulas et nulli dicebat eas proficere utilitati, sed et animam et corpus in praecipitium uertere. quod

1-2 hoc-faceret om T 1 est om. B 5 Faleras] faleres Q 9 Pingue] pinguedo K I ide-homines om. OP I quia] qui K 10 inpinguatum] id est in pinguatum Q : pinguatum P : om. 0 I habet cor 0 10-11 pinguerebus] pinguedo enim non est latinum OP 11 facit homines hebetes 0 I probatur] probamus OQP 12 onager enim] nam onager 0 I cor om. Q I stultius] stultior OQP I ut] sicut Q 12-13 ut-anirnalibus KQ : esse uidetur P : uidetur ewe 0 14 submergeruntur K 15 supernal supera Q : supernis K 17 disciplinae om. K I uirtute K 21-22 An maiora-boue om. W I aera-boue om. P 21 intus positi] inter politi K 22 qui om. KW 23 huiuscemodi WQ I deprimuntur] cum decipi intellegunt nec tamen corrigantur W 24 Dionisius-uidam om QPr I siciliae] seu ciliae K 25 super] supra Qd‘ 27 ego om. K 28 Falaris W 30 tormentum eius W 32 Democrates W

214

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

Dionisius audiens pendente a laquearibus supra uerticem sibi ense ea quae contempserat compulit esse. 41. [PI Magis ac magis currimus in praecipitium. 42. [WKQP] Id est quantum infelicitatis suae dolore et neglegentiae poenitentia torqueatur. 44. a) [WKQ; similar note in PI Moriturum Catonem minorem dicit, qui apud Vticam periit, qui etiam praecepta uitae dedit et accept0 ueneno dixit: non uidebo Iulium imperatorem. b) [WO] Cat0 censorius fuit auunculus, Cat0 Vticensis nepos. 47. a) [KQ] Quae pater adductis: pueris reuertentibus a scholis parentum domos <...>. rogabant patres eorum uicinos sapientes et amicos ut iudicarent utrum filii essent philosophi. b) [WO] . , , 3.47(1) + sudans prae gaudio si doctus filius sine neglectus pudore rogabat uicinos et sapientes urbis qui quando revertebatur a scola et tunc recitante puero iudicabant illi quid quaereret, utrum philosophus appellaretur an alea luderet. d) [KQ] Sudans autem dicit, quia parentes sudant recitantibus filiis aut pudore aut gaudio. 48. a) [KQ] Senionem appellat tesellam quae per tabulas currit. b) [KQ] Dicit ergo Persius quia dum paruus erat non curabat de rebus philosophicis, sed alea et tesserae ac trochus erat eius studium; quem trochum Virgilius turbinem appellat. c) [WKQP] Senio ludus tesserae. genus ludi dum se magis amare quam studium legendi donec puer fuit. ludus tesserarum apud ueteres lusores a numero uocabatur, ut unio, trio, quatrio, senio. nunc appellatio singulorum mutata est et unionem canem, trionem pupum, quatrionem , senionem uocauerunt. 49. [KQ] Dampnosa canicula id est assis quo luditur ad similitudinem denarii facta. dampnosam autem eam uocat propter lites et contentiones quae inde procreantur. 50. a) [KQ] Orca est amphorae species minor uas uasculo urceolus diminutiue urceolus; id ipsum est et fristrillum. Est autem fristillum ad quod pueri ludere solent. b) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 20.6.51 . . . cuius minore uocabulo orcius, diminutiuo orculus est. c) [O; cf. 3.50(2-3)] Inde orceus hinc urceolus. orca species est amphorae quae in ludo nucum ponitur, in quo qui in angusto orcae collo certo iactu iacit ipse uictor existit. 52. [KQ] Id est non est tibi inexpertum reprehendere uel intelligere qui sunt corrupti mores.

4 quantum] quantum intus W 5 torquetur W 7 periit] petiit K I qui-accept01 sumpto W I dixit] quia dixit W 8 imperatorem] imperantem WP 9 auunculi W 10 adductis om. K I reuertentibus] reuerentibus K 13 sudans om. 0 I sine] si 0 14 qui om. W I reuertebat W 22-23 S e n i e f u i t om. WKQ 2 2 tessera P 23 ludus] iactus quisque W I ludum tesserarum tesserarum K I uocabantur KQ 24 quatrio] quadrio Q I nunc OM. P 25 pupum] puppum K : pupam W I quadrionem Q I planum el Venerem suppl. KviC; ~ f Isid. 18.65 I senionem om. P : pupum W I uocauerunt] appellauerunt K 27 dampnosum K 28 minorurceolus] minori uocabulo urceus Q 29 fristillum] fristrillum K (his) I ludere solent] ludunt Q 30 orcius] ouecuit B I orculus] urciolus B 34 Id est om. K

i

APPENDIX I11

215

53. [KQ] Atheniensem . . . 3.53(1) . . . uenerant. uel historiae orientalium populorum. metaforice autem sapiens porticus dicit, quia sapientes . . . 3.53(2) . . . philosophabantur. illita ipsa porticus braccatis Medis, quia uidelicet induti sunt bracis; ex qua etiam . . . 3.53(2) . . . dicitur. 54. a) [K] Illi quibus ceteris philosophi fieri cupiebant, intonsi manebant usque dum scirent studia eorum; unde nunc dicit detonsa iuuentus. b) [PI Qui iuuenes intonso capite fiebant dum scirent studia eorum. 55. [WOKQP] Alfita ordeacea farina est, pollis uero qui digitis efficitur panis, polenta uero ipsa est farina sed hic proprie pro pane posuit. inde dicit grandi pasta polenta, id est naturali cibo. 56. a) [WOKQP] Y literam dicit quam Samius Pitagoras inuenit instar humanae uitae, cuius sinistra decliua, dextra uero ardua, Y. qua similitudine . . . 3.56(4). ultimam partem eius assimilauit iuuentuti adolescentis. tale autem est ac si dicat: tu dextrum ramum Y tenuisti, non sinistrum. b) [BVin post 3.56(6)] Quem utrumque limitem quisquis ab anno sextodecimo obtinebit, in hoc staturus erit. c) [Q at top of page; cf. Matthew 7: 131 Haec spatiosa uia Arta uia est uerae est quae mortis quae ducit ad atria uitae ducit ad ima 60. a) [KQ; cf. L in app. crit. to 3.60(1)] An eris uagus sicut coruus, o puer, ut secundum libitum tuum feraris? corui etenim pro libitu feruntur. sic et tu sine dispositione uiuis, et sicut uagantur corui passim et non curant in qua arbore sedeant, ita et tu non attendis nec est tibi cura quid agas? an in testa an in loco nitido an in stercore sedeas? id est non curas quid boni maliue facias, quia bona et stulta eadem putas. 61. [WOPVin] Corui enim instabiles sunt, huc illuc transuolantes, et non curant aut in alta arbore sedere, aut in palustribus, in aquaticisque locis: et adulteros figurant. 63. [WO] Sic et de neglegenti intellegendum est: tardum enim est illi quod se recognoscit. 66. [O] Exortatio poetae. 71. [Q] Quem id est qualem scilicet rationem et capacem disciplinae, non otiarium sed bonum. nam stulti aliquando contraria optant.

5

10

15

y

2 dicit] dixit Q I quia] quoniam Q 3 medis braccatis Q I induti] inducti K 4 etiam] porticu Q 5 fieri KviE. : fidei K 8 Alfita om. P I uero qui digitis K : uero qua digitus Q : qua rigidus WOP 9 uero om. W I est om. WO I proprie om. WOP 9-10 inde-cibo om. WOP 11 Y om. KQP I instar] ut star K 12 decliua] declina K I uero om. WO I Y om. P 12-14 ultimam-sinistrum om. WOP 13 abolescentis Q I autem om. Q I dextrum] dexterum Q 14 tenuisti Y Q 21 ut] et K 22 libitum tuum] libidinem tuam K I etenim] enim Q I feruntur] fununtur K 24 tibi] cibi K 25 quia] qua K 27 enim om. WOP I illuc] illucque WOP I et om. WO 27-28 aut-sedere Vin : aut in alteram arborem descendant WO : ut in alteram descendant arborem P 28 in aquaticisque-figurant om. P : imis aquae locis resideant WO 29 est enim 0 I quod] quando 0

20

25

30

216

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

79. [KQ] Erumnosi autem dicit uel laboriosi quia Salon exul a patria periit. 81. [KQ] Murmuru id est sententiam diu meditatam quam habent in corde, iam cum murmure magno, id est cum magna affluentia et cum rabie illam sententiam quasi illud silentium proferunt et ostendunt audientibus cogitationes atque inuentiones suas. 82. [Q] Sapientes enim tarde et circumspecti loquuntur quasi laudantes. 83. a) [KQ] Quia aegroti diu iacentes pro uacuitate et inanitate corporis inania uident somnia. somnia appellat uoluptates eorum philosophorum et uanas superstitiones, quae ualde uanae sunt. philosophi uero ita loquuntur uelut infirmi, qui sibi fingunt somnia sanitatis. b) [KQ; cf. Serv. Buc. 6.311 Epicurei dicunt mundum non de nihilo sed de athomis creatum esse, ideoque non in nihilum posse resolui sed rursum in athomis. dicunt enim duo rerum esse principia, corpus et inane. omne namque quod est aut continetur aut continet. et corpus uolunt esse athomos, id est quasdam minutissimas particulas, quae thomum, id est sectionem, non recipiunt, unde athomi sunt dictae, quas Lucretius minutiores esse dixit illis corporibus, quae infusis per fenestram radiis solis uidemus. inane uero dicunt spatium in quo sunt athomi; de quibus duobus participibus uolunt procreari ignem, aerem, terram, aquam et ex his cetera. uaria est opinio philosophorum de mundi creatione. quidam dicunt omnia ex igne procreari, alii ex humore ut Tale Milesius, nonnulli ex quatuor elementis ut Lucretius. Epicurei uero dicunt duo esse principia, athomos et inane. athomi uero sunt corpora breuia et insecabilia, inane uero est illa uacuitas in qua athomi errant. an ergo gignitur de nihilo nihilum? quia mundus non de nihilo est sed de athomis, non potest resolui in nihilum sed potius in id unde originem trahit. ex quatuor enim elementis conditus est mundus iste maior; unde microcosmus appellatur minor mundus, id est homo qui similiter ex quatuor elementis constat. c) [WO] Stoici dicunt mundum non de nihilo sed de athomis creatum, ideoque non in nihilum posse resolui sed rursum in athomos. 88. a) [KQ] Vox est infirmi ad medicum loquentis . . . 3.88(2) . . . neglegat. aliquanti enim propter delicias quas non possunt assequi secundum suum uelle aegrotant; aliquanti propter amorem, aliquanti propter cupiditatem. b) [W] Aliud thema inchoat. de his . . . 3. 88[l]) . . . 89. [WOP; cf. Isid. 10.245)] Sodules dicuntur simul edales. 90. [W] Iubet medicus ut tribus noctibus requiescat et postquam tertia nox compositas uiderit, id est quieti datas demonstretque uenas tunc deliciosas sibi epulas

2 habent] habebant Q 7 corporis om. K 13 quod] quo K 15 thomum] thomicum K 16 minutissimas dixit esse Q 16 infusis] infisis K I solis] solem K 17 sunt] sunt sunt Q 18 participibus] participiis Q : principiis KviE. I aquam et] et aquam Q 19 creatione mundi Q I ex igne omnia Q I procreari] constare Q 20 ut om. Q I quattuor Q 21 principia esse Q 21 athomos] athomum K I uero om. K 21-22 et insecabilia] quae athomi id est insecabilia Q 22 est om. K I errant] erant KQ 23 quia] qua K I non om. Q 24 trahit] habuit Q I enim om. K 25 microcosmus] micros mod0 K 27 dicunt om. 0 I de2 om. W 30 suum] tuum K

APPENDIX I11

217

et in omni pigmento precioso indulcoratas praeparet ut inde satur balneum ingrediatur ac post sibi notus uinum praeparari et commanifestabitur infirmitas. 91. [WOKQP] Vsque ad tertium diem aegritudo non intellegitur quae sit uel quanta sit. 92. [PI Vas est lagos graece, latine lepus. 5 95. [W] Regius morbus uel quia regali cibo curandus est, uel quia regiam morienti aperit arcuatus etiam necatur. 97. [KQ] Aut tu alter tutor es aut quem sepeliam et aut est uox aegroti dicentis ad medicum: tu alter tutor es? aut certe uox est medici cum indignatione interrogantis: 10 restas tu, id est resistis. 98. [Vin] Vt Iuuenalis ‘turgidus et crudum pauonem in balnea portas’ (1.143). 99. a) [QP] Fetores malos scilicet crudum eructando cibum. b) [O] Sulphur dicitur quasi soli pyro. 100. a) [WOKQP] Triens calix dicitur tribus nummis emptus. triental est calix qui . . . 15 3.100(1) . . . heminas. b) [WKQP] Signa mortis sunt, si dentibus frendit infirmus et tremunt manus et cetera membra. 103. [O] Pretiosis uidelicet uestimentis quibus operiebatur. 104. [WOKQP] Arnornum flos est, cinnamomum cortex. 105. [K] Ita enim efferuntur mortui, ut pedes contra ianuam habeant. 20 109. [Q] Dicens si forte id est si habes spem accipiendae pecuniae. 114. [KQP] Beta dicitur secundum olus in orto, sicut beta secunda litera in scriptura. ac si diceret: secunda medicina non potest curare illud ulcus. 115. [W] Stare fecit, unde Virgilius ‘steteruntque comae’ (Aen. 2.774). 118. [W(damaged at end)KQP] Orestes in tantum insanus effectus est ut matrem suam 25 occideret, qui et post ipsam interfectam mansit furens, et ipse non faceret uel diceret quae tu facis. Sat. 4.1. [KQ] Alcibiaden alloquitur, cuius tutor erat Pencles, ambiebat autem Alcibiades honores publicos. 30 8. [WO] Quiris lingua Sabinorum hasta dicitur, unde Romani a Romulo qui hastam semper in manu gestabat Quirites dicuntur. 9. [KQ] Iudiciarium sententiam insinuat, qua cernitur quod iustum est quodue uideatur iniustum. 11. [KQ] Ancipitis librae, id est gemino iudicio discretionis iusti et iniusti, sicubi 35 controuersia oborta fuerat.

3 Vsque enim Q I ad] in WOP I aegritudo] infirmitas WOP 8 alter tutor] aut tator K 9 certe uox est] est et K 12 Fetores malos] malos odores Q 15 heminas] minas Q 19 sinamomum WO 22 Beta dicitur Q 23 illud curare Q 25 Orestes qui W I effectus am. W 26 ipsam interfectam] sponsa interfecta Q : sponda interfecta K I furens] furiense Q I et om.W I faceret uel diceret] diceret uel faceret P : diceret uerba huius modi nec faceret [. . .] W 31 unde] inde W 32 gestabant W 33 iudiciarum sententia K 36 fuerit Q

218

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

15. [KQ] Ante diem etiam id est ante xxx annos; non enim erat licitum apud Romanos quemlibet ante triginta annos senatorem uel consulem fieri uel publicae potestati praeesse. 16. a) [KQ] Anticyras meracas dicit helleborum merum, id est purum, quod ita 5 sumptum interficit; sin autem mixtum fuerit pigmentis, fit salubre antidotum. b) [KQ] Melius est tibi mori bibito helleboro quam sic iudicari. 17. [WP] Per unctam patellam significat lautiores epulas. 19. a) [KQ: marginal title] Persius. b) [WOKQ] Id est inspice si . . , 4.19(2) . . . respondeat et id ipsum sentiat 10 summumque bonum in uictu et uoluptate corporis manere iudicet. anus dicitur sine ratione; nam nous est summa pars animae, id est ratio. est autem nous masculini generis et habet accusatiuum nous et ablatiuum nou. non aliud, inquit, respondebit anus quam ego. 21. [KQ] Baucis proprium nomen est aniculae, uxoris quondam Philemonis. Iupiter 15 enim et Mercurius hominum figuras uersi in regione Frigiae cum animos incolarum experti a nullo exciperentur hospitio, a Philemone quodam paupere et Baucide uxore eius hospitalissime sunt excepti et cum maxima uoluntate rebus humillimis ad uictum necessariis simplicissimos animos pauperum experti sunt. ergo ut numina hanc uim ostenderent suam, seuocatis senibus in excelsiorem collem casam eorum in templum 20 conuerterunt eosque antistites sacrati loci praefecerunt, ut cum senectute in arbores conuerterentur; Philemon cederet in fruticem, Baucis in tiliam. oppidum autem eorum quos ceteros inhospitales ciues habuerat cum multitudine obrutum stagnum factum est. laudatur igitur Baucis quod diis libenter ministrauerit. pannucea uero dicitur propter pauperiem. 25 22. [KQ] Verna compositum est ex tribus corruptis, id est ex bono et herede et nato. ergo uerna dicitur bonus, ereditarius, natus. 23. a) [KQ: marginal title] Poeta exclamat. b) [O]Quomodo nemo ad sua uitia flectit uisum. Aesopus . . .4.23(2). 29. [KQ] Limum id est uinum densum prae uetustate sicut limus. 30 31. [KQ; cf. Isid. 17.10.121 Caephal siue caepha Graece, Latine caput dicitur; unde et Cephalus siue capito. hinc et cepe a principali sui parte, id est capite, dicitur, quo reciso reliquum corpus flaccens et inutile redditur. facit hoc caepe singulari numero indeclinabile, plurali numero hae caepae declinabile. 32. [KQ] Pannosam fecem morientis sorbet aceti: tunicatum cepe mordens cum sale 35 et farratam ollam apponit pueris plaudentibus, qui diuitias eis potuerit apponere. 37. a) [PI Balanatum est unguentum uel genus pomi unde fit unguentum; proprie genus glandis. 2 triginta annos] annos xxx Q I publicae] primae Q 6 est om. Q 7 uncta patella P 9-10 Id est-iudicet WO 10 uoluptate] uoluntate Q I anus] auus K I dicitur om. WO I sine] siue K 11 nous] noy K : noys enim WO I est om.W I id est ratio om. W I ratio] ratyon K 12 accusatiuum om. K I nou] noy KQ 14 Baucis] buccis K (passim) I iuppiter Q 15 hominum] in hominum KviE. 16 experti a] exper na K I exciperentur] exorperentur K 17 eius om. K 18 numina] numen KQ 19 ostenderent] ostendent K I templum] templo Q 20 ut] ita ut Q 21 in tiliam] italiam KQ 22 habuerant K 25 tribus om. K 31 siue] sine Q I capito] capite KQ I principali] principaliori Q 32 numero singulari Q om.

APPENDIX I11

219

b) [WO] Balanum autem genus unguenti uel genus pomi unde unguentum fit. unde et mire balanum unguentum pretiosum. proprie tamen genus glandis unde unguentum conficitur. c) [Q] Vel dicitur balanum genus pomi quo unguentum fit. d) [KQ] Guusupe uestis uillosa est. gausape . . . 4.37(3-4) . . . defricatum balano, cur 5 ab inguine tuo pilos euellis? cur, inquit, inducis corpori cum uillosa uestis uobis sit? e) [KQ: marginal title] Persius ad uoluptuosum. 41. [KQ] Filix herba . . . 4.39(1) . . . funditus extricat, quia postquam semel radicauerit, difficile abrumpitur. ita et ingenitae radices pilorum difficile euelluntur qui renascuntur. filicem enim uel pilos dicit uel ipsam libidinem. 10 43. [KQ] In subterioribus, inquit, partibus corporis turpiter peccas; praecinctus enim erat balteo simulans se fortem et bellicosum uirum, cum esset eneruis et euiratus. 49. [KQ] Puteal locus erat apud senatum uel ante theatrum, in quem debitores uerberibus solui cogebantur. 15 Sat. 5.1 [KQ] Hanc , . . 5.1(1) . . . tragoedias, in qua etiam exsequitur Cornuti magistri sui laudes. 5. a) [P(interlinear)] At quod optas, o poeta, qui tot quaeris uoces in tua carmina? b) [PI Offuproprie est aliqua cum pane commixtio quae uulgo tortella nominatur. c) [O; cf. 5.5(2)] Sed licet hoc primum dixerit ob tumorem uatum postea tamen dicit 20 quia satyricus simpliciter ad singulorum uitia centum linguis non posse sufficere. 7. [KQ] Illi, inquit, qui fictas tragoediarum et sceleratas scribunt fabulas, potius Eliconis inuocent numina, id est Musas, ut eloquentia sua cum admiratione spectantium torpeant animi. 8. a) [KQ; cf. Serv. Buc. 6.78, Geo. 4.15; Myth. Vat. 1.4, 2.2171 Thereus cum 25 Pandionis Atheniensis regis filiam Prognem duxisset uxorem et illa sororem desiderasset, petiit a marito ut accersiret sororem. qui cum commeatum Philomelae accepisset a socero ut cum ea ueniret, uim ei intulit, cumque illa prodituram se sorori indicasset, linguam ei abstulit, cuius illa sanguine scelus scripsit in pectore suo et cum ad sororem uenisset, scissa ueste legendum praebuit. quo dolore commota Prognes 30 filios, quos ex Tereo habuit, patri apposuit comedendos. quo comperto cum eas insequeretur, ipse in upupam uersus dicitur, Prognes in lusciniam, cuius etiam nunc lugubris uox est, Philomela in hirundinem, quae pectus infecta sanguine madet. Atreus cum fratris sui Europam corrupisset uxorem, ille simulata gratia occidit illius filios et coctos fratri comedendos praebuit, quod cum faceret Thiestes sol dicitur 35 auersatus refugisse. b) [O; cf. 5.8(3)] Notum apud Virgilium quomodo Atreus Thiestis fratris filios . . . 1 genus unguenti] unguentum 0 2-3 proprie-conficitur om. W 5 uestis-est] genus est uestis uillosa Q I gausape2] gautisape K I defricatam Q 6 pillos K I inquit om. Q 9 euelluntur] eualluntur K 10 quilibidinern om. K l l partibus] partes K 13 locus] lucus K 13-14 debitores-solui] debitae res solui uerberibus Q 18 At] ad P 22 scribunt] scribit K 25 thereus] theseus K 26 regis om. K I illa Q2 : ille KQ1 27 accersiret] accersitet K 27-28 philomelae accepisset] philomene accessisset Q 28 ueniret] qiueret K I prodituram illa Q 31 tereo] there0 Q 34 athreus Q I ille] illa Q' 35 comedendos] commedos K

220

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

9. [KQ] Hic . . . 5.9(1) . . . temporibus qui saepe cenam Thiestae suae inferebat tragoediae. 13. a) [Q] Stloppum genus poculi quod faucibus prodest. b) [Q] Tumidarum inquit rerum nihil sequeris. et est translatio a fabris ferrariis. 14. a) [Q] Verba: uerba togae . , . 5.14(1). 14. b) [TBVin; cf. Isid. 19.24.3-51 Toga est dicta quod uelamento suo corpus tegat atque operiat. est autem purum pallium forma rotunda et fusiore atque inundante sinu et sub dextro ueniens super humerum sinistrum ponitur; cuius similitudinem in operimentis simulacrorum uel picturarum aspicimus easque statuas togatas uocamus. toga uero Romani in pace utebantur; belli autem tempore paludamentis. mensura togae iuste senas ulnas habebat. toga palmata dicebatur quam merebantur hi qui portabant de hostibus palmas. c) [PI Callidus: peritus uerba iungere uersui. 20. [Q; cf. 5.20(3)] Allegoricos significat per fumum res uanas et leues et tam uilissimas ut dicantur posse extolli a fumo. 22. a) [Q] Pars animae, id est qui sum dimidia pars animae tuae. b) [O; cf. 5.22(3)] . . . respondet ‘et serues . . . meae’, quod et Horatius de Virgilio. 24. [Q] Translatio est a uasis fictilibus . . . 5.25(1). 30. [KQ: marginal title] Persius. 38. [KQ] Regula id est norma rectitudinis. doces, inquit, norma iustitiae rectum sequi et mores peruersos emendas. 39. [KQ] Animus dicitur apo tu animo, id est a uento, quod uelocissima sit cogitatio eius et ad similitudinem uenti motu celeri peruagatur. fit autem ex appetitu animae pro desiderii qualitate permotus. 40. [KQ] Artzjkem uultum . . . 5.40(2) . . . finguntur. est autem translatio ab his qui cerea simulacra componunt. 42. [KQ] Primus nodes . . . 5.42(1) . . . primaque oriens et signat eum saepe epulatum. 46. [KQ] Hoc dicunt mathematici, quod eodem signo nati perpetuam inter se concordiam habeant. unde coniectat se et Cornutum uno eodemque sidere natum. insinuat se magistro aequiparare in omnibus. 47. [KQ] Quod horoscopum aut in Libra aut in Geminis habemus; nam aequinoctium mense Septembri est in Libra, solstitium autem mense Iulio est in Geminis. 48. [KQ; cf. Serv. Aen. 1.22, Fulg. Myth. 1.8, Myth. Vat. 2.141 Parcae tres sunt, Cloto, Lachesis, et Atropos. et haec est interpretatio earum: Cloto euocatio, Lachesis sors, Atropos sine ordine. uocamur enim ex non esse in esse; deinde accipimus sortem uiuendi; ad extremum succedit mors, quae sine ordine cuncta aufert. unde 6 in uelamento T 6-7 corpus-operiat] contegat corpus T 7 est-pallium] pallidum est purum T I et] atque B I fusiore atque om. T I atque] et B I sinu] sinum B 8 similitudine B 10-1 1 toga-habebat] quae toga tempore belli palludam dicebatur T 10 tempore] ipse B 11 dicebatur] fuit T 12 hostibus] hostiis TB 20 id est om. K 21 et mores-emendas om. Q 23 et om. K 24 pro] per K I qualitate permotus] qualitatem K 27 oriens om. K : moriens Q 32 in geminis] ingenis K 35 est om. Q 37 sortem] fortitudinem K

APPENDIX I11

22 1

quidam: mors nulli parcit; omnia namque rapit. ueri tenucem dixit Parcam, quia non possunt propositum suum fata mutare. unde et Parcae dictae sunt eo quod nulli parcant. tria sunt autem genera fatorum: primum amobile, secundum quod potest differri, tertium quod flectitur. 50. [KQ] Zouefrungimus, id est pro Iouis appositione compescimus et temperamus. 5 53. [KQ] Suum arbitrium unicuique sua uoluntas est. inde Horatius . . . 5.52(1) . . . milia. ab omnibus, sed multis uotis. unde et Terentius . . . 5.52(1) sententiae et Virgilius . . . 5.53(1) . . . uoluptas. et hoc dicit: ut uariae figurae . . . 5.52(3) . . . omnes. 55. [KQ] K l M l N O Y N Graece, Latine cuminum uocatur. 10 56. [KQ] Dicunt phisici morbos euenire ex cibi et potus nimietate uel mutatione et nimiis uigiliis atque multa sollicitudine. 57. a) [KQ] Aut campo Martio ut fauorem carpat uel captet, aut campo id est ludis et exercitationibus . . . 5.57(2) . . . militiae. b) [KQ] Decoquit consumit uel nudat. 15 c) [KQ] Unus, inquit, arat, alius militat. alter assiduo coitu Veneris efficitur. . . 5.57(4-5) . . . conficitur propter turpitudinem prae nimia assiduitate libidinis. 58. a) [KQ] Cyrugru dolor est qui manus contorquet et cordi logmata facit; Zupidosu autem dicit nodosa, dura, quae inflat articulos. Kyrra Graece, manus Latine; hinc cyragra contractio uel dolor manuum, sicut podagra dolor pedum; pos enim Graece, 20 pes Latine. b) [TBVin] Artus enim membra sunt maiora. c) [Q] Quia sicut uenti quassant ramos arborum et curuant, ita et morbus articularis manus ac digitos frangit ac tortuosos facit ut sint similes ueteris fagi ramis in quibus obtunse et sine ratione uixerint. 25 60. [KQ] Crussos dies dicit . . . 5.60(2) . . . uixerunt. uel aliter crassos dies id est nebulosos dicit uel opulentos. palustrem autem dicit lucem pluinosam, sordidam, lutulentam, a uoluptate obscuram propter . . .5.60(3) . . . transfertur. 62 [KQ: marginal title] Ad Cornutum. 65. [KQ] Finem unimo, id est consolationem aegrae senectutis. cunos enim pro 30 senectute posuit quia qui morti uicina est et uelut profectura e uita dixit uiatica. 66. [KQ: marginal title] Neglegentis uox. 69. [KQ] Egerit, consumit, praeteriit. dum, inquit, differtur in crastinum annus egeritur uel unus uel plurimi anni. uituperat ergo eos qui dilationibus student. 71. [KQ] Cunthurn axem dixit uel circulum ipsum totius populi. et canthum Graece 35 dicit quam Latini feminini generis tuitiumt dicunt. haec ?uicust id est curuatura.

1 omnia] cuncta K 2 proposito suo K 3 amobile] immobile KviE. 5 frangimus] frangimur K I iouis om. K I appositione] aposicione K 10 K l M l N o y M Q 12 sollicitudine] sollitudine K 13 carpet KQ 18 Kvragra Q I est am. Q 19 cyra K 20 ciragra Q 22 enim om. T 26-27 id--opulentos] dicit nebulos uel epulentos K 30 senectuti Q 31 quia qui] quiet K I el ei K I uiatica] uitiata K 33 consumit, praeteriit] abicit, praeterit, exhaurit Q I crastinum] castrinum K 34 egeritur] egreditur K 36 dicit] dicitur K I quam] quem K I latini] latine K I feminini] femini K I haec-curuatura om K

222

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

72. [KQ] Secundo axe, id est prospere, uel quia sunt et antipodes. quamuis, inquit, prope zodiacum ambules, tamen ipse axis quem sequeris necesse est ut uelocius te currat, quanto eius rotatu posterius curris; ille enim interior est. omnis enim pars nostra uel plaga obliquum axem habet. 73. a) [KQ] Apud ueteres mos erat ut ciues Romani ad tesseram, in qua nomen tribus fuisset scriptum, panem acciperent. ergo liberti priusquam tesserae mererentur panem minime accipiebant. b) [O] Libertus est liberi arbitrii potestas. c) [W] Aliud thema inchoat, hoc est materies carminis uel compositionis causa. 75. [WO] Quia manumissione serui liberi fiebant per praetoris uertiginem, hoc est per capillos semel uertebantur, et dabat eis unam alapam et post liberi fiebant. 76. a) [KQ] Vertigo a uertendo; qui enim manumittuntur, in girum ducuntur et alapam accipiunt. b) [Q; cf. 5.76(2)] Tressis nullius meriti ut nullius nummus ualere concedatur. c) [KQ: marginal title] Poeta. 77. [KQ] Tenuifarragine, pane uel foeno; tenui, inquit, cibo mentitur. 78. [Q] Verterit id est apud imperatorem manumiserat. 79. a) [KQ] Marcus Duma: ita cum praenomine uocabatur libertus. tam, inquit, prouectuose prouehitur, ut praenomine notetur Marcus Dama, ut Marcus quondam nobilis. b) [P(interlinear)] : poeta nobilissimus Romanus fuit. 80. [KQ] Palles, id est trepidas, cum libertus fuerit iudex. accusat autem uitia temporum, quod subito libertinis tanta fides sit quanta nobilibus. 81. [KQ] Cuiusdam uox: signa, inquit, testamentum. 82. a) [KQ; cf. Isid. 19.30.5, 31.51 Pilleum a tpillet dictum. libertos autem dicit qui pillea merentur, quia serui calceos, liberti pilleos habebant, quod erat signum uictoriae. b) [WO] Serui calceis et liberi pilleis utebantur et capita pilleis induentes. 83. [Q; cf. 5.83(1)] Verba liberti sunt: numquid alius liber est nisi ille cui licuit uitam ducere sicut placuit? 85. [O] Omnia quae de libertate sunt bona sunt, except0 hoc quia licet ut uolo uiuere; illud ergo tollatur. 90. a) [WKQ] Rubricu, id est norma uel lex mansura; ipse enim Mansurus fecit legem. b) [O] Regula Romanorum hoc est: Massuri ipse enim fecit legem contra audaciam puerorum. 91. [KQ] Sunna noue dicit, id est subsannationem, quia si quid displicet naso et ore contract0 indicamus. 1 ut om. Q 3 rotatu] rotata K 3-4 omnis-habet om. K 5 erat] et ast K 6 teserae K 10 manusmissione 0 11 dabatur eis una alapa 0 12 manummittuntur Q 17 manummiserat Q 18 Marchus Q I pronomine KQ 19 profectuose Q I pronomine K 22 Pallas Q' 23 sit om. K 25 pille] pilo uel pelle KviE. 29 ille] illi Q 33 uel] haec est W I mansura] masuri W 33-34 ipse-legem om. Q 33 mansurus] masurus W 34 legem contra audaciam puerorum W 38 indicamus] iudicamus K

APPENDIX I11

223

95. a) [KQ] Sambuca instrumentum musicum uel genus . . .5.95(4) . . . componuntur. b) [W] Calon graece lignum latine. c) [WOKQ] Calones sunt serui militum lignarii uidelicet eo quod ligna ferant quod lisca dicitur et hinc similiter liscae dicuntur. 99. [KQP] Vetitos actus, id est insipientiam uel aliLid quodlibet malum quod hominibus per naturam uetitum est. sententia generalis ut pro uetito habeatur id quod fieri nescitur. 100. a) [KQ] Vetat natura hominem medicum esse, nisi discat; mensurae enim ignarus elleborum dabit pro ueneno, quod cum ratione datum medetur. b) [WO] Puncto id est mensura qua medici acres herbas aliis commiscentes aut compensant aut connumerant. 102. [KQ] Per0 calciamentum rusticum ex pelle. Virgilius: ‘Nudus tegit pero’ (Aen. 7.690). 103. [KQ] Luciferi, id est ignarus siderum, quae nautae sciunt. sero est stella Vesper, nocte media Venus, mane Lucifer, quae Graece Phosphoros dicitur quod lucem ferat. inter alia autem sidera praeter solem et lunam umbram fertur corporibus nocte defendere. 104. [TBVin] Tali sunt dicti a talo. nam talus est eminens rotunditas, unde et fastigium templi rotundi talus uocatur. 106. [O] Quia qui faciunt paracaraximus obtegunt eos. 108. [KQ] Creta bona notantur, carbone autem mala; quae, inquit, forent sequenda albo notabas colore, quae uero incommoda nigro. 109. a) [KQ] Modestus es neque nimis cupidus in uoto, parua re familiari. et hoc dicit: etiam in parua substantia dulcis es amicis tuis. b) [PI Id est ad uoluntatem ipsorum quia frequenter domum eorum adis. c) [P: marginal title; cf. 5.113(1)] Dinumeratis eis quae sapiens sequi uel spemere debeat. 111. [KQ] Praeterire, inquit, possis nummum in luto positum, quod utique auari non faciunt qui lucrum de quauis turpitudine petunt et statim rapiunt. 112. a) [KQ; cf. Myth. Vat. 2.421 Mercurius dicitur quasi mercatorum dptoq. b) [P: marginal title] Verba correcti. 116. [WOKQVin; cf. Jeremiah 13:23] Hoc tractum est ab Aethiope qui non mutat pellem suam, nec pardus uarietatem suam: sed in qua pelle natus est, in ea moritur. prouerbium taliter prolatum: si, inquit, sub specie recti fraudulentiam uulpis retinueris quem ante laudabamus, mox laudis nostrae funem recipiemus. facie bonum simulans mente dolum machinaris; uulpes enim dolosum est animal. aspectu bonum te esse simulas, mente malum machinaris ut uulpes; quod animal satis est defessum. 3 sunt-militurn] dicuntur militares serui KQ I lignarii] lignarurn K I eo-ferant] ex eo ligno WO I quod om. K I ferant om. K 4 et-dicuntur om. W I hinc] hi 0 5 Vetitos-id est om. P I quodlibet] prohibet P 6-7 sententia-nescitur om. P 8 nisi discat medicurn esse Q 10 Puncto id est om. 0 12 nudus] crudus Verg. 15 phosgoros Q 22 albo] allo K I nigra K 29 et] sed KQ 30 n u p p u q KQ 32 Hoc om. WVin I est om. KQVin I qui] quia 0 I rnutat] rnutat ethiops 0 33 pardo WO I sed in om. W I qua pelle natus est om. KQ I in ea WOVin : ipsa KQ 33-37 prouerbiudefessurn o m WOVin 36-37 aspectu-defessurn om. K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

224

5

10

15

20

25

30

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

122. [PI Cetera aduerbium est, id est ad ultimum. 131. a) [KQ] Strigiles sunt proprie pectines de ferro; et strigiles . . . 5.126(1) . . . tergendo. alii etiam sabana et linteamen dicunt quibus sudor corporis siccatur post balneum. huius Crispini temporibus nominatum balneum fuit et ipse erat imperiosus dominus. b) [WO] Strigil graece pecten latine. strigilas genus piscis uel strigil dicitur lignum quo athletae sudorem tergebant; aut pro sabano dixit, hoc est linteamen quo se balneati tergebant. c) [KQ] Scutica est flagellum lori, unde et scuta dicimus quod corio ambiantur; nam aurei et aerei clipei dicebantur. 132 [P: marginal title] Aliud thema. 135. a) [KQ] Castores sunt fibri, id est canes ponti quorum testiones apti sunt medicaminibus; propter quos ubi senserint se requiri semet ipsos morsibus secant. de his Cicero: ‘Redimunt se ea parte corporis propter quain maxime expetuntur’ (Pro Scauro fr. p; cf. Serv. Geo. 1.59, Isid. 12.2.21); Iuuenalis: ‘Qui se eunuchum ipse facit, cupiens euadere dampno testiculorum’ (12.34sq.). castores ergo a castrando dicti sunt, unde et castorinae pelles uel castoreum, genus unguenti quod ex testiculis fibri fit. b) [KQ] Hebenus arbor est Indiae quae caesa in lapidem uertitur; et est nigri coloris. dicitur autem ebenus tam lapis quam arbor. c) [PI Lignum quod siccatum durescit in lapidem. 138. [WKQ] Bur0 uel uaro, id est fatue, stulte. lingua Gallorum uarones dicuntur . . . 5.137(5) . . . stultorum, unde et iste stultissimus uocatur. 140. [TBVin; cf Isid. 20.6.11 Et oenophorum aptas: oenophorum uas uinum ferens. oinos enim uinum est; de quo est illud ‘uertitur oenophori f. s. n.’ (Lucil. 139M). 142. [KQ] Sollers luxuria assueta uoluptas et torpor. 142. [P: marginal title] Verba luxurie. 145. [KQ] Cicuta est herba frigidissimae naturae adeo ut contusa et apposita renibus effetos faciat. 147. [WOQ] Tu potabis malum uinum in malo uase. 148. [KQ; cf. Macrob. Sat. 5.211 Obba calix est nauticus resticulis factus et pice oblitus et sessilis; uinum enim uetus ita fit in picta lagoena missa supra fumum. quam lagoenam obbam uocat; obbae namque, oriae, crati, sciphi, carchesia, cimbia, cululli genera sunt poculorum et uini.

2 proprie] per Q 3 siccatur om. K 7 quo W : in quo 0 I sabano W : sabana 0 9 est om. Q I corio ambiantur Q : coruo ambiatur K 12 id est om. Q I ponti] pontici KviC I testiones] testes Kvid: 14 redimunt] redimit K I expetuntur] expetunt K 18 fibri] fibris KQ 19 est’ om. Q 22 Baro---fatue om. W I stulte fatue Q 22-23 uarones-uocatur om. W 23 iste om. K 24 uinum om. T 24-25 ferens-uinum om. B : h e n s eno uero uinum B2 25 oinos] eno T 28 est post naturae Q I frigidissimae Q : foedissimae K 29 effetos faciat Q : effectos facit K 30 portabis W I in-uase om. Q 3 1 reresticulis K 32 missa om.K 33 uocat K : dicit Q I crati] cyathi KviE. I carchesia om. K I cululli] cululi Q : culuci K 34 sunt om. Q I et uini om. K

APPENDIX I11

225

149. [KQ] Quincunx genus est ponderis quinque unciarum. hoc, inquit, quaeris, ut quinque unciae quas modeste conquisisti aliubi decem uncias tibi adquirant? an pecunia . . . 5.149(1) . . . praestet? deunces dicitur quasi dempta uncia una undecim uncias. 151. [KQ] Inuitat eum uoluptati ac genio indulgere. genio enim melle et nucleo dulcium libaturi diis ut bene sit genio. 152. [KQ] Fubulufies, id est in terra et in puluerem reuerteris. morituri, inquit, de uita bona cogitemus. ac si . . . 5.152(1) . . . licet. 154. a) [KQ] Conuenit, inquit, ut si utramque sequi uolueris ancipiti uia uel seruitio utriusque obsequaris. b) [WQ] Auaritia uocat ad laborem, luxuria ad requiem. 157. a) [KQ] Cum semel, inquit, uitiorum iugum abieceris et lapsus sis, iterum ne dicas ‘abrupi onus uitiorum,’ cum partem horum habeas. b) [KQ] Obnoxios, inquit, etiamsi nolint seruire, post poenam cogit ipsa conditio; nam licet . . . 5.157(3) . . . trahit et iterum constringitur. 161. a) [KQ] Verba adolescentis quasi ad seruum; Dauus enim nomen est serui hominis. b) [Q] Introducit autem Cherestratum iuuenem amantem. c) [WO] Adolescens: personae mutatae sunt, nam Chaerestratum posuit pro Phaedria, Dauum pro Parmenone. sic enim uocantur apud Terentium. 162. [KQ] Crudum unguem dicit nudum uel cami adhaerentem; nam quod eminet, incrementurn uocatur. 166. [KQ] Praestolabantur amatores ante fores meretricum extincta face donec admitterentur. 168 a) [P: title over Duue] Verba adolescentis. b) [P: marginal title] Verba Daui ad Cherestratum. 169. [KQ] Deliras, inquit, uapulabis de solea rubra, id est de flagello fact0 de tergore alexandrino. 176. [PI Aliter: pulpo, id est qui palpando hoc est timendo blanditur fauentibus. 177. a) [KQ] Cicer enim calefacit homines ac in Venerem salaces facit uel reddit, siue, ut quidam dicunt, et ista consuetudine quod aediles certis ludis populum pascebant cicere et ceteris leguminibus. nam in ludis Floralibus omnis semina spargebantur, ut . . .5.177(2) . . . placaretur. ludos enim terrae colebant. b) [PI Quod in festis Florae deae multa munera concedebantur populo. 179. a) [P: marginal title] Hic de superstitionibus tractat.

3 dicitur K : dicuntur Q 5 ac genio om. K 6 dulcium om. K 7 fies Q : fides K I in terra et in Q : intra K 8 cogitamus K 9 utrique Q 11 uocat om. W 12 abieceris Q : obieris K 13 abrumpi Q 14 cogit om. Q 16 enirn om. K 19 Adolescens om. 0 21 unguern crudurn Q 22 incrernentum K : excrementurn Q 23 ante fores meretricurn amatores Q 27 flagello K : flagro Q 28 alexandrino Q : alexandrio K 30 ac om. Q I salaces] salares KQ 31 consuetudine] consuetudinem KQ I aediles] elides KQ 32 pascebant] pacebant K : pascebat Q 33 ludos-colebant om. K

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

226

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

b) [KQ] Aprici senes, id est calidi, luxuriosi, adhuc amantes; apricum enim dicimus calidum. et ipsa aprica loca gaudebant. vel aliter apricos . . .5.177(4) . . . consuetos. 180. a) [KQ] Herodis dies uel Apriles dicit Kalendas Veneri sacratas uel ab eo quod lucheros, id est cupido, Herodis dies cupidineos dixit, id est festos, uoluptuosos. 5 b) [P: marginal title] Hic de superstitionibus dicit. 18 1 . [KQ] Disponebantur enim lucernae in domibus. inducit Iudaeorum festa, in quibus accurate et cum lucernis prandebant. 182. [Q] Rubrum fictile quod est argiennum, id est ex argilla quod ait aut breuitatem catini aut magnitudinem tinni ostendit. 10 184. [KQ] Recutita, id est ueretri pelle recisa; quia Iudaei qui sabbata colunt extremam partem ueretri non habent. 185. [KQ; cf. Aug. Civ. Dei 9.111 Lemures laruales umbrae a laribus dictae, id est manes, quoniam corporibus ill0 tempore tribuuntur quo fit prima conceptio. et postquam nascuntur, isdem corporibus delectantur atque cum his manentes lemures 15 appellantur. qui si uitae prioris adiuti fuerint honestate, in lares domorum uel urbium post mortem corporis uertuntur. si autem deprauantur ex corpore, laruae perhibentur ac lamiae. laruae autem sunt mali dii, lamiae mali demones. 186. [KQ] Isidis sacerdotem dicit luscam, corpore minutam uelut indignam, sistrum in manu tenentem. est enim sistrum species instrumenti quod maxime circa Nilum 20 siue Aegyptum inuenitur. est enim genus ludi quo ad ioca pueri solent prouocari.

Sat. 6.10. a) [Q] Hennius enim poeta somniauit se esse Homerum, et sic longo tempore tenuit se fuisse in bello Troiano. b) [WO] Expergefactus est a somno; somniauit enim se esse Homerum et fuisse in bello Troiano. 25 11. [PI Quintus ideo aut quintus ab ill0 erat, aut cognomento. 19. [OQ] Solis natalibus id est una hora natiuitatis. aliter: introduxit uaro duos fratres aequis natalibus sed diuersis studiis. 21. [BVin] Sacrum piper quod parcitate sua sacrum aestimat. b) [PI Vt ponderosius in lance carius uendat. 30 33. [P: interlinear title] Verba auari. 39. [Q] Nostrum inquit mare hoc non habet postquam sapientia Graecorum et diuersa condimenta translata sunt ad urbem nostram. 47. [Q] Esseda uehiculorum genera sunt uel carpenta Gallica in quibus uehebantur molliter mulieres. ut Virgilius, Belgica . . . 6.47(1) . . . collo.

1 id est om. K I amantes K : amantestes Q 2 calidum Q : calididum K I aprica loca K : apric locis Q 3 Apriles] aptiles KQ I dicit K : dixit Q I sacratas Q : sacratus K 4 festos K : festiuos Q 10 ueretri K : ueteri Q 1 I partem ueretri K : ueretri autem Q 14 isdem Q : eiusdem K 15 lares] lare KQ 17 sunt om. K 18 in corpore Q I ueluti Q 19 enim K : autem Q I instrumenti] indumenti KQ 20 enim K : etiam Q 23 enim om. W 26-27 aliter-studiis om. Q 28 Sacrum piper B : ipse sacrum irrorans Vin I aestimat B : existimat Vin

APPENDIX I11

227

50. a) [Q] Coniueo, coniues, coniuet, id est consentio. coniuere est proprie oculos claudere; coniuere est ergo uel nutibus oculorum consentire. b) [Q] Artocreae condimenta sunt ex pane et carnibus: artos panis, crea caro. c) [WO] . , . 56(1) . . . Dianae, ubi ille colitur. Virbius autem Ippolitus est quem Esculapius suscitauit. nota autem apud Virgilium fabula quomodo a Fedra nouerca 5 amatus thalamos patris noluit uiolare. unde dolo nouercae iratum patrem effugiens equis eius focas Neptuni in litore expauescentibus in praecipitium cadens mortuus est. 68 [P: marginal title] Verbum heredis. b) [Q] Verba filii respondentis cum indignatione. 10 73. [PI Id est ego sim inde macer, et illi sit pinguius uenter. 77. [K(damaged)Q] Genus tormenti quo sancti cruciebantur apud Capadoces, ex uirgis ferreis contextum uel genus ludi quo qui iocantur magis precentur. 78. [P: marginal title] Verba auari. 79. [KQ] Fac paragraphum ubi finem capiam amoris negotiorum et depone modum . . 15 . 6.79(1) . . . augeam substantiam. 80. a) [KQ] HOCdicit: sicut non potest inueniri definitor syllogismi Chrysippi, ita non potest inueniri qui possit ponere finem cupiditati auari. b) [O] 0 Crisippe utrum inuentus finitor tui acerui.

5 fedra W : fedria 0 11 cruciabantur Q 16 definitor Q : diffinitor K I Chrysippi K : Chrisippi Q

LIST OF WORKS CITED Baswell, Christopher. Virgil in Medieval England (Cambridge 1995). Berger, A. ‘Zum sogenannten Comuti Commentum’, Wiener Studien 32 (1910) 157-59. Budelmann, Felix. ‘Classical Commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on Ancient Greek Literature’, in Gibson and Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary, 141-69. Cadili, Luca, ed., Scholia Bernensia in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica, Vol. 11, Fasc. 1 (Amsterdam 2003). Chevrou, Gaston, ed., A la MLmoire du Saintongeais Elie Vinet, Principal du Coll2ge de Guyenne, 1509-1587 (Barbezieux 1910). Ciccolella, Federica. Donatus graecus: Learning Greek from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Diss. Columbia, New York 2004). Clausen, W. V., ed., A. Persi Flacci Saturarum Liber (Oxford 1956). Clausen, W. V. and J. E. G. Zetzel, eds., Commenturn Comuti in Persium (Munich and Leipzig 2004). Condello, E. ‘Ai margini di Virgilio: paleografia e codicologia degli Scholia veronensia’, in V. Fera, G. Ferraii, S. Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginaliafrom papyri to print (Messina 2002) 1: 59-81. Desgraves, Louis. Elie Vinet, humaniste de Bordeaux, 1509-1587: vie, bibliographie, correspondance, Bibliothkque Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance, no. 156 (Geneva 1977). Dessein, Edouard. Un grand Maire de la Renaissance: Jehan Roussat 1543-1607 (Paris 1939). Dezeimeris, Reinhold and Paul Courteault. ‘Lettres d’Elie Vinet’, in Chevrou, ed., A la MLrnoire du Santongeais Elie Vinet, 134-73. Elder, J. P. ‘A Mediaeval Comutus on Persius’, Speculum 22 (1947) 240-48. Fera, V., G. Ferraii, S. Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginalia from papyri to print (2 vols, Messina 2002). Fisher, William W. 111. ‘The Growth of intellectual property: a history of the ownership of ideas in the United States’, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/ iphistory.pdf; also published as ‘Geistiges Eigentum+in ausufemden

230

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE Rechtsbereich: die Geschichte des Ideenschutzes in den Vereinigten Staaten’, in H. Siegrist and D. Sugarman eds., Eigentum im internationalen Vergleich: 18.-20. Jahrhundert (Groningen 1999) 265-91.

Frier, B. W. A Casebook on the Roman Law of Delict (Atlanta 1989). Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents, trans. Joan Rivibre (New York and London 1961). Gibson, R. K. and C. S. Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory (Leiden 2002). Goebel, A. ‘Ueber eine Wiener Persius-handschrift s. X, init glossen und scholien’, Philologus 14 (1859) 170-80,379-87. - Iuvenaliana und Persiana aus einer Wiener Pergament-Handschr$t

des X.

Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1859). Goold, G. P. ‘Servius and the Helen Episode’, HSCP 74 (1970) 101-68. Goulet-CazC, M.O., ed., Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation (Paris 2000). Grafton, Anthony. Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, MA 2001). Greetham, David. Textual Transgressions: essays toward the construction of a biobibliography (New York 1998). Greetham, David, ed., Scholarly Editing: A guide to research (New York 1995). Hagen, H. Der Jurist und Philolog Peter Daniel aus Orleans (Bern 1873). Haugen, Kristine. Richard Bentley: scholarship and criticism in eighteenth-century England (Diss. Princeton 2001) Havet, L. Manuel de critique verbale appliquke aux textes latins (Paris 1911). Hermann, K. F. Analecta de aetate et usu scholiorum Persianorum. (Gottingen 1846). Holtz, Louis. ‘Les manuscrits latins h gloses et 2 commentaires: de I’antiquitt h 1’Cpoque carolingienne’, in C. Questa and R. Raffaelli, eds., I1 Libro e il testo (Urbino 1984) 139-67.

- ‘Le r6le des commentaires d’auteurs classiques dans I’Cmergence d’une mise en page associant texte et commentaire’, in Goulet-CazC, ed., Le Commentaire, 10117. Huygens, R. B. C. Ars edendi: A practical introduction to editing medieval Latin texts (Turnhout 2000). Jahn, Otto, ed., Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum Liber cum scholiis antiquis (Leipzig 1843; reprint Hildesheim 1967).

LIST OF WORKS CITED

23 1

Jannaccone, Silvia. ‘Rapporti di codici nella tradizione degli scolii a Persio’, GIF 12 (1959) 198-213. Kantorowicz, H. Einfuhrung in die Textkritik. Systematische Darstellung der textkntischen Grundsatze fur Philologen und Juristen (Leipzig 1921). Kenney, E. J. The Classical Text (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1974). Kipling, Rudyard. The Complete Stalky & Co. (Garden City 1930). Kissel, A. Specimen criticum continens Auli Persii Flacci Codicum MSS. Leidensium Collationem (Zalt-Boemel 1848). KviEala, J. Scholiorum Pragensium in Persii satiras delectus (Prague 1873). Kraus, C. S. ‘Reading Commentaries/Commentaries as Reading’, in Gibson and Kraus, eds., The Classical Commentary, 1-27. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. ‘Textual Scholarship and General Theories of History and Literature’, Text 3 (1987) 1-9. Kurz, E. Die Persius-Scholien nach den Bernerhandschriften (Burgdorf 1889; collection of three pamphlets, originally published Burgdorf 1875, Burgdorf 1888, and Burgdorf 1889). Liebl, H. Beitrage zu den Persius-Scholien (Straubing 1883). Lofstedt, E. Syntactica (ed. 2, Lund 1956). Lowe, E. A. Palaeographical Papers (Oxford 1972). Maas, P. Textual Criticism, trans. B. Flower (Oxford 1958). Maniaci, M. “‘La serva padrona”: interazioni fra testo e glossa sulla pagina del manoscritto’, in V. Fera, G. Ferraii, S . Rizzo, eds., Talking to the text: marginalia from papyri to print (Messina 2002), 1: 3-35. Marchesi, C. ‘Gli Scoliasti di Persio’, RFIC 39 (191 1) 564-85; 40 (1912) 1-36, 193-215. Mariani, F. ‘Persio nella scuola di Auxerre e 1’Adnotatio secundum Remigium’, GIF 18 (1965) 145-61. McGann, Jerome. A Critique of Modem Textual Criticism (ed. 2, Charlottesville 1992). - The Textual Condition (Princeton 1991).

Morgan, M. H. A Bibliography of Persius (Cambridge, MA 1909). Most, G., ed., Commentaries-Kommentare (Gottingen 1999). Munk Olsen, B. L’Etude des auteurs classiques latins aux Xf et X I f sidcles, 3 vols. (Paris 1982-1989).

232

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

- 'Les titres dans les manuscrits des pobtes classiques latins copiCs du IX" au XIIc

sibcle', in J.-C. Fredouille et al., eds, Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques (Paris 1997) 51 1-27. Murgia, Charles E. Prolegomena to Sewius 5: The Manuscripts (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1975). Noske, G. Quaestiones Pseudoacroneae (Diss. Munich, 1969). Pasquali, G. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (ed. 2, Florence 1952). Perutelli, A. Frustula poetarum (Bologna 2002). PrCaux, Jean. 'Propositions sur l'histoire des textes des Satires de Perse et du Cornmenturn Cornuti', in G. Cambier, ed., Hommages ci Andre' Boutemy, Collection Latomus 145 (Brussels 1976) 299-314. Quadri, R., ed., I Collectanea di Eiric di Auxerre, Spicilegium Friburgense 11 (Fribourg 1966). Renouard, Philippe. Re'pertoire des imprimeurs parisiens : libraires, foundeurs de caract2res et correcteurs d'imprimerie, depuis l'introduction de l'imprimerie ci Paris, 1470,jusqu'd lafin du seizi2me sikcle (Paris 1965). Reynolds, L. D., ed., Texts and Transmission (Oxford 1983). Reynolds, L. D. and N. G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars (ed. 3, Oxford 1991). Robathan, Dorothy M. and F. Edward C r a m 'A. Persius Flaccus', in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, ed. P. 0. Kristeller and F. E. Cranz, 8 volumes (Washington 1960--), 3 (Washington 1976) 201-312. Scarcia Piacentini, Paola. Saggio di un censimento del manoscritti contenenti il testo di Persio e gli scoli e i commenti a1 testo, Studi su Persio e la scoliastica Persiana 3.1 (Rome 1973). Stephan, C. De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem Scholiis (Bonn 1882). Talmon, Shemaryahu. 'Double Readings in the Massoretic Text', Textus 1 (1960) 14484. - 'Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran

Manuscripts', Textus 4 (1964) 95-132. Tarrant, R. J. 'Classical Latin Literature', in Greetham, ed., Scholarly Editing, 95-148. Tarrant, R. J., ed., P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses (Oxford 2004). Timpanaro, S. La Genesi del metodo del Lachmann (ed. 2 revised, Padova 1985). Traube, L. Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (ed. 2, Munich 1910).

LIST OF WORKS CITED

233

- Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen (Munich 1910-20), Vol. DI: Kleine Schrifen, ed.

S. Brandt (Munich 1920).

van Buren, Veronika, ‘Une Cdition critique de Solin au Ix“ sikcle’, Scriptorium 50 (1996) 22-87. Wessner, Paul, ‘Zu den Persius-Scholien’, WKPh 34 (1917) 473-80,496-502. Wessner, Paul, ed., Scholia in Iuuenalem Vetustiora (Leipzig 1931). West, M. L. Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Stuttgart 1973). Wiener, Claudia. ‘Auf der Suche nach Cornutus. Die mittelalterliche PersiusKommentierung und Elie Vinets Arbeit an der Edition des Commentum Cornuti (1563)’, in B. Korkel, T. Licht, J. Wiendlocha, eds., Mentis Amore Ligati (Festgabefiir Reinhard Diichting) (Heidelberg 2001) 571-84. Zetzel, James E. G. ‘On the History of Latin Scholia’, HSCP 79 (1975) 335-54. - ‘The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the Meaning of

Emendatio’, CP 75 (1980) 38-59. -‘On the History of Latin Scholia II: The Commentum Cornuti in the Ninth Century’,

Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1981) 19-31. - Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York 1981). - ‘Religion, Rhetoric, and Editorial Technique: Reconstructing the Classics’, in

G. Bornstein and R. G. Williams eds., Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities (Ann Arbor 1993) 99-120. Zillober, M. Eine neue Handschrifr der sechs Satiren des Aulus Persius Flaccus (Augsburg 1862).

INDEX OF TEXTS CITED 1. Commentary on Persius a) Commentum Cornuti Prol. 6(3) 29 Prol. 8(1) 29,55 1.6(1) 31 1.9(4) 35 1.10(1)-23(7) 45-48 1.10(1) 35 1.11(5) 35 1.13(8-10) 73 1.13(10) 31 1.15(6-8) 81 1.15(9-10) 76 1.16(3) 4, 137 1.18(5) 131 1.18(7) 29 1.19-20 79 1.20(13) 31 1.23(4-5) 35 1.24(3) 24 1.24(3-5) 134 1.24(8) 29-30 1.26(7) 30 1.29(3) 30 1.29(7) 31-32 1.34(6) 41 1.36(2) 30 1.39(3) 131 1.51(1) 31 1.56(4) 140 1.56(5) 132 1.58(1) 39 1.59-60 81 1.69-70 67 1.71(3-9) 77 1.76(1-10) 77 1.76(10) 30 1.77(6) 30 1.77(9) 32 1.83(2-3) 32

1.83(6) 1.85 1.99(5) 1.106(2-3) 1.109(2) 1.118(1) 1.123(2) 2.1(2-4) 2.2(1-3) 2.2(3) 2.5(1,5) 2.6(2-4) 2.9(3-9) 2.12-13 2.14(1-5) 2.26(1-10) 2.29(3-5) 2.31-34 2.36(6) 2.39(1,4) 2.41-46 2.41(1) 2.41(9) 2.48(3-4) 2.49(1) 2.52(2) 2.55(1) 2.57(1-4) 2.59(1-8) 2.59-60 2.61(1) 2.62-63 2.68(4-9) 2.71(3) 3.3(2-4) 3.8(1) 3.14(1-2) 3.21(1-5) 3.28(4) 3.28(5) 3.35(3-4)

130 69 24 30 24-25 32 32 97 76 12 112 97-98 70 67-68 90 94-96 110 80 12 112 100.. 101 41 12 130 41-42 123 123 90-91 93 68 13 99-100 98-99 25 51 42 25 82 128 133 41

236

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

3.39-41 73 3.41(1) 113 3.44(5) 112 3.44(6) 25 3.52(1-4) 74 3.56(1-7) 74-75 3.66(1-8) 82 3.78(4) 132 39 3.92(1-2) 4.1(1-2) 107 4.10(1-3) 26 4.13(2-4) 134 4.17(1-5) 70 4.17(6)-18(2) 40 4.23 71-72 4.25(4-5) 26-27 4.47 70-71 5.11(1-3) 106-07 5.20-21 113 5.20(1-4) 40 5.22 71 5.22(3) 140 5.32(4) 41 5.41-43 66 5.47(1) 40 5.75(3) 133 5.78-82 66-67 5.1'44(1-4) 114 5.177(1-3) 115 6.1(2) 27 6.18(3-4) 132 6.25(3-4) 131 6.69 107 b) Later Commentum tradition: Prol. 8(1) 55 3.3 51 3.29 55 3.37 64 c) Marginal scholia on Persius: 117

Prol. 1 Proi.6 Prol.8

29 118-19

1.46 1.74 2.1 2.5 2.6

142 117 97,111 112 97-98

2.14 2.26 2.29 2.39 2.41-46 2.42 2.52-55 2.55-59 2.57 2.62-63 2.68 3.1 3.11 3.44 4.1 5.11 5.20-21 5.36 5.144 5.177-78 6.69

90 95 110 112 100-101 118 123-24 93-94 91-92 99·100 98-99 111 117 112 107-10 106-07 113 111 114 114 107

d) Remigius of Auxerre: 1.16-18 141 1.46 142

II. Other texts Augustine, City of God 18.44 158 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 1.3.8 134 130 2.21.5 6.19.24 131 8.6.12 132 8.9.27 132 9.4.48 133 9.5.3 132 133 9.6.28 132 11.1.136 118-19 12.7.24 131 14.8.21 17.2.4 131 17.7.18 135 24,134 20.2.18

T INDEX OF TEXTS CITED Jerome, Letters 52.11 140 New Testament 1 Cor. 5:6 135 Paulus, Epitome of Festus 75.17L 130-31 Scholia on Juvenal 1.78 139 9.37 139-40 Solinus 52.43-45

118-19

Symmachus Ref. 3.8

159

237

T

GENERAL INDEX abridgement, marginal, 5-6 Acro, Helenius, 48, 128, 146 Albertus de Gandino, 3 aliter, in commentaries, 74-75 Amariton, Jean, 57 Arcesilas, 132 Asconius Pedianus, 8 Bassus, Caesius, 8 Berna, Franciscus, 56-57 Bible, 135-36, 158-60; double readings in, 159-60 Bordeaux, city of, 56 Casaubon, Isaac, 63, 164 chickens, disease of (pituita), 91 Chilon, 112, 129, 140 Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 129 Cincinnatus, Quintius, 128 commentaries: as fixed text, 6; definition of, 4; connections to text, 36; on cOlmnentary, 81-83; viewed as ancient or medieval; 127-28 commentaries on authors other than Persius: Macrobius on Somnium Scipionis, 76; Porphyrio on Horace, 36; Ps.-Acro on Horace, 2, 36, 75, 145; scholia on Juvenal, 5-6, 69, 87, 126, 137-40, 145; Adnotationes super Lucanum, 145; Bembine scholia on Terence, 4, 127, 133, 150; Donatus on Terence, 2, 36, 69, 74, 133; Berne scholia on Virgil, 145; Ti. Donatus on Virgil, 76; Servius on Virgil, 2, 4-7, 31,

36, 75, 78, 85, 117, 121, 129; Servius Auctus 7, 78; Verona scholia on Virgil, 4, 75 Commentum Cornuti: 'A Tradition' of, 86, 88-89, 103-04, 138, 145; ancient material in, 127-29; 'B Tradition' of, 4, 86, 88, 103-06, 118, 122-24, 138, 141, 145; Christian influence on, 117, 120, 135-36; double commentary at opening of, 13, 34-36; doublets, 69-75, 99; editions of, 50, 56-63; factual errors in, 2, 128-29; lack of Greek in, 139-40; lost opening of, 44-48; major manuscripts of, 10-11; minor manuscripts of, 49-56, 88; misplaced notes in, 67-69; variorum commentary, 75-78 commentary, Biblical 65,85 Cornutus, Annaeus, 8, 136; cited in double commentary on Satire 1, 48; pseudepigraphic works attributed to, 136-37 Corpus Agrimensorum, 154 Danaid portico, 128, 146 Daniel, Pierre, 57 Digest, 154 editorial and scribal acts, distinction between, 146-48 error, 2-3; stemmatic, 11-12; sin and, 160 Freud, Sigmund, 161 Fulgentius, 76,117-18,122,124

240

MARGINAL SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXTUAL DEVIANCE

gloss: and commentary, 54-55, 66-67, 83, 92-95; definition of, 4, 87; expanded into note, 80; 'last gloss first', 83 Glossae Veteres on Persius, 59-60, 62-64, 163-79 Gorgons, scholium on, 56, 104, 118 Gruter, Jan, 60 Guyenne, College de, 56 Hardouin, Jean, 161 Heiric of Auxerre, 120, 126, 137-40, 143 Helen Episode of Aeneid, 157 Henri IV (lcing of France), 60 Horace, 71, 82, 161 Housman, A. E., 151, 160 intellectual property, 156-57 interpolation, causes of, 156-57 Isidore of Seville, 31,117,122,127,129, 144; and the Commentum, 129-35, 146; as source of annotations, 54-55, 118-20 item, linlcing notes, 73-74 Jahn, Otto, 57, 63, 135-37, 139, 146, 152n.12 Jerome, St., 8, 65, 140 Johannes Lydus, 8, 128-29 Kantorowicz, Hermann, 3, 153, 155 Kipling, Rudyard, 180-81 Kristeller, Paul. 0, 125 Lachmann, method of, 143, 149-54, 15661 Langres, 60, 63 lemma sign, 36-37; omission or addition 01',37-42 lemma ta, defined, 4; in marginal scholia, 5, 111; inconsistencies, 79-81; system of, 36-44, 65-69; words omitted from, 42-44

literary and textual history, between, 156 Lupus of Ferrieres, 75,147

di vision

Maas, Paul, 149, 151, 157 manuscript and text, difference between, 125 manuscripts with commentary: Montpellier 125 (Juvenal and Persius), 5, 8, 63-64, 87-88, 126, 139, 162-63; Paris. Lat. 1750 (Servius), 7; Paris Lat. 7900A (Horace), 5; Vat. Lat. 3317 (Servius), 7; Vat. Lat. 5750 (Juvenal and Persius), 8 Marnef, E. de., 56 Martinus, Guilielmus, 56-57 McGann, Jerome: critique of Lachmann, 150-51 mood, variations in, 34 Morel, Claude and Frederic, 63, 65 notes, organization of, 84-85 original, concept of, 157, 161; existence 01',9, 145-48, 150-51 parrot, scholium on, 56, 104, 118-19 Pasquali, Giorgio, 152-54 Pithou, Pierre, 59-60, 62-64, 162-65 Plautus, 48, 148, 156 praetor tutelarius, 129 Probus, Valerius, 8; pseudepigraphic texts attributed to, 137 Rabanus Maurus, 65, 131 Regula Benedicti, transmission of, 153-54 Remigius of Auxerre, 88, 137-38, 140-43, 180 Romanticism, in textual criticism, 151-52, 156n.25, 161 Roussat, Jean, 59-60; manuscript of, 5863

TI GENERAL INDEX Scaliger, J. J., 60 n.21, 62~64, 164-165 scholia, definition of, 4; marginal titles in, 121, physical arrangement of, 87; variability of, 78 Schwartz, Eduard, 152 Serranus, Atilius or Quintius, 128 small words, presence/absence of, 12, 33 Socrates, 73 Solinus, 117-20, 122, 124 stemmatic theory, uselessness of for marginalia, 124-26 text, concept of 1, 3-4; meaning of, 125, 144-45, 148-49; open and closed, 87-88 textual criticism, industrial model for, 152-53 textual fidelity, motives for, 155-161 textual integrity, a modern concept, 15758 textuality, formal and functional, 154-57, 160 Traube, Ludwig, 152-54 truth, 2-3; double, 158-59; religious, 15760; see error Varro, M. Terentius, 9 Vatican Mythographers (1 and 2),117 Vinet, Elie, 56, 59 Virgil, quotation explained Commentum, 82-83 Walafrid Strabo, 120

in

241