¹ De Ricci, S. and Wilson, W. J., Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada I (New York 1935) 155, II (1937) 2249.Google Scholar

² For discussion of the Oxford Fragment, see my article ‘Juvenal 6: A Problem in Structure,’ Classical Philology 51 (1956), 84ff. Google Scholar

³ I accept the judgment of Mr. Marston on this point. There is no certain criterion by which we can assert that Guarnieri acquired the MS, but what evidence we do possess would point to him, namely, the Humanist corrections, Guarnieri's reputation as a lover of Classical books, and the general character of the library of Count Balleani. Guarnieri himself copied some of the MSS in his collection, and Mr. Marston acquired two of these MSS at the same time that he purchased M. A catalogue of the library in 1793, that is, at the time that it left the Guarnieri family and went to the Balleani family at Iesi, is in existence and would probably settle the question; but it is quite inaccessible at the moment, in the family archives at Osimo. Annibaldi, C., L’ Agricola e la Germania di Cornelio Tacito nel MS. Latino N. 8 della Biblioteca del Balleani Conte G. in Iesi (Città di Castello 1907), in his introduction, provides the essential information on Guarnieri and the library. He concludes (p. 9) that the whole collection of Classical MSS may be credited to the activity of Stefano Guarnieri.Google Scholar

⁴ Knoche, U., ‘Handschriftliche Grundlagen des Juvenaltextes,’ Philologus Supplementband 33.1 (1940) 60.Google Scholar

⁵ Knoche, , D. Iunius Juvenalis Saturae mit kritischem Apparat (Munich 1950).Google Scholar

⁶ Knoche, ‘Grundlagen’ 60: ‘So könnte also auch einmal gute Tradition, die sich allein in jüngeren Textzeugen erhalten hat, beiseite geblieben sein. Doch nach meinen Erfahrungen ist es erlaubt, die meisten Handschriften vom 12. Jht. ab unberücksichtigt zu lassen.’ Google Scholar

⁷ In this case, the Vulgate reading achaei is correct. Google Scholar

⁸ The scribe has produced this reading as a correction; as will be observed, it is one of a series of desperate efforts on the part of the more recent MSS to remove a textual crux. Google Scholar

⁹ Here, M is also wrong, although Priscian has the same reading. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Knoche's edition, ‘Verzeichnis der Siglen’ (p. x). Google Scholar

¹¹ In the two cases of 3.168 and 218, Knoche reports on unique readings respectively of Burn 193 and Laur 29, neither of which he dates. The fact that M has the same readings would indicate that the two MSS are late and that these readings could hereafter be reported by Knoche's all-embracing symbol for later MSS. Google Scholar

¹² In this case, the Vulgate is accepted. Google Scholar

¹³ This could be considered a unique reading, but I have treated it as closer to the pylius or pilius of the better MSS than to the pelius of the Vulgate. Google Scholar

¹⁴ In this case, the Vulgate is accepted. Google Scholar

¹⁵ It is interesting to note that in 222 M reads circumsepserit; Knoche reports for P ‘sepserit super scribserit.’ Google Scholar

¹⁶ We could also regard the scribe's correction in 168 as agreement with the better MSS. Google Scholar

¹⁷ I categorize the new readings in the following manner: misspellings 60; wrong word 59; word omitted 33; word added 24; erroneous grammatical form 33; and metathesis or wrong word-order 13. In other words, none of these readings seriously challenges our present text. Google Scholar

¹⁸ Two scholia in Sat. 11 may be significant in this respect. 11.126 ‘secundum commentum Nabis civitas in Silua.’ 11.137 ‘pergula: turba suorum sociorum, vel scolarium, vel palatium. secundum commentum pergula dicitur proprie tugurium in alto positum …’ Apparently, either the scholiast had a commentary before him, to which he here refers, or the notes which he copied mentioned the commentary. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Wessner, P., Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora (Leipzig 1931) xxxvi ff. and Knoche's intermittent remarks, ‘Grundlagen’ 36ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ I have referred to Beldame, C., ‘Scolies inédites de Juvénal,’ Revue de philologie 6 (1882) 76–103. where he reports on Sat. 1–6 in a 12th-century MS of Nice; Hosius, C. Apparatus criticus in Iuvenalem (Bonn 1888) 95 ff., where he reports selectively on Cod. Leid. bibl. publ. 82 of the 11th century; and finally to Casaubon, M.'s edition of Juvenal (Leyden 1695), which contains the full commentaries of Grangaeus, Britannicus, Rigaltius, Pithoeus, Pulmannus, Calderinus, and selections from Valla, Vossius, Gronovius, and others.Google Scholar

²¹ In addition to the scholia citing Bede on 10.29, Solinus on 15.112, and Martial on 9.133, all of which are cited below, M refers to the following authors: on 8.268 Sallust (probably, too, on 2.35 and 3.33, where, although no source is mentioned, the commentator alludes to the Jugurthine War); on 13.214 and 14.195 to Cicero's De Senectute, but confusedly (e.g., ‘Laelius fuit severissimus ad quem scribit Cicero librum de senectute’); on 14.205 to a sententia of Ennius; to Vergil on 5.138, 9.102, 13.28, and 15.65, of which only 13.28 is new (‘primum sub Saturno fuit aureum, sub love argenteum, sub eroquibus [i.e. heroibus] aereum, deinde ferrum; et rursum aureum fuit. unde Virgilius: “redeunt Saturnia regna” …’); and finally, with some contempt, to Lucan on 12.24 (‘sic quando Lucanus tractat de aliqua tempestate dicit plus quam videatur esse verisimile’). Google Scholar

²² E.g., on Sat. 2: ‘in hac ergo satira obscenos carpit philosophos …’; on Sat. 4: ‘in hac satira arguitur Nero cum famulo suo Crispino’; on Sat. 7: ‘in hac satira blanditur Neronem eumque palpat …’; on Sat. 8: ‘in hac satira de generositate nobilium disputat …’; on Sat. 11: ‘in hac satira commendit mediocrem vitam reprehendendo pauperes splendide cenantes …’; on Sat. 13: ‘in hac satira redarguit omnis illos qui ultra modum dolent de amissa pecunia’; and on Sat. 15: ‘in hac satira reprehendat omnis communem religionem non tenentes …’ Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Solinus 22.9. Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Mommsen, T., C. Iulii Solini Collectanea rerum memorabilium (Berlin 1864) 255ff. and Diehl's article in RE 10.836.Google Scholar

²⁵ There are seventeen other cases in this Satire where the scholia in M follow the better tradition. Google Scholar

²⁶ The scholiast in Cod Leid. bibl. publ. 82, as reported by Hosius, commits the same error. Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Valla, who parallels the better scholia, then adds, in a relative clause, the details which M here gives. Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. the scholia above on 7.90. Both comments represent an interesting expansion of the sparse note in the older as well as the newer scholia as reported by Wessner on 7.92: ‘propter hunc versum missus est in exilio.’ Google Scholar

²⁹ Naturally, as I have done with M, we can place the MSS in a specific country. But it would be desirable to establish specifically the monastery or cathedral school which produced a medieval commentary. Google Scholar