Page images

9. äμа кTλ. We should expect aua with the dative. For repayment of seed åμа тоîs eкyopiois, etc., cf. Lille, 39, 4-5; Oxy. 910, 19-20, etc.

εὐημ[ . . ]ειας. Read ἐκ, or ἐφ' ἡμισείας?

τα[ ]α πάντα. Doubtless to be restored in the sense of τὰ γεωργικὰ ἔργα πάντα, τὰ πρὸς τὴν τῆς γῆς καλλιεργίαν ἔργα Távτα, or the like, though we have not as yet succeeded in restoring the phraseology to fit the letters still legible or partly so.

10. ȧvaẞoλns KTA. Cf. Schnebel, p. 61, and references there given; also Calderini, op. cit., where interesting attempts are made to reconstruct diagrams of the irrigation systems in certain localities.


καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς συγκομιδῆς. The irrigation system could not be neglected even during harvest time; in fact at that time, particularly, the serious preparation for the annual Nile flood began (cf. Schnebel, p. 69, 'die Arbeit am Kanalnetz im allgemeinen schon im April begann und bis zum Höhepunkt der Überschwemmung, ja darüber hinaus, fortdauerte").

11. χόρτος κτλ. Cf. esp. B. G. U. 308, πρὸς τῷ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν δέσιν τοῦ παντὸς χόρτου ποιεῖσθαι τῆς τε κοπῆς τοῦ χόρτου ἑκαστοῦ κατὰ τὰ μέρη. χόρτος might be expected as one of the ἀνάπαυσις crops, or on land reclaimed from δρυμός (cf. Rostowzew, Large estate, p. 64. On xópros in general, cf. Schnebel, pp. 211 ff.).

12. Boïkȧ KTλ. The most frequent obligation of the lessor, along with the advance loan of seed, is the furnishing of πάντα, οι παντοῖα τετράποδα, presumably for general purposes of farm work, as distinguished from livestock (cf. Flor. 127, 20, ¿pyatikà kтývn). In other cases the κτήνη). lessor furnishes animals for certain exigencies, e.g. πpòs ǎvτλησμov Boûν μíav (Flor. 16, 21). Here we should probably take Boïkά and épyáτny together as intended specifically for use in connection with the artificial irrigation (cf. Schnebel, pp. 60 ff.). These Boïkά, then,


are in. addition to the usual Teтрáπоda for the general farm work; and the latter are provided for at the end of this same line, τὰ ενα[ ] τετράποδα (cf. the various cattle supplied in P. S. I. 577). The restoration of the word or words beginning eva- is doubtful. Possibly one should read ἐν α[ὐτῷ ἐδάφει].

That the lessor should also provide the maintenance of the farm animals is perhaps not strange in a lease which seems, on the whole, to be fairly liberal. (For contrast, cf. the similar detailed provisions of Lond. 1694 (sixth century), where "the landlord has considerably the best of the bargain; but the position of the tenants is far better than in many leases of this kind in the late Byzantine period.") Possibly it was with reference to this maintenance of the farm animals that the lessees agreed (1. 11) to do an extra amount of cutting and binding of χόρτος.

13. This line may possibly be restored as ]ķai [n]μ€î[S TÒV QÓPO]v ἐν δέον[τι και]ρ[ω] τ[@] μ[ηνὶ Π]αΰ[νι κατ'] ἔ[τ]ος ἐκ[αστ]ὸν ἀποδώσο[μεν] ἐκ τ[οῦ κο]ινοῦ τοῦ π[υρού συναγο]μένου [ἐν τῆ κώμη] ἐφ ̓ ἅλω κτλ.

14. περιλι-. Probably some form of περιλείπω should be restored.

16. Baoráğıv. Cf. note on line 8. The meaning “transport” would be unintelligible here, as the three lessees could have little interest in the transportation of the share of the ἄλλος γεωργός.

19. This is a short line, written about three cm. below the text of the document, and in another hand, in letters more than double the size of those of the text.

XV.-Notes on Some Unpublished Scholia in a Paris Manuscript of Virgil



Codex, Paris. lat. 7930, of the eleventh century,1 contains, as Thilo,2 the editor of Servius, has noted (Praef., pp. lxv-lxvi), numerous notes, not all of equal value, to the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid. Many of the scholia found in the manuscripts of Servius auctus are to be found in the Paris codex as marginal notes to these poems. The writer (or writers) of these annotations invariably changes the wording of the scholia as found in the few extant codices of the enlarged Servius, retaining, however, the substance of the original note.3

That many of the scholia show influence of the school of the ninth-century teacher, Remigius of Auxerre, I have already endeavored to show in my study of the scholia in the Turonensis of Virgil. Besides the evidence there given, correspondences between the marginal commentary in Paris. lat. 7930 (E) and extant commentaries by Remigius on authors other than Virgil are found in several places. There are two actual citations of the Carmen Paschale of Sedulius on Aen. 1, 162 (gemini, cf. Sedulii opera, app. p. 328, Huemer); Aen. VII, 440

1 For a description of this manuscript see pp. 100-102 of my article "The Scholia in the Virgil of Tours, Bernensis 165" in Harv. Stud. xxxvi (1925), 91– 164. Hereafter I shall cite this paper as "The Virgil of Tours." The contents of Paris. lat. 7930 have been noted by Dr. Eva M. Sanford in T. A. P. A. LV (1924), 219.

2 Thilo and Hagen, Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, Leipzig, 1881-1902.

3 Cf. Thilo, Praef., p. lxvi; E. Thomas, Essai sur Servius et son Commentaire sur Virgile, Paris, 1879, p. 118.

4 "The Virgil of Tours," pp. 162-163. This article also contains (p. 143, n. 4 and p. 159) a brief discussion of such additional notes to Servius found in the Paris codex as show points of comparison with certain marginal notes in the Virgil of Tours or with scholia extant in other manuscripts containing the additions to Servius.


(lanugo, p. 325 H).5 Two other notes correspond closely with Remigius's commentary on Sedulius, on Geor. Iv, 459 (supremus), 463 (cava testudo). Scholia on Geor. 11, 417 (antes) and on Geor. III, 522 (electrum) reflect comments by Remigius on Phocas and on Martianus Capella respectively.7

The scholiast (or the author of his source) seems to have annotated the Aeneid before the Georgics, to judge from his note on Geor. II, 158.8

There are traces of a consecutive commentary in the background. In a note on Aen. VII, 19 the phrase et supra dictum est seems to refer to Aen. VII, 10.

Many of the additional notes found in Reginensis 1495 which Thilo (Praef., vol. III, pp. vi-viii) thought valuable enough to print in his critical apparatus are found in the Paris manuscript also. Moreover, in that part of the Georgics (1, 373 to the end of the fourth book) not covered by the Reginensis, there are many additional notes which are very similar to those found in the additions to Servius first edited by Fabricius and Stephanus and reprinted by Thilo in his critical apparatus to the Georgics.

In several scholia the name of some ancient authority is cited. In fifteen places occur references to Servius. Three of these are found in the Eclogues; 10 eight in the Georgics; the

5 See "The Virgil of Tours," p. 162, n. 5. Our manuscript has a similar note on Aen. vi, 462. Cato is mentioned in a note on Ecl. 3, 60. Remigius wrote a commentary on that author, see Manitius, Gesch. d. lat. Lit. d. Mittelalt., 1911, p. 511 f.

6 Cf. Huemer, pp. 353 and 348.

7 Remigius's commentaries on Phocas and on Martianus Capella have been published in part by Manitius in Didaskaleion, vol. II; for scholia here noted see pp. 86 and 71.

8 The note (haec fabula iam supra dicta est) seems to refer to Aen. 1, 67 (Tyrrhenum).

9 Funaioli has discussed the sources of the additional scholia in the Reginensis in his paper "Scholia Vaticana Reginensia ad Vergilium" in Stud. ital. di fil. class., XXI (1915), 78 f. Funaioli brings forward some good evidence for Aelius Donatus as a source of many of these glosses. Cf. "The Virgil of Tours," p.


10 In his note on Ecl. 1, 56 the scholiast cites as from Servius a note which is derived from the commentary of Philargyrius. There was a lacuna in the archetype of Servius (Ecl. 1, 37-2, 10). See Thilo, app. crit.

231 rest are in the Aeneid." "Donatus" is given as a heading to a note on Ecl. 2, 70 and to a long scholium on Aen. VI, 893.12

The most interesting feature, perhaps, of this manuscript is the unusual number of names of ancient authors other than the commentators of Virgil just mentioned which are found incorporated in several marginal notes, the substance of which is, for the most part, taken from either Servius or Servius auctus.13

A passage from Cicero's pro Milone, 10 is tagged to a note on Ecl. 9, 13 similar to that printed by Thilo in his critical apparatus from the Reginensis (p. 111, 4). The citation is a familiar one: In hoc loco convenit etiam exemplum Ciceronis, ́silent leges inter arma.’

Terence (Ad. 4, 1, 21) furnishes a note on Ecl. 9, 54 (lupi Moerim videre priores): Fisicam tangit . . . unde est illud Terenti 'lupus in fabula.' 14

[ocr errors]

A proverbium (Publilius Syrus, 104, Woelfflin) is found in a note on Ecl. 9, 64: Garrulus comes in itinere pro vehiculo est. The scholiast in commenting on Virgil's pallentes violas (Ecl. 2, 47) introduces a brief citation from Ovid (A. A. 1, 729): Palleat omnis amans.

11 In one case (on Aen. 11, 363) Lactantius's opinion (Inst. 1, 23) is preferred to that of Servius on the question of the duration of the kingdom of Troy.

12 The problem as to whether these notes have been based on the commentary on Virgil by Aelius Donatus has been discussed in "The Virgil of Tours," p. 160. There is a Donatian quality in the former of these apparent attributions to Donatus (on Ecl. 2, 70); this note, which is similar to the comment of Servius (p. 28, 14-16, Thilo), may be compared with Don. And. 2, 5, 1 (Wessner).

13 We should naturally expect medieval authors to be cited in such a compilation as our manuscript. The specific references to Sedulius (see "The Virgil of Tours," p. 162, n. 5) seem to point towards a commentary on Sedulius by one at least of the scholiasts (Remigius of Auxerre apparently) represented in this codex. Bede (De Temp. 19, xc, col. 289 M.) is quoted on a chronological question in a note on Aen. II, 325. Lactantius (cf. n. 11) must have supplied the citation from Varro discussed below, p. 232 and n. 18.

14 In the ninth century codex Bernensis, 363 (see "The Virgil of Tours,” p. 104) there is a marginal note "donatus" on the Servian text at this place. Perhaps, however, our scholiast here depended on Isid. Etym. XII, 2, 24. I am following the notation of Wessner (Aeli Donati quod fertur Commentum Terenti, Leipzig, 1902) in references to Terence. The line is commented on by Donatus.

« PreviousContinue »