INTRODUCTION
The MSS. of Persius
The text of Persius is in a much better condition than that of Juvenal; Mr. S. G. Owen declares that it is probably purer than that of any other Roman writer, and stands in no need of the art of conjecture.[1] Amid a multitude of MSS. three stand out of conspicuous merit; the Montpellier, 212 (A); the Vatican, H. 36 (B); and the Montpellier, 125 (P), also known by the name Pithoeanus, being the same MS. which contains also the whole of Juvenal.
Of these three MSS., all dating from the ninth century, A and B are so closely allied that they are evidently drawn from a common source. The sign a denotes the agreement of these two MSS.
Where A and P differ, Bücheler, in his edition of 1893, gives the superiority to P; Dr. F. Leo, in the 4th edition (1910), calls in the assistance of the Laurentian MS. 37. 19 (L), of the eleventh century, which occasionally preserves the true reading where both A and P are manifestly wrong (e.g. peronatus, v. 102; crasso, vi. 40; ritu, vi. 59; exit, vi. 68). L shares some corruptions with P, and some with a; but on the whole it is more closely allied to a.
Most ancient of all is the Fragmentum Bobiense of the fourth century, which contains Pers. i. 53-104, and Juv. xiv. 323-xv. 43.
- ↑ Preface to his edition of Persius and Juvenal, Clarendon Press, 1907.
