**_Joseph Juste Scaliger – Part 4_** ~[Part 1](https://steemit.com/scaliger/@harlotscurse/joseph-juste-scaliger)~ https://i.imgur.com/V4pwhmV.jpg**Marcus Terentius Varro** In 1565, about seven years after he had moved to Paris to study the classics, [Joseph Juste Scaliger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger) published his first work: the _Coniectanea in M Terentium Varronem De Lingua Latina_, or _Conjectures on Marcus Terentius Varro’s Treatise on the Latin Language_. Strictly speaking, this was not the first time Scaliger’s work as a fledgling philologist appeared in print. The previous year had seen the publication of Willem Canter’s _Novae Lectiones_ [_New Readings_], which included some marginal notes by Scaliger on a recently discovered fragment of [Athenaeus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenaeus): >With younger Paris scholars Scaliger was on even closer terms. Indeed, he set up what amounted to a working partnership with Dorat’s pupil Willem Canter. When Muret came back from Italy, he brought with him a copy of a fragment of the _Deipnosophistae_ of Athenaeus from a manuscript in the collection of the Farnese family. This section had been omitted from the printed editions of the full text. Muret passed it on to Canter for publication, and Canter turned to Scaliger for help with the many recondite and problematic words in it. The text appeared in Canter’s _Novae lectiones_ of 1564, with Scaliger’s conjectures in the margin. Scaliger lent Canter his annotated Euripides—a course of action that he later regretted, for Canter copied out and published [Antwerp 1571] some of his conjectures without clearly identifying Scaliger as their author. All Scaliger could do was to decorate the offending passages in his copy of Canter’s work with indignant comments: ‛The man is ashamed to mention me’; ‛He took this from my Euripides, which I made available to him.’ But even this unfortunate incident did not break the friendship; as late as 1572, Scaliger proudly declared his affection for Canter in print. (Grafton 106) Like Scaliger, the Dutch scholar [Willem Canter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Canter) had been a pupil of [Jean Dorat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Daurat) at the Collège Royal in Paris. [Marc Antoine Muret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muretus) had taught Latin at the Collège de Guyenne in Bordeaux in 1547-48 before moving to Paris, where he became a prominent member of the city’s humanist movement. https://i.imgur.com/8vMXxS0.jpg**Jean Dorat, Willem Canter, & Marc-Antoine Muret** Canter’s _Novae Lectiones_ was a miscellany of more than eighty classical texts, with critical notes and emendations. Scaliger’s marginalia to the fragment of the _Deipnosophistae_ can be found in Book 3, Chapter 11 ([Pages 127-173](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11233043?page=127)), where they are marked with an **S** to distinguish them from Canter’s emendations. See, for example, Page 147, which contains five emendations by Scaliger. The inclusion of Scaliger’s annotations in this publication is an indication of the repute in which the young man was already held by his fellow scholars: >These scattered references confirm Scaliger’s precocity as a master linguist and his remarkable ability at divining textual corruptions and emending them by conjecture. Even in the 1560s few humanists in their early twenties could argue convincingly for the creation of an unattested Latin form or the rewriting of a piece of Plato’s Greek; fewer still could command wide assent for their ideas from the most eminent professional philologists. (Grafton 106) # _De Lingua Latina_ # Scaliger is believed to have started work on his annotations of Varro’s _De Lingua Latina_ around 1560, when he was just twenty years of age (Grafton 107). https://i.imgur.com/p1QCPHs.jpg**The Title Pages of the Three Editions of Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_** [Marcus Terentius Varro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Terentius_Varro) was a polymath and one of the most prolific authors of ancient Rome. Widely regarded as the greatest scholar of the late Republic, only one of his many works has survived complete (_De Re Rustica_, or _Three Books on Agriculture_). Fragments are extant of dozens of other works. The most extensive of these are from his treatise _Twenty-Five Books on the Latin Language_. Of these, Books 5-10 are extant, though even these are marred by serious lacunae and corrupt passages. Scattered fragments of the remaining books have also survived, most of which can be found in the _Noctes Atticae_ [_Attic Nights_] of [Aulus Gellius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulus_Gellius). Varro’s treatise was probably composed in the 40s BCE and published sometime before the death of Cicero, to whom it is dedicated, in 43: >The first book was an introduction ... 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. (Kent ix) Books 5-10, therefore, straddle Parts 1 and 2, comprising the second trilogy of Part 1 and the first trilogy of Part 2. The former deals with the origin of words and how they came to be applied to things, while the latter treats of the manner in which new words are derived from existing words—with a particular emphasis on the origins of grammatical inflection. https://i.imgur.com/3GhwDJ0.jpg**Antonius Augustinus** Scaliger used Antonio Agustin y Albanell’s edition of _De Lingua Latina_ as his master text. This is the so-called _Editio Vulgata_. [Antonius Augustinus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Agust%C3%ADn_y_Albanell) was a Spanish historian of canon law and a Roman Catholic clergyman, who flourished in the middle of the 16th century. It is thought that he prepared his edition (Rome 1554) from _Codex B_, a 15th-century manuscript that can no longer be identified. >The text of _De Lingua Latina_ has been regarded 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 ... Despite his errors, he has made a number of valuable emendations ... The text of this edition was rather closely followed by all editors except [Vertranius](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG185204) and [Scioppius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Schoppe), and Scaliger in his emendations, until the edition of Leonhard Spengel in 1826. (Kent xxix-xxx) [Leonhard von Spengel’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_von_Spengel) edition (Berlin 1826) is the first modern—or “scientific”—edition. It is based on six of the best extant manuscripts—most notably the 11th-century _Codex Laurentianus_ (**F**)—and a comparison of most of the preceding editions. # _Coniectanea_ # In the context of Renaissance philology, the Latin term _coniectanea_ is best translated by the English word _conjectures_—educated guesses made by philologists when correcting a corrupt passage in an old text. It is derived from the verb **conicere**, _to conjecture_, _guess_, _infer_, _conclude_ (Lewis & Short 421). On the opening page of the book, Scaliger writes **Coniectanea seu Annotationes**: _Conjectures or Annotations_. Note that _coniectanea_ is neuter plural, and not to be confused with the identically spelled feminine singular noun meaning _memorandum_ or _commonplace book_. https://i.imgur.com/JejHDQL.jpg**Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_ 2-3** In emending a classical text, Scaliger’s practice was quite different from that of a modern philologist, who would be expected to study as many of the surviving manuscript sources as possible, comparing and collating their texts, before making any emendations of his own. By restricting himself to a single printed edition, which was itself based on a single manuscript source, Scaliger was hamstringing himself. As Roland Kent points out, Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_ is not actually an “edition” of Varro’s treatise. It is, rather, a long list of annotations: >_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 [Geneva 1573]) are printed with many later editions of the _De Lingua Latina_. (Kent xxx) Kent’s translation of _De Lingua Latina_ for the Loeb Classical Library cites Scaliger about fifty times in the _apparatus criticus_. Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_ is prefaced by a dedicatory letter to Scaliger’s friend and patron Louis Chasteigner de la Roche-Posay, Seigneur d’Abain. The first 82 pages proper of the _Coniectanea_ comprise 251 annotations to Book 5 of Varro’s treatise, which is mistakenly referred to as Book 4. Scaliger continues this pattern for the following five books, numbering the annotations from 1 each time, and referring to these books as the 5th through the 9th. In Book 5, the annotations are numbered from 1-69, and then from 80-123. Presumably the jump from 69 to 80 on page 30 is a typographical error. https://i.imgur.com/VNzdr3y.jpg**Roland Grubb Kent** The misidentification of Varro’s Books 5-10 as Books 4-9, which is common to all the early editors, is commented on by Kent: >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 8:1 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_. (Kent xxxii-xxxiii) _Coniectanea_|Pages|Varro (Augustinus) -|-|- Dedication|i-vi|- 1-69, 80-251|1-82|Book 5 (_Quartum Librum_) 1-123|83-116|Book 6 (_Quintum Librum_) 1-258|117-201|Book 7 (_Librum Sextum_) 1-2|201|Book 8 (_Septimum Librum_) 1-4|201-202|Book 9 (_Octavum_) 1-2|202-204|Book 10 (_Nonum Librum_) Etymologies|205-218|- Index of Authors|219-221|- It is curious that after averaging about 185 annotations for each of the first three books, Scaliger devotes only 8 to the last three books together. Did he lose interest after Book 7? Or are Books 8-10 simply free from the sorts of errors and difficulties that plague the earlier books? To his conjectures, Scaliger appends an alphabetic list of Varro’s etymologies—from _Aequor_ (Varro 7:23) to _Urbs_ (Varro 5:143). The final three pages of the work comprise an index of authors cited in the text—from Aeschylus to Xenophon. The book concludes with a Latin inscription: >Printed by Robert Estienne, Royal Printer, in Paris, on the 10th Kalends of September, in the Year 1565. This is [Robert II Estienne](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_II_Estienne), the son of Robert I Estienne and grandson of Henri Estienne the Elder, who founded the famous Parisian printing dynasty in 1502. The 10th Kalends of September is 23 August, or ten days before 1 September (inclusive). https://i.imgur.com/MaHUt6X.jpg**_Noli Altum Sapere_ (_Be Not Proud_)** Varro’s treatise was not the only text Scaliger was working at this time : it was simply the one he chose to polish off and present to the scholarly world as his calling card: >He clearly regarded the book as a sort of representative specimen of his best work in progress, for in his preface he stated that he had equally good sets of observations on other texts ready for publication, but had singled out those on Varro as a testimony of his gratitude to [Louis Chasteigner](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_de_Chasteigner), to whom he dedicated the whole. > >Scaliger clearly set out to bring off a demonstration of virtuosity. He lost no chance to prove his mastery of Greek, even where he had to fetch the occasion for doing so from rather far ... > >Even more decisively, the _Coniectanea_ proved Scaliger’s mastery as a Latin textual critic. (Grafton 107-108) Scaliger’s work was often quoted by other scholars without due credit being given to him—something which never failed to gall him. But he was often equally reluctant to acknowledge his own debt to others: >Scaliger’s conjectures reveal more than his cleverness. They show that he had learned from Turnèbe, in both method and substance, much more than he admitted in his preface or in his discursive remarks. He gave Turnèbe credit for having given him manuscript readings and discussed conjectures with him. The picture of detailed co-operation is confirmed by Turnèbe’s own approving citation of one of Scaliger’s emendations. But the many tacit correspondences between Scaliger’s work and Turnèbe’s expose debts that Scaliger wished to conceal. (Grafton 108-109) https://i.imgur.com/BjTUMIS.jpg**Louis Chasteigner and La Roche-Posay** Grafton draws some ineluctable conclusions from the _Coniectanea_: >Two inferences cannot be escaped. The first is that Turnèbe had far more to do with Scaliger’s training than has generally been realized. Scaliger’s marvellous gifts for conjectural re-creation did not develop with the spontaneity that his own account suggests. He learned from an older master how to identify and attack corruptions. The second is less pleasing. It is that Scaliger was a young man in a great hurry and, more important, that he was in a hurry to prove the validity of his father’s contention that the abilities of a della Scala were limitless and his originality complete. He understood the notion of intellectual property perfectly well when it suited him—he became quite angry, as we saw, when Canter pillaged his work without giving him due credit. But it did not suit him to admit that the critical approach that he applied to Varro—to say nothing of many specific results—was not his own. In short, Scaliger’s aim in this first work was not simply to produce a piece of solid, professional textual scholarship, but to prove that he was the aristocratic virtuoso that his father had wanted him to become, even at the expense of scholarly candour. (Grafton 109-110) Grafton’s study of the _Coniectanea_ has also convinced him that when Scaliger chose to begin his career as a classical scholar with Varro’s treatise on the Latin language, he had aesthetic reasons for doing so that had little to do with philology: >Scaliger’s interests were less historical than literary. He regarded the Latin poetry of the second century BC as the proper medium for translating the classics of Greek poetry. He may well also have reasoned that the second-century translations had naturalized Greek literature in Rome; they had been the common currency of the writers of the Roman Golden Age. But they had been imperfect and were in any case now lost. Accordingly, he set out to enrich the Latin culture of his own time by replacing and improving upon the lost originals. In mastering Varro he hoped to improve his own ability to write archaic Latin verse ... One central end of the _Coniectanea_, then, was not the purification of ancient texts but the reconstruction of an ancient poetic genre. (Grafton 113-114) https://i.imgur.com/4cIhp07.jpg**Joseph Juste Scaliger** # Second Edition # Scaliger was not one to rest on his laurels. Twice in the course of the next sixteen years he returned to his _Coniectanea_ and revised it. The second edition came out in 1573, the third in 1581. The second edition was published in Geneva by Henri II Estienne. This edition contains Varro’s _De Lingua Latina_ and _De Re Rustica_. Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_ and its revision, _Appendix ad Conietanea_, have been added as appendices. Also included in this volume are Scaliger’s annotations to _De Re Rustica_. In addition to numerous indices, this edition of Varro’s treatises also incudes commentaries and emendations by three other scholars: Scaliger’s former teacher [Adrien Turnèbe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrianus_Turnebus) : the original editor of Varro’s works Antonius Augustinus : and the Italian philologist [Petrus Victorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Vettori). Contents|Page -|- Encomia on Varro|1-2 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 5|1-45 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 6|45-69 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 7|70-91 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 8|92-111 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 9|112-140 _De Lingua Latina_, Book 10|141-160 11 Indices|76 Unnumbered Pages _De Re Rustica_, Book 1|3-64 _De Re Rustica_, Book 2|65-109 _De Re Rustica_, Book 3|109-151 Index|18 Unnumbered Pages Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_|1-176 Etymologies|177-190 Scaliger’s Appendix to the _Coniectanea_|191-208 Scaliger’s Notes to _De Re Rustica_|209-276 Indices|23 Unnumbered Pages Adrien Turnèbe’s Commentary on and Emendations to _De Lingua Latina_|5-123 Excerpts from Turnèbe’s _Adversaria_|124-165 Antonius Augustinus’s Emendations to _De Lingua Latina_|166- Index|12 Unnumbered Pages Petrus Victorius’s Commentary on _De Re Rustica_|1-98 Books 5-10 of _De Lingua Latina_ are once again misidentified as Books 4-9. In the years between the first and second editions, Scaliger had studied with the French jurist [Jacques Cujas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Cujas) at the University of Valence, in the Dauphiné. Much of what he learnt from Cujas is reflected in the second edition of Varro: >Scaliger’s other Latin undertakings, however, increasingly reveal the impact of Cujas. First, he published an edition of the works of Varro with Estienne. This was a reprint of Agustin’s _De lingua latina_ and Vettori’s _De re rustica_ as far as the texts were concerned. His _Coniectanea_ on the _De lingua latina_ he simply reprinted, adding an appendix in which he explained several passages in enormous detail, paying far more attention to details of Roman topography and history than he had in the original work. It is his notes on the _De re rustica_ that are especially revealing. Vettori had based his edition on one particularly valuable manuscript, the readings of which he had recorded in detail in his _Castigationum explicationes_ [_Explanations of Emendations_]. Scaliger reprinted Vettori’s notes in full; and in his own notes he repeatedly accepted Vettori’s views or based his own emendations on Vettori’s collations. ‛For this correction’, he wrote at one point, ‛as for innumerable others [drawn] from that excellent manuscript, we are indebted to that excellent scholar Vettori.’ In the earlier _Coniectanea_ he had often discussed manuscripts and the habits of scribes, but always in general terms. He had never confronted, reading by reading, a major edition from Vettori’s school. In now doing so he clearly showed that he had learned from Cujas to use the detailed findings of the Italians as the basis for a bold and sophisticated conjectural criticism. (Grafton 127-128) https://i.imgur.com/G0gAXDk.jpg**Jacques Cujas** # Third Edition # The third edition is little more than a reprinting of the second. It was published by Henri II Estienne in Geneva in 1581. Some of Scaliger’s contributions, however, have clearly been revised and enlarged. For example, his notes to _De Re Rustica_ are about sixteen pages longer than in the second edition. The _Coniectanea_ and its Appendix, however, appear to be unchanged from the second edition. Scaliger is not known to have revisited his work on Varro during the remaining twenty-eight years of his life. By the time the third edition appeared, he was deep at work on his masterpiece _De Emendatione Temporum_. _Itaque hic finem faciam._ --- ## References ## * [Willem Canter](https://books.google.ie/books?id=JPb8cQAACAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), _Novae Lectiones_ [_New Readings_], Johannes Oporinus, Basel (1564) * [Willem Canter](https://books.google.ie/books?id=d346AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), _19 Tragedies by Euripides_, Christophe Plantin, Antwerp (1571) * [Anthony Grafton](https://b-ok.global/book/1198695/2c5a05), _Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship_, Volume 1, _Textual Criticism and Exegesis_, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1983) * [Roland Grubb Kent (translator)](https://archive.org/details/onlatinlanguage01varruoft/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater), _Varro: On the Latin Language_, Books 5-7, The Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1938) * [Roland Grubb Kent (translator)](https://archive.org/details/onlatinlanguage02varruoft/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater), _Varro: On the Latin Language_, Books 8-10 and Fragments, The Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1938) * [Charlton T Lewis & Charles Short](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.147309), _A Latin Dictionary_, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1879) * [**Joseph Scaliger**](https://archive.org/details/iosephiscaligeri0000scal/page/n5/mode/2up), _Coniectanea_ to Marcus Terentius Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, First Edition, Robert II Estienne, Paris (1565) * [Daniel J Taylor](https://bunker4.zlibcdn.com/dtoken/fd7e247262a5fc906972d1643cb9693a), _Declinatio: A Study of the Linguistic Theory of Marcus Terentius Varro_, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1974) * [Daniel J Taylor](https://books.google.ie/books?id=oBWy9Ac7G1MC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), _De Lingua Latina X: A New Critical Text and English Translation with Prolegomena and Commentary_, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1996) * [Marcus Terentius Varro](https://books.google.com/books?id=5T26zVdnQ6kC), _De Lingua Latina_, _De Re Rustica_, Second Edition of Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_, Henri II Estienne, Geneva (1573) * [Marcus Terentius Varro](https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_ysctzmrmHJIC/page/n3/mode/2up), _De Lingua Latina_, _De Re Rustica_, Third Edition of Scaliger’s _Coniectanea_, Henri II Estienne, Geneva (1581) ## Image Credits ## * [Marcus Terentius Varro](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statua_di_Marco_Terenzio_Varrone_(Rieti)_02.jpg): Dino Morsani (sculptor), Rieti, © [Alessandro Antonelli](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Una_giornata_uggiosa_%2794) (photographer), Creative Commons License * [Jean Dorat](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Dorat_(cropped).jpg): Nicolas de Larmessin (engraver), National Portrait Gallery, London, Public Domain * [Willem Canter](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Willem_Canter.jpg): Philip Galle (engraver), Rijks Museum, Amsterdam, Public Domain * [Marc-Antoine Muret](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marc-Antoine_Muret_by_Cornelis_Cort.jpg): Cornelis Cort (engraver), The New York Public Library Digital Collections, Public Domain * [Antonius Augustinus](https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/17075/antonio-agustin-y-albanell): Anonymous Engraving, Public Domain * [Roland Grubb Kent](https://dbcs.rutgers.edu/all-scholars/8840-kent-roland-grubb): © Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Fair Use * [Louis Chasteigner](https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1910-0610-39): Jean Picart (engraver), The British Museum, 1910,0610.39 London, Public Domain * [La Roche-Posay](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Roche-Posay_Porte_de_ville_435.jpg): © [GFreihalter](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GFreihalter), Creative Commons License * [Joseph Juste Scaliger](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Josephus_Justus_Scaliger,_hoogleraar_te_Leiden_BN_1232.tiff): Hendrick Goltzius (engraver), Leiden University Libraries, Digital Collections, Public Domain * [Jacques Cujas](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anonyme_-_Jacques_Cujas_-_cour_d%E2%80%99appel_de_Toulouse.jpg): Anonymous, Court of Appeal of Toulouse, © [Didier Descouens](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Archaeodontosaurus) (photographer), Creative Commons License ## Online Resources ## * [The Warburg Institute](https://warburg.sas.ac.uk/search?search=Joseph+Justus+Scaliger) * [Leiden University Libraries](https://digitalcollections.universiteitleiden.nl/view/item/1887327) * [Jacob Bernays: _Joseph Justus Scaliger_](https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001221720) https://i.imgur.com/7kq532u.png