Supplementum adnotationum super Lucanum. 1, Libri I-IV, ed. G.A. Cavajoni, Milano 1979
Supplementum Adnotationum super Lucanum. 2, Libri VI-VII ed. G.A. Cavajoni, Milano 1984
Supplementum Adnotationum super Lucanum. 3, Libri VIII-X / ed. G.A. Cavajoni, Amsterdam 1990
The title of the Supplementum should itself make clear that this work is closely tied to J. Endt’s 1909 Adnotationes super Lucanum and aims to be its fulfillment, according to the unrealized auspices of the editor. In his preface to the latter work, Endt indicated his desire to publish a series of scholia and interlinear glosses transmitted by five manuscripts of Lucan that he had only partially used for his edition (Endt 1969: ix). These manuscripts are known as: a (Guelferbytanus 41, 1 Aug. 2o, 12th c.), A (Parisinus lat. 7900A, 9th/10th c.), D (Berolinensis lat. fol. 35, 11th c.), R (Monacensis lat. 14505, 11th c.), and V (Vossianus lat. Q 51, second half of the 10th c.). Besides Lucan’s epic, they transmit exegetical material that can be divided into two categories of scholia: 1) what Endt calls the retractatio Adnotationum, i.e. an abridged and inferior redaction of the Adnotationes, and 2) glosses and scholia that are independent of the retractatio. Cavajoni seeks to complete this work that Endt never finished, focusing on Endt’s second group of scholia “in order to make all the scholiographic material from aADRV available” (Cavajoni 1979: xi). Cavajoni makes it clear that the contents of the glosses and scholia from aADRV are not totally unknown; indeed, many can be found in Weber’s 1831 Volumen tertium continens scholiastas, a work attached to that scholar’s edition of Lucan in which much space is given to the exegetical activity on the Bellum Civile that was undertaken before the printing press. Even so, Cavajoni demonstrates that Weber’s edition does not adhere to modern scholarly standards of textual criticism, and that it was thus desirable for him to produce an edition based on new and systematic consultations of each of the five manuscripts. This latter work resulted in a brief card describing the principal exterior characteristics of each manuscript, with special focus on the presence of scholia written in different hands. Cavajoni nevertheless makes clear that publication of the scholia from aADRV was not easy: since the scholia are transmitted together with a text of Lucan, lemmata are quite rare. The lemmata that he prints in majuscule are the result of his own intervention, and normally follow the text of the manuscript with which each scholium was transmitted rather than a specific published edition of the Bellum Civile. He admits using Endt’s text as a point of reference for his own collation in order to isolate the glosses and scholia of aADRV that are unrelated to the Adnotationes retractatae—the specific focus of his edition—from the glosses and scholia of the same manuscripts that depend on the retractatio. The predominant type of scholia in the Supplementum are short elementary notes of a strongly “scholastic” nature. Similarly common are scholia-glosses consisting of an explanation of single words or phrases through a synonym or synonyms, often introduced by a preparatory formula (id est, hoc est, or scilicet). There are also many notes enumerating variants for a word (signaled by vel or aliter), words or phrases that are implied (often preceded by subaudi, subaudiendum est, subauditur, or deest), rhetorical figures, the order of words (indicated with the formulas ordo and ordo est), as well as those that furnish grammatical explanations (e.g. a word’s logical function) and paraphrases or interpretations of the sense of a passage (introduced by the expressions sensus est, sensus talis est, and sensus hic est). Yet there are also some scholia of greater length; these tend to show an interest in mythology and history, among which one finds much space given to the use of Realien. Also common are scholia with citations of other authors, among whom the most prominent are Vergil (the author most cited), Juvenal, Persius, Statius, Boethius, Terence, Horace, Ovid, Cicero, and Sallust—as well as some offering extratextual references. [B. Strona; tr. C. L. Caterine].