Marcus Terentius Varro
was born in 116 B.C., probably at Reate in the Sabine country, where his
family, which was of equestrian rank, possessed large estates. He was a student
under L. Aelius Stilo Praeconinus, a scholar
of the equestrian order, widely versed in Greek and Latin literature and
especially interested in the history and antiquities of the Roman people. He
studied philosophy at Athens, with Antiochus of Ascalon. With his tastes thus
formed for scholarship, he none the less took part in public life, and was in
the campaign against the rebel Sertorius in Spain, in 76. He was an officer
with Pompey in the war with the Cilician
pirates in 67, and presumably also in Pompey 's campaign against Mithradates.
In the Civil War he was on Pompey 's side, first in Spain and then in Epirus
and Thessaly. He was pardoned by Caesar, and lived quietly at Rome, being
appointed librarian of the great collection of Greek and Latin books which
Caesar planned to make. After Caesar's assassination, he was pro- scribed by
Antony, and his villa at Casinum, with his personal library, was destroyed. But
he himself escaped death by the devotion of friends, who concealed him, and he
secured the protection of Octavian. He lived the remainder of his life in peace
and quiet, devoted to his -writings, and died in 27 B.C., in his eighty-ninth
year. Throughout his life he wrote assiduously. His works number seventy-four,
amounting to about six hundred and twenty books ; they cover virtually all fields
of human thought : agriculture, grammar, the history and antiquities of Rome,
geography, law, rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics and astronomy, education, the
history of literature and the drama, satires, poems, orations, letters. Of all
these only one, his De Re Rustica or Treatise on Agriculture, in three books,
has reached us complete. His De Lingua Latina or On the Latin Language, in twenty-five
books, has come down to us as a torso.; only Books V. to X. are extant, and
there are serious gaps in these. The other works are represented by scattered
fragments only. The grammatical works of Varro, so far as we know them, were
the following : De Lingua Latina, in twenty-five books, a fuller account of
which is given below. De Antiquitate Litterarum, in two books, addressed to the
tragic poet L. Accius, who died about 86 b.c. ; it was therefore one of Varro
's earliest writings. De Origine Linguae Latinae, in three books, addressed to
Pompey. Ylzpl XapaKTrjpuv, in at least three books, on the formation of words. Quaestiones
Plautinae, in five books, containing interpretations of rare words found in the
comedies of Plautus. De Similitudine Verborum, in three books, on regularity in
forms and words. De Utilitate Sermonis,
in at least four books, in which he dealt with the principle of anomaly or irregularity.
De Sermone Latino, in five books or more, addressed to Marcellus, which treats
of orthography and the metres of poetry. DiscipUnae,
an encyclopaedia on the liberal arts, in nine books, of which the first dealt
with Grammatica. The extant fragments of these works, apart from those of the
De Lingua Latina, may be found in the Goetz and Schoell edition of the De
Lingua Latina, pages 199-242 ; in the collection of Wilmanns, pages 170-223 ;
and in that of Funaioli, pages 179-371 (see the Bibliography). Varro's treatise
On the Latin Language was a work in twenty-five books, composed in 47 to 45
B.C., and published before the death of Cicero in 43. The first book was an
introduction, containing at the outset a dedication of the entire work to
Cicero. The remainder seems to have been divided into four sections of six
books each, each section being by its subject matter further divisible into two
halves of three books each. Books II.-VII. dealt with the impositio vocabulorum,
or how words were originated and applied to things and ideas. Of this portion,
Books II. -IV. were probably an earlier smaller work entitled De Etymologia or
the like ; it was separately dedicated to one Septumius or Septimius, who had
at some time, which we cannot now identify, served Varro as quaestor. Book II.
presented the arguments which were advanced against Etymology as a branch of learning
; Book III. presented those in its favour as a branch of learning, and useful ;
Book IV. discussed its nature. Books V.- VI I. start with a new dedication to
Cicero. They treat of the origin of words, the sources from which they come,
and the manner in which new words develop. Book V. is devoted to words which
are the names of places, and to the objects which are in the places under
discussion ; VI. treats words denoting time-ideas, and those which contain some
time-idea, notably verbs ; VII. explains rare and difficult words which are met
in the writings of the poets. Books VIII.-XIII. dealt with derivation of words from
other words, including stem-derivation, declension of nouns, and conjugation of
verbs. The first three treated especially the conflict between the principle of
Anomaly, or Irregularity, based on consuetude* ' popular usage,'
and that of Analogy, or Regularity of a proportional character, based on ratio '
relation ' of form to form. VIII. gives the arguments against the existence of
Analogy, IX. those in favour of its existence, X. Varro
's own solution of the conflicting views, with his decision in favour of its
existence. XI.-XIII. discussed Analogy in derivation, in the wide sense given
above : probably XI. dealt with nouns of place and
associated terms, XII. with time-ideas, notably verbs, XIII. with poetic words,
Books XIV.-XIX. treated of syntax. Books XX.- XXV. seem to have continued the
same theme,
but probably with special
attention to stylistic and rhetorical embellishments. Of these twenty-five
books, we have to-day, apart from a few brief fragments, only Books V. to X.,
and in these there are several extensive gaps where the manuscript tradition
fails. The fragments of the De Lingua Latina, that is, those quotations or paraphrases
in other authors which do not correspond to the extant text of Books V.-X., are not numerous nor
long. The most considerable of them are passages in the Nodes Atticae of Aulus Gellius
ii. 25 and xvi. 8. They may be found in the edition of Goetz and Schoell, pages
3, 146, 192-198, and in the Collections
of Wilmanns and Funaioli (see the Bibliography). It is hardly possible to
discuss here even summarily Varro's linguistic theories, the sources upon which
he drew, and his degree of independence of thought and procedure. He owed much
to his teacher Aelius Stilo, to whom he refers frequently, and he draws heavily
upon Greek predecessors, of course, but his practice has much to commend it :
he followed neither the Anomalists nor the Analogists to the extreme of their
theories, and he preferred to derive Latin words from Latin sources, rather
than to refer practically all to Greek origins. On such topics reference may be
made to the works of Barwick, Kowalski, Dam, Dahlmann, Kriegshammer, and
Frederik Muller, and to the articles of Wolfflin in the eighth volume of the Archiv
fur lateinische Lexikographie, all listed in our Bibliography. The text of the
extant books of the De Lingua Latina is believed by most scholars to rest on
the manuscript here first listed, from which (except for our No. 4) all other
known manuscripts have been copied, directly or indirectly. 1. Codex
Laurentianus li. 10, folios 2 to 34, parchment, written in Langobardic
characters in the eleventh century, and
now in the Laurentian Library at Florence. It is known
as F. F was examined by Petrus Victorius and Iacobus Diacetius in 1521 (see the
next paragraph) ; by Hieronymus Lagomarsini in 1740 ; by Heinrich Keil in 1851
; by Adolf Groth in 1877 ; by Georg Schoell in 1906. Little doubt can remain as
to its actual readings. 2. In 1521, Petrus Victorius and Iacobus Diacetius collated
F with a copy of the editio princeps of the De Lingua Latina, in which they
entered the differences which they observed. Their copy is preserved in Munich,
and despite demonstrable errors in other portions, it has the value of a
manuscript for v. 119 to vi. 61, where a quaternion has since their time been lost
in F. For this portion, their recorded readings are known as Fv ; and the
readings of the editio princeps, where they have recorded no variation, are known
as (Fv). 3. The Fragmentum Cassinense (called also Excerptum and Epitome), one
folio of Codex Cassinensis 361, parchment, containing v. 41 Capitolium dictum
to the end of v. 56 ; of the eleventh century. It was probably copied direct
from F soon after F was written, but may possibly have been copied from the archetype
of F. It is still at Monte Cassino, and was transcribed by Keil in 1848. It was
published in facsimile as an appendix to Sexti Iulii Frontini de aquaeductu
Urbis Romae, a phototyped reproduction of the entire manuscript, Monte Cassino,
1930. 4. The grammarian Priscian, who flourished about a.d. 500, transcribed
into his De Figuris Numerorum Yarro's passage on coined money, beginning with multa,
last word of v. 168, and ending with Nummi denarii decuma libella, at the
beginning of v. 174. The passage is given in H. Keil's Grammatici Latini iii.
410-411. There are many manuscripts, the oldest and most important being Codex
Parisinus 7496, of the ninth century. 5. Codex Laurentianus li. 5, written at
Florence in 1427, where it still remains ; it was examined by Keil. It is known
as^*. 6. Codex Havniensis, of the fifteenth century; on paper, small quarto, 108
folia ; now at Copenhagen. It was examined by B. G. Niebuhr for Koeler, and his
records came into the hands of L. Spengel. It is known as H. 7. Codex Gothanus, parchment, of the sixteenth century, now at Gotha ; it was examined by Regel for K. O. Mueller, who published its important variants in his edition, pages 270-298. It is known as G. 8. Codex Parisinus 7489, paper, of the fifteenth century, now at Paris ; this and the next two were examined by Donndorf for L. Spengel, who gives their different readings in his edition, pages 661-718. It is known as a. 9- Codex Parisinus 6142, paper, of the fifteenth century ; it goes only to viii. 7 declinarentur. It is known as b, 10. Codex Parisinus 7535, paper, of the sixteenth century ; it contains only v. 1-122, ending with dictae. It is known as c. 11. Codex Vindobonensis lxiii., of the fifteenth century, at Vienna ; it was examined by L. Spengel n 1835, and its important variants are recorded in the apparatus of A. Spengel's edition. It is known as V. 12. Codex Basiliensis F iv. 13, at Basel; examined by L. Spengel in 1838. It is known as p. 13. Codex Guelferbytanus 896, of the sixteenth century, at Wolfenbiittel ; examined by Schneidewin for K. O. Mueller, and afterwards by L. Spengel. It is known as M. 14. Codex B, probably of the fifteenth century, now not identifiable ; its variants were noted by Petrus Victorius in a copy of the Editio Gryphiana, and either it or a very similar manuscript was used by Antonius Augustinus in preparing the so-called Editio Vulgata. These are the manuscripts to which reference is made in our critical notes ; there are many others, some of greater authority than those placed at the end of our list, but their readings are mostly not available. In any case, as F alone has prime value, the variants of other than the first four in our list can be only the attempted improvements made by their copyists, and have accordingly the same value as that which attaches to the emendations of editors of printed editions. Fuller information with regard to the manuscripts may be found in the following : Leonhard Spengel, edition of the De Lingua Latina (1826), pages v-xviii. K. O. Mueller, edition (1833), pages xii-xxxi. Andreas Spengel, edition (1885), pages ii-xxviii. Giulio Antonibon, Supplemento di Lezioni Varianti ai libri de lingua Latina (1899) 3 pages 10-23. G. Goetz et F. Schoell, edition (1910), pages xi-xxxv. Manuscript F contains all the extant continuous text of the De Lingua Latina, except v. 119 trua quod to vi. 61 dicendojinit ; this was contained in the second quaternion, now lost, but still in place when the other manuscripts were copied from it, and when Victorius and Diacetius collated it in 1 521 . There are a number of important lacunae, apart from omitted lines or single words ; these are due to losses in its archetype. Leonhard Spengel, from the notations in the manuscript and the amount of text between the gaps, calculated that the archetype of F consisted of 16 quaternions, with these losses : Quaternion 4 lacked folios 4 and 5, the gap after v. 162. Quaternion 7 lacked folio 2, the end of vi. and the beginning of vii., and folio 7, the gap after vii. 23. Quaternion 11 was missing entire, the end of viii. And the beginning of ix. Quaternion 15 lacked folios 1 to 3, the gap after x. 23, and folios 6 to 8, the gap after x. 34. The amount of text lost at each point can be cal- tJber die Kritik der Varronischen Bucher de Lingua Latina, pp. 5-12, calculated from the fact that one folio of the archetype held about 50 lines of our text. There is a serious transposition in F, in the text of Book V. In § 23, near the end, after qui ad humum, there follows id Sabini, now in § 32, and so on to Septi- viontium, now in § 41 ; then comes demissior, now in § 23 after humum, and so on to ab hominibus, now in § 32, after which comes nominatum of § 41. Mueller," who identified the transposition and restored the text to its true order in his edition, showed that the alteration was due to the wrong folding of folios 4 and 5 in the first quaternion of an archetype of F ; though this was not the immediate archetype of F, since the amount of text on each page was different. This transposition is now always rectified in our
printed texts ; but there is probably another in the later part of Book V., which has not been remedied because the breaks do not fall inside the sentences, thus making the text unintelligible. The sequence of topics indicates that v. 115-128 should stand between v. 140 and v. 141 6 ; there is then the division by topics : General Heading v. 105 De Victu v. 105-112 De Vestitu v. 113-114, 129-133 De Instrument v. 134-140, 115-128, 141-183 a In the preface to his edition, pp. xvii-xviii. The disorder in the text had previously been noticed by G. Buchanan, Turnebus, and Scaliger, and discussed by L. Spengel, Emendationum Varronianarum Specimen I, pp. 17-19. 6 L. Spengel, Emendationum Varronianarum Specimen I, pp. 13-19, identified this transposition, but considered the transpositions to be much more complicated, with the following order: §§105-114, §§ 129-140, § 128, §§ 166-168, §§118- 127, §§ 115-117, §§ 141-165, § 169 on. Then also vi. 49 and vi. 45 may have changed places, but I have not introduced this into the present text ; I have however adopted the transfer of x. 18 from its manuscript position after x. 20, to the position before x. 19, which the continuity of the thought clearly demands. The text of F is unfortunately very corrupt, and while there are corrections both by the first hand and by a second hand, it is not always certain that the corrections are to be justified. The orthography of F contains not merely many corrupted spellings which must be corrected, but also many variant spellings which are within the range of recognized Latin orthography, and these must mostly be retained in any edition. For there are many points on which we are uncertain of Varro's own practice, and he even speaks of certain permissible variations : if we were to standardize his orthography, we should do constant violence to the best manuscript tradition, without any assurance that we were in all respects restoring Varro's own spelling. Moreover, as this work is on language, Varro has intentionally varied some spellings to suit
his etymological argument
; any extensive normalization might, and probably would, do him injustice in
some passages. Further, Varro quotes from earlier authors who used an older
orthography ; we do not
know whether Varro, in
quoting from them, tried to use their original orthography, or merely used the orthography
which was his own habitual practice. I have therefore retained for the most
part the
spellings of F, or of
the best authorities when F fails, replacing only a few of the more misleading
spellings by the familiar ones, and allowing other variations to remain. These
variations mostly fall within the following categories : 1. EI : Varro wrote EI
for the long vowel I in the nom. pi. of Decl. II (ix. 80) ; but he was probably
not consistent in writing EI everywhere. The manuscript testifies to its use in
the following: plebei (gen. ; cf. plebis vi. 91> in a quotation) v. 40, 81,
158, vi. 87 ; eidem (nom. sing.) vii. 17 (eadem F), x. 10 ; scirpeis vii. 44 ;
Terentiei (nom.), vireis Terentieis (masc), Terentieis (fem.) viii. 36 ; infeineiteis
viii. 50 (changed to infiniteis in our text, cf. (in)finitam viii. 52) ; i(e)is
viii. 51 (his F), ix. 5 ; iei (nom.) ix. 2, 35 ; hei re(e)i fer(re)ei de(e)i
viii. 70 ; hinnulei ix. 28 ; utrei (nom. pi.) ix. 65 (utre.I. F ; cf. utri ix.
65) ; (B)a(e)biei, B(a)ebieis x. 50 (alongside Caelii, Celiis). 2. AE and E : Varro,
as a countryman, may in some words have used E where residents of the city of Rome
used AE (cf. v. 97) ; but the standard ortho-
graphy has been
introduced in our text, except that E has been retained in seculum and sepio
(and its compounds : v. 141, 150, 157, 162, vii. 7, 13), which always appear in
this form. 3. OE and U : The writing OE is kept where it appears in the manuscript
or is supported by the context : moerus and derivatives v. 50, 141 bis, 143, vi.
87 ; moenere, moenitius v. 141 ; Poenicum v. 113, viii. 65 bis ; poeniendo v.
177. OE in other words is the standard orthography.
4. VO UO and VU UU :
Varro certainly wrote
only VO or UO, but the
manuscript rarely shows
VO or UO in inflectional
syllables. The examples
are novom ix. 20
(corrected from nouum in F) ; nomina-
tuom ix. 95, x. 30 (both
-tiuom F) ; obliquom x. 50 ;
loquontur vi. 1, ix. 85
; sequontur x. 71 ; clivos v. 158 ;
perhaps amburvom v. 127
(impurro Fv). In initial
syllables VO is almost
regular : volt vi. 47, etc. ;
volpes v. 101 ; volgus
v. 58, etc., but vulgo viii. 66 ;
Folcanus v. 70y etc. ;
volsillis ix. 33. Examples of the
opposite practice are
aequum vi. 71 ; duum x. 11 ;
antiquus vi. 68 ;
sequuntur viii. 25 ; confiuunt x. 50.
Our text preserves the
manuscript readings.
5. UV before a vowel :
Varro probably wrote U and
not UV before a vowel,
except initially, where his
practice may have been
the other way. The examples
are : Pacuius v. 60, vi.
6 (catulus (Fv)), 94, vii. 18, 76,
and Pacuvius v. 17, 24,
vii. 59 ; gen. Pacui v. 7, vi. 6,
vii. 22 ; Pacuium vii.
87, 88, 91 , 102 ; compluium,
impluium v. 161, and
pluvia v. 161, compluvium v. 125 ;
simpuium v. 124 bis
(simpulum codd.) ; cf. panuvellium
v. 114. Initially :
uvidus v. 24 ; uvae, uvore v. 104 ;
uvidum v. 109-
6. U and I : Varro shows
in medial syllables a
variation between U and
I, before P or B or F or M
plus a vowel. The
orthography of the manuscript
has been retained in our
text, though it is likely
that Varro regularly
used U in these types :
The superlative and
similar words : albissumum
viii. 75 ; fnigalissumus
viii. 77 ; c{a)esi(s)sumus viii.
76; intumus v. 154;
maritumae v. 113; melissumum
viii. 76 ; optumum vii.
51 ; pauperrumus viii. 77 ;
proxuma etc. v. 36, 93,
ix. 115, x. 4, 26 ; septuma etc.
ix. 30, x. 46 ler ;
Septumio v. 1, vii. 109 5 superrumo
vii. 51 ; decuma vi. 54.
Cf. proximo, optima maxima
v. 102, minimum vii.
101, and many in viii. 75-78.
Compounds of -fex and
derivatives : pontufex v. 83,
pontufices v. 83 (F 2
for pontifices) ; artufices ix. 12 ;
sacrujiciis v. 98, 124.
Cf. pontifices v. 23, vi. 54, etc. ;
artifex v. 93, ix. Ill,
etc. ; sacrificium vii. 88, etc.
Miscellaneous words :
monumentum v. 148, but
monimentum etc. v. 41 ,
vi. 49 bis ; mancupis v. 40, but
mancipium etc. v. 163,
vi. 74, 85 ; quadrupes v. 34,
but quadripedem etc.
vii. 39 bis, quadriplex etc. x. 46
etc., quadripertita etc.
v. 12 etc.
7. LUBET and LIBET :
Varro probably wrote
lubet, lubido, etc., but
the orthography varies, and the
manuscript tradition is
kept in our text : lubere
lubendo vi. 47, lubenter
vii. 89, lubitum ix. 34, lubidine
x. 56 ; and libido vi.
47, x. 60, libidinosus Libentina
Libitina vi. 47,
libidine x. 61.
8. H : Whether Varro
used the initial H according to the standard practice at Rome, is uncertain. In
the country it was likely to be dropped in pronunciation ; and the manuscript
shows variation in its use.
We have restored the H
in our text according to the
usual orthography,
except that irpices, v. 136 bis, has
been left because of the
attendant text. Examples
of its omission are
Arpocrates v. 57 ; Ypsicrates v. 88 ;
aedus ircus v. 97 ; olus
olera v. 108, x. 50 ; olitorium
v. 146 ; olitores vi. 20
; ortis v. 103, ortorum v. 146 bis,
orti vi. 20 ; aruspex
vii. 88. These are normalized in
our text, along with
certain other related spellings :
sepulchrum vii. 24 is
made to conform to the usual
sepulcrum, and the
almost invariable nichil and
nichili have been
changed to nihil and nihili.
9. X and CS : There are
traces of a writing CS for
X, which has in these
instances been kept in the text :
arcs vii. 44 {ares F) ;
acsitiosae (ac sitiose F), acsitiosa
(ac sitio a- F) vi. 66 ;
dues (duces F) x. 57.
10. Doubled Consonants :
Varro's practice in this
matter is uncertain, in
some words. F regularly
has littera (only Uteris
v. 3 has one T), but obliterata
(ix. 16, -atae ix. 21,
-at-trf v. 52), and these spellings
are kept in our text.
Communis has been made
regular, though F
usually has one M ; casus is in-
variable, except for de
cassu in cassum viii. 39, which
has been retained as
probably coming from Varro
himself. Iupiter, with
one P, is retained, because
invariable in F ; the
only exception is Iuppitri viii. 33
(iuppiti F), which has
also been kept. Numo vi. 61,
for nummo, has been kept
as perhaps an archaic
spelling. Decusis ix. 81
has for the same reason been
kept in the citation
from Lucilius. In a few words
the normal orthography
has been introduced in the
text : grallator vii. 69
bis for gralaior, grabatis viii. 32
for grabattis. For
combinations resulting from pre-
fixes see the next
paragraph.
11. Consonants of
Prefixes : Varro's usage here
is quite uncertain,
whether he kept the unassimilated
consonants in the
compounds. Apparently in some
groups he made the
assimilations, in others he did not.
The evidence is as
follows, the variant orthography
being retained in our
text :
Ad-c- : always acc-,
except possibly adcensos vii.
58 (F 2 , for acensos F
1 ).
Ad-f- : always off-,
except adfuerit vi. 40.
Ad-l- : always all-,
except adlocutum vi. 57, adlucet
vi. 79, adlatis (ablatis
F) ix. 21.
Ad-m- : always adm-,
except ammonendum v. 6,
amministrat vi. 78,
amminicula vii. 2, amminister vii. 34
(F2, for adm- F*).
Ad-s- : regularly ass-,
but also adserere vi. 64,
adsiet vi. 92, adsimus
vii. 99? adsequi viii. 8, x. 9> a^-
significare often
(always except assignificant vii. 80),
adsumi viii. 69, adsumat
ix. 42, adsumere x. 58.
Ad-sc-, ad-sp-, ad-st- :
always with loss of the D,
as in ascendere,
ascribere, ascriptos (vii. 57), ascriptivi
(vii. 56), aspicere,
aspectus, astans.
Ad-t- : always a#-,
except adtributa v. 48, and
possibly adtinuit (F 1 ,
but a^- F 2 ) ix. 59-
Con-l-, con-b-, con-m-,
con-r-: always coll-, comb-,
comm.-, corr-.
Con-p- : always comp-,
except conpernis ix. 10.
Ex-f- : always eff-,
except exfluit v. 29.
Ex-s- : exsolveret v.
176, exsuperet vi. 50, but
exuperantum vii. 18
(normalized in our text to
exsuperantum).
Ex-sc- : exculpserant v.
143.
Ex-sp- : always expecto
etc. vi. 82, x. 40, etc.
Ex-sq- : regularly
Esquiliis ; but Exquilias v. 25,
Exquiliis v. 159 (Fv)i
normalized to Esq- in our text.
Ex-st : extol v. 8, vi.
78 ; but exstat v. 3, normalized
to extat in our text.
In-l- : usually ill-,
but inlicium vi. 88 bis, 93 (illici-
tum F), 94, 95,
inliceret vi. 90, inliciatur vi. 94 ; the
variation is kept in our
text:
In-m- : always imm-,
except in (i?i)mutatis vi. 38,
where the restored
addition is unassimilated to indi-
cate the negative prefix
and not the local in.
In-p- : always imp-,
except inpos v. 4 bis (once
ineos F), inpotem v. 4
(inpotentem F), inplorat vi. 68.
Ob-c-, ob-f-, ob-p- :
always occ-, off-, opp-.
Ob-t- : always opt-, as
in optineo etc. vii. 17, 91 >
x. 19, optemperare ix.
6.
Per-l- : pellexit vi.
94, but perlucent v. 140.
Sub-c-, sub-f-, sub-p- :
always succ-, suff-, supp-,
except subcidit v. 116.
Subs- and subs- +
consonant : regularly sus- + con-
sonant, except
subscribunt vii. 107.
Sub-t- : only in
suptilius x. 40.
Trans-l- : in tralatum
vi. 77, vii. 23, 103, x. 71 ;
tralaticio vi. 55
(tranlatio Fv) and translaticio v. 32,
vi. 64- (translatio F,
tranlatio Fv), translaticiis vi. 78.
Trans-v- : in travolat
v. 118, and transversus vii. 81,
x. 22, 23, 43. '
Trans-d- : in traducere.
12. DE and DI : The
manuscript has been followed
in the orthography of
the following : directo vii. 15,
dirigi viii. 26, derecti
x. 22 bis, deriguntur derectorum
x. 22, derecta directis
x. 43, directas x. 44, derigitur
x. 74 ; deiunctum x. 45,
deiunctae x. 47.
13. Second Declension :
Nora. sing, and acc. sing,
in -uom and -uum, see 5.
Gen. sing, of nouns in
-ius : Varro used the form
ending in a single I
(cf. viii. 36), and a few such forms
stand in the manuscript
: Muci v. 5 (muti F) ; Pacui
v. 7, vi. 6, vii. 22 ;
Mani vi. 90 5 Quinti vi. 92, Ephesi
viii. 22 (ephesis F),
Plauti et Marci viii. 36, dispendi
ix. 54 (quoted, metrical
; alongside dispendii ix. 54).
The gen. in II is much
commoner ; both forms are
kept in our text.
Nom. pi., written by
Varro with EI (cf. ix. 80) ;
examples are given in 1
, above.
Gen. pi. : The older
form in -um for certain words
(denarium, centumvirum,
etc.) is upheld viii. 71,
ix. 82, 85, and occurs
occasionally elsewhere :
Velabrum v. 44,
Querquetulanum v. 49, Sabinum v.
74, etc.
Dat.-abl. pi., written
by Varro with EIS (cf. ix. 80) ;
examples are given in 1,
above, but the manuscript
regularly has IS.
Dat.-abl. pi. of nouns
ending in -ius, -ia, -turn, are
almost always written
IIS ; there are a few for which
the manuscript has IS,
which we have normalized to
IIS : Gabis v. 33,
(Es)quilis v. 50, kostis v. 98, Publicis
v. 158, Faleris v. 162,
praeverbis vi. 82 (cf. praeverbiis
vi. 38 bis), mysteris
vii. 34- (cf. mysteriis vii. 19) 5 miliaris
ix. 85 (inilitaris F).
Deus shows the following
variations : Nom. pi.
de{e)i viii. 70, dei v.
57, 58 bis, 66, 71, vii. 36, ix. 59,
dii v. 58, 144, vii. 16
; dat.-abl. pi. deis v. 122, vii. 45,
diis v. 69, 71, 182, vi.
24, 34, vii. 34.
14. Third Declension :
The abl. sing, varies
between E and I :
supellectile viii. 30, 32, ix. 46, and
supellectili ix. 20
(-lis F) ; cf. also vesperi (uespert- F)
and vespere ix. 73.
Nom. pi., where ending
in IS in the manuscript, is
altered to ES ; the
examples are mediocris v. 5 ; partis
v. 21, 56; ambonis v.
115; urbis v. 143; aedis v. 160;
compluris vi. 15 ;
Novendialis vi. 26 ; auris vi. 83 ; dis-
parilis viii. 67;
lentis'vs.. 34; omnis ix. 81; dissimilis
ix. 92.
Gen. pi. in UM and IUM,
see viii. 67. In view
of dentum viii. 67,
expressly championed by Varro,
Veientum v. 30
(uenientum F), caelestum vi. 53, Quiritum
vi. 68 have been kept in
our text.
Acc. pi. in ES and IS,
see viii. 67. Varro 's dis-
tribution of the two
endings seems to have been
purely empirical and
arbitrary, and the manuscript
readings have been
retained in our text.
15. Fourth Declension :
Gen. sing. : Gellius,
Nodes Atticae iv. 16. 1,
tells us that Varro always used
UIS in this form. Nonius
Marcellus 483-494 M. cites
eleven such forms from
Varro, but also sumpti. The
De Lingua Latina gives
the following partial examples
of this ending : usuis
ix. 4 (suis F), x. 73 (usui F), casuis
x. 50 {casuum F), x. 62
(casus his F). Examples of
this form ending in US
are kept in our text : fructus
v. 34, 134, senatus v.
87, exercitus v. 88, panus v. 105,
domus v. 162, census v.
181, mofws vi. 3, sonitus vi. 67
sensus vi. 80, wjms
viii. 28, 30 c
manus ix. 80.
Gen. pi.: For the
variation between UUM and
UOM see 4, above. The
form with one U is found
in tribum v. 56, orium
v. 66, manum vi. 64 (nianu F),
magistratum viii. 83 F),
declinatum x. 54 ; these
have been normalized in
our text to UUM (except
manum, in an archaic
formula). Note the following
forms in the manuscript
: cornuum v. 117, declinatuum
vi. 36 (-tiuum Fv), x.
31, 32, 54, sensuum vi. 80 ; tribuum
vi. 86 ; fructuum ix. 27
; casuum ix. 77, x. 14, 23, manuum
ix. 80, nominatuom
(-tiuom F) ix. 95, x. 30, nomina-
tuum x. 19-
16. Heteroclites : There
are the following : gen.
sing, plebei v. 40, 81 ,
158, vi. 87, and plebis vi. 91 ; nom.
sing, elephans and acc.
pi. elephantos vii. 39 ; abl. sing.
Titano vii. 16 ; abl.
pi. vasis v. 121 , poematis vii. 2, 36,
viii. 14, and poematibus
vii. 34.
17. Greek Forms : There
are the following : acc.
sing, analogian ix. 1,
26, 33, 34, 45, 49, 76, 79, 105,
113, 114, but also
analogiam ix. 90, 100, 110, x. 2, and
analogia(m) ix. 95, 111.
Acc. sing. Aethiopa viii. 38
(ethiopam F). Nom. pi.
Aeolis v. 25, 101, 102, 175,
Athencits viii. 35.
18. Forms of IS and IDEM
: The forms in the
manuscript are kept in
our text ; there are the follow-
ing to be noted :
Nom. sing. masc. : idem
often ; also eidem vii. 17
(eadem F), x. 10.
Nom. pi. : it v. 26, ix.
2 ; iei ix. 2, 35 ; idem ix. 19.
Dat.-abl. pi. : eis vi.
18, vii. 102, ix. 4, x. 8 ; ieis
viii. 51 (his F, but
assured by context), ix. 5 ; is vii. 5
(efo .F) ; iisdem vi. 38
; isdem vii. 8 (hisdem F), viii. 35
(hisdem F).
19. QUOM and CUM etc. :
Varro wrote quom,
quor, quoius, quoi, and
not cum, cur, cuius, cui, though
the latter spellings are
much commoner in the manu-
scripts, the readings of
which are kept in our text.
Quom is not infrequent,
being found vi. 42, 56, vii. 4,
105, viii. 1, x. 6, and
in other passages where slight
emendation is necessary.
Quor is found only cor-
rected to cur, viii. 68,
71, and hidden under quorum
corrected to quod, viii.
78. Quoius is written viii. 44,
ix. 43, x. 3, and in
other passages where emendation
is necessary. Quoi
nowhere appears, unless it should
be read for qui vi. 72,
and quoique for quoque ix. 34,
adopted in our text.
Both qui and quo are
used for the abl. sing, of the
relative, and quis and
quibus for the dat.-abl. pi., and
similar forms for
quidam. In quo is used with a plural
antecedent of any gender
: v. 108, vi. 2, 55, 82, vii. 26,
viii. 83, ix. 1, x. 8,
41.
20. ALTER and NEUTER :
Gen. alii ix. 67 is
found as well as
alierius ix. 91 ; neutri ix. 62, neutra(e)
x. 73, as well as
neutrius ix. 1 ; dat. fern, aliae x. 15.
21. Contracted Perfects
: Only the contracted
perfects are found, such
as appellarunt v. 22 etc.,
declinarit v. 7,
aberraro v. 13, appellassent ix. 69, curasse
vii. 38, consuerunt
consuessent ix. 68, consuerit ix. 14 bis ;
exceptions, novissent
vi. 60, auspicaverit vi. 86 (quoted),
nuncupavero vii. 8
(quoted), vitaverunt x. 9-
Similarly, the V is
omitted after I, as in praeterii
ix. 7, prodierunt v. 13,
expediero viii. 24, etc. ; excep-
tion, quivero v. 5 (F 2
, for quiero F 1 ).
22. PONO in Perfect :
The text always has posui
and its forms, except
twice, which we have standard-
ized : imposiverunt
viii. 8, imposierint ix. 34.
23. Gerundives : Varro
used the old form of the
gerundive and gerund
with UND in the third and
fourth conjugations, but
the forms have mostly been
replaced by those with
END. The remaining ex-
amples of the older form
are ferundo v. \Q\,ferundum
m. < 2Q,faciundo vii.
9, quaerundae vii. 35, reprehendundi
ix. 12, reprehendundus
ix. 93.
24. VERSUS : The older
forms vorto, vorti, vorsus
are not found in the
manuscript. The adverbial
compounds of versus have
(with one exception) been
retained in our text as
they appear in the manuscript :
susus versus v. 158,
susum versus ix. 65; deorsum, susum
v. 161 ; rursus vi. 46,
49, ix. 86 ; deosum versus ix. 86 ;
prostis and rustis
(rosus F) x. 52.
There are the following
printed editions of the De
Lingua Latina, some of
which appeared in numerous
reprintings :
1. Editio princeps,
edited by Pomponius Laetus ;
without statement of place
and date, but probablv
printed at Rome by
Georgius Lauer, 1471. It rests
upon a manuscript
similar to M.
A second printing, also
without place and date, but
probably printed at
Venice by Franc. Renner de
Hailbrun, 1172, was used
by Victorius and Diacetius
in recording the
readings of F, and this copy was used
by L. Spengel for his
readings of and of Laetus ; as
compared with the 1471
printing, it shows a number
of misprints.
2. Editio vetustissima,
edited by Angelus Tifernas
with but slight
variation from the edition of Laetus ;
probably printed at Rome
by Georgius Sachsel de
Reichenhal, 1474.
3. Editio Rholandelli,
edited by Franciscus Rholan-
dellus Trivisanus ;
printed at Venice, 1475. It shows
improvement over the
edition of Laetus, by the
introduction of readings
from relatively good manu-
scripts.
4. Editio Veneta,
similar to the preceding, but in
the same volume with
Nonius Marcellus and Festus ;
first printed in 1483,
and reprinted in 1492 by Nicolaus
de Ferraris de Pralormo
(L. Spengel's Editio Veneta
I), and in 1498 by
Magister Antonius de Gusago
(Spengel's Veneta II).
A Venice edition of
1474, printed by Ioh. de Colonia
and Ioh. Manthem de
Gherretzen, was used by Goetz
and Schoell and cited as
Ed. Ven. in their edition.
5. Editio Baptistae Pii,
edited by Baptista Pius, an
eclectic text based on
previous editions, but with
some independent
emendations ; printed at Milan
by Leonardus Pachel,
1510.
6. Editio Aldina, edited
by Aldus Manutius after
the edition of Pius, but
with some changes through
his own emendations and
in accordance with manu-
script testimony,
possibly including that of F ; printed
at Venice by Aldus,
1513. The volume includes the
Cornucopia Perotti, the
De Lingua Latina, Festus, and
Nonius Marcellus ; it
was reprinted at Venice by
Aldus in 1517 and 1527,
and at Basel and Paris several
times, up to 1536. The
1527 printing shows some
improvements (see 7).
7. Editio Parisiensis,
edited by Michael Bentinus,
and essentially
following the Aldine of 1527, for which
Bentinus collated a
number of manuscripts and used
their readings ; it
includes also the Castigationes or
Corrections of Bentinus,
a series of critical and ex-
planatory comments. It
was printed at Paris by
Colinaeus, 1529*
8. Editio Gryphiana,
similar to the preceding,
including the
Castigationes of Bentinus, and the frag-
ments of the Origines of
M. Porcius Cato ; for its
preparation, Petrus
Victorius had transcribed the
readings of B as far as
ix. 74. It was published at
Lyons by Sebastian
Gryphius, 1535.
9. Editio Vulgata,
edited by Antonius Augustinus,
with the readings of B
(received from Petrus Vic-
torius) and the help of
Angelus Colotius, Octavius
Pantagathus, and Gabriel
Faernus ; it was printed at
Rome by Vine. Luchinus
in 1554- and again by Antonius
Bladus in 1557.
The text of the De
Lingua Latina has been re-
garded as greatly
corrupted in this edition, since
Augustinus based it on a
poor manuscript, introduced
a great number of his
own emendations, and
attempted a
standardization of the orthography,
notably in writing quom
and the like, and in using EI
for long I in endings
{e.g., dat.-abl. pi. heis lihreis, acc.
pi. simileis, gen. sing,
vocandei). Despite -his errors,
he has made a number of
valuable emendations, as will
be seen from the
citations in our apparatus criticus.
The text of this edition
was rather closely followed
by all editors except
Vertranius and Scioppius, and
Scaliger in his
emendations, until the edition of Leon-
hard Spengel in 1826.
10. Editio Vertranii,
edited by M. Vertranius
Maurus, following the
edition of Augustinus, but
discarding the spellings
of the type quom and the use
of EI for long I, and
making a large number of his
own conjectural
emendations ; printed at Lyons by
Gryphii Heredes, 1563.
1 1 . Coniectanea in M.
Terentium Varronem de Lingua
Latina, by Josephus
Scaliger ; not an edition, but
deserving a place here,
as it contains numerous textual
criticisms as well as
other commentary ; written in
1564, and published at
Paris in 1565. Both these
Coniectanea and an
Appendix ad Coniectanea (the
original date of which I
cannot determine) are printed
with many later editions
of the De Lingua Latina.
12. Editio Turnebi,
edited by Adrianus Turnebus,
who used a manuscript
very similar to p and made
numerous emendations ;
printed at Paris by A.
Wechelus, 1566 (Turnebus
died 1565).
13. Opera quae super
sunt, with Scaliger 's Coniectanea,
printed at Paris by
Henr. Stephanus, 156$: —
14. Edition of Dionysius
Gothofredus, containing
only an occasional
independent alteration ; in Auc-
tores Linguae Latinae in
unum corpus redacti, printed at
Geneva by Guilelmus Leimarius,
1585.
15. Edition, with the
notes of Ausonius Popma ;
printed at Leiden ex
officina Plantiniana, 1601.
16. Editio Gaspari
Scioppii, edited by Gaspar Sciop-
pius, who relied on data
of Gabriel Faernus and on
collations of Vatican
manuscripts by Fulvius Ursinus ;
it contains many
valuable textual suggestions, though
perhaps most of them
belong to Ursinus rather than
to Scioppius (who
expressly gives credit to Faernus,
Turnebus, and Ursinus).
It was printed at Ingolstad
in 1602 ; reprinted in
1605.
17. Editio Bipontina, in
two volumes, the second con-
taining a selection of
the notes of Augustinus, Turne-
bus, Scaliger, and Popma
; issued at Bipontium
(Zweibriicken in
Bavaria), 1788.
18. M. Terenti Varronis
de Lingua Latina libri qui
supersunt, edited by
Leonhard Spengel of Munich ;
the first scientific
edition, resting on readings of F
(but only as represented
by Fv), H, B, a, b, c, and a
comparison of all, or
almost all, the previous editions.
It was printed in Berlin
by Duncker und Humbloth,
1826.
19. M. Terenti Varronis
de Lingua Latina librorum
quae supersunt, edited
by Karl Ottfried Mueller, who
added the readings of G
to his critical apparatus.
Mueller has the merit of
setting the paragraphs of
v. 23-41 in their proper
order, and of placing brief but
valuable explanatory
material in his notes, in addition
to textual criticism.
This edition was printed at
Leipzig by Weidmann,
1833.
20. M. T. Varronis
librorum de Lingua Latina quae
supersunt, reprinted
after Mueller's edition with a
very few textual changes
by A. Egger ; issued at
Paris by Bourgeois-Maze,
1837.
21. Varron de la Langue
Latine, a translation into
French by Huot,
accompanied by Mueller's text ; in
the Collection des Auteurs
Latins avec la traduction en
francais, directed by
Nisard, printed at Paris by
Firmin Didot Freres and
issued by Dubochet et
Cie., 1845.
22. Libri di M. Terenzio
Varrone intorno alia lingua
latina, edited and
translated with notes by Pietro
Canal ; in the
Biblioteca degli Scrittori Latini with
translation and notes ;
printed at Venice by Gius.
Antonelli, 1846-1854. It
was reprinted in 1874, with
addition of the
fragments, to which notes were
attached by Fed.
Brunetti.
This edition is little
known, and deserves more
attention than it has
received, although Canal was
very free with his
emendation of the text ; but he
used a number of
additional manuscripts which are in
the libraries of Italy.
23. M. Terenti Varronis
de Lingua Latina libri, edited
by Andreas Spengel after
the death of his father
Leonhard, who had been
working on a second edition
for nearly fifty years
when he died ; printed at Berlin
by Weidmann, 1885.
This edition is notable
because of the abundant
critical apparatus.
24. M. Terenti Varronis
de Lingua Latina quae
supersunt, edited by
Georg Goetz and Friedrich
Schoell ; printed at
Leipzig by Teubner, 1910.
This edition is very
conservative, many corrupt
passages being marked
with a dagger and left in the
text, while excellent
emendations for the same are
relegated to the
apparatus criticus or to the Annota-
tiones at the end of the
volume ; but it has great value
for its citation of
abundant testimonia and its elabor-
ate indexes.
Two errors of earlier
editors may be mentioned at
this point. Since Varro
in v. 1 speaks of having sent
three previous books to
Septumius, our Book V. was
thought to be Book IV. ;
and it was not until Spengel's
edition of 1826 that the
proper numbering came into
use. Further, Varro 's
remark in viii. 1 on the subject
matter caused the early
editors to think that they had
De Lingua Latina Libri
Tres (our v.-vii.), and De
Analogia Libri Tres (our
viii.-x.) ; Augustinus in the
Vulgate was the first to
realize that the six books
were parts of one and
the same work, the De Lingua
Latina.
It is convenient to list
here, together, the special
treatments of the
passage on the city of Rome, v.
41-56, which is given by
the Fragmentum Cassinense :
H. Keil, Rheinisches
Museum vi. 142-145 (1848).
L. Spengel, Uber die
Kritik der varronischen Biicher
de Lingua Latina ; in
Abhandl. d. k. bayer. Ak. d. JViss.
7, 47-54 (1854).
B. ten Brink, M.
Terentii Varronis Locus de Urbe
Roma ; Traiecti ad
Rhenum, apud C. Van der Post
Juniorem, 1855.
H. Jordan, Topographie
der Stadt Rom im Alterthum
ii. 599-603 (Berlin,
1871).
A bibliography of
editions, books, and articles, for
the period 1471-1897, is
given by Antonibon, Supple-
mento di Lezioni
Varianti, pages 179-187 ; but there
are many misprints, and
many omissions of items.
Bibliographical lists
will be found in the following :
Bibliotheca Philologica
Classica, supplement to Pkilo-
logus.
Dix annees dephilologie
classique 1914-1924, i. 428-429,
edited by J. Marouzeau
(1927).
U Annee philologique i.
for 1924-1926 ; ii. for 1927, etc.,
edited by J. Marouzeau
(1928 ff.).
Critical summaries of
the literature will be found
as follows :
1826-1858 : Philologus
xiii. 684-751 (1858), by L.
Mercklin.
1858-1868 : Philologus
xxvii. 286-331 (1868), by A.
Riese.
1867-1876 : Philologus
xl. 649-651 (1881), merely
listed.
1877-1890 : Bursians
Jahresberichte iiber den Fortschritt
der klassischen
Philologie lxviii. 121-122 (1892),
by G. Goetz.
1891-1901 : Bursians
Jrb. cxiii. 116-128 (1901), by
P. Wessner.
1901-1907 : Bursians
Jrb. cxxxix. 85-89 (1908), by
R. Kriegshammer.
1901-1920 : Bursians Jrb.
clxxxviii. 52-69 (1921), by
P. Wessner.
1921-1925 : Bursians
Jrb. ccxxxi. 35-38 (1931), by
F. Lammert.
For the period before
the edition of L. Spengel
in 1826, it is
unnecessary to do other than refer to
the list of editions ;
for other writings on Varro were
few, and they are mostly
lacking in importance,
apart from being
inaccessible to-day. The following
selected list includes
most of the literature since 1826,
which has importance for
the De Lingua Latina, either
for the text and its interpretation,
or for Varro 's style,
sources, and method ;
but treatises dealing with his
influence on later
authors have mostly been omitted
from the list :
Antonibon, Giulio :
Contributo agli studi sui libri de
Lingua Latina ; Rivista
di Filologia xvii. 177-221
(1888).
Antonibon, G. : De
Codice Varroniano Mutinensi ;
Pkilologus xlviii. 185
(1889).
Antonibon, G. :
Supplemento di Lezioni Varianti ai
libri De Lingua Latina
de M. Ter. Varrone ;
Bassano, 1899-
Barwick, K. : Remmius P
alamort und die rdmische Ars
grammatica ; Leipzig,
1922 (Philologus, Suppl.
xv. 2).
Bednara, Ernst : Archiv
fur lateinische Lexikographie
xiv. 593 (1906).
Bergk, Th. : Quaestiones
Lucreiianae ; Index Lec-
tionum in Acad. Marburg.
1816-1847.
Bergk, Th. : De Carminum
Saliarium Reliquiis ; Index
Lectionum in Acad.
Marburg. 1847-1848.
Bergk, Th. : Quaestiones
Ennianae ; Index Scholarum
in Univ. Hal. 1860.
Bergk, Th. : Varroniana
; Index Scholarum in Univ.
Hal. 1863.
Bergk, Th. : De
Paelignorum Sermone ; Index Scho-
larum in Univ. Hal.
1864.
Bergk, Th. : Zeitschrift
fiir die Altertumsivissenschaft
ix. 231 (1851), xiv.
138-140 (1856).
Bergk, Th. : Philologus
xiv. 186, 389-390 (1859), xxx.
682 (1870), xxxii. 567
(1873), xxxiii. 281, 301-302,
311 (1874).
Bergk, Th. : Jahrbucher
fiir classische Philologie
lxxxiii. 317, 320-321,
333-334, 633-637 (1861);
ci. 829-832, 841 (1870).
Bergk, Th. : Rheinisches
Museum xx. 291 (1865).
Bergk, Th. : Kleine
Philologische Schriften (Halle,
1884) ; passim,
reprinting most of the articles
listed above.
Birt, Th. : Rheinisches
Museum liv. 50 (1899).
Birt, Th. : Philologus
lxxxiii. 40-41 (1928).
Boissier, Gaston : Etude
sur la vie et les outrages de
M. T. Varron ; Paris,
1861, 2nd ed. 1875.
Boot, J. C. G. :
Mnemosyne xxii. 409-412 (1894).
Brakmann, C. : Mnemosyne
lx. 1-19 (1932).
ten Brink, B. : M.
Terentii Varronis Locus de Urbe
Roma ; Traiecti ad
Rhenum, 1855.
Brinkmann, A. :
Simpuvium — simpulum ; Arckiv fur
lateinische
Lexikographie xv. 139-143 (1908).
Buecheler, F. :
Rheinisches Museum xxvii. 475 (1872).
Buecheler, F. : Archiv
fur lateinische Lexikographie
ii. 119, 619-624 (1885).
Christ, Wilhelm :
Philologus xvi. 450-464 (1860),
xvii. 59-63 (1861).
Christ, Wilhelm : Archiv
fiir lateinische Lexikographie
ii. 619-624 (1885).
Dahlmann, Hellfried :
Varro und die hellenistische
Sprachtheorie ; Berlin,
1932 (Forschungen zur
klass. Phil. v.).
Dahlmann, Hellfried : M.
Terentius Varro, article in
Pauly-Wissowa's
Real-Encyc. d. class. Altertums-
wiss. Suppl. vol. vi.
1172-1277 (1935).
Dam, R. J. : De
Analogia, observationes in Varronem
grammaticamque Romanorum
; Campis, 1930.
Ellis, Robinson :
Journal of Philology xix. 38, 178-179
(1891).
Ellis, Robinson :
Hermathena xi. 353-363 (1901).
Fay, Edwin W. :
Varroniana ; American Journal of
Philology xxxv. 149-162,
245-267 (1914).
Foat, W. G. : Classical
Review xxix. 79 (1915).
Fraccaro, Plinio : Studi
Varroniani ; Padova, 1907.
Funaioli, Hyginus :
Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta ;
Leipzig, 1907.
Galdi, M. : Rivista
Indo-Greco-Italica xi. 3-4, 21-22
(1927).
Georges, K. E. :
Philologus xxxiii. 226 (1874).
Goetz, Georg : Berliner
Philologische Wochenschrift,
1886, 779-783.
Goetz, Georg :
Quaestiones Varronianae ; Index
Scholarum, in Univ.
Ienensi, 1886-1887.
Goetz, Georg : Aelius
Stilo, article in Pauly-Wissowa's
Real-Enc. d. cl. Altrv.
i. 532-533 (1894), Suppl.
vol. i. 15 (1903).
Goetz, Georg :
Gbtiingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1908,
815-827.
Goetz, Georg : Zur
Wiirdigung der grammatischen
Arbeiten Varros ;
Abhandl. der kon. sacks. Gesell-
schaftd. Wiss. xxvii. 3,
67-89 (1909).
Goetz, Georg : Berliner
Philologische Wochenschrift,
1910, 1367-1368.
Groth, Adolfus : De M.
Terenti Varronis de Lingua
Latina librorum codice
Florentino ; Argentorati,
1880.
Haupt, Moritz : Hermes
i. 401-403 (1866), iii. 147-
148 (1869), iv. 332-334
(1870).
Haupt, Moritz : Opuscula
(3 vols., 1875, 1876, 1876),
ii. 192-195, iii.
355-357, 477.
Heidrich, Georg : Der
Gebrauch des Gerundiums und
Gerundivums bei Varro ;
Jahresbericht, Gymn.
Melk, 1890.
Heidrich, Georg :
Bemerkungen iiber den Stil des Varro ;
Jahresbericht, Gymn.
Melk, 1891.
Henry, Victor : De
sermonis humani origine et natura
M. Terentius Varro quid
senserit ; Insulis, 1883.
Hertz, M. : Jahrbiicher
fur classische Philologie cix.
249-255 (1874).
Hirschfeld, O. : Hermes
viii. 469 (1874).
Hultsch, Fr. :
Philologus xxii. 346 (1865).
Hultsch, Fr. :
Metrologicorum Scriptorum reliquiae
ii. 49-51 ; Leipzig,
1866.
Jacobs : Varietas
lectionum in Varronis libris de Lingua
Latina ; Beitrage zur
alteren Litteratur ii. 217-222
(1836).
Jahn, Otto : Hermes ii.
246-247 (1867).
Jeep, J. W. L. : Zur
Geschichte der Lehre von den
Redeteilen bei den
lateinischen Grammatikern ;
Leipzig, 1893.
Jonas, Richard : Zum
Gebrauch der Verba frequenta-
tiva und intensiva in
der alteren lateinischen Prosa ;
Gymn. Posen, 1879.
Jordan, Heinrich :
Hermes ii. 83, 89 (1867), xv. 118-
121 (1880).
Jordan, Heinrich :
Topographie der Stadt Rom ivi
Alterthum, vol. i. 1,
1878 ; i. 2, 1885 ; i. 3, revised
by Ch. Huelsen, 1907;
vol. ii. 1871, especially
pages 237-290, 599-603 ;
Berlin.
Jordan, Heinrich :
Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte
der lateinischen
Sprache, Berlin, 1879 passim,
esp. pages 90-91,
96-103, 131, 138, 224, 321.
Keil, Heinrich : Das
Fragmentum Casinense des Varro
de Lingua Latina ; Rheinisches
Museum vi. 142-
145 (1847).
Kent, R. G. : On the
Text of Varro, de Lingua Latina ;
Trans. Am. Philol. Assn.
lxvii. 64-82 (1936).
Kowalski, G. : Studia
Rhetorica ; Eos xxxi. 141-168
(1928).
Kriegsharumer, Robert :
De Varronis et Verrii Fonti-
bus quaestiones selectae
; Leipzig, 1903.
Krumbiegel, Richard : De
Varroniano Scribendi
Genere quaestiones ;
Leipzig, 1892.
Lachmann, Karl :
Rheinisches Museum vi. 106-125
(1839) ; new series, ii.
356-365 (1842), iii. 610-611
(1845) : reprinted in
Kleinere Schriften ii. 162-
187 (1876).
Lachmann, Karl : In T.
Lucretii Cari de Rerum Natura
libros Commentarius
(1850), passim ; 4th ed.,
1882, with index.
Lahmeyer, Gustav :
Philologus xxii. 100-105 (1865).
Lersch, Laurenz : Die
Sprachphilosophie der Alten i.
117-127 (1838), ii.
143-153 (1840), iii. 169-172
(1841) ; Bonn.
Lobeck, Chr. Aug. :
Aglaophamus ii. 1002-1004 ;
Konigsberg, 1829-
Luebbert, Ed. :
Commentationes Pontificates ; Berlin,
1859.
Madvig, J. N. :
Adversaria Critica i. 178, ii. 166-178 ;
Copenhagen, 1871 and
1873.
Mercklin, Ludwig : De
Junio Gracchano commen-
tatio ; particulae duae,
Dorpat, 1840, 1841.
Mercklin, Ludwig :
Quaestiones Varronianae ; Index
Scholarum in Univ.
Dorpat. 1852.
Mercklin, Ludwig : De
Varronis tralaticio scribendi
genere quaestiones ;
Index Scholarum in Univ.
Dorpat. 1858.
Mette, H. J. : De
Cratete Mallota seu Pergameno ;
Berlin, 1931.
Mette, H. J. :
Varroniana (supplement to preceding);
Berlin, 1931.
Mueller, August : De
Priscis Verborum Formis Var-
ronianis ; Halle, 1877.
Mueller, C. F. W. :
Zeitschrift fur das Gymnasial-
wesen xix. 421-424,
792-800, 867-874 (1865).
Mueller, K. O. : Zur
Topographie Roms : Uber die
Fragmente der Sacra
Argeorum bei Varro, de Lingua
Latina V (IV), 8 ; in
Bottiger, Archaologie und
Kunst i. 69-94 ;
Breslau, 1828.
Mueller, K. O. : Sextus
Pompeius Festus, edition, page
xliv ; Leipzig, 1839.
Mueller, Lucian :
Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie
xcvii. 427 (1868).
Mueller, Lucian :
Rheinisches Museum xxiv. 553-557
(1869).
Muller Jzn, Fridericus :
De veterum imprimis Ro-
manorum studiis
etymologicis, pages 115-248 ;
Utrecht, 1910.
Nettleship, H. : Latin
Grammar in the First Century ;
Journal of Philology xv.
189-214 (1886).
Neukirch, J. H. : De
Fabula Togata Romanorum,
pages 71, 83, 89, 96,
99, 122, 188, 278 ; Leipzig,
1833.
Norden, Eduard :
Rheinisches Museum xlviii. 348-354
(1893).
Norden, Eduard : De
Stilone Cosconio Varrone gram-
maticis commentatio ;
Index Scholarum in Univ.
Greifswald. 1895.
Norden, Eduard : Die
antike Kunstprosa vom VI.
Jahrhundert vor Christus
bis in die Zeit der Renais-
sance i. 194-200 ;
Leipzig, 1898.
Oxe, C. E. L. : De M.
Ter. Varronis etymis quibusdam
commentatio ; Gymn.
Programm, Kreuznach,
1859.
Oxe, C. E. L. : Af.
Terenti Varronis librorum de lingua
Latina argumentum ;
Gymn. Program m, Kreuz-
nach, 1871.
Pape, Wilhelm :
Lectiones Varronianae ; Berlin, 1829-
Plasberg, O. :
Rheinisches Museum liii. 70, 75-76
(1898).
Reiter, Hugo :
Quaestiones Varronianae grammaticae ;
Konigsberg, 1882.
Reiter, Hugo :
Observationes criticae in M. Terenti
V arronis de lingua
Latina libros ; Jahresbericht,
Gymn. Braunsberg, 1884.
Reitzenstein, R. : M.
Terentius Varro und Johannes
Mauropus von Euchaita ;
Leipzig, 1901.
Ribbeck, Otto : Die
Composition der Varronischen
Bilcher V-VII de lingua
Latina; Rheinisches
Museum xli. 618-626
(1886).
Riese, Alexander :
Philologus xxvii. 305-306 (1868).
Ritschl, Fr. W. :
Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie
xcvii. 341-343 (1868).
Roehrscheidt, K. :
review of Reitzenstein ; Got-
tingische Gelehrte
Anzeigen, 1908, 791-814.
Roessner, Otto : De
praepositionum ab de ex usu Var-
roniano ; Halle, 1888.
Roth, K. L. : Uber das
Leben des M. Terentius Varro ;
Gymn. Programm, Basel,
1857 (also separately
issued).
Roth, K. L. : Philologus
xvii. 175-176 (1861).
Samter, Ernest :
Quaestiones Varronianae ; Berlin,
1891.
Schwabe, L. :
Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie ci. 350-352
(1870).
Sitzler, Johann : Uber
den Kasusgebrauch bet Varro ;
Beilage zum Gymn.
Programm, Tauberbischofs-
heim, 1889.
Skutsch, F. : Hermes
xxxii. 96-97 (1897).
Skutsch, F. :
Rheinisches Museum lxi. 603-609
(1906).
Spengel, Andreas :
Bemerkungen zu Varro de lingua
Latina ; Sitzungsber. d.
/con. bayer. Akad. d. JViss.,
pkil.-hist. CI. 1885,
243-272.
Spengel, Leonhard :
Emendationum Varronianarum
Specimen I; Munich,
1830.
Spengel, L. : review of
Mueller's edition ; Jahrbiicher
fur Philologie xi. 1-20
(1834).
Spengel, L. :
Zeitschrift fiir die Altertumsivissenschaft
iv. 142-144 (1846).
Spengel, L. : Uber die
Kritik der Varronischen Biicher
de Lingua Latina ;
Abhandl. d. kon. bayer. Akad.
d. Wiss. vii. 2. 1-54
(1854).
Spengel, L. :
Commentatio de emendanda ratione lib-
rorum M. Terentii
Varronis de lingua Latina ;
Munich, 1858 (to F.
Thiersch, on semicentennial
of the doctorate).
Spengel, L. :
Philologies xvii. 288-306 (1861).
Spengel, L. : Die sacra
Argeorum bet Varro ; Philo-
logus xxxii. 92-105
(1873).
Stieber, G. M. :
Varroniana : Die griechischen Fremd-
worter bei Varro de
Lingua Latina, Orthographie,
Lautlehre, Index der bei
Varro befindlichen Fremd-
ivorter ; typed
dissertation, Wiirzburg, 1921.
Stowasser, J. M. :
Wiener Studien, vii. 38-39 (1885).
Stroux, Johannes :
Antidoron, Festschrift Jacob Wacker-
nagel 309-325 ;
Gottingen, 1924.
Stuenkel, Ludwig : De
Varroniana verborum forma-
tions, Strassburg, 1875.
• Usener, H. : Ein altes
Lekrgebaude der Philologie ;
Sitzungsber. d. k'dn.
bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Miinchen,
phil-Mst. CI 1892,
582-648.
van der Vliet, J. :
Mnemosyne xx. 416 (1892).
Voigt, Moritz :
Rheinisches Museum xxiv. 332-335
(1869), xxxiii. 150
(1878).
W — j H. : Jahrbiicher
filr classische Philologie lxxxvii.
740 (1863).
Wackernagel, J. : Hermes
lviii. 460 (1923).
Walter, Fritz :
Philohgus lxxv. 484-485 (1919).
Walter, F. :
Philologische Wochenschrift 1. 827 (1930).
Weber, Julius :
Quaestionum Grammaticarum Speci-
men ; Jena, 1914.
Wilmanns, August : De M.
Terenti Varronis libris
grammaticis particula ;
Bonn, 1863.
Wilmanns, August : De M.
Terenti Varronis libris
grammaticis ; Berlin,
1864 (the preceding, -with
addition of the
fragments).
Wolfflin, Eduard :
Archiv fur lateinische Lexiko-
graphie ii. 5, 89, 324
(1885), viii. 411-440, 563-585
(1898).
Zander, K. M. : Versus
italici antiqui, page 24 ;
Lund, 1890.
Zippmann, A. : De loco
Varroniano qui est de Lingua
Latina viii. 44 ; Gymn.
Programm, Scheidemiihl,
1869-
Zumpt : review of L.
Spengel's edition ; Jahrbiicher
fur rvissenschaftliche
Kritik, 1827, 1513-1527.
When a text is to be
confronted by a translation,
that text must be
presented in an intelligible wording,
with emendations of
corrupt passages and the filling
up of the gaps. It
happens that while some of the
corrupt passages in this
work are quite desperate,
many can be restored,
and many gaps can be filled,
with some degree of
confidence, since Festus, Nonius
Marccllus, and others
have quoted practically ver-
batim from Varro ; with
the aid of their testimonia,
many obscure passages
can be restored to clarity.
This has been the
procedure in the present volumes ;
if any departures from
the manuscript authority
seem violent, they are
required as a basis for a transla-
tion. Yet the present
text is throughout as conserva-
tive as is consistent
with the situation.
The text has in fact
been so arranged as to show,
with least machinery,
its relation to the best tradition.
With the use of italics
and of pointed brackets, and the
aid of the critical
apparatus, any reader may see for
himself exactly what
stands in the manuscript. The
use of symbols and the
like is explained on pages
xlix-1.
The critical apparatus
is intended to show how the
text is derived from the
best manuscript tradition,
namely F, or where F
fails, then Fv or other good
codices.
In each item, there is
given first the name of the
scholar making the
emendation which is in the text,
after which the reading
of F is given. It is therefore
not necessary to name F
except in a few places where
there might be confusion
; if the reading is not that
of F, then the
manuscript is specified. Where the
emendation of a scholar
has been anticipated by a
copyist of some
manuscript, the reference to this
manuscript is commonly
given. If several successive
emendations have been
necessary to reach the best
reading, the
intermediate stages are given in reverse
order, working back to
the manuscript. For ease of
typography, manuscript
abbreviations are mostly
presented in expanded
form.
The reader may therefore
evaluate the text which
is here presented ; but
the present editor has made no
attempt to present the
almost countless emendations
which have been made by
scholars and which have
not been adopted here.
The translation of the
De Lingua Latina presents
problems which are
hardly to be found in any other
of the works translated
for the Loeb Classical Library.
For the constant (and
inevitable) interpretations of
one Latin word by
another, which Varro had to
present in order to
expound its origin, requires
the translator to keep
the Latin words in the
translation, glossed
with an English equivalent. In
this way only can the
translation be made intellig-
ible.
Because of the technical
nature of the subject it
has been necessary to
follow the Latin with some
degree of closeness, or
the points made by Varro will
be lost. If the
translation is at times difficult to
understand, it is because
most of us are not accus-
tomed to dealing with
matters of technical linguistics;
and even though Varro
lacks the method of modern
scholars in the subject,
he has his OM r n technique and
must be followed in his
own way.
The numerous metrical
citations which Varro gives
from Latin authors are
translated in the same metre,
though sometimes the
translation is slightly shorter
or longer than the
Latin.
There are only two
translations of the De Lingua
Latina into a modern
language : that of Huot into
French, a mere
paraphrase which often omits whole
sentences, and that of
Canal into Italian (Nos. 20 and
21 in our list of
Editions). There is no translation
into German, nor any
into English before the present
volumes.
The notes are planned to
give all needed help to
the understanding of a
difficult subject matter ; they
cover matters of
technical linguistics, historical and
geographical references,
points of public and private
life. They explain
briefly any unusual word-forms
and syntactical uses,
and label as incorrect all false
etymologies (of which
there are many), either ex-
plicitly or by
indicating the correct etymology. They
state the sources of
quotations from other authors
and works, giving
references to a standard collection
of fragments if the
entire work is not extant. They
name the metres of
metrical quotations, if the metre
is other than dactylic,
or iambic, or trochaic.
The fragments of Greek
and Latin authors are
cited in the notes
according to the following scheme :
Festus (and the excerpts
of Paulus Diaconus), by
page and line, edition
of K. O. Mueller, Leipzig,
1839.
Grammatici Latini, by
volume, page, and line, edition
of H. Keil, Leipzig,
1855-1880.
Nonius Marcellus, by
page and line, edition of
J. Mercier, 1589 ; 2nd
ed., 1614 ; reprinted
1825.
For the following
authors :
Accius : see Ribbeck and
Warmington, below.
Ennius : see Vahlen and
Warmington, below.
Lucilius : C. Lucilii
Carminum Reliquiae, ed. F. Marx,
2 vols., Leipzig,
1904-1905. *
Naevius : see Ribbeck,
Warmington, Baehrens, Morel,
below.
Pacuvius : see Ribbeck
and Warmington, below.
Plautus, fragments :
edition of F. Ritschl, Leipzig,
1894 ; the same
numbering in G. Goetz and
F. Schoell, Leipzig,
1901.
von Arnim, J. :
Stoicorum Veterum Reliquiae ; Leipzig,
1903.
Baehrens, Emil :
Fragmenta Poetarum Romanorum ;
Leipzig, 1886.
Bremer, F. P. :
Iurisprudentiae Antehadrianae quae
supersunt; Leipzig,
1896-1901.
Bruns, Georg : Fontes
Iuris Romani Aniiqui ; revised
by Th. Mommsen ; 7th
ed., revised by O.
Gradenwitz, Tubingen,
1909-
Buettner, Richard :
Porcius Ldcinus und der litterarische
Kreis des Q. Lutatius
Catulus ; Leipzig, 1893.
Funaioli, Hyginus :
Grammaticae Romanae Frag-
menta ; Leipzig, 1907.
Hultsch, Friedrich :
Polybii Historiae ; Berlin, 1867-
1872.
Huschke, I\ E. :
Iurisprudentiae Anteiustinianae Reli-
quiae ; 6th ed., revised
by E. Seckel and B.
Kuebler, Leipzig, 1908.
Jordan, Heinrich : M.
Catonis praeter librum de re
rustica quae extant ;
Leipzig, 1860.
Kaibel, G. : Comicorum
Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. i.
Part I ; Berlin, 1899-
Maurenbrecher, Bertold :
Carminum Saliarium reli-
quiae ; Jahrbucher fur
classische Philologie, Suppl.,
vol. xxi. 313-352
(1894).
Morel, Willy : Fragmenta
Poetarum Latinorum ; Leip-
zig, 1927.
Mueller, Karl, and
Theodor Mueller : Fragmenta
Historicorum Graecorum ;
Paris, 1841-1870.
Nauck, August :
Aristophanis Byzantii Grammatici
Alexandrini Fragmenta ;
Halle, 1848.
Peter, Hermann :
Historicorum Romanorum Frag-
menta ; Leipzig, 1883.
Preibisch, Paul :
Fragmenta Libronim Pontificiorum ;
Tilsit, 1878.
Regell, Paul : Fragmenta
Auguralia ; Gymn. Hirsch-
berg, 1882.
Ribbeck, Otto :
Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Frag-
menta : vol. i.,
Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta,
3rd ed., Leipzig, 1897 ;
vol. ii., Comicorum
Romanorum Fragmenta, 3rd
ed., Leipzig, 1898
(occasional references
to the 2nd ed.).
Rose, Valentin :
Aristotelis qui ferebantur libronim
fragmenta ; Leipzig,
1886. Rowoldt, Walther :
Librorum Pontificiorum Romanorum de Caerimoniis
Sacrificiorum Reliquiae; Halle, 1906. Schneider, Otto :
Callimachea ; Leipzig, 1870. Schoell, Rudolph : Legis
Duodecim Tabularum Reliquiae ; Leipzig, 1866.
Usener, Hermann :
Epicurea ; Leipzig, 1887. Vahlen,J. : Ennianae
Poesis Reliquiae, 2nd ed., Leipzig. 1903 (the 3rd ed., 1928,
is an unchanged reprint). Warmington, E. H. :
Remains of Old Latin, in the Loeb Classical Library ;
vol. i. (Ennius, Caecilius), 1935; vol. ii. (Livius
Andronicus, Naevius, Pacuvius, Accius), 1936
; Cambridge (Mass.) and London. Letters and w ords not
in the manuscript, but added n the text, are set in
< >, except as noted below. Letters changed from the
manuscript reading are printed in italics. Some obvious additions,
and the following changes, are sometimes not
further explained by critical notes : ae with italic a, for
manuscript e. oe, with italic o, for
manuscript ae or e. italic b and v, for
manuscript u and b. italic f andpA, for
manuscript ph andf. italic i and y, for
manuscript y and i. talic h, for an h
omitted in the manuscript. The manuscripts are
referred to as follows ; readngs without
specification of the manuscript are from F : F=Laurentianus li. 10 ;
No. 1 in our list. F 1 or m 1 , the
original writer of F, or the first hand. F 2 or m 2 , the
corrector of F, or the second hand. Fv = readings from the
lost quaternion of F, as recorded by Victorius ;
our No. 2. Frag. Cass. =
Cassinensis 361 ; our No. 3. f= Laurentianus li. 5 ;
our No. 5. H= Havniensis ; our No.
6. G = Gothanus ; our No.
7. a = Parisinus 7489 ; our
No. 8. 6 = Parisinus 6142 ; our
No. 9- c=Parisinus 7535 ; our
No. 10. V= Vindobonensis lxiii.
; our No. 1 1 . p = Basiliensis F iv. 13
; our No. 12. M= Guelferbytanus 896 ;
our No. 13. B = that used by Augustinus
; our No. 14. The following
abbreviations are used for editors and editions (others are
referred to by their full names) : Laetus = editio princeps
of Pomponius Laetus. Rhol. = Rholandellus,
whose first edition was in 1475. Pius = Baptista Pius,
edition of 1510. Aug. = Antonius
Augustinus, editor of the Vulgate edition 1554,
reprinted 1557. Sciop. = Gaspar
Scioppius, edition of 1602, reprinted 1605. L. Sp. = Leonhard
Spengel, edition of 1826 (and articles). Mue. = Karl Ottfried
Mueller, edition of 1833. A. Sp. = Andreas
Spengel, edition of 1885 (and articles). GS. = G. Goetz and F.
Schoell, edition of 1910.
No comments:
Post a Comment