Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
D. Other Commentators of the Fourth or Fifth Century

D. Other Commentators of the Fourth or Fifth Century

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

Eclogues), transmitted in longer and shorter versions, usually designated I and

II (or A and B). (Text: Thilo-Hagen 3.2:1–189; shorter and longer versions of

the Explanatio are printed in adjacent columns, labeled respectively I and II)

Philargyrius influenced heavily such later commentaries as the Scholia Bernensia (Bern Scholia: see below, IV.H) on the Eclogues and Georgics and the

Brevis expositio (Brief Exposition, text: Thilo-Hagen 3.1:193–320). The importance of the Philargyrius commentaries may be gauged by the existence of

Old Irish glosses on Philargyrius (see below, IV.I). (Discussion: G. Funaioli,

Esegesi virgiliana anticha [Milan, 1930], 192–232)

The commentator’s penchant for political allegory can often be misleading

(for example, the introductions to Eclogues 1 and 9 have Meliboeus in the

former and Lycidas in the latter standing for Cornelius Gallus), but it can on

occasion be suggestive. Eclogues 9.24–25 warns Tityrus against the aggressiveness of the he-goat:

. . . et inter agendum

occursare capro (cornu ferit ille) caveto.

. . . and while driving [the goats to water] beware of running up against the

he-goat. He butts with his horn.

In his gloss Philargyrius first equates the goat with a soldier and then

identifies the soldier with the Varus, that is, Alfenus Varus, mentioned in the

subsequent two lines and said by Aelius Donatus (VSD 19) and by Servius (on

Eclogues 9.27) to have been one of those in charge of land distributions to

veterans after the battle of Philippi.

Et militem cave: gladio ferit. Militi Varo dicit.

And beware of the soldier: he strikes with his sword. He says ‘‘soldier’’ for

Varus. (MP)

2. Aelius Donatus

(flourished fourth century)

Aelius Donatus was the teacher of Jerome (circa 347–420; see above, I.C.30)

and the most influential grammarian of his century (see also II.A.1). He wrote

two treatises on grammar as well as one commentary on Terence, which survives heavily abridged, and another on Virgil. Of the last-mentioned, we have

the dedicatory epistle to Lucius Munatius, the vita (probably drawn from the

much earlier Vita Vergilii [Life of Virgil] that Suetonius included in his De

poetis), and the introduction to the commentary on the Eclogues. Other material from Donatus’s commentary on Virgil’s oeuvre (Commentarii in Virgilium) found its way into Servius, especially the expanded version known as

Servius auctus or Servius Danielis. (Discussion: D. Daintree, ‘‘The Virgil Com642

I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

mentary of Aelius Donatus—Black Hole or ‘Éminence grise’?’’ Greece and

Rome 37 [1990], 65–79; G. Brugnoli, ‘‘Il consolidamento della glossa virgiliana nella programmazione di Elio Donato,’’ Cultura Latina pagana fra terzo

e quinto secolo dopo Cristo, Atti del convegno, Mantova, 9–12 novembre 1995 [Florence, 1998], 161–200) (Text: VVA 15–16) (MP and JZ)

a. Letter to Lucius Munatius

Inspectis fere omnibus ante me qui in Virgilii opere calluerunt, brevitati

admodum studens quam te amare cognoveram, adeo de multis pauca decerpsi, ut magis iustam offensionem lectoris expectem, quod veterum sciens

multa transierim, quam quod paginam compleverim supervacuis. Agnosce

igitur saepe in hoc munere collaticio sinceram vocem priscae auctoritatis.

Cum enim liceret usquequaque nostra interponere, maluimus optima fide,

quorum res fuerant eorum etiam verba servare. Quid igitur adsecuti sumus?

Hoc scilicet, ut his adpositis quae sunt congesta de multis, admixto etiam

sensu nostro, plus hic nos pauca praesentia quam alios alibi multa delectent.

Ad hoc etiam illis de quibus probata transtulimus, et attentionem omnium

comparavimus in electis, et fastidium demsimus cum relictis. Tu igitur id

quod nobis praescripseras utrum processerit specta. Si enim haec grammatico, ut aiebas, rudi ac nuper exorto viam monstrant ac manum porrigunt,

satis fecimus iussis; si minus, quod a nobis desideraveris, a te ipse deposces.

After reviewing nearly all those who before me were skilled in the work of

Virgil, quite concerned with the brevity I have learned that you appreciate, I

have excerpted a few details from many, so that I might await the just annoyance of the reader, because knowingly I had omitted many details of earlier

worthies rather than because I have filled up my page with superfluities. Recognize therefore in this amalgam of a gift the truthful voice of ancient authority. For although it was permitted us to make insertions of our own throughout, we preferred to preserve with the utmost fidelity also the words of those

whose facts were [presented]. What therefore have we accomplished? This for

certain: with these things put in place that are gathered from the many, with

our own sensibility added to the mixture, the small assemblage here at hand

delights us more than an abundance of detail does others elsewhere. To this

end also, as to those facts which we have transmitted with our approval, we

both have gained the attention of all for what was chosen, and have removed

any annoyance at what was omitted. Do you therefore examine whether that

which you had prescribed for us has proved successful. For if these show the

way and stretch out the hand to a grammaticus, as you said, unfinished and

recently embarked [on his teaching career], we have satisfactorily fulfilled



your commands; if not, please ask of yourself [and supply] what you have

found wanting in us [in our e√orts]. (MP)

b. Vita Vergilii

See above, II.A.1.

c. Introduction to Commentary on the Eclogues

See VVA 41–58.

3. Tiberius Claudius Donatus

(late fourth–early fifth century)

Tiberius Claudius Donatus wrote the Interpretationes Vergilianae (Virgilian

Commentaries), a line-by-line commentary on the Aeneid, dedicated to, and

written for, his son, Tiberius Claudius Maximus Donatianus. Unlike the commentary of Servius, with its detailed interest in grammar and in matters of

history and religion, Donatus’s work is essentially a prose paraphrase of the

poem, which seeks to study comprehensively the epic’s rhetorical continuity.

The Interpretationes Vergilianae comprises twelve books, each one devoted to a

book of the Aeneid.

The commentary seems to have experienced at least a modest success

during the Carolingian era, to judge by the three manuscripts from the period

that survive. One, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS Plut. 45.15,

was written in the abbey of St. Martin of Tours, most likely during the early

years of Alcuin’s abbacy. Another, Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS

Reg. lat. 1484, belonged to Lupus of Ferrières (circa 805–after 862), who

revised the text and made corrections. The third and oldest (around 800) is

also in the Vatican: MS Vat. lat. 1512, from Luxueil. (Discussion: R. J. Starr,

‘‘An Epic of Praise: Tiberius Claudius Donatus and Vergil’s Aeneid,’’ Classical

Antiquity 11 [1992], 159–74; M. Giose≈, ‘‘Ritratto d’autore nel suo studio:

osservazione a margine delle Interpretationes Vergilianae di Tiberio Claudio

Donato,’’ in E io sarò la tua guida. Raccolta di saggi su Virgilio e gli studi virgiliani,

ed. M. Giose≈ [Milan, 2000], 151–215) (Text, items a–e: Tiberi Claudi Donati: Interpretationes Vergilianae, ed. H. Georgii, 2 vols. [Leipzig, 1905–6])


a. Proemium to Aeneid 1 (Interpretationes Vergilianae 1.2.7–25)

Donatus sets out his genre.

Primum igitur et ante omnia sciendum est quod materiae genus Maro noster

adgressus sit; hoc enim nisi inter initia fuerit cognitum, vehementer errabitur. Et certe laudativum est, quod idcirco incognitum est et latens, quia


I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

miro artis genere laudationis ipse, dum gesta Aeneae percurreret, incidentia

quoque etiam aliarum materiarum genera conplexus ostenditur, nec ipsa

tamen aliena a partibus laudis; nam idcirco adsumpta sunt, ut Aeneae laudationi proficerent. Hoc loco quisquis Vergilii ingenium, moralitatem, dicendi naturam, scientiam, mores peritiamque rhetoricae disciplinae metiri

volet, necessario primum debet advertere quem susceperit carmine suo laudandum, quantum laborem quamque periculosum opus adgressus sit.

Talem enim monstrare Aenean debuit, ut dignus Caesari, in cuius honorem

haec scribebantur, parens et auctor generis praeberetur; cumque ipsum secuturae memoriae fuisset traditurus extitisse Romani imperii conditorem,

procul dubio, ut fecit, et vacuum omni culpa et magno praeconio praeferendum debuit demonstrare.

First, therefore, and before everything, we must understand what was the type

of subject matter that our Maro dealt with; for unless this is understood right

at the start, we will make a serious mistake. For certainly it is the genus laudativum [type reserved for praise]. This remains hard to perceive and concealed,

because he himself—such is the astonishing artistry of his type of praise—

while he is telling the tale of Aeneas’s deeds, is shown to have also incorporated other types of subject matter that occurred to him, though these nevertheless were not alien to the functions of praise. For these were also adopted

that they might advance the glorification of Aeneas. In this area, whoever

wishes to take the measure of Virgil’s intelligence, his moral stature, the nature

of his utterance, his knowledge, the traits and skillfulness of his eloquence, of

necessity ought first to attend to whom he has seized upon for praise in his

poetry, how great an e√ort and how fraught with peril the task he undertook.

For he had a duty to show Aeneas to be of such a sort that he be presented as

a worthy ancestor and forebear of Caesar [Augustus] in whose honor these

words were written. And since he was about to hand on to the memory of

those following him the fact that Aeneas was the founder of the Roman empire, as without doubt he did, it was his duty to show him as both free from

any fault and worthy of presentation with great fanfare. (MP)

b. Comment on Aeneid 2.350–55 (Interpretationes Vergilianae 1.195.1–16)

Sensum loci istius, quo facilius intellegatur, ordinamus hoc modo: iuvenes,

fortissima pectora, quae sit rebus fortuna videtis, excessere omnes adytis

arisque relictis dii quibus imperium hoc steterat, frustra succurritis urbi

incensae: si vobis audendi extrema cupido certa sequi, moriamur et in media arma ruamus; una salus victis nullam sperare salutem. Intellectus sic

accipiendus est: iuvenes quidem estis fortissimi et de fiducia virtutis in



bellum prompti cupitis adversis patriae subvenire, sed auxilium vestrum

incensae quid proderit? Non est igitur frustra laborandum vel maxime cum

ea quam dii sui deseruerunt qui eius imperium tuebantur, et quoniam in

omnibus praeventi sumus, moriamur si non pro ipsa, vel post eius interitum

et in armatos ruamus voluntate promptissima; una enim salutis via est

victis, si salutem quam tueri non possunt desperando contemnant.

We set out in this way the sense of the passage so that it can be more easily

understood: youths, bravest of hearts, you see where our fortune rests: all the

gods, through whom the might [of Troy] had stood, have withdrawn, their

shrines and altars abandoned; you o√er help in vain to the city in flames. If your

desire is assured to dare the ultimate, let us die and let us rush into the midst of

the weapons. The one mode of safety for the conquered is to hope for no safety.

Its sense must be grasped thus: you are indeed the bravest of youths, and from

trust in your courage you are ready for battle to provide relief for your fatherland against its foes, but what good will be your help when it is on fire? One

must therefore not struggle to the utmost, in vain, [on behalf of a fatherland,]

when its gods who were protecting its might have deserted, and, since we are in

all respects thwarted, if we may not die on her behalf, at least after her demise let

us rush, even against our armed opponents, with the utmost willingness. For

this is the one road to safety for the conquered, if they think nothing of the

safety that they are not able to protect in their despair. (MP)

c. Comment on Aeneid 4.12–13: Aeneas and Dido

(Interpretationes Vergilianae 1.357.9–19)

Tanta in illo viro constantia est, ut appareat illum diis esse progenitum.

Argumentum additur, ut hoc ipsum firmaret quod volebat adserere: degeneres, inquit, animos timor arguit, hoc est si degener esset, humilitatis

suae conscientia premeretur. Ecce quantum laudabat quae alieno hoc est

Cupidinis arbitrio ducebatur, non somno. Sed hic poetae favor est, qui omni

occasione virtutes Aeneae meritaque commendat. Inter bona eius ponit

quod non amavit ipse ut vulgaris, ut turpis, sed amatus est, neque amatus ab

ea quae esset pudoris abiecti, sed ab ea quae petita esset consilio Veneris et

Cupidinis fraude.

There is such steadfastness in that man [Aeneas] that it is clear he was sprung

from the gods. Proof is added [by Virgil] so as to support the very matter he

wished to assert: fear, he says, reveals minds of base origin, which is to say: if

someone is lowborn, realization of his lowly condition would be suppressed.

Watch how much he praises a woman who is led along by the will of someone

else, namely, of Cupid, not by a dream. But this results from the admiration of


I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

the poet, who on every occasion praises the virtues and merits of Aeneas. He

places among his noble traits the fact that he himself didn’t fall in love, like a

plebeian, someone of low birth, but that he was an object of love, nor was he

loved by a woman who had abandoned her modesty but by one who was a

victim of Venus’s plot and the deceit of Cupid. (MP)

Compare the comment on Aeneid 1.719–22 (Interpretationes Vergilianae


Novus enim amor inferri non posset, nisi vetus primo fuisset exclusus, qui

ipse, quoniam sensibus Didonis altius insederat, non semel hoc est non uno

inpulsu, sed paulatim potuit aboleri. Et cui amor coniugalis novus propter

Sychaei memoriam vehementer horrebat sensim potuit in praesentis amores

induci, vel maxime quia aliquanto tempore desierat videre cuius amore

tenebatur. Interea sciendum est induci Didonem castam, divitem, pulchram,

idcirco deceptam per Cupidinem, ut etiam in eo existimationem non tantum

ipsius Didonis verum etiam Aeneae poeta conservet, ne illum ignobilis femina proiecti pudoris sponte amasse aut provocata muneribus videatur aut

ille malis subversus innumeris de amoribus inlicitis cogitasse.

A new love could not be introduced unless the old were first eliminated, which

love, because it was more deeply embedded in Dido’s feelings, couldn’t itself

be banished at once, that is by a single blow, but little by little. And she, for

whom a new conjugal love was very much an object of horror because of her

memory of Sychaeus, was able bit by bit to be drawn into a fresh love, especially because for some time she had ceased to behold him by whose love she

was held. And so one must understand that Dido was introduced as chaste,

rich, beautiful, and deceived by Cupid, so that even in this the poet keeps

intact our favorable opinion not only of Dido herself but also of Aeneas, lest

either an ignoble woman, modesty abandoned, might appear to have fallen in

love with him, spontaneously or lured by gifts, or lest he, beset by countless

misfortunes, might appear to have given thought to illicit amours. (MP)

d. Comment on Aeneid 4.276–77: What Aeneas Might Have Said to Mercury

(Interpretationes Vergilianae 1.390.7–25; 391.1–2)

Non expectavit responsum Mercurius, sed finem suis verbis inponens ante

discessit. Medius sermo dividitur, qui exoriri potest inter duos vel pluris,

cum sibi invicem proponunt invicemque respondent. Hoc fieri Mercurius

non passus est; non enim ad hoc fuerat missus, ut peractis mandatis referret

etiam ipse responsum. Quod igitur esse medium potuit dimisit et abscessit,

vel maxime quia, si aliquid ab Aenea vellet audire vigilantis [comma moved

from before ‘‘vigilantis’’], vox fuerat necessaria, quam mortali non licuit



habere cum deo. Quod si fieri ullo modo sineretur, adsisteret Aeneas partibus suis diceretque se uxorium non esse, utpote qui nullam haberet uxorem, hiemis causa interim apud Carthaginem remansisse quassatis navibus et nondum conpositis, adhuc navigandi copiam non habere, nulla ope

sua iuvari Carthaginem, filio quoque Iunonem invidere, non se, vi maris ad

Carthaginem, non voluntate conpulsum, cum iam prope teneretur Italia,

nihil se struere, hoc est nihil moliri vel disponere, quod fili commodis obstaret aut suis. . . . Haec utique dicerentur, si responsionem hominis deus praesens potuisset accipere.

Mercury did not await a response, but bringing his words to an end he withdrew before [it]. A speech is divided in the middle which can take its start between two or more people, when they put things forth in turn and answer in

turn. Mercury did not allow this to happen, for he had not been sent for the purpose that, after he had carried out his orders, he should also himself bring back a

response. Therefore he left o√ at what could be considered [the speech’s] midpoint and withdrew, especially because, if he had wished to hear anything from

Aeneas on the qui vive, it would have required a voice, which a mortal is not

permitted to have with a god. But if it were somehow allowed to happen,

Aeneas would take a stand on his own behalf and would say that he wasn’t

uxorious, as is clear since he didn’t have a wife; and that for the meantime, on account of the winter, he had remained in Carthage since his ships had been battered and not yet repaired; that he still didn’t have the opportunity to set sail;

that Carthage was o√ered no help from his resources; also that Juno, not he

himself, was envious of his son; that he was driven to Carthage by the force of

the sea, not by his own will, when Italy was now nearly in his grasp; that he devised, that is, that he engineered or arranged, nothing that would stand in the way

of his son’s or his own interests. . . . These would certainly have been his words, if

the epiphanic god had been able to receive the answer of a human. (MP)

e. Comment on Aeneid 12.950: The Epic’s, and Donatus’s, Conclusion

(Interpretationes Vergilianae 2.641.21–642.1–4)

Et cum ad umbras concideret moriens, dolebat tamen se perdidisse lucem et

Aeneae Laviniam reliquisse. Magna carminis ordinatio, magna laudantis

industria; qui enim ab ipso principio [operis sui Aen]eae laudem omnibus

libris [executus est, ha]nc usque ad Turni mortem [consulto perduxit] egregia inventione [currente, ut cessa]ntibus universis solus Ae[neas cum solo

pugnar]et. Si enim in con[fuso omnium bello, Aeneae] licet virtute [cecidisset, posset videri necem] illam plu[rimorum adminiculo provenisse. S]epa[ravit igitur hos laudator egregius, ut s]peci[alis gloria in solius Aeneae


I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

meritis perm]aneret et ipse esset ultor iniuriae suae cui Lavinia et matrimonium debebatur.

And when Turnus was falling in death toward the shades, he was nevertheless

grieving that he had lost his life and left Lavinia to Aeneas. The climactic

arrangement of the poem is notable, as is the great diligence of the poet giving

praise; for from the very beginning of his [work], in all its books, he [has

persisted in] praise of Aeneas, and [purposefully], with a magnificent [flow]

of invention, has led us up to this death of Turnus, so that, with all others

[yielding place], Aeneas alone [might fight with him alone.] For if, [in war’s

total confusion,] he had fallen, even though by the courage of [Aeneas, it

could seem that his death came about by the support of very many people. Our

extraordinary eulogist, therefore, has separated them so that special glory remains for the worthiness of Aeneas alone,] and so that he himself is the

avenger of the injury to him, to whom Lavinia and marriage were due. (MP)


(Priscianus Caesariensis, fifth–sixth century)

Latin grammarians of late antiquity and the Middle Ages undergirded many of

their assertions with citations of the most important authors. Among these

authors (who tended also to include Terence, Cicero, and Horace), Virgil was

cited far more often than any other. Consequently it is not surprising to discover that he influenced strongly not only Donatus but also Priscian, the other

Latin grammarian who held preeminence for a millennium to come.

Priscian, who lived and taught in Constantinople, produced a very large

corpus of Latin grammatical works. The longest of his extant treatises is the

Institutiones grammaticae (Foundations of Grammar), which covers orthography, the eight parts of speech recognized in ancient Latin grammar, and syntax.

This eighteen-book ars grammatica enjoyed enormous success and is extant in

more than 1,000 medieval manuscripts. Of the many Latin prose writers and

poets who are cited extensively in the Institutiones grammaticae, Virgil is by a

substantial margin the most quoted. The considerably shorter Institutio de

nomine et pronomine et verbo (Elements of the Noun, Pronoun, and Verb)

summarizes the main features of inflecting parts of speech—participles as well

as nouns, pronouns, and verbs.

Priscian’s Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium (Enumeration

of the Parts of Speech in the Opening Verses of the Twelve Books of the

Aeneid ) comprises a dozen grammatical exercises, each based on the first line

of a book of Virgil’s Aeneid. In these exercises the content of Virgil’s epic

appears to be irrelevant to Priscian, since his analysis is grammatical (and to a



lesser extent metrical), but his choice of text was obviously governed by Virgil’s preeminence in the curriculum of grammar school readings. Although

Servius’s commentaries (see above, IV.B) show that the interpretation of

poetry—foremost among which was Virgil’s Aeneid—remained in late antiquity the most prestigious activity of grammarians, it had to be preceded by

other, more elementary studies. Better than any other text we have, the Partitiones gives insights into the ways in which, for more than a millennium and a

half, pupils in grammar school would have received their first exposure to the

text of the Aeneid. Indeed, it almost allows us to eavesdrop on a schoolmaster

working with pupils as they read lines of the epic for the first time. It takes the

form of occasional imperatives, more frequent brief questions, and many meticulously detailed responses. The question-and-answer form a√ords only

slight relief from the exhaustive, and exhausting, thoroughness of the wordfor-word parsing. The treatise suggests that pupils learning Latin were taught

to approach Virgil’s epic from the point of view of its morphology, syntax, and

especially its lexicon before beginning even rudimentarily to grapple with its

literary features. Every word in every line is made the occasion for review, in

inflecting Latin word forms and in word building.

Although its influence was not as great as that of either Priscian’s Institutiones or his Institutio, the Partitiones was nonetheless an important and successful text in the Middle Ages. It survives in seventy manuscripts. It received

occasional commentary, most notably in the ninth century by Remigius of

Auxerre (circa 841–circa 908). One of the manuscripts typifies the kind of

close attention that Virgil received in a late-tenth-century school setting. Paris,

Bibliothèque nationale, MS lat. 9344, contains, along with an incomplete copy

of the Partitiones, the works of Virgil with more than nine hundred interlinear

and marginal glosses in Old High German (see below, IV.L) on the Eclogues,

Georgics, and Aeneid. (Discussion: E. Glaser and C. Moulin-Fankhänel, ‘‘Die

althochdeutsche Überlieferung Echternacher Handschriften,’’ in Die Abtei

Echternach 698–1998, ed. M. C. Ferrari, J. Schroeder, and H. TrauΔer [Luxembourg, 1999], 112)

The following passage, which takes as its basis the first line of book 12 of the

Aeneid—Turnus ut infractos adverso Marte Latinos (when Turnus [sees] the

Latins broken through a reversal in war)—is the concluding exercise in the

Partitiones. (Discussion: M. Glück, Priscians Partitiones und ihre Stellung in der

spätantiken Schule [Hildesheim, 1967]; M. Passalacqua, ‘‘Le Partitiones di Prisciano nella tradizione medievale e umanistica,’’ in MOUSA: Scritti in onore di

Giuseppe Morelli, ed. P. D’Alessandro [Bologna, 1997], 371–80) (MSS: C.

Jeudy, ‘‘La tradition manuscrite des Partitiones de Priscien et la version longue

du commentaire de Rémi d’Auxerre,’’ Revue d’histoire de textes 1 [1971], 123–43;


I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

M. Passalacqua, ‘‘I codici medievali delle Partitiones priscianee,’’ in Manuscript

and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance, ed. M. De

Nonno, P. De Paolis, and L. Holtz [Erice, 1997], Edizioni dell’Università degli

Studi di Cassino, vol. 1[Cassino, 2000], 243–56) (Text: GL 3 [1859], 511–15;

see also Priscian, Opuscula, ed. M. Passalacqua, vol.2: Institutio de nomine et

pronomine et verbo: Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium, Edizioni

di storia e letteratura, Sussidi eruditi 48 [Rome, 1999]) (JZ)

Turnus ut infractos adverso Marte Latinos.

Scande versum. Turnus ut | infrac | tos ad | verso | Marte La | tinos. [210]

Quot caesuras habet iste versus? Unam. Quam? Semiquinariam, Turnus ut

infractos. Quot figurarum est? Decem. Quare? Quia habet duos dactylos et

tres spondeos. Tracta singulos pedes. Turnusut dactylus ex una longa et

duabus brevibus et cetera. Quot partes orationis habet iste versus? Sex,

Turnus ut infractos adverso Marte Latinos. Quot nomina? Quattuor, Turnus

adverso Marte Latinos. Quid aliud habet? Unum participium, infractos, et

unum adverbium, ut.

Tracta singulas partes. Turnus quae pars orationis est? Nomen. Quale?

Proprium. Cuius est speciei? Univocae: significat enim nomen proprium

regis Rutulorum et appellativum piscis palustris. Fac ab eo quod est Turnus

derivativum. Quomodo Saturnus Saturnius, sic debet etiam esse Turnus

Turnius; patronymicum Turnides, quomodo Priamus Priamides. Quare secundae est [211] declinationis, Turnus Turni? In us correptam desinentia

propria secundae sunt declinationis excepto Venus Veneris: praeterea Ligus

Liguris, quod potest et proprium esse et gentile; et si sit proprium, masculinum est solum, hic Ligus huius Liguris; si gentile est, invenitur commune, hic et haec Ligus Liguris. Quare Turnus Turne facit vocativum? Quia

omnia in us desinentia secundae in e faciunt vocativum exceptis propriis

quae i habent ante us, quae per apocopam proferunt vocativum, ut Virgilius

o Virgili pro Virgilie, et Mercurius o Mercuri pro Mercurie (ideoque accentus [212] manet paenultimus, quamvis brevis sit paenultima syllaba. Ex

quibus enim aliqua subtrahitur syllaba, si integra manet illa in qua est

accentus, integrum servat etiam accentum, ut hic et haec Arpinatis perfectum circumflexum habuit paenultima syllaba, quae mansit in concisione:

dicimus enim hic et haec Arpinas. Similiter si dicamus munit pro munivit, circumflectitur nit, quia integra dictione supra se habuit circumflexum.

Sic etiam tuguri pro tugurii acutum debet habere.). Et Terenti pro Terentie,

Sallusti pro Sallustie. Euphoniae tamen causa vel metri est quando nominativis utuntur pro vocativis, ut deus pro dee et fluvius pro fluvie, ut Virgilius in VIII Aeneidos ‘‘corniger Hesperidum fluvius regnator aquarum’’

[Aeneid 8.77]; et populus pro popule, ut Lucanus in secundo ‘‘degener o



populus, vix saecula longa decorum’’ [De bello civili 2.116]. Unum autem

invenitur appellativum solum, quod et in i et in e vocativum profert, ut filius

o fili et o filie.

Ut quae pars orationis est? Adverbium. Quid est adverbium? Pars [213]

orationis quae adiecta verbo significationem eius explanat atque implet.

Adverbio quot accidunt? Tria, species significatio figura. Cuius est significationis ut? Hic temporalis: accipitur enim pro postquam. Quando autem significat ¡ina Graecam coniunctionem, loco coniunctionis accipitur causalis.

Est tamen etiam similitudinis adverbium. Solet autem ei adici etiam i tam

coniunctionem significanti quam adverbium. Adicitur ei etiam nam et invenitur optandi adverbium, utinam. Igitur ut et uti significat adverbium

[214] quidem, quando tempus vel similitudinem vel qualitatem sive interrogationem, id est, quando quomodo significat; quando vero ¡ina vel o¡ti

Graecam coniunctionem significat, coniunctionis loco accipitur. Compositum autem ab uti utinam adverbium est optandi, ut diximus. Praeterea

utique pro videlicet affirmandi est adverbium. Quem habet accentum? [215]

Ut et uti et utinam praepositiva gravantur per omnes syllabas, subiunctiva

autem generalem accentum servant. Sciendum tamen, quod ut quoque invenitur etiam pro optandi adverbio, ut Terentius in Phormione ‘‘ut illum di

deaeque omnes perdant’’ [Eunuchus 2.3.11 (302)]. Cum vel quoque compositum tam ut quam uti similitudinis adverbium faciunt, velut et veluti, ut

Virgilius in primo Aeneidos ‘‘ac veluti magno in populo cum saepe coorta

est / seditio’’ [1.148–49].

Infractos quae pars orationis est? Participium. Quid est participium?

[216] Pars orationis partem capiens nominis partemque verbi. Cuius est

generis? Masculini, casus accusativi, temporis praeteriti, significationis passivae. Cuius est formae? Perfectae, numeri pluralis, figurae compositae ex

duobus integris. Et nota, quod inveniuntur saepe participia ex verbis, quae

non ex duobus integris componuntur, integra in utraque parte inventa; ut

infringor ex integro est et corrupto, tamen infractus ex duobus integris fit.

Ideoque possumus non a verbis ea declinata accipere, [217] sed magis a sese

composita. Similiter impingo impactus, contingo contactus. Similiter perficio perfeci, deficio defeci, conficio confeci. Nec mirum in verbis et participiis hoc inveniri, cum etiam in nominibus possunt huiuscemodi compositiones esse; ut idem tam masculinum quam neutrum ex duobus est

corruptis, eiusdem vero ex integro et corrupto, et e contrario alteruter ex

duobus integris, alterutrius ex corrupto et integro.

Declina activum. Indicativo infringo infringebam infregi infregeram infringam; [218] imperativo praesenti infringe infringat infringamus infringite infringant, futuro infringito tu, infringito ille, infringitote, infringant


I V. C O M M E N T A R Y T R A D I T I O N

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

D. Other Commentators of the Fourth or Fifth Century

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)