The Annotations of M. Valerivs Probvs (II) [The Annotations of M.

Valerius Probus (II)]

Author(s): H. D. Jocelyn
Source: The Classical Quarterly , 1985, Vol. 35, No. 1 (1985), pp. 149-161
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/638812

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Classical Quarterly 35 (i) 149-161 (1985) Printed in Great Britain 149

THE ANNOTATIONS OF M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II)*

When Mommsen saw foll. 28r line i-29r line 6 of cod. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 753
eighth-century grammatical miscellany from Monte Cassino, he realised immedi
the importance of their contents.56 He wrote to Bergk about his discovery o
November 1844 and Bergk published the material early the next year as bein
epitome of a treatise on signs applied to literary texts by Probus and earlier
grammarians.5' There had long been known58 Diogenes Laertius' account of th
and other signs placed in the margins of texts of Plato's dialogues,'9 Hephaest
account of the colometrical 7Tapdypaosr, KopOwv~, 8L7rrT and UarEplaKos place
texts of lyric and dramatic poetry,60 the chapter de notis sententiarum in Isido
Origines,6' the names of various treatises Treptl aqJertEIWV mentioned in the Suda,6
references to ar.LEica in Eustathius' commentary on Homer63 and in the mar

* The first part of this article appeared in CQ 34 (1984), 464-72.

56 L. Quicherat had mistaken them for Isid. Orig. 1.21 (de notis sententiarum). See Bibliot
de l'Ecole des Chartes 1 (1839/40), 52. They had, however, been recognised and use
R. P. Tassin and C. F. Toustain, Nouveau traite de diplomatique (Paris, 1757), iii. 483-7
Villoison, op. cit. [n. 44], proleg. xxii).
67 'Anecdoton Parisinum', Zeitschr. f d. Alt. 3 (1845), 81-131 (see Mommsen's Gesamm
Schriften VII [Berlin, 1909], 217-18 and Bergk's Kleine philologische Schriften I [Halle, 18
580-612). The material is printed by F. Osann, Anecdotum Romanum de notis ueterum cri
inprimis Aristarchi Homericis et Iliade Heliconia (Giessen, 1851), 327-34, A. Reiffersc
C. Suetoni Tranquilli... Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1860), 137-41, A. Nauck, Lexicon Vindobo
(Leningrad, 1867), 278-82, W. Dindorf, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem I (Oxford-Le
1875), xlvii-xlix, H. Keil, Grammatici Latini VII (Leipzig, 1880), 533-6, H. Funaiol
Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta I (Leipzig, 1907), 54-6 (omitting the notae simplices)
Mommsen's pride in his 'discovery' and Jahn's congratulations see T. Mommsen and 0.
Briefiwechsel 1842-1868, ed. L. Wickert (Frankfurt, 1962), 13-15. Some of the material has t
up again in a ninth-century manuscript from Benevento, cod. Rome, Bibl. Casanatense 1086
C. Morelli, Rendiconti della Reale Accad. dei Lincei, Cl. Sc. Mor. Stor. e Filol. 5th ser., 19 [
287-328). The two manuscripts drew upon a common source (see L. Holtz, Stud. Med. 3rd s
16 [1975], 142-5, H. D. Jocelyn, CQ n.s. 30 [1980], 394-6).
58 I. Casaubon gathered most, if not all, of the material available in his time (Nota
Diogenis Laertii libros de uitis, dictis, et decretis principum philosophorum [Morsee, 1
119-22). This was supplemented by B. de Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca (Paris, 17
186-90, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt I (Paris, 1714), 38-42, Tassin and Toustain
cit. (n. 56), Villoison, op. cit. (n. 44), proleg. xiii-xxuI, A. Grifenhan, Geschicht
klassischen Philologie im Alterthum ii (Bonn, 1844), 92-9.
59 3.65-6 (probably from the Blot of Antigonus of Carystus). The Greek text of Diog
cPLAoa6qwov lwwv Kaa 80oyia'T7ov avvaywy-i was printed at Basle in 1533. Related in som
to Diogenes' account are those in cod. Cava dei Tirreni, Arch. S. Trin. 3, fol. 255 (A. Reiffers
RhM 23 [1868], 131-2) and a second-century A.D. Florence papyrus (V. Bartoletti, MWl
E. Tisserant I [Vatican City, 1964 (Studi e Testi, 231), 25-30]).
60 Pp. 73-6 Consbruch. The 'EyXELtpItov 7TEpl i'Tpwv and attached essays were print
Florence in 1526. Demetrius Triclinius had known and used Hephaestion's work at the begin
of the fourteenth century (see J. Irigoin, Les scholies metriques de Pindare [Paris, 1
93-105).
61 1. 21. The Origines was printed at Augsburg in 1472 (' Etymologiae').
62 1i 102.32, IV 581.21 Adler. The work ('Suidas') was printed at Venice in 1499.
63 Pp. 136.13, 599.33, 957.16, 1015.23, 1610.46, 1627.59, 1921.55 of the edition brough
at Rome in 1542 and 1550.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 150 H. D. JOCELYN

scholia to Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aes

in Byzantine manuscripts,64 Cicero's allu
reports of the signs with which Origen
and Jerome's adaptation of Origen's s
method of noting orthodox and heter
use made by G. Schoppe (Scioppius) o
back a comparison of Probus with Ari
had been found in Servius' note on Aen. 10.444 a reference to Probus' use of the
alogus;70 in a codex of St Mark's Library in Venice, gr. 454,71 a whole text of the Ilia

equipped with 30gEAol, daEpla KOL, 8LrrAai and avrLa,tyLara and accompanied by
scholia deriving from Didymus' Hept' ir- 'ApLarapXdEov SLopOwaEws and from
Aristonicus' HIpEp rcov 7r-q 'IAldtSor al)etwv and a fragment of a Byzantine rewritin
of the preface of the latter work;72 and in another Venetian codex, gr. 483, fol. 46v,
two lists of signs (r70or ap' 'OpcQ p a TrXOLt~ 7rapaKEtLpyva) accompanied by
explanations.7" The year 1841 saw the publication from cod. London, B.L. Harley
5693, fol. 2r, of a brief essay 7rept'r iov rap' 'AptLa-rpxov ai)/tLELWV 7TapaCrtLGE/LVWV

"4 Cf. schol. Hes. Op. 207-12, 276b, 649a, Theog. 117, 573, Pind. 0O. 2.48 f., 10.78 f., Pyth
3.18a, 4.305, 318a, 431, 507, Aesch. Prom. 9, Sept. 79, Choeph. 534, Soph. Ai. 962, Ant. 735,
741, 1176, Trach. 402, O.C. 25, 43, 237, 375, 1494, 1740, Phil. 201, 417, Eurip. Hec. 3, 4, 29
323, Orest. 81, 599, Hipp. 93, 1192, Med. 33, 1346, Andr. 603, 873, 930, Rhes. 41, 239, 716
Aristoph. Av. 76, 107, 204, 302, 1309, 1372, Equ. 721, Lys. 499, 702, Nub. 518, 562, 766, 815
925, 962, 1178, Pac. 775, 990, Plut. 3, 863, Ran. 35, 153, 557, 575, Thesm. 924, Vesp. 1172, 1282
1480. Scholia to Aristophanes were printed in 1498 (Venice), to Pindar in 1515 (Rome), to
Sophocles in 1518 (Rome), to Euripides in 1534 (Venice), to Aeschylus in 1552 (Venice
Colometrical remarks by Triclinius frequently got mixed with ancient material in these editions
Scholia to Hesiod were printed in 1537 (Venice). The Homeric scholia printed in 1517 (Rome
were those long attributed to 'Didymus'; on the history of knowledge of more erudite sets see
Villoison, op. cit. (n. 44), proleg. xiv n. 1. There was also knowledge of the use of aroiuEt
on Demosthenes (Schol. ix 587.25-6 Dindorf; 'Ulpian' was printed in 1503 [at Venice]) and on
Hippocrates (Galen, xv 110 [= CMG v 9, 1, 58], xvi 800 [= CMG v 9, 2, 154]; the
commentaries on Hipopocrates were printed in 1525 [at Venice]), perhaps also of their use on
Thucydides (schol. 3.84.1; 'aXoAta rraAatL' were printed in 1526 [at Florence]).
65 Att. 8.2.4, Fam. 9.10.1. Cf. Pis. 73, Fam. 3.11.5, 9.16.4.
66 Orig. Comm. Matth. 15.14 (Origines Werke. Zehnter Band. Origines Matthduserkliirung,
hrsg. E. Klostermann [Leipzig, 1935], 388), Epiphanius, De mens. 2-3, 7-8, 17 (P. de Lagarde,
Symmicta ii [G6ttingen, 1880], 153-70; J. E. Dean, Epiphanius' treatise on weight and measures.
The Syriac version [Chicago, 1935], 16-34), Jerome, Praef. interpr. Pent. in Bibl. Sacr. ed.
Bened. I 64, lob ix 69-70, Paralip. in Patrol. Lat. xxvinl 1393, Epist. 57.11, 106.7, 112.19,
Augustin. Ciu. 18.43.
67 Jerome, Praef. interpr. Psalm x 3-4, Salom. xi 6, Dan. in Patrol. Lat. xxviII 1359 A, Epist.
112.19, Augustin. ap. Jerome, Epist. 104.3 (= Epist. 71.3).
68 Inst. 1.1.8, 1.9.3. See also Inst. I praef. 9, 1.26.
69 Schoppe found in his 'schedae Fuldanae' et 'hinc...parcas' in Probi adpuncti sunt. See his
De arte critica commentariolus (Nuremberg, 1597), sig. B 7. Daniel's reading, et 'hinc...parcas'
adiuncta sunt, held sway until Bergk made his study of cod. Kassel, Staatsbibl. MS. Poet. fol.
6 (' Servii Casselani part. III', Progr. Marburg. 1844, 4).
70 See above, n. 35. 71 See above, n. 44.
72 On this passage (fol. 8 r [foll. 7 and 9 are missing]) see C. G. Co
26-34, W. Dindorf, op. cit. (n. 57), 1-2, Scholia Graeca in Homeri
1878), 394-5, L. Friedlinder, Ind. Lect. K6nigsberg (1876), 4, A
61-4, H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem I (Berlin, 1969),
73 See Villoison, op. cit. (n. 44), proleg. XL. The material was publ
J. P. Siebenkees in Bibliothek der alten Litteratur und Kunst, Drit
71-2. It is reprinted in Osann, op. cit. (n. 57), 5-8, Reifferscheid
cit., 274-6, Dindorf, op. cit., xliv-xlv. Cod. Oxford, Bodl. Libr. Au
Saibantianus') is a copy of the Venice manuscript.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 151

iCv 'Op4pw.74 In 1852 F. Osann was to publish from c

Emmanuele gr. 6, fol. 3, two lists (headed rt rraparLOGeva

'ApLardpXELa aIxEia) closely related to those in cod. V

The treatise de emendatione et notis ueterum librorum whi
at Bobbio had possessed in 146176 remained lost, but sho
to turn up in hitherto unexplored medieval miscellanies.7

signs used in an edition of Aratus' IawovtzLEva was foun

87.10, fol. 183v."8 Bergk's publication stimulated a search f
and colometrical signs preserved in Greek"7 and Latinso
continues.

7" Prefixed to a fifteenth-century text of the Iliad (in a hand of the next century). See
J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca in (Oxford, 1841), 293. The material in question is reprinted in
Osann, op. cit. (n. 57), 8, Reifferscheid, op. cit., 144, Nauck, op. cit., 277, Dindorf, op. cit., xlvi.
11 Prefixed to an elementary commentary on the Iliad copied in South Italy between 905 and
915. For the material in question see Osann, op. cit., 3-5, Reifferscheid, op. cit., 141-3, Nauck,
op. cit., 271-3, Dindorf, op. cit., xlii-xliv, V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie II2 (Leipzig,
1913), 411-12, and plate xvi opposite p. 74 of R. Devreesse, Introduction ai l'itude des manuscrits
grecs (Paris, 1954). On the relationship between this material and that offered by cod. Venice,
Bibl. Marc. gr. 483 see W. Lameere, Apergus de palkographie hombrique (Paris-Brussels, 1960),
244-8.
76 Item 102 of the inventory. See A. Peyron, M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationum pro Scauro, pro
Tullio et in Clodium fragmenta inedita...idem praefatus est de Bibliotheca Bobiensi, cuius
inuentorium edidit (Stuttgart and Tiibingen, 1824), 23-30.
77 For the essay TrrEp' rTwv E'LUEpotLEvwv orlEtcoWV in cod. Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur. LIX 38
(15th cent.), fol. 428v, see C. Wachsmuth, RhM 18 (1863), 180-1; for the essay rerp' 7<V a7rloLEkLV

T7wv KELLEVCWV V TO9 7Wv EaETAaW 'Q-2pLyvovUS LETaypaOEiaL L33ooOLs in cod. Mt Athos, Mon.
Vatopedi 507 (12th cent.) and cod. Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Vat. 2200 (Columnensis 39) (8th-9th
cent.) see D. Serruys, MUl. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 22 (1902), 189-93, F. Diekamp, Doctrina Patrum
de incarnatione Verbi (Miinster, 1907), 248-9; for the essay de notis antiquorum in cod. Cava dei
Tirreni, Archivio dell'Abbazia di SS. TrinitB 3 (11lth cent.), fol. 255r, see A. Reifferscheid, RhM
23 (1868), 127-33; for the annotated list of signs in cod. Munich, Bayer. Staatsbibl. Lat. 14429,
fol. 122"v (10th cent. from S. Emmeram) see H. Kettner,' Kritische Bemerkungen zu Varro und
lateinischen Glossaren', Progr. d. Klosterschule Rossleben 1868, 33-5, P. Weber, Quaestionum
Suetonianarum capita duo (Diss. Halle, 1903), 8-13. Traube (see n. 81) mentions similar material
in cod. Boulogne-sur-mer 44.
7: See E. Maass, Hermes 19 (1884), 108-9. Cf. Commentariorum in Aratum Reliquiae (Berlin,
1898), 140-1.
79 On manuscripts of Homer see T. W. Allen, PBSR 5 (1910), 31-3, Homer, The Origins (n.
25), 314 n. I, Homeri Ilias I (n. 52), 196-9, P. Collart, RPh 3,7 (1933), 39-40, 3,13 (1939), 306;
of iambic and lyric poetry R. L. Fowler, ZPE 33 (1979), 24-8. On copies of the fifth column of
Origen's Hexapla see B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible (New York-Oxford, 1981),
38. On Greek manuscripts generally see Devreesse, op. cit. (n. 75), 74-5, 87, 113-14, 133-4, 169,
E. G. Turner, op. cit. (n. 25), 146-52 (= Greek Papyri, 112-18).
s0 Various signs are visible in the margins of a fifty-century Virgil (cod. Florence, Bibl. Med.
Laur. xxxix. 1 = CLA IIi 296; see 0. Ribbeck, Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis opera
maiora [Leipzig, 1866], 158-63), a fifth- to sixth-century Gaius (P. Soc. Ital. 1182 = CLA in 292),
a fifth- to sixth-century Juvenal (JEA 21 [1935], 199-207 = CLA Suppl. 1710) and a sixth-century
Hilarius (cod. Vienna, Oest. Nationalbibl. MS 2160 = CLA x 1507). Where medieval and
renaissance manuscripts are concerned, see on cod. Munich, Bayer. Staatsbibl. Lat. 816a
(Lucretius: fifteenth century Italy) T. Bergk, NJbb 83 (1861), 317-20 (= KI. phil. Schr. I [n. 57],
248-52), H. Sauppe, Progr. G6ttingen (1864), 11-14 (= Ausgewiihlte Schriften [Berlin, 1896],
433-6); on cod. Vatican City, Bibl. Apost. Pal. lat. 1615 (Plautus: eleventh century South
Germany), F. Schoell, T. Macci Plauti Truculentus (Leipzig, 1881), xxxv-vi, W. M. Lindsay, op.
cit. (n. 4), 82-3. M. D. Reeve informs me, however, that Sauppe was wrong to accept the presence
of the XE in C.L.M. 816a; what Bergk saw belongs to the annotator's abbreviation of wpa^ov.
On various codices preserving Jerome's signs see A. Rahlfs, 'Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters',
Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft (G6ttingen, 1907), 124-34.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 152 H. D. JOCELYN

Mommsen thought that what he

line 1-29r line 6, was the source
Origines, a chapter copied out else
2.11.81 Bergk preferred to postula
the one-volume work by Suetoniu
r77qt.Elwv.82 Suetonius' material,
of the Paris codex, first through
through a number of careless copies
one and enriched by no Christian
according to Bergk, would have
through a work compiled in the thi
no longer used in Latin manusc
accumulated later. This theory h
accepted with varying modificatio
to have gone far enough.
The structure of the account of gr
requires to be considered more clo
a commentary on Donatus' Ars gr
one we possess of the commenta
grammatical handbook of late anti
there was some sort of pause in p
of punctuation which could be u
the signs used in philological criti
curriculum of literary instruction
the ancient books of which anyt
81 The chapter also occurs in the Ca
transmission see L. Traube, 'Textgesc
Bayer. Ak. d. Wiss. 21, 3 (1898), 725
und hist. Ki. 25, 2 [1910], 121).
82 IV 581.21. The same title is attribu
(11 102.32).
83 Cf. J. Aistermann, op. cit. (n. 4), 10 (arguing that the source of the Paris essay was composed
before Probus edited Terence), G. Brugnoli, Atti Ace. Naz. Lincei 8, 6 (1955), 1-16 (= Studi
Suetoniani [Lecce, 1968], 156-8), N. Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 114 n. 23 (= Stud. 193 n. 33),
G. Pascucci, op. cit. (n. 4), 27 (drawing attention to the conflict between the list of authors given
by the Paris essay and the picture of Probus' interests painted in Suetonius' De grammaticis).
84 Cf. A. Reifferscheid, op. cit. (n. 57), 419-20 (arguing that the HEpt '-Wv Elv -TOZs 3LfALoLS
rq/LEotwv was part of the De uiris illustribus and included material on shorthand and cryptography),
O. Ribbeck, op. cit. (n. 80), 150, J. Steup, op. cit. (n. 9), 52-3, F. Leo, Plaut. Forsch.2 (n. 3), 32,
A. Mace, op. cit. (n. 12), 265-7, L. Traube, 'Die Geschichte der tironischen Noten bei Suetonius
und Isidorus', Arch. f Stenogr. 53 (1901), 191-208 (= Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen iII
[Munich, 1920], 254-73), P. Weber, op. cit. (n. 77), 3-24, A. Gudeman, Grundriss (n. 43), 105 n.
1, 'Krit. Zeich.' (n. 52), 1917, P. Wessner, Bursians Jahresber. 188 (1921), 80, G. Funaioli, RE
II 4.1 (1931), 630-2, s.v. 'Suetonius', R. Hanslik, RE II 8.1 (1955), 198, s.v. 'Valerius Probus',
A. Grisart, Helikon 2 (1962), 390 n. 49, R. W. Mfiller, op. cit. (n. 41), 62, L. D. Reynolds and
N. G. Wilson, op. cit. (n. 4), 20, C. O. Brink, op. cit. (n. 4), 36-7, C. Questa, RFIC 102 (1974),
186, J. E. G. Zetzel, op. cit. (n. 4), 15. J. Fontaine, Isidore de Siville et la culture classique dans
l'Espagne wisigothique I (Paris, 1959), 74-80, does not name Suetonius. J. N. Hillgarth, 'The
Position of Isidorian Studies: a critical review of the literature since 1935', Isidoriana (Le6n,
1961), 33 and n. 62, expresses himself obscurely.
s5 Cf. J. Fontaine, op. cit. (n. 84), 192-4, L. Holtz, RPh 45 (1971), 81-3.
s6 Cf. Donat. Gramm. Lat. Iv 372.15-23, Cledonius, Gramm. Lat. v 34.1-9, Diomedes, Gramm.
Lat. I 437.10-439.9.
s7 In 1931 T. W. Allen counted five papyrus texts of Homer out of a hundred wit
(Homeri Ilias I [n. 52], 198). In 1977 P. Oxy. 3224 with its signs (The Oxyrhynchus Papyr
XLV, 51-2) stood against 53 other ancient copies of the same set of Hesiod's works

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 153
Isidore's DE NOTIS SENTENTIARVM, which follows his DE POSITVRIS, must
be an interloper from another source. The next five items, DE NOTIS VVLGARIBVS,
DE NOTIS IVRIDICIS, DE NOTIS MILITARIBVS, DE NOTIS LITTERARVM
and DE NOTIS DIGITORVM are even more out of place in an account of school
grammar. On the other hand they hang together quite closely with each other and
with the DE NOTIS SENTENTIARVM.8" What Isidore did, I should suggest, was
to extract material from a single treatise devoted to semiotics in general rather than

from one like Suetonius' Hep T(;v 'v roT l3L3AloLs arlELwov, which would have
treated the particular signs used by critical grammarians.89 Where he got his Christian
material from must remain obscure.90
The material about critical signs in the Paris codex would come, at least in part,
from one of the sources of my hypothetical treatise on semiotics.91 Despite the
corruptions and confusions now present, this material reveals the hand of at least one
writer going back to the late first or early second century.92 Bergk, however, seems
to me to have erred in supposing that in foill. 28-9 of the Paris codex we have to do
with one single original source. This area of the codex has two headings in uncial
letters: NOTAE XXI QVAE VERSIBVS APPONI CONSVERVNT and NOTAE
SIMPLICES. Bergk saw that what appears as the fourteenth of the NOTAE
SIMPLICES, namely F. de notis probianis, was a corruption of a book or section title:
FINIT DE NOTIS PROBIANIS.93 He put this together with the sentence following
the first of the two lists of signs - his solis in adnotationibus t hennii lucii t et
historicorum usi sunt t uarrus hennius haelius aequae t et postremo Probus, qui illas
in Virgilio et Horatio et Lucretio apposuit, ut Homero Aristarchus - and concluded that
DE NOTIS PROBIANIS was the title of everything we have, in other words an
epitome of Suetonius' HEpl r(Jv 'v roes 3L/AtloLS aU7pelwtv. He did not look carefully
enough at the second list.94 That it does not appear in Isidore's DE NOTIS
SENTENTIARVM makes no moment. Two items however, namely - (praepositum
sine consequente) and - (consequens sine praeposito), occur in the first list with
different functions (--obelus... quotiens inprobarent uersus quasi aut malos aut non
Homericos and ' obelus cum puncto ad ea de quibus dubitabatur tolli debeant necne).
The functions of another pair of items, H X (recte positus et pugnanti contrarius) and
- (repugnans), appear to be the same as those of a pair in the first list, X
(asteriscus... Aristarchus autem ad eos qui in hoc puta loco positi erant, cum aliis scilicet

signs. E. A. Lowe remarks (Codices Latini Antiquiores. Suppl. [Oxford, 1971], 13 [on no. 1710]),
on the small number of signs to be found in Latin manuscripts. On the tendency of Origen's
signs to disappear in the course of the Greek biblical tradition see B. M. Metzger, loc. cit. (n. 79).
88 At 1.5.4 positurae and notae appear as two of the thirty divisions of grammar.
"9 At Adu. Hieron. 2.40 Rufinus refers to the military theta (- Isidore, Orig. 1.24) in a
discussion of Origen's use of critical signs; this could indicate that the treatise used by Isidore
was known to Rufinus.
90 It is badly muddled. What Epiphanius (n. 66) and the essay published by Serruys (n. 77)
call the lTroArjwLidafKoS, Isidore calls an antigraphus cum puncto (Orig. 1.21.6).
9 The use of the same text of Virgil, Aen. 10.88-90, to illustrate the auersa obelismene (referring
back to 10.25-9, 55-62) puts this beyond doubt.
92 Probus is treated throughout as a recent rather than an 'ancient' grammarian. See further
below, nn. 133, 140.
9 EXPLICIT is normal in cod. Paris, B.N. lat. 7530 and other South Italian manuscripts,
but for FINIT see fol. 145r. FINIT is said to be characteristic of Irish and Spanish manuscripts
(W. M. Lindsay, Palaeografia Latina II [Oxford, 1923], 5-10, Iv [1925], 83-4; but see E. A. Lowe,
CQ 22 [1928], 60 [= Palaeographical Papers 1907-1965 I (Oxford, 1972), 272], R. P. Oliver,
TAPhA 82 [1951], 239 n. 8).
91 At NJbb 83 (1861), 320 n. 10 (= KI. phil. Schr. I 252 n. 10) he declared the notae simplices
to be later than the other twenty-one but did not go into the matter in any detail.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 154 H. D. JOCELYN

non recte ponerentur) and - (aste

qui non suo loco positi erant). T

9 (superuacuus)
(obelus... Aristarchus, quotiens in
and -- (alien
obelo potissimum notandos existi
ordo permutandus erat) and 3 (an
duplices essent et dubitaretur qu
aut aprepes) overlaps with that of
enuntiatum). The lists have under
themselves,95 but there is no way
to one scholar can be extracted f
origins.96
The second list has itself a deal of coherence. A system is visible which could have
been applied to texts of the one general sort by one scholar. Items like F (metafrasis
latina) and Q0 (metafrasis graeca) indicate that these were Latin texts but not simple
translations of Greek works like the old Republican tragedies and comedies. The first
list on the other hand does not turn out to be at all coherent. Two, perhaps three,
sections of different origin can be distinguished.97
Of the twelve/thirteen signs relating to the content of narrative verses or groups
of verses, signs which all appear in Isid. Orig. 1.21, eight, the - obelus, the X
asteriscus, the X - asteriscus cum obelo, the > diple aperistiktos, the > diple
periestigmene, the D antisigma, the 3 antisigma cum puncto, and the * ceraunium, are
found in Greek lists of the signs allegedly used by Aristarchus.98 The Homeric scholia
stemming from Aristonicus' treatise on Aristarchus' signs and from Didymus' IlEp'

"rg 'Aptir-apXedov &topOoaEcWS do not mention an aiviatyta rrepteartt?itvov99 or

a KEpalvtov.'00 This may simply mean that neither sign appeared very often in the

95 On the first list see below. Where the second list is concerned, the lack of correspondence
in the symbols - /HX and the repetition of * later in the list strongly suggest corruption.
0 ) 0 7 graeca metafrasis et bis dictum et repugnans. 0P Pgraeca metafrasis et repugnans ought
to have some correspondence with > bis dictum and with - repugnans. It is hard to believe
that M denoted both malum metrum and aprepes (see below, n. 156).
96 Cf. L. Holtz, Stud. Med. 16 (1975), 114 n. 75.
97 Weber, op. cit. (n. 77), 19-24, discerned three sections, one concerned with the signs used
by Aristarchus and Probus, one concerned with the punctuation of lyric and scenic texts, and
one concerned with the 'uerborum sensus' (p. 21) or 'iudicium' (p. 22). Only the first, in his
view, went back to Suetonius.
98 Nine signs are credited to Aristarchus in our sources. Most modern accounts reduce the
number to six. See Villoison, op. cit. (n. 44), Proleg. xmi-xxu, M. Sengebusch, 'Homerica
dissertatio prior' in W. Dindorf, Homeri Ilias4 (Leipzig, 1861), 25-7, Ludwich, op. cit. (n. 25),
I, 19-22, F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I (Leipzig,
1891), 454 n. 105, L. Cohen, RE 2.1 (1895), 865-7, s.v. 'Aristarchos', Allen, Homeri Ilias I (n.
52), 197-9, J. A. Davison, 'The Transmission of the Text', in A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings,
A Companion to Homer (London, 1962), 215-33 (224), Pfeiffer, op. cit. (n. 25), 218, P. M.
Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), I, 464, 11, 672 n. 164.
99 This is the term used in the second list in cod. Venice, Bibl. Marc. gr. 483 and the first list
in cod. Rome, Bibl. Naz. Vitt. Emm. gr. 6.
100 The absurdity of the Latin explanation - ponitur quotiens multi uersus inprobantur, ne per
singulos obelentur (for series of 6flEAo' see cod. Venice, Bibl. Marc. gr. 454, foll. 19r, 19v, 26v,
28r, 29v etc.) - and the elusiveness of that in the first Rome list - rAoi SE Kat ab;7' OroAA&9s
77T77'aELS 7rpoS TraLs 7TpoELprlqpvaLt - suggest that somewhere in their ancestry lay a confession
of ignorance. For Aristophanes' use of the sign (to indicate To EvTEAE'S) see schol. Hom. Od.

18.282; for its use in an edition of Plato's Dialogues (rrpTsg T?'v aywy'v T7)s LhoaoUlasg) Diog.
Laert. 3.66. Lehrs, loc. cit. (n. 98), and others deny the KEpauVLOv to Aristarchus.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 155
Aristarchean iKSO aELT. The Aristonicus scholia twice, how
with avt7alytypcara and neighbouring verses of similar se
marked with 7atytatc.'0' The explanations of the anti
puncto offered in the Paris list and by Isidore - anti
quorum ordo permutandus erat... antisigma cum puncto
uersus duplices essent et dubitaretur, qui potius legendi
to some extent by those correctly given for the asteriscu
The same muddle appears in the first of the two sets o

Bibl. Naz. Vittore Emmanuele gr. 6, fol. 3 - 3 - b SaVTt

:vrAAayatzvov9ros i-irOVs KatL TarcrSV7ag. D-7T 6S EvT'acLtytia 7rEPLETLY/LrEvov rrapa-rTLO-
E-aLt, "rav -rav70oAoy- Ka' 7--7v a7A-r v 6L-votav 867ErpOV hA~y.102 Between this muddle
and the true situation as implied by the Aristonicus scholia lie a statement in the second

of the Rome sets of explanations -'D r 7t & v' 6 taLyla Ka rT-j -rTLty1, ~7a v;O v oaL
6tavotaL TrO aVrT UT7/JalvovUaT, ov 7t To7rov ytEypaPW670T0S ALoTEpaS, OIrcWS -7V ETErpav
ArTaL r-c^i 6 Xp6V KaZ al s6o E~pd~Oraav obK ?pO( ~XovoaL - and one in the list
in cod. London, B.L. Harl. 5693, fol. 2r - A CT vl/ytea Kla at 6vo GTLytLal, OTaV
KaT TE "r~ qo -Si T a?TAra v6'ita KELIEVOV. Kat E-rrl tLEPv To) rrpoTEpov "T'OEratL "T
v-ra1ytza, rElT L6 Troi 6EVT"pov at 86i0 a8rty7al. No agreement has established itself
among modern scholars about the precise way in which Aristarchus used the
av7Ttatyta and the a9rty[/arLtyytac,1o3 and I should plead here only that the evidence
offered by the Paris list and others be treated as a whole and the individual items
regarded with the greatest suspicion. If, however, I am right in thinking that the
doctrine on the antisigma cum puncto/av'riaty/ia rITptLEartytLEPov in the Paris list and
the first Rome list is mistaken, it would be reasonable to hypothesise a common Greek
source for these two lists.1'4 The references to the practice of Latin grammarians in
the Paris list would be a secondary addition.
The other four/five signs relating to the content of verses, i simplex ductus (~
r- paragraphus... - positura [Isidore]), . coronis, - auersa obelismene, and
*_ obelus cum puncto ( ~ obelus superne adpunctus [Isidore]),'s0 are not found at all
in Greek accounts of Aristarchuis. The item <- auersa obelismene t in ore t ponitur
quae ad aliquid respiciunt, ut 'nosne tibifluxas Frygiae' has a striking correspondence
with one in the list of notae simplices, namely -> alienus et superuacuus. It may be an
intruder from this list. The remaining items could all be entirely to do with Greek texts.
Isidore's I paragraphus ponitur ad separandas res a rebus, quae in conexu
concurrunt, quemadmodum in Catalogo loca a locis et regiones a regionibus, in Agone

praemia a praemiis, certamina a diuersis certaminibus separantur. , positura est

101 Schol. A Hornm. II. 2.192, 203; 8.535-7. Cf. Ammonius ap. Nemesio ap. schol. A Hornm. II.
10.397-9 (verses repeating 10.310-12). For Aristophanes' use of the aolyta and the avrltaty/La
see schol. Hornm. Od. 5.247-8, schol. Aristoph. Ran. 153.
102 Cf. the function given to the ivraLy/Lta 7TEpLEarTLyEiVov in Diogenes Laertius' account of

an 103
edition of Plato's
See Wolf, op. cit. Dialogues (7rpos
(n. 24), ccLvoI n. 43Trs 8tTT"S
(= ed. 2, 158 XpIELS. K(atLop./ETaOaELSt
n. 43), Lehrs, TrWV
cit. (n. 25), 362 (= ed.ypatov).
3, 340-1), G. G. Pluygers, 'De carminum Homericorum ueterumque in ea scholiorum... retrac-
tanda editione', Progr. Leyden, 1847, 3, Sengebusch, op. cit. (n. 97), 25. Ludwich, op. cit. (n.
25), I, 20, 22, 209, 318, 11, 139, Susemihl, loc. cit. (n. 98), Gudeman, 'Krit. Zeich.' (n. 52), 1923-4,
G. Jachmann, Nachr. d. Ak. d. Wiss. in Gbttingen, Phil-hist. Ki., 223 n. 1 (= Textgeschichtliche
Studien, ed. C. Gnilka [Konigstein/Ts, 1982], 882 n. 1), K. Nickau, Untersuchungen zur
textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos (Berlin-New York, 1977), 260-3.
104 One would talk more accurately of a common source to the source of the Paris list and
Isidore on the one hand (see above), and the source of the Rome and Venice lists (see Lameere,
op. cit. [n. 75], 42-3, 244-8) on the other.
105 What Isidore reports makes it clear that - obelus adpunctus in the actual list is corrupt.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 156 H. D. JOCELYN

figura paragrapho contraria et ideo

fines aprincipiis separat shows the
inter uersus ponebatur ad separandas
(in) Catalogo, cum loca a locis aut (r
a praemiis, certamina a diuersis cert
source of the two accounts must b

(the Ka--dAoyos VEWv) and 23.257-89

adapter transliterated the term rr
technical terms of the Greek treat
Latinisms (like simplex ductus) and
The item L coronis in fine libri po
sign called the Kopwv' was frequent
poetry in rolls of the Imperial period
into which Aristarchus was believed
The second of the Rome sets of ex

the KopwvL's to mark off the pre

suggest that the ultimate source lis
kind which is now to be read in the
The item - obelus cum puncto ad
related in some way to 3 antisigma
duplices essent et dubitaretur qui
avrtLaLy/l a 7rptLEartypvov and th
express doubt, Aristarchus used dif
in question occurred elsewhere.
Four signs clustering in the mi

(- diple 6floAtLvE'v [Isidore]), th

[Isidore]), the > diple superne obe
obelatae (Rdiple recta et aduersa
related shapes and functions.112 The
patterns,113 of scene, of time or of
What is alleged here has obviously
the marginal signs in the Alexandr
KOpCoLVs, a rrapTypacOs, an aUT
flAdovaa L8trAi~,114 and the accou

106 It is to be observed that Virgil's imi

(books 7, 5).
107 See Meleager, A.P. 12.257, Ma
G. M. Stephen, Scriptorium 13 (1959),
108 See [Plut.] Vit. Hornm. 2.4, p. 25.22
5.29-36 ed. Rom.

109 The statement also occurs in the Venice material (with lqb&>vwro instead of the correct
vovwvro). For discussion see H. Diels, SB Berlin Ak. Wiss. (1894), 357 n. 3, Lameere, op. cit.
(n. 75), 42-53, Erbse, Gymnasium 69 (1962), 76, S. West, op. cit. (n. 52), 18-24.
110 See above, nn. 101-3.
1I The four signs come 13th-16th in the sequence of explanations given by the Paris codex
(15th, 16th, 18th, 19th in the Isidorean sequence), and 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th in the preceding
list.
112 One might suppose that at some stage the tradition lost a < auersa superne obelata.
113 Isidore makes clear the function that the source attributed to > < (> ...poniturfinita
loco suo monade, significatque similem sequentem quoque esse). See also Caesius Bassus, Gramm.
Lat. VI 266.18-267.2.
114 Pp. 73.12-76.16.

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 157
Aristophanes of the signs used by Heliodorus in his ed
a Kopwvlt, a aTrA-q, a single t6rrTAq, two 6STrAa, a
Abbreviation and corruption affect all three accounts
be drawn from the differences between them.116 It is
Latin account gives to two of its signs (--< obelus cu
obelata) functions which make sense only in terms of f
No Roman dramatist ever employed strophic responsion
or demanded a change of scene within a script.118 The
be considered to derive without Latin additions from o
marginally annotated Greek texts.
The functions of the last five signs of the Paris list11
could apply to both Greek and Latin writings. Three of

two with
once of them Latin ones.
Aristarchus' The
second alogusOf(~the
K~oatgS " 7Iliad,121
Aoyog once
[ypapCp,-q]) is elsewhere
with a pre-Didymus textassociated
of a Lesbian lyric poet, probably Alcaeus,122 and once with a text of an Aristophanic
comedy.123 Servius reports Probus as having placed it against a passage of anomalous
syntax.'24 No use is reported of the P chi et ro (~ crisimon [Isidore]), the P/fi et ro,

115 On Heliodorus see C. Thiemann, HAIOAQPOY APIITOc(ANEIOI KQAOMETPIA

(Diss. Halle, 1868), 21-43, Heliodori colometriae aristophaneae quantum superest una cum
reliquis scholiis in Aristophanem metricis (Halle, 1869 [pp. 95-136 on the signs]), O. Hense,
Heliodorische Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1870), 35-72, RE 8.1 (1912), 28-40 (32), M. Cons-
bruch,'De ueterum rrEpt nrot(tLafros doctrina', Bresl. Phil. Abhandl. v, 3 (Breslau, 1890), 52-67,
C. Conradt, 'Ueber die Semeiotik des Heliodoros', NJbb 151 (1895), 273-7, W. G. Rutherford,
op. cit. (n. 50), 88-92, J. W. White, The Verse of Greek Comedy (London, 1912), 384-421,
D. Holwerda, 'De Heliodori commentario metrico in Aristophanen', Mnemosyne 4, 17 (1964),
113-39, 4, 20 (1967), 247-72 (247-8, 254-6, 263), Pfeiffer, op. cit. (n. 25), 189. A somewhat
simpler set of colometrical signs is described in the old scholia to Pindar (see Irigoin, op. cit.
[n. 60], 49-52).
"ll Despite the differing names for the sign, there are striking similarities between the Latin
note > diple superne obelata ponitur ad condicionem locorum uel temporum uel personarum
mutatam and Greek accounts of the scenic Kopwvi9, most particularly with one in the Byzantine
treatise on tragedy published from cod. Oxford, Bodl. Libr. Barocci 131, fol. 415, by R. Browning,
FEPAZ. Studies presented to George Thomson (Prague, 1963), 67-81 (? 10) ' S Kopwcvl's
lEPOUV' EUTL UaqEiov, OTrav ol V7r7TOKPLt'L EEAO0V7ES "rS 7 UKIV TjS 16vov 7"'V XopOv KacraAEL'7rovcr ,
l tE7TErEa AOWEWaU 7raAV, 6i6"rav ,Kat "rv r6rTOV 7Tv alAA'at, Katc T67rov c Xopov, Katc 6Aov
7Ovy luOOV, &pX 6i 7TELTOoloU ~ j EEU7 rev). It may be that a desire to keep this sign distinct
from the narrative coronis (T coronis tantum in fine libri posita inuenitur) caused a compiler of
the Latin list to seek a new name. The use of obelus rather than *paragraphus may also evidence
a desire to harmonise.
"7 This point is made by Gudeman, 'Krit. Zeich.' (n. 52), 1926.
118 See Aesch. Eum. 234, 488, P. Oxy, 20.2257 (on the A7rvi7 and the 'AXctA Aiw9 paa-ral of
Aeschylus), Soph. Ai. 815, Aristoph. Ach. 394, Equ. 722 (the 86o 8t7rAa mentioned in schol.
EF3 have often been thought to indicate the change of scene), Ran. 180, Thesm. 277 (P.S.I. 1194
[A.D. ii] has a Kopwvki in the margin). For avoidance of scene change by the Latin dramatists
see H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge, 1967), 165, Entretiens Fond. Hardt
17 (1972), 57.
119 Isidore also puts these signs last, and in their company the coronis.
120 The term crux (see Asconius ap. Philarg. Virg. Buc. 3.105) may have been used by some
Latin writers to denote the &Aoyos.
121 Schol. A Hom. II. 16.613...Ivy 7r SEvr"paL &Aoyos abrWC 7TapoKELTO (from Didymus).
Lehrs, op. cit. (n. 25), 362 (= ed. 3, 341), changed a&Aoyo- here to f39EA6ss; cf. Ludwich,
op. cit. (n. 25), 19 n. 20, 21 n. 23.
122 See P. Oxy. 15.1788, add. P. Oxy. 21, p. 142 (= ad Alcaeus F 3 b. 40c, p. 167 L-P).
123 Heliodorus ap. schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 1283e expresses bewilderment about T7rnotL ErrTdt
EXOVTESi
124 Virg.AULenL~ 1L Ka ov.
Aen. 10.444.

6 OCQ

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 158 H. D. JOCELYN

the 'T ancora superior, or the J, anc

Isidore and the author of the mate
question had to do with literary
companions as having to do with p
were attached rather than to the v
the first century B.C. commentar
Pap. 2055 (P. Oxy. 8.1086), a comm

precede lemmata explained accordin

sign xP appears a number of times
Psalms is equipped with a system o
particular notes.128 I should sugges
to do with commentaries rather tha
quite distinct from the other two
What we now read in cod. Paris,
thus can hardly have lurking un
knowledgeably composed account o
texts with marginal signs. It is
twelve/thirteen signs is taken fro
in editing Homer, that the discuss
scenic texts and that the final fiv
originally distinct accounts togeth
solis in adnotationibus t hennii luci
aeque t et postremo Probus, qui i
Homero Aristarchus would have be
likewise item Probus et antiqui nos
item Probus et antiqui nostri to th
similiter in nostris auctoribus Pr
likewise t in his t et nostri ea usi s
likewise sic et apud nostros to th
discussion of the auersa obelismene
interloper. To attempt to construct
is foolish. All that can be said is that the author of the additions lived some time after
the first century A.D.,133 and that he or his source knew of texts of Virgil, Horace and
Lucretius annotated by Probus and texts of earlier authors134 annotated by earlier
125 Cassiodorus used a 'chresimon' to mark orthodox opinions in biblical commentaries which
he read (see Inst. 1.9.3); an 'achresimon'/'achriston' to mark the unorthodox (1.1.8, 1.9.3).
126 The material relates to historici as well as to poets. For the use of signs in the margins
of prose writers see above, n. 64.
127 Cf. P. Oxy. 13 (1919). 1611.56, where xP marks the beginning of a quotation of Acusilaus
in a grammatical treatise.
'28 X indicates 'dogmata ualde necessaria'; see Corpus Christianorum ser. lat. XCVII
(Turnhout, 1958), 2. Cf. above, n. 125.
129 Cf. the way in which the names of Crates and Aristarchus are added to the discussion of
the rrEptLEartLy v7 E TrrA in the second Venice list (~ the second Rome list).
130 Not sensibly, since two distinct Greek uses had been described.
13 Not sensibly, since the use of the sign to mark disagreement with Zenodotos had been
described. Cf. Gudeman, 'Krit Zeich.' (n. 52), 1920.
132 A discussion which we have shown, above, to muddle the Greek facts.
133 Probus is certainly made the last in a line of sign-using Latin grammarians, but neither
the distance between him and the others nor that between him and the person responsible for
the statements about Latin practice is made clear.
134 Bergk rightly recognised Ennius and Lucilius. L. Mueller was wrong to change historicorum
to scaenicorum (NJbb 87 [1863], 176); see Leo, Geschichte der rimischen Literatur I (Berlin, 1913),
359 n. 1. Aristarchus is now known to have written an vrr6vrltpia on Herodotus I (P. Amherst

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 159
grammarians.'35 We cannot deduce that texts of Virgil, H
only ones he knew or that at the time of writing these we
had annotated.136 We cannot attribute to Probus all the
consuerunt137 or use what is said about the diple obelism
the diple superne obelata and the recta et auersa superne
history of the text of any Latin scenic poet.138 It is intere
in writing the history of grammatical study at Rome
eccentrically interested in older writers ousted from th
my hypothetical maker of additions made him the first
classics.140 The contradiction is apparent rather than rea
of emphasis suggests quite strongly that behind the Par
someone other than Suetonius.
Consideration of the first Paris list has not contributed very much to our
understanding of what Probus was up to, except to destroy some of the apparent
evidence. A little more can be got from the second list. To judge by the title DE NOTIS
PROBIANIS it could be an epitome of a section of Suetonius' HIEp'L rTv v To^s
SLflAoL'S tr7/LELWOV; more likely, however, it abbreviates a work devoted to discussion
of the way Probus annotated his texts, a work similar to a number of Greek works
about Aristarchus put out in the course of the first century A.D., for example
Philoxenus' HEpLt UarlL)Elwv r&v Ev r 'IALdi3t'' or Aristonicus' HTEpt rJv ir 'IALtc3os
arlLELwov or TIEpL rTWV T7TS 'OVUraEaaiS Ur)t.ELWV or HEpL TWV Ur7)t/ELWV TWV EV
OEoyovlia 'Hao6ov142 or Seleucus' Kair rwv 'APLTarPXov OryeELWV. 4 From the
existence of such a work it would follow that the Probian Aeneid was in format and

2.12 [London, 1901]), although that does not necessarily mean that he was also responsible for
an EK(OUt of the text. Schol. Thuc. 3.84.1 shows that there existed annotated texts of the other
classical Greek historian.
135 The presence of Aelius (Stilo) may be accepted, although Bergk preferred Laelius
(Archelaus). All else is in doubt. For conjectures and discussion see F. Della Corte, Lafilologia
latina dalle origini a Varrone (Turin, 1937), 74 n. 3, S. F. Bonner, Hermes 88 (1960), 358-9,
S. Timpanaro, Contributi difilologia e di storia della lingua latina (Rome, 1978), 84-5, Zetzel,
op. cit. (n. 4), 15-17.
136 As Aistermann did, op. cit. (n. 4), 10.
137 As Bergk did, op. cit. (n. 57), 85 (= Ki. phil. Schr. I 585), Ribbeck, op. cit. (n. 80), 150,
Leo, Pl. Forsch.2 (n. 4), 32 n. 2.
138 As C. Questa does, RCCM 7 (1965), 925 n. 19, QUCC 1 (1966), 20, Due cantica delle
Bacchides (Rome, 1967), 70 n. 19, RFIC 102 (1974), 179, 186, 188, in La critica testuale
greco-latina oggi, metodi e problemi ed. E. Flores (Rome, 1981), 160.
139 Gramm. 24.2-3. See part I.
140 Just when the auctores studied by Varro, Cicero and Caesar were replaced in the schools
of the capital is not at all clear from our evidence. It was no ordinary school in which Q. Caecilius
Epirota lectured on Virgil and alii poetae noui (Sueton. Gramm. 16.3). Virgil, Lucretius and
Horace would have been in a sense antiqui by the time they were commonly read in preference
to Ennius and Lucilius. The first clear sign of Virgil's classical status is in anecdotes like those
about Caligula (Sueton. Cal. 34.2) and Remmius Palaemon (Sueton. Gramm. 23.4). Persius'
detailed knowledge of Horace's poetry and the story told in his biography (51-3) that he read
Lucilius only after leaving the school of Remmius Palaemon provide the earliest evidence for
the rise of Horace and the fall of Lucilius. Tacitus separated Lucretius from Virgil and Horace,
putting him with Lucilius, Sisenna, Varro and Calvus (Dial. [a work with a mid-seventies
dramatic setting] 23.2). On the other hand, Seneca, no lover of the poets of the old Republican
syllabus (see Dial. 5.37.5, Epist. 58.5, Gell. 12.2.1-8), cited Lucretius quite often. Quintilian cited
him twice and mentioned him with respect as the next best hexameter poet after Virgil (Inst.
10. 1.87; 12.11.27).
141 Suda Iv 729.6.
142 Suda I 356.31-2.
143 P. Oxy. 2.221, col. xv. 16-17 (Ammonius on Hom. Il. 21.290 [= Schol. Il. v 107 Erbse]).

6-2

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 160 H. D. JOCELYN

purpose very much like one of th

a single text marked by Probus f
was not meant to instruct a large
a Byzantine text of the Iliad eq
anachronistic. Probus' fame survi
which were thought, whether rig
What the symbolic annotations m
them. Probus' actual writings, un
surprisingly, the content of the li
other reports.'47 At any rate it can
by Probus had no effect at all on
If the second list and its explanat
mode of operation can be made:
Aristarchus had done;149 his sign

as with that of 8t6pOowats..15

adnotare curauit, soli huic nec ull
exposed as a distortion of the fac
the first at Rome to treat in the
Virgil and Horace, could not have
that the Iliad and the Odyssey ha
Aristarchus got to work on them
gathered from a wide geographi
Probus' mode of operation should
It is wrong, however, to argue th
rather than a grammatical method
and rhetoric did affect each other. And more so at Rome than in Greek communities.152

We have to guess, it is true, about the precise nature of the functions attributed to
the so-called notae simplices, but do not need to look outside the grammatical
tradition. The items " repugnans and H X recte positus et pugnanti contrarius
clearly have to do with the interpolation of an original text.15 3 > bis dictum and O
superuacuus could as well criticise the verbal style of the original as suggest
interpolation.154 D alienus uersus could accuse a scribe of interpolation or the original

144 Even if Gellius' stories about Probus are fictitious (see nn. 5-7) they attest a considerable
reputation for him in the second century. Schol. Ver. Virg. Aen. 9.369 suggests that C. Sulpicius
Apollinaris thought his opinions worth citing.
145 On the dubious authenticity of some of the literary manuscripts referred to by Gellius and
others see G. P. Goold, HSCPh 74 (1970), 160-2, Zetzel, HSCPh 77 (1973), 235-43,
L. A. Holford-Strevens, LCM 7, 5 (1982), 67.
146 With Sueton. Gramm. 24.5 contrast Suda I 351, 24-5 (s.v. 3892 'ApLUTapXos).
147 See part III.
148 As Scivoletto and Biichner (above n. 4) seem to argue.
149 See above, n. 98.
150 How much Aristarchus was concerned with purely aesthetic judgements is unclear. The
Paris list mentions verses marked with the obelus ipsius Homeri proprios sed non eo dignos (for
the notion of Homer occasionally slipping see Lucil, 344-7, Hor. Ars 359-60, [Longin.], Subl.
9.14, 33.4, 36.2).
151 Cf. Aistermann, op. cit. (n. 4), 11-13 (arguing that the notae simplices had to do with
rhetorical exercises), Scivoletto, op. cit. (n. 4), 114-15 (= Studi, 194-6).
152 Cf. Sueton. Gramm. 4.6-10.

153 Cf. for the phraseology schol. A Hom. 11. 20.269-72 /idaXETa 8' a oaS C70r yv-qdoS,
schol. Ver. Virg. Aen. 9.369 adnotant... contrarium illi esse 'sepsit se ... habenas' (7.600).
1'" For StaaoAoyla as a reason for deletion see schol. A. Hom. 11. 1.474. For the topic of
7rEptaaLO7r), see Ammonius, Hom. 11. 21.290 (P. Oxy. 2.221, col. xv.25-6), schol. T Hom. II.
1.189-93, schol. A II. 1.295 et al., Serv. Dan. Virg. Aen. 1.21 hi duo si eximantur nihilominus sensus

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 M. VALERIVS PROBVS (II) 161

author of plagiarism.155 M malum metrum aut aprepes

contra historiam, - praepositum sine consequente, c
metafrasis Latina, 0Q metafrasis Graeca, 0P F metafra
associated at all with tL6powats. The source, however, o
his arrangement of it,158 and his particular imitations of
of interest among the great Alexandrian grammarian
whereas the rhetoricians and those affected by their w
past as a source of models for emulation, Probus is
Probianis as a critic interested above all in the detection of faults. However much his
emphases and methods diverged in detail, he clearly stood in a direct line of descent
from Aristarchus. He was no ordinary grammaticus and it is likely enough that his
'editions', besides provoking the curiosity of those interested in semiotics, would have
enjoyed some prestige with those who thought critical problems important in the study

of literature. (Part III will follow.)

University of Manchester H. D. JOCELYN

integer erit, 4.418 Probus sane sic adnotauit 'si hunc uersum
quibusdam uidetur hunc uersum omitti potuisse, 8.731 hunc
et humiliter additum. The symbol 0 is elsewhere associated
9.334-5 (talking of his cousin Probus as a critic of bad verse
bonus applicare theta; Auson. Epigr. 87.12. The Cava essay
77), lists a theta in amputandis.
155 For the iAA6-rpLoo a-rtXo see schol. A Hom. 11. 1.365. O
ap. Athen. 11.508c-d (FGrH 115 F 259), Porph. ap. Euseb.
6.2, Diog. Laert. 2.97, 3.57, Vitruv. 7 praef. 4-7, Donat. Vit. V
easily separable from that of tLETrapacuL (see below, n. 159
(alienus et superuacuus), could have had to do only with int
1,6 It seems likely that Probus used two signs to mark tw
that our list has suffered corruption. For metrical criticism
Rufin. Gramm. Lat. vI 561.8-10 (on Plaut. Aul. IV 9 ac
anapaestico metro est. sed concisa sunt, ut non intellegas, S
(cf. Georg. 2.82, Aen. 3.535 [citing Donatus], 4.132, 5.299, 1
caret scansione, 3.336 contra metrum (cf. 3.636, 4.22, 10.
animaduertendum autem uersum hunc sine caesura esse. For cri
see comm. anon. P. Oxy. 8.1086, col. ii.63-73 (on Aristarc
A Hornm. II. 1.29-31, 3.423, 4.345-6, 14.1, 24.130-2, schol. H
Ver. Virg. Aen. 5.488, Probus ap. Donat. Ter. Phorm. 1005
Virg. Aen. 8.731.

5' For the explanation of TI (contra historiam) cf. schol. P

7.9b, schol. Soph. Trach. 633, Phil. 425, 445, schol. Eurip.
The phrase rap' aL'rop[av got into common parlance (see C
CR 15 [1901], 155 [= Class. Pap. 1n 536-7]). For the duty o
historia see Cic. De orat. 1.187, Quintil. Inst. 1.8.18. 'Histo
of the heroic period. For concern about Virgil's departur
Hyginus ap. Gell. 10.16, Macrob. Sat. 5.17.5, 5.22.9 (Probus
8.493.
1'? The explanations of- (praepositum sine consequente) and * (consequens sine praeposito)
are not entirely clear. For the general topic see schol. A Hom. II. 7.443, 20.269-72, 24.614-17,
Hor. Ars 41-3, Serv. Virg. Aen. 2.668, 7.601, 8.40, 9.365, 10.157, 331 (Donatus), 12.120, 124,
357.
1,9 For the topic of dependence on a previous author see, where Greek literature is concerned,
Glaucus in hyp. Aesch. Pers. (on the beginning of the Aeschylean tragedy and that of one by

Phrynichus), schol. Pind. Pyth. 4.507 (r- X^ 0-tL EK T-V HHat80ov "Epyw)v E'A?7Twr-a), Theon,
Progymn. in Rhet. Gr. n 62.22-63.30). On passages of Virgil dependent on Greek literature see
Macrob. Sat. 5 passim, Serv. Dan. Virg. Aen. 1.94 et al. For dependence on older Latin authors
see Macrob. Sat. 6.1-2, Serv. Dan. Virg. Aen. 1.44 et al. For dependence on both Greek and
Latin predecessors see Macrob. Sat. 6.3, Serv. Virg. Aen. 6.625. The topic was considered
important both in 'L6pOwaots (cf. Gell. 1.21) and in KpiULS (cf. Gell. 17.10, Serv. Dan. Virg. Aen.
8.625).

This content downloaded from

212.128.135.12 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:21:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms