« PreviousContinue »
The Second and Ninth Satires, some paragraphs of the Sixth, and a few lines in other Satires, are not included in this: Edition,
First Edition 1898.
f the d in
ERHAPS it is reason enough for adding another to the
many English editions of Juvenal, that all our recent editors have excluded the Sixth Satire, the most brilliant in detail and by far the longest of Juvenal's poems. The present edition includes 530 lines of this celebrated piece. It may also be noted that the text of Juvenal has been materially affected by recent discoveries, of which full account has been taken here.
The Introduction deals first with the Life of Juvenal. In this section the different sources from which our information is derived, are considered in turn; and the dates assigned by Friedländer to the different Books of Satires are accepted generally as proved. The next section contains a sketch of satura as treated by Juvenal's predecessors in this kind of writing: here (pp. xxiii---xxvii) I follow closely the late Professor Nettleship’s Essay on the subject now reprinted in his Lectures and Essays (second series). When writing my Introduction, I was not aware that this Essay had been reprinted in an easily accessible form; or I should have been content to refer to it. The same volume contains (p. 117) an Essay on Juvenal's Life and Poems, published originally in the Journal of Philology (vol. xvi): this contain the best criticism of Juvenal I have ever read, and I ha frequently quoted from it in different parts of my bo My third section deals with Juvenal himself,—his relatio his predecessors, his characteristics, moral and literary, his motives for writing satire. The two remaining sect
contain a brief account of the Manuscripts and Scholia, based upon personal study of the material.
The Text is based upon F. Bücheler's last edition (1893), which will always be memorable as giving the first full and trustworthy account of the readings of P (the codex Pithoeanus), incomparably the best of the multitude of extant mss. Yet P has many errors; and in a number of passages, especially in the later satires, where Bücheler retains its reading, I have felt unable to follow him, while I have occasionally retained the reading of P where he discards it.
My knowledge of Pis derived entirely from the labours of others—Bücheler's edition, R. Beer's Spicilegium, and the two fac-simile pages, one added by Beer to his book, the other published by E. Chatelain in his Paléographie des Classiques Latins (livraison 10). Much may be learned by study of these two pages.
For the interpolated mss. (w), to which class all complete MSS. except P belong, I have studied all the collations accessible to me, especially those contained in Jahn's larger edition (1851) and in Hosius' Apparatus Criticus ad Iuvenalem; and, besides examining other specimens of this class, I have collated three early Mss. which had not previously been used by editors.
The first of these, of the 9th century, is in the British Museum (15,600 Add.). It is a good specimen of its class, with blunders of its own but agreeing in certain cases with Pagainst other mss. : thus it reads fictus (5, 70); subito (6, 65); Est pretium curae (6, 474); hicte tricę (6, 565); Haec (7, 41); Nullo quippe modo (7, 100); quid do (7, 165); pravam (8, 33); effudit (10, 79); pallidus mi (10, 82); sapiat qui (11, 81); currunt (12, 77). These are the chief exceptions to the rule that the readings inserted by the corrector in the text or margin of P, or those found
ancient freely; the sen in an
in w (the two are very often identical), are found also in this ms. It has an important variant in Sat. 8, 148 where see note.
The second ms., also of the gth century, is in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (O, 4, 11). It is imperfect, a quire of eight having been lost which contained from Sat. 6, 455 to Sat. 7, 95. This is a worse ms. than the first, adhering still more closely to the interpolated tradition. A few marginal variants from some good source (e.g. auditor for adiutor 3, 322 : torrentis for torpentis 4, 43; figuli for tegulae 4, 135; Iunco for Tunio 15, 27) are its most interesting feature; but a complete collation of it would add little to Hosius' material.
The third Ms., of the roth century, is preserved in the same Library (O, 4, 10), and is a document of much greater value and interest : indeed I believe that, though vastly inferior to P, it ranks among the very best of the other MSS. T, as I have called it, gives for the first time MS. authority for the true reading in Sat. 6, 13, and in a number of cases, recorded in the apparatus to this edition, confirms the reading of P. It obviously belongs to the same family as V and B of Hosius but is much better than either of them, and perfect while they are both mutilated. I hope soon to publish a full collation elsewhere.
No emendation of my own is printed in the text, but a certain number are suggested in the notes: a list will be found in the Index. They are not mere guesses, but based on some peculiarity in the reading of P, or on the agreement in error of P and T, or on some hint contained in the ancient Scholia. The punctuation has been dealt with freely; but when an alteration has been made that affects the sense, the reasons for alteration have been explained in a note.
to d as ]
As to the Commentary, my endeavour has been to make it explanatory rather than illustrative: there was no need co do again what had been done once for all by Professor Mayor. Nevertheless, as Professor Mayor has not yet published his collections on the Sixth Satire, I allow myself some freedom of citation there; also, as I print, after Bücheler, many new readings from P, these admit of, or require, confirmation from other writers; and, apart from these special cases, every scholar knows that an apt illustration is often the best of comments. In order to understand my author as fully as possible, I have read through a large part of the extant literature between Plautus and Juvenal; but I have tried not to quote from other authors more than was necessary. In the case of a writer so difficult and obscure as Juvenal often is, much space is required merely for explanation. Whatever seemed to me to need explanation, I have tried to explain. But every commentator must feel the truth of what Johnson says in his Preface to Shakespeare: "it is impossible for an expositor not to write too little for some and too much for others : he can only judge what is necessary by his own experience." Johnson speaks elsewhere of “the commentator's rage for saying something where there is nothing to be said ": but this foible of editors is perhaps more pardonable than the opposite practice, of saying nothing where it is quite certain that something ought to be said, if it amounts to no more than a confession of ignorance.
I have frequently called attention to those restrictions of metre which forced Juvenal, like other Latin poets, to substitute some metrical equivalent for what he really wished to say. The ancient critics-Seneca, for instance, and Quintilian—often make
their poets on this account; but I doubt whether modern critics have attended