« PreviousContinue »
MSS. AND AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT
The MSS. of Juvenal may be divided into two classes, the one very numerously represented (Ruperti gives a list of 46) but comparatively worthless for critical purposes, the other represented now by only one complete codex but this of the greatest value in determining the text.
The former class may be dismissed in a few words. They are usually called the interpolated MSS. and are scattered about in all the principal libraries throughout Europe. Though of course differing from one another in various details, some being more, some less, carefully copied by the scribes, they seem all of them to follow not the original text of Juvenal, but a revised and corrected version of it, which was probably the work of some grammarian in the fifth or sixth century. As two of these MSS., both of the eleventh century, viz. Cod, Medic. 34, 42 and Cod. Leidensis 82, bear the subscription, "legi ego Niceus Romae apud Servium magistrum et emendavi," the recension would seem to have originated with Servius, the Vergilian commentator, and is usually known as either the Servian or the Nicaean recension. In many cases, of course, these interpolated MSS. (usually described in an apparatus criticus as w) preserve the correct reading where the representative of the better class is manifestly corrupt, but where the two classes disagree, the former must in most cases be disregarded unless they are supported by some other evidence. It should be added that the Scholia attached to these MSS., usually attributed to a certain Cornutus, though lengthy and elaborate, have
very little real value, either for purposes of textual criticism or interpretation, and probably date from no farther back than the Carolingian period. It is unnecessary to enumerate these MSS., since they will be spoken of in my apparatus criticus under the collective symbol w, but it may be mentioned that some of them, such as Cod. Paris. 7900, 8071, and Cod. Vindobonensis 111, etc., have been corrected in a second hand from some MS. belonging to the better class. When Juvenal is cited by the grammarians it is mostly this revised or interpolated text which is used (see C. Hosius, De Iuvenalis codicum recensione interpolata, 1888).
Of the MSS. of the better class, which are independent of the Nicaean recension, we can trace the existence of four, which were preserved till about the fifteenth or sixteenth century, though at the present time only one exists entire.—This is the Cod. Pithoeanus, from the name of its former owner Petrus Pithoeus, or Cod. Montepessulanus 125, from its present position in the École de Médicine at Montpellier. Originally belonging to the monastery of Lorsch on the Rhine it passed into the hands of Matthias Corvinus, and then came into the possession of Pierre Pithou, who published both the text of Juvenal and the Scholia based on this MS. in 1585. After that time the Codex seems to have passed to the Public Library at Troyes, and from there to have been removed to Montpellier. After centuries of neglect, during which the interpolated MSS. reigned supreme, it was more made use of by Otto Jahn in his edition of 1851, a collation of it having been made for him by I. V. Bertin, and from that time it has been confessedly the first authority for the text of Juvenal. It has lately been collated anew, and with much greater care, by Rudolf Beer, who gives the results in full in his Spicilegium Iuvenalianum (1885), and this new collation is the basis of the text in Bücheler's re-issue of Jahn's edition (1886), which pending the reprinting of Professor Mayor's text is now the standard authority. The Codex belongs to the ninth century, and is written in minuscules. It has unfortunately been corrected in a second and much later hand from some MS. belonging to the other class, the correction in some cases rendering the original reading illegible. In the apparatus criticus the original reading is symbolised by P., the second hand by p.
Another MS. of the same class was used by George Valla of Placentia in the edition of Juvenal which he published at Venice in 1486. The MS. is now, however, lost, and the edition of Valla can hardly be taken as evidence for the readings of the MS., for in Jahn's words, “in poetae verbis recensendis codicis sui nullam fere rationem habuit.” A third MS. formerly existed in the monastery of St. Gall, and is still numbered in the catalogue as D. 304, but the MS. itself has unfortunately disappeared. There is, however, in the same library
, another MS., Cod. Sangallensis 870, dating from the ninth century, which enables us to form some judgment on the lost Codex, and which also preserves some important readings from it. This MS. contains first a so-called Florilegium, that is to say, a collection of metrical excerpts put together probably for school purposes to illustrate Latin prosody. The Florilegium contains altogether 458 verses. Of those 191-422 are, with two exceptions from Persius, taken from Juvenal, and mostly cited according to the order of the Satires ; 423-454 are from Persius, and again 455-458 from Juvenal, while of the first 190 verses 48 are from Juvenal and 5 from Persius. In other words, 320 verses out of 458 are from Juvenal and Persius. Following the Florilegium are Scholia to Juvenal, and these are almost identical with those in P. Now when we bear in mind the large majority of excerpts from Juvenal and Persius in the Florilegium, and the presence of the Scholia to Juvenal, and put this together with the fact that the same monastery undoubtedly once possessed a Codex of Juvenal and Persius, the conclusion is practically certain that the monk who put together the Florilegium and wrote the Scholia had before him the Codex of Juvenal, which is now lost. That this Codex was closely akin to P. is apparent both from the similarity of readings in the text, and also from the very close resemblance of the Scholia which, as will be seen below, differ essentially in the two classes of MSS.; but still the evidence shows that neither was the Codex Sangallensis copied from P. nor P. from it. By far the most important reading which we gain from the Florilegium is “sufflamine mulio consul” in viii. 148, which will in future take the place of the old “multo sufflamine,” but “robum ” in viii. 155, "matellae" in x. 64, "quem" in vii. 214, "nepotes" in viii. 67, and “fulva” in xii. 102, are all found in the Florilegium (F.) either alone or in conjunction with P. It is probably a mere accident that no line is quoted in the Florilegium from Sat. xvi. For a full account of this MS. see C. Stephan in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. xl, pp. 263-282.
A fourth MS., also closely akin to P., formerly belonged to the library of the parochial church at Aarau in Switzer
land. Of this Codex five fragments alone remain, discovered, when the municipal archives of Aarau were being overhauled, to be doing duty as bindings for some of the documents. These fragments contain a few lines of Sat. ii., 239 lines of Sat. vi., and portions of Sat. iii. and vii. (iii. 6-13, 35-63, 64-92; vii. 57-85, 86-114, 115143, 144-172), together with the Scholia belonging to them. The MS. dates from the tenth or eleventh century, and shows in its readings the closest relationship to P. Like P., too, it had been corrected in a second hand from one of the interpolated MSS. The Codex itself was probably destroyed at the Reformation. The fragments are generally known as the Schedae Arovienses, and are symbolised in the apparatus criticus as A. They agree with P. in establishing the following new readings "In summa,” iii. 79; "Lacernae,” vii. 114; "ponere,” vii. 149; “forte,” vii. 156. See Wirz in Hermes, vol. xv. 437 foll., and Beer, Spicilegium, pp. 28-33.
In addition to the MSS. of the text of Juvenal it remains to notice that the Scholia attached to the MSS. of this better class are often important for critical purposes, either directly quoting the readings of the text in lemmata, or suggesting it by their interpretations. These Scholia are of an essentially different character from those in the interpolated MSS. They are much briefer, but far more valuable, and many of them may probably date back as far as the end of the fourth century. At that period, as we know from Ammianus Marcellinus (28, 4, 14), Juvenal was much and carefully read. These Scholia are found almost identical in P. and in the Cod. Sangallensis 870, into which, as we have seen, they were undoubtedly copied from the lost Codex, D. 304.