¹ Cramer, D. A. G., In D. Iunii Iuvenalis satiras commentarii vetusti (Hamburg 1823). For critical comment on Cramer's work see Wessner (cited below) p. xx.Google Scholar

² Wessner, P. Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora (Leipzig 1931).Google Scholar

³ Knoche, U. D. Iunius Juvenalis, Saturae: mit kritischem Apparat (Munich 1950).Google Scholar

⁴ Knoche uses still other rubrics: cf. comm. Vallae 3.24 adn. Vallae 8.175 Valla ex cod. 4.147. Knoche however, gives only random readings from Valla. To take Satire 3 as an example, he reports on 24, 67, 142, 168, 187, 203, 208, 212, 217, 218, 263, and 311, a mere twelve lines in all. As the reader will shortly see, a full collation of Satire 3 or any other Satire in Valla's edition requires much more exactitude.Google Scholar

⁵ Knoche wrongly assigns this reading to a special MS of Valla; in fact Valla reads tubas in his text, but tubam in the commentary where he discusses the passage.Google Scholar

⁶ Knoche's apparatus should here be corrected.Google Scholar

⁷ Knoche would have done well at 218 to distinguish between the reading of Valla's text and the unusual lemma of the commentary. See p. 393.Google Scholar

⁸ Valla at no point suggests that he reads tortisque; he does, however, cite a passage of Martial (Spect. 3.9-10) who describes the Sygambri and the Aethiopes as tortis crinibus. Google Scholar

⁹ Again, in both cases, Knoche would have done well to distinguish the reading of Valla's text from the lemma.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This is an important and correct reading. However, I suspect that it can be classified more accurately as a reading of the younger contaminated MSS of which Valla's is one representative.Google Scholar

¹¹ Knoche's apparatus here should be corrected.Google Scholar

¹² See Handschriftlichen Grundlagen der Juvenalüberlieferung (Philologus, Supplement-band 33.1 [1940]) 160ff.Google Scholar

¹³ We might add to the list in Satire 3 Valla's comment on 36-7, where he appears to argue from a reading vulgus cam libet which disagrees with his text's vulgi quemlibet. Google Scholar

¹⁴ I infer this reading from Valla's comment; ‘sensus est: o iuvenes circumspicite…’.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Valla knows of still a third reading: ‘sunt qui tomatilla, legunt.’Google Scholar

¹⁶ Knoche's apparatus here should be corrected.Google Scholar

¹⁷ I infer this reading from the way Valla presents his comment on this line. He cites and discusses torvus first and separately; then twice he gives the lemma Sicula cum coniuge. Google Scholar

¹⁸ See above n. 12. Knoche, in Gnomon 10 (1934) 590-603, reviewed Wessner's edition of the scholia but at that time he apparently did not entertain the same reservations which he would voice in 1940.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Wessner, p. 264.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Licet tamen suspicari hanc satyram non esse Iuvenalis; nam in plerisque antiquissimis codicibus nuspiam est.’Google Scholar

²¹ This reading of the vetustissimus seriously weakens Knoche's case, for while PH give exhortata, it appears that GU follow the Vulgate exorata. In other words, GU show no relationship to the vetustissimus at this stage. See above under (2) ANTIQUISSIMI (PL.), on 1.161 verbum. Google Scholar

²² Knoche has made a mistake in his apparatus here. He has failed to observe that Valla's text omits 8.7 anyway, as we should expect from its proved affiliation with the Vulgate. Inasmuch as Valla at no time refers to 8.7 in any manner, it seems impossible that he could have meant by hic versiculus the omitted line. Rather, as I am convinced from studying the context, hic versiculus refers to 8.6, the line which Valla is commenting on. Ironically enough, had Knoche observed this fact, he would have been able to use this omission to support his argument about the close relationship between Valla's antiquissimus and U.Google Scholar

²³ Prior to the work of Valla, only one man had published together a text and commentary on Juvenal. He was Calderinus, whose important edition was printed in Venice in 1475. When Valla's edition appeared, scholars quickly demanded a combined edition. Hence, five years after the appearance of Valla's commentary, the first of four selected commentaries, a skillful combination of Calderinus and Valla was printed, to be followed swiftly by three others in Venice alone between 1491 and 1498. For this bibliographical information I have principally employed M. B. Stilwell Incunabula in American Libraries (New York 1940). See also C. F. Bühler, ‘The Earliest Editions of Juvenal,’ Studies in the Renaissance 2 (1955) 84-95; E. M. Sanford, ‘Juvenal,’ Catalogus translationum et commentariorum (Washington 1960) 175-238; M. E. Cosenza, Dictionary of the Italian Humanists (Boston 1962) IV 3545–49. It should be added, as Sanford shows that A. Sabinus published a brief commentary in Rome in 1474 and Giorgio Merula an important commentary in Venice in 1478.Google Scholar

²⁴ Most of this quotation is cited by Wessner, pp. XX-XXI. However, because he omitted the end, I here print the text of the entire passage that I have translated above: ‘sane comperti mihi sunt nuper Probi grammatici in Iuvenalem commentarii quantum adhuc audiverim nulli alii cogniti, sed mirae brevitatis. alioquin tamen perquam opportunos aliquando se nobis obtulerunt; obtulissent vero sese adhuc magis nisi nobis singula rimantibus codicis nimium cariosa invidisset vetustas, et si in omnes libros comperti habeantur, qui vix tertii libri secundam attigere satyram. invigilavimus vero ipsi si modo id consequi potuimus, ut omnis huius poetae pateret eruditio. Probi interpretamenta, cuiusmodi ea fuerunt, quae plane perexigua sunt, ne in minima quidem parte subtraximus aut immutavimus. cetera quanam peritia nostra et quonam demum iudicio aliena tradiderimus, docti et pariter acuti viri iudicarint. quae quotacumque sint, talia esse puto ut nec nos nec alios nostrae paeniteat pigeatque industriae.’Google Scholar

²⁵ Pasquali, G., Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence 1952 ²) 49ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ Stephan, C., De Pithoeanis in Iuvenalem scholiis (Diss. Bonn 1882) 26ff.Google Scholar

²⁷ Schopen (Bonn 1847) and more extensively Van Gigch (Leyden 1849) had studied and published collations of three MSS: Leid. Voss. Q.18 (= V in Wessner), Leid, Voss. F. 64 (= B in Wessner), and Leid. bibl. publ. 82 (= L in Wessner). Since 1882, we have gathered considerably more information about other MSS that contain the secondary scholia. Cf. Wessner, pp. XXIIIff.; also his useful discussions in Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 113 (1902) 215-19; 139 (1908) 189-94; and 188 (1921) 234-6.Google Scholar

²⁸ I consider these corruptions of the correct scholia, perhaps due to the mutilated state of Probus’ MS. Thus, for potentis, the original probably exhibited a barely readable petentis. Google Scholar

²⁹ These are all noted by Stephan, pp. 37ff., but unaccountably ignored by Wessner.Google Scholar

³⁰ I consider this a confused expansion of what probably lay in the commentary studied by Valla.Google Scholar

³¹ Valla has presumably split up the single note that he found in his original.Google Scholar

³² Valla has apparently misread solidi and then altered the structure of the note to make it conform with soliti. Google Scholar

³³ This seems to be another instance of the division of a simple note by Valla.Google Scholar

³⁴ I take it that Valla could hardly decipher Probus at this point; otherwise the error about Cicero would never have occurred.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. L at 462.Google Scholar

³⁶ This note also may have been altered from the original because of Probus’ mutilation.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wessner quotes Valla for one note on 516. If I am correct, the gloss on vestitur shows how much Valla could abbreviate his original (or possibly how much a source other than Probus had abbreviated the older scholia).Google Scholar

³⁸ I take it that, once again, Valla has split the original comment; this passage together with what Wessner cites for 619 forms a fairly coherent whole that approximates PS. Between Valla's two good notes comes a citation of Suetonian information about Caligula.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. the other scholia on 8.32.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Valla may himself have expanded the citation of Lucan which, in PS, is limited to two words from 1.431.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Since I know of no reviewer who has corrected Wessner's errors, let me point out those that affect his report of Valla. 1.7 ‘item,’ not ‘idem’; 2.15 ‘Matris Deorum,’ not ‘Deum’; 2.21 Wessner implies that Valla reads ‘declinantem te,’ whereas in fact Valla has ‘declinante te.’ 2.67 Valla's note on Creticus comes at 67, not 2.78. 3.12 Valla's note on Egeria belongs here, not at 17. 3.198 ‘aliud Vergilianum,’ not ‘illud Vergilianum.’ (Stephan, p. 50, has this correct.) 3.221 after ‘Persicum,’ read ‘autem.’ 4.14 ‘obicias,’ not ‘obicies.’ 4.53 The lemma should be corrected to ‘si quid.’ 4.94 in the third line of the quotation from Statius, Valla has ‘nomine,’ not ‘nomina.’ (W. Morel, Fragmenta poetarum latinorum [Leipzig 1927] 134, read this correctly). 6.225 Valla differs slightly from LZ: he reads ‘sunt vero flammea quibus … etc.’ 6.297 ‘quod,’ not ‘quid.’ 6.385 ‘consulebant,’ not ‘consulebat.’ 6.537 ‘membri muliebris,’ not ‘membri mulieris.’ 6.587 Valla quotes even more of Lucan than Wessner admits, namely, part of 1.609, electa cervice marem. 6.616 Valla cites less of Vergil than Wessner states, namely, ‘quaeritur—revulsus.’ 7.134 ‘dicitur vulgo’ (like L), not ‘vulgo dicitur.’Google Scholar

⁴² Stephan, p. 69.Google Scholar

⁴³ Stephan, pp. 69-70.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Wessner, p. XVIII.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Stephan, pp. 70-71.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Wessner, p. xxii.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Stephan, p. 29, Wessner, p. xxii.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See above n. 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ I find it hard to believe that the secondary scholia lacked a note identifying Nestor here and Mithridates at 10.273.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Although Valla has the correct note, he seems to have misunderstood it; for, instead of citing 1.108, he unaccountably quotes 1.25.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The Bobiensis Fragment provides additional evidence 14.325 to 15.35. At no point does Valla's source challenge the Bobiensis.Google Scholar

⁵² On the significance of Valla, see G. Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana (Milan 1824) VI 1564ff., and J. L. Heiberg, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte Georg Vallas und seiner Bibliothek,’ Beihefte zum Centralblatt für Bibliothekswissenschaft 16 (1896) 353-481. Heiberg, pp. 389ff., provides a full list of Valla's extensive publications, beginning with a study of Galen in 1481. The biography of Valla by G. Poggiali, Memorie per la storia letteraria di Piacenza (Piacenza 1789) I 131-70, was inaccessible to me.Google Scholar