Archives par étiquette : saec. I p. Chr.

C. Iulius Hyginus

(Hispania), saec. I med. a. Chr. / I in. p. Chr.

Gayo Julio Higino fue un gramático liberto de Augusto. Suetonio (gramm. 20,1) y Jerónimo (chron. a. Abr. 2008) lo citan como C. Iulius Hyginus; Columela, Gelio, Carisio y Macrobio como Iulius Hyginus o Hyginus Iulius, Asconio como C. Hyginus; en todas las demás ocasiones, es citado simplemente como Hyginus.

Se discutía ya en época de de Suetonio (gramm. 20,1) si era hispano o alejandrino. Gayo Julio César lo habría traído consigo a Roma después de la toma de Alejandría (47 a. C.), cuando aún era un niño. No hay ninguna prueba de que hubiese nacido en Hispania y, por alguna razón, hubiese emigrado a Alejandría.

Fue discípulo del gramático griego Cornelio Alejandro, apodado Polyhistor o Historia (Suet. gramm. 20,1 y Hier. chron. a. Abr. 2008). A partir de las fechas en que vivió éste, que nació hacia el 110 a. C. y alcanzó la ciudadanía romana de manos de Sila en torno al 80 a. C. (Suidas p. 61 B; Serv. auct. Aen. 10, 388), y de un pasaje en que Columela (1, 1, 12s.) citaría a los autores de obras sobre agricultura en orden cronológico, se podría concluir que Higino habría nacido en torno al año 60 a. C. o poco después y desarrollado su actividad en el último cuarto del s. I a. C. y, tal vez, primeros años de nuestra era (Grff, 525; Kaster 1995, 205s.).

Dirigió la biblioteca palatina, fundada por Augusto en el 28 a. C. (Suet. Aug. 29; Cass, Dio 53, 1), lo que no le impidió ejercer la docencia. Entre sus muchos discípulos, destaca el también gramático y liberto suyo Julio Modesto.

Fue amigo del poeta Ovidio (n. 43 a. C.), quien podría haberse referido a él en trist. 3, 14, y del historiador G. Clodio Licino (cónsul suffectus el año 4 d. C.), quien, según su propio testimonio, se encargó de su sustento, ya que, al final de su vida, padeció extrema pobreza, aunque no hay pruebas concluyentes de que esta circunstancia se debiese a haber perdido el favor de Augusto y, por tanto, su cargo de bibliotecario a causa de su amistad con el desterrado Ovidio (Kaster 1995, 212s.).

Escribió un De agricultura en, al menos dos libros (Char. gramm. 180, 7), del que tal vez formara parte un De apibus (Colum. 9, 13, 8), a no ser que se trate de una obra independiente, lo que parece poco probable.

Ese mismo problema se ha planteado con respecto a sus dos colecciones de biografías de hombres ilustres : De uita rebusque inlustrium uirorum, en, al menos, seis libros (Gell. 1, 14, 1) y De uiris claris, en dos libros (Ascon. Pis. 12, 4).

Otras obras suyas de tema histórico y geográfico son: Exempla (Gell. 10, 18, 7), colección de anécdotas llamativas o edificantes, De familiis Troianis (Serv. Aen. 5, 389) y Urbes Italicae o, con su título completo, tal vez De origine et situ urbium Italicarum, en, al menos, tres libros (Serv. Aen. 1, 277; 3, 553; 7, 412 y 687; 8, 597; Serv. auct. Aen. 8, 638; Macr. 5, 18, 15s.).

El marcado carácter anticuario de estas dos últimas obras y de sus De proprietatibus deorum (Macr. 3, 8, 4) y De dis Penatibus (Macr. 3, 4, 13) tal vez respondiese al deseo del autor de colaborar con el programa de regeneración moral y religiosa de Augusto (Christes 1979, 81). Por otro lado, se le han atribuido un De astrologia y una colección de fábulas, obras posteriores a él (posiblemente del s. II) y que, por referencias internas, parecen de un mismo autor (Kaster 1995, 208).

En cuanto a sus escritos gramaticales, encontramos un comentario al propempticon que Helvio Cinna dedica a Asinio Polión con motivo de un viaje de éste a Grecia. Por más que se trata de un comentario, los dos fragmentos conservados (Char. gramm. p. 171, 5 y 11, provenientes de la obra de Carisio, aunque, en realidad, la fuente es Julio Romano) reflejan un contenido básicamente geográfico.

Su comentario a las obras de Virgilio, en al menos cuatro libros, se cita como commentarii in  Vergilium o como libri de Vergilio. En los fragmentos conservados, domina la reprehensio (Gell. 5, 8, 1; 7, 6, 2s.; 10, 16, 1-10, 11-13 y 14-18), pero no falta la crítica textual propiamente dicha (Gell. 1, 21, 1-3; Serv. Aen. 12, 120), y el comentario línea a línea o sobre determinadas quaestiones particulares (Gell. 16, 6, 14; Serv. auct. Aen. 2, 15 y Serv. Aen. 7, 47). Se ha especulado, por ello, con la posibilidad de que fuesen dos obras distintas (Diehl–Tolkiehn 1918, 632; Schanz-Hosius 1935, 370).

Suelen incluirse como gramaticales siete fragmentos de su Urbes Italicae (Serv. Aen. 1, 530; 7, 412; 8, 597; Serv. auct. Aen. 8, 600 y 638; Macr. 1, 7, 19-24; 5, 18, 15s.) porque, en su mayoría, abordan problemas relativos al origen de los nombres de las ciudades o de los pueblos que las habitaban.

Bibliographica

Editiones

Bunte (1846), 22-61; GRFF, 525-537; GRFM, 397.

Studia

Suringar (1834-1835), i, 264-266, ii, 172-184; Gräfenhan (1843-1850), iv, 63-65; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), ii, 145-149; E. Diehl – J. Tolkiehn, ‘Iulius 278’, RE x/1 (1918), 628-651; Schanz–Hosius (1927⁴-1935⁴), ii, 268-272; PIR² iv/3 (1966), I 357; Christes (1979), 72-82; Kaster (1995), 204-208; P.L. Schmidt, BNP.

Bunte, Bernahrd (1846), C. Iulii Hygini, Augusti liberti, vita et scriptis, Marburg.

Goetz, Georgius (1888), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, Leipzig.

Holford-Strevens, Leofranc (2000), “And by the bitter taste disclose the ground (Gell. I 21 on Verg. Georg. II, 246s”, Eikasmos 11, 309-334.

Ribbeck, Otto (1866), P. Vergilii Maronis opera. Prolegomena critica, Leipzig, 117-121.

Thilo, Georg, Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica Commentarii, Leipzig, 1887.

Timpanaro, Sebastiano (1986), Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica, Roma, 51-67.

Woestijne, Paul van (1930): Hyginiana, Gent.

Iulius Modestus

inc. loc., saec. I in. p. Chr.?

Julio Modesto, gramático, liberto y discípulo del, a su vez, gramático y liberto de Augusto Gayo Julio Higino (Christes 1979, 94), siguió, tal como advierte Suetonio (gramm. 20, 3), las huellas de su maestro en cuanto a estudios y doctrina, por lo que un adecuado conocimiento de Higino resulta imprescindible a la hora de determinar la biografía de su discípulo. Sin embargo, en muchas ocasiones, nuestro conocimiento no es todo lo seguro que desearíamos. Así, se utiliza para fijar la época en que Modesto desarrolló su actividad, las fechas probables en que vivió Higino (segunda mitad del s. I a. C. y, tal vez, primeros años de nuestra era), que, a su vez, están fundamentadas en las, tampoco del todo seguras, de su propio maestro, Alejandro Polyhistor. No obstante, de esta concatenación de datos hipotéticos y de la mención de determinados personajes históricos en algunos de sus fragmentos (por ejemplo, Gell. 3, 9, 1, donde se pasa revista a los sucesivos dueños del caballo de Gneo Seyo), se puede deducir que Modesto desarrolló su actividad en tiempos de Tiberio (GRFF 11; Kaster 1995, 213s.).

Esta incertidumbre provoca que, en aquellos testimonios y fragmentos en que no se especifica el praenomen Iulius, resulte difícil decidir si estas fuentes se refieren a él (Ribbeck 1866, 122; Wessner, en Teuffel 1910-1013, II 206) o a, por ejemplo, el Aufidio Modesto (Bunte 1846, 14, n.) que cita Servio (Serv. auct. georg. 2, 497), tal vez el mismo al que, con idéntico nombre, alude Plutarco (quaest. conv. 632a) como contemporáneo suyo (GRFF 9).

Ahora bien, si excluimos los fragmentos dudosos, fruto de conjeturas (Scholium Veronense ad Aen. 3, 705 y Fest. p. 346, 22), de los dieciséis restantes diez especifican el praenomen Iulius (Char. gramm. p. 95, 18; 128, 7; 132, 4; 159, 9; 265, 18; Macr. Sat. 1, 4, 7; 1, 10, 9; 1, 16, 28; Diom. gramm. i 365, 16 y Gell. 3, 9, 1) y otros dos (Char. gramm. p. 92, 23 y Quint. inst. 1, 6, 36) parecen ser de Julio (el primero seguro y el segundo con gran probabilidad). Así, sólo cuatro plantean dudas: Brev. expos. Verg. georg. 1, 170, 364 y 378 y Serv. auct. georg. 3, 53, pero los cuatro son escolios a las Geórgicas de Virgilio, lo que permite argumentar a favor de Aufidio, aunque no necesariamente en contra de Julio, ya que sabemos por Gelio (1, 21, 2) que Higino, su maestro, comentó a Virgilio y, por Suetonio (gramm. 20, 3), como ya hemos dicho, que siguió sus huellas en cuanto a estudios y doctrina. Además, la temática de algunos de esos fragmentos de paternidad dudosa es similar a la de otros de Julio: Brev. expos. Verg. georg. 1, 170 y 364 son similares al resto de los de contenido etimológico (Macr. Sat. 1, 10, 9; Char. gramm. p. 95, 18 y Quint. inst. 1, 6, 36) y Brev. expos. Verg. georg. 1, 378 tanta semejanza guarda con Gell. 3, 9, 1 como con Serv. auct. georg. 2, 497. A estos argumentos cualitativos debe añadirse uno cuantitativo y fundamental: conservamos un único fragmento con el nombre de Aufidio y, en cambio, más de una decena atribuibles con seguridad a Julio. Sobre todo el asunto, planea además la posibilidad de que Aufidius se trate de un error de transmisión y todos los fragmentos, incluido ése, sean de Julio.

El hecho de que Julio Modesto sea citado en varias ocasiones por Carisio y una vez por Diomedes y Beda el Venerable (GLK vii 277,20), junto con su mención, dependiente de la de su maestro (Kaster 1995, 214), gramático probado y cuyas huellas siguió, en la obra de Suetonio De grammaticis et rhetoribus (20, 3), permite deducir su condición de gramático profesional (cf. Macr. Sat. 1, 4, 7: et ut ipsos quoque grammaticos in testimonium citem, Verrius Flaccus… item Iulius Modestus).

Parece bastante evidente que escribió unas Quaestiones confusae, en al menos dos libros, donde contaba, por ejemplo, la historia del equus Seianus, previsiblemente en relación con el proverbio ille homo habet equum Seianum y las cuestiones léxicas en torno a los términos utilizados en latín y griego para aludir al color de dicho caballo (Gell. 3, 9, 1). Es muy probable que la obra fuera semejante a Noctes Atticae (Bunte 1846, 16; Gräfenhan 1850, IV 65; GRFF 12), como parece insinuar el propio Gelio (praef. 5-9).

Posiblemente, algunos de los fragmentos de contenido gramatical pertenecen a esta obra (Gräfenhan 1850, IV 65 ; Froehde 1892, 608), sobre todo aquellos en que suelen aparecer recurrentemente asuntos problemáticos de carácter ortográfico (Char. gramm. p. 132, 4 y Diom. gramm. i 365, 16), gramatical (Char. gramm. p. 92, 23; 128, 7; 159, 9; 265, 18) y etimológico (Char. gramm. p. 95, 18 y Quint. inst. 1, 6, 36). Otros, en cambio, por no especificar el praenomen y proceder de escolios a las Geórgicas de Virgilio, podrían, como hemos dicho, corresponder a Aufidio. En este sentido, el Modestus citado por Marcial (10, 21, 1) parece traerse a colación como intérprete de poesía, lo que invita a ponerlo en relación con aquellos fragmentos en que Modesto figura como posible comentarista de Virgilio y de Horacio (en una Vita Horatii: Schol. Hor. Vita ii, p. 3, 7). Si, en los casos en que no se especifica, se trata de Julio o de Aufidio e incluso si se trata siempre de la misma persona resulta muy difícil determinarlo (Goetz RE II 2294; Schanz-Hosius 1935, 155, 730, 858; Kaster 1995, 214). De cualquier modo, nada permite asegurar que ni Julio ni Aufidio Modesto hayan sido autores de un comentario a Virgilio (Thilo 1887, p. xvi), por más que, como hemos dicho, Julio Higino sí fue autor seguro de uno.

El fragmento recogido en Macr. Sat. 1, 10, 9, de contenido mixto, entre etimológico y erudito religioso, y citado por Macrobio, podría también, como Macr. Sat. 1, 4, 7 (y, tal vez, 1, 16, 28), pertenecer a su De feriis, obra en la que habría tratado cuestiones de orden religioso, siguiendo, una vez más, las huellas de su maestro, quien escribió, en efecto, De dis Penatibus y De proprietatibus deorum (Kaster 1995, 214). Existe, no obstante, la posibilidad de que con la expresión de feriis no se aluda al título de la obra sino al contenido del pasaje al que se refiere el fragmento o al título de un apartado dentro de una obra mayor de temática más general.

En cuanto a los fragmentos dudosos, por último, no parece que el simple contenido religioso sea suficiente para sostener las conjeturas que los atribuyen a Modesto. En todo caso, el de Scholium Veronense ad Aen. 3, 705, si se admite la existencia de Aufidio Modesto, no tendría por qué ser necesariamente de Julio.

Bibliographica

Editiones

 GRFM, 9-23.

Studia

Gräfenhan (1843-1850), iv, 65; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), ii, 206; G. Goetz, ‘Aufidius 30’, RE ii/2 (1896), 2294; J. Tolkiehn, ‘Iulius 363’, RE x/1 (1918), 680-681; Schanz–Hosius (1927⁴-1935⁴), ii, 730; PIR² iv/3 (1966), I 432; Christes (1979), 94-96; Kaster (1995), 213-214; R.A. Kaster, ‘Iulius iv.2’, BNP.

Bardon, Henry (1956), La littérature latine inconnue, París, 150s.

Bunte, Bernahrd (1846), C. Iulii Hygini, Augusti liberti, vita et scriptis, Marburg, 14-20.

Dahlmann, Hellfried (1957), Gnomon 29, 197-204 (reseña de GRFM).

Froehde, Oskar (1892), ‘De C. Iulio Romano Charisii auctore’, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl 18, 565-672, esp. 608s.

Funaioli, Gino (1930), Esegesi Virgiliana Antica, Milán, 1930.

Gilbert, Walther (1887), “Zu erklärung von Martialis epigrammen”, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik 135, 143-151.

Kaster, Robert A. (1995), C. Suetonius Tranquillus. De grammaticis et rhetoribus, Oxford.

Kaster, Robert A. (2011), Macrobius. Saturnalia. Books 1-2, Cambridge-Londres.

Mai, Angelo (1835), Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum. Tomus VII, Roma.

Reppe, Rudolf (1964), De L. Annaeo Cornuto, Leipzig.

Ribbeck, Otto (1866), P. Vergilii Maronis opera. Prolegomena critica, Leipzig.

Suringar, Willem Henrik Dominicus (1834-1835), Historia critica Scholiastarum Latinorum, 3 vol., Leiden.

Thilo, Georg (1887), Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica Commentarii, Leipzig.

Claudius Didymus

Roma?, saec. I p. Chr.?

L’unica fonte che ci attesti l’esistenza di un grammatico di nome Didimo Claudio è la Suda (δ 874). Tale informazione non trova purtroppo conferma nei frammenti pervenuti e ha pertanto suscitato le perplessità di alcuni studiosi, tra i quali Schmidt (1854: 3) e Funaioli (GRFF: xxi), che preferiscono ricondurre la scheda della Suda al Calcentero; di opposto parere sono invece Cohn (1903: 473), Daub (1882: 90-91) e A. Mazzarino (1950: 81). Il cognomen del grammatico ha fatto ipotizzare a Schmidt (1854 : 3) che egli fosse vissuto al tempo di Claudio o di Nerone, mentre secondo Cohn (1903 : 473) e A. Mazzarino (GRFM: 55-56) sarebbe vissuto sotto Claudio. Il nostro grammatico sarebbe autore delle seguenti opere: Περὶ τῶν ἡμαρτημένον παρὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν Θουκυδίδῃ; Περὶ τῆς παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἀναλογίας; Ἐπιτομὴν τῶν Ἡρακλέωνος.

Per quanto riguarda il primo trattato, secondo S. Mazzarino (1966: 466), seguito da Piccirilli (1985: 67-68), rimanderebbe a questo, anziché a un’opera del Calcentero, il riferimento a Didimo contenuto nel paragrafo 16 della Vita di Tucidide di Marcellino, in cui si tratta dell’errata grafia del nome del padre dello storico, ipotesi smentita però in maniera definitiva da Porciani (2001: 45 n. 106), secondo cui ci troviamo di fronte non tanto a uno sbaglio di Tucidide, quanto a un errore della tradizione biografica su di lui. L’ipotesi di Ritter (1845a: 137-140 e 1845b: 339-340) secondo la quale risalirebbero a questo testo anche i paragrafi 46-53 della suddetta Vita di Tucidide, che difendono la lingua e lo stile dello storico dalle accuse rivoltegli da Dionigi di Alicarnasso, è contraddetta da Piccirilli (1985: 67 e 156).

Il secondo trattato, l’unico di cui ci siano conservati dei frammenti, è stato attribuito al Calcentero da Ristschl (1838: 140) e poi da Funaioli (GRFF: 446-450) e Schmidt (1854: 3 e 345-346), mentre presta fede alla testimonianza della Suda la maggior parte degli studiosi, tra i quali sono da ricordare almeno Cohn (1903: 473); Christes (1979: 66 n. 466); Dubuisson (1984: 61 e 1987: 20 n. 27); A. Mazzarino (1950: 81); Rochette (1997: 61 n. 55).

Per quanto riguarda, infine, l’ultima opera menzionata dalla Suda, essa si occupava, secondo Rohde (1870: 13), seguito da Degani (1995: 517 n. 43), del lessicografo atticista Eracleone di Efeso, mentre secondo Cohn (RE: 473), ma meno verisimilmente, del commentatore di Omero e dei lirici nato a Tilotis e vissuto sotto Augusto. Schmidt (1854: 3 e 382) proponeva di emendare il titolo dell’opera in Ἐπιτομὴν τῶν Ἡρακλείδου λεσχῶν, identificando così, secondo una suggestione già di Bernhardy (1843-1853: 1330 n. 1), il nostro grammatico con Didimo figlio di Eraclide; tale ipotesi è ritenuta insostenibile da Cohn (RE: 473 ; vd. anche 472-473/9) e da Daub (1882: 90-91).

Alcuni studiosi, tra i quali Cohn (RE: 471-472; vd. anche 471-472/8); D’Anna (1954: 215-217); Gärtner (1967: 13-14); Holford-Stevens (1988: 121 n. 106); Boeft-Drijvers-Hengst-Titler (1995: 304); Fontaine (1996: 345-346), attribuiscono inoltre a Didimo Claudio un’opera ostile al De re publica di Cicerone e assegnata da Amm. 22, 16, 16 al Calcentero ( … aliique plurimi scriptores multorum in litteris nobilium studiorum, inter quos Chalcenterus eminuit Didymus, multiplicis scientiae copia memorabilis, qui in illis sex libris, ubi non numquam inperfecte Tullium reprehendit, sillographos imitatus, scriptores maledicos, iudicio doctarum aurium incusatur, ut inmania frementem leonem trepidulis uocibus canis catulus longius circumlatrans), dal momento che non sembra che quest’ultimo conoscesse il latino a tal punto da poter correggere addirittura Cicerone.

Vale infine la pena ricordare che secondo Jeep (1909: 7-8 e n. 10), in ciò seguito da A. Mazzarino (1950: 112-113), in Diom. GL I 321, 11-12 (huius modi autem nominum ordinatio, sicut Arruntius Claudius [teste Claudio: Jeep] asserit, a Graecis tracta demonstratur) si nasconderebbe una citazione di Didimo Claudio, suggestione, questa, che è stata successivmente contestata da Morelli (1984: 18-24).

Bibliographica

Editiones

Schmidt (1854), 345-349; GRFF, 446-450

Studia

L. Cohn., ‘Didymos 8’, RE v (1905), 445-472; F. Montanari, ‘Didymus 3’, DNP iii (1997) 554.

Bernhardy, Gottfried (1853), Souidas. Suidae lexicon Graece et Latine ad finem optimorum librorum exactum post Thomam Gaisfordum recensuit et annotatione critica instruxit G. B, I, Halle-Braunschweig, 1330.

Christes, Johannes (1969), Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen in antiken Rom, Wiesbaden, 66 n. 466.

D’Anna‚ Giovanni (1954), Le idee letterarie di Suetonio, Firenze, 215-217.

Daub, Adam (1882), Studien zu den Biographica des Suidas, Freiburg-Tubingen, 90-91.

Den Boeft, Jan; Drijvers, Jan Willem; den Hengst, Daniël; Teitler, Hans (1995), Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXII, Groningen, 304.

Degani, Enzo (1995), ‘La lessicografia’, G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, D. Lanza (a cura di), Lo spazio letterario della Grecia antica, ii, La ricezione e l’attualizzazione del testo, Roma, 517 n. 43.

Dubuisson, Michel (1984), ‘Le latin est-il une langue barbare ?’, Ktéma 9, 61.

Dubuisson, Michel (1987), ‘Homérologie et politique. Le cas d’Arystodemos de Nysa’, J. Servais, T. Hackens, B. Servais-Soyez (éd. par), Stemmata. Mélanges de philologie, d’histoire et d’archéologie grecques offerts à Jules Labarbe, Liège, 20 n. 27.

Fontaine, Jacques (1996), Ammien Marcellin, iii, Livres 20-22. Texte établi, traduit et annoté par J. F., Paris, 345-346.

Holford-Strevens, Leofranc (2003), Aulus Gellius. An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, Oxford, 121 n. 106.

Jeep, Ludwig (1909), ‘Priscianus. Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Römischen Literatur II’, Philologus 68, 7-8 e n. 10.

Mazzarino, Antonio (1950), Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta aetatis Caesareae, Torino, 81 e 112-113.

Mazzarino, Santo (19662), Il pensiero storico classico, ii/2, Bari, 466.

Montana, Fausto (2013), ‘Didymus [2] Claudiusî’, LGGA.

Morelli, Giuseppe (1984), ‘Un nuovo frammento di Festo in Diomede’, RFIC 112, 18-24.

Piccirilli, Luigi (1985), Storie dello storico Tucidide. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento delle Vite tucididee a cura di L. P., Genova, 67-68 e 156.

Porciani, Leone (2001), Prime forme della storiografia greca. Prospettiva locale e generale nella narrazione storica, Stuttgart, 45 n. 106.

Ritschl, Friedrich (1838), Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten Ptolemaern und die Sammlung der Homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus, nach Anleitung eines Plautinischen Scholions. Nebst litterarhistorischen Zugaben uber die Chronologie der Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken, die Stichometrie der Alten, und die Grammatiker Heliodorus, Breslau, 140.

Ritter, Franz (1845a), Dydimi Chalcenteri opuscula auctori suo restituta, ad codices antiquos recognita, annotatione illustrata, Köln, 137-140.

Ritter, Franz (1845b), ‘Das Leben von Thucydides von Marcellinus’, RhM 3, 339-340.

Rochette, Bruno (1997), Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Bruxelles, 61 n. 55.

Rohde, Erwin (1870), De Julii Pollucis in apparatu scaenico enarrando fontibus. Accedit de Pollucis libri secundi fontibus epimetrum, Leipzig, 13 e n. 3.

Schmidt, Moritz, Dydimi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig 1854.

Terentius Scaurus, Quintus

inc. loc., saec. I – II p. Chr.

His praenomen Q(uinctus) is attested in both the indirect (Char. gramm. p. 263, 11 and 272, 27) and the direct tradition (some manuscripts of the treatise De orthographia that Biddau [2008: p. lxiii] groups under the ‘g’ family). But more often he is cited as either Terentius Scaurus or simply Scaurus. The latter raises the possibility that some citations may come from other Scauri. Doubts hardly arise in relation to the other famous Scaurus, namely M. Aemilius, the orator and politician of the second century BC, even if Keil (ed. 573) and Barwick (ed. 487), to judge from their indices scriptorium, wrongly placed under Terentius Scaurus the quotation in Char. gramm. p. 186, 16-17, very likely from Aemilius Scaurus’ (see Law 1987: 75 n. 19) de uita sua (Uría 2009: 387 n. 1063). More importantly, the idea was long ago proposed (see Jeep 1893: 38-39; Barwick 1922: 86-87 and 238 [where a list of the reliable fragments is given], partly followed by Tempesti 1977: 217-220), that some of the fragments collected by Kummrow (1880: 1-7), namely those from the Explanationes in Donatum and some of those from Diomedes (in fr. 17 Kummrow, Scaurus is probably a trivialization of the Asprus witnessed by Anon. Bob. p. 4, 12 De Nonno [GL i 534, 39]; cf. Schmidt 2000: 287 n. 1; see also Law 1987: 76 on fr. 21 Kummrow), rather belong to a late school grammar of a later Pseudo-Scaurus (contra Holtz 1981: 82 n. 35 and 101 n. 28; Baratin 1989: 100, n. 1 and 355, n. 2; skepticism is shown by Schmidt 2000: 256). On similar grounds (mainly style and language reminiscent of late artes), doubts have been cast by Tempesti (1977: 218) on the authorship of De orthographia (contra Schmidt 2000: 257, and Biddau 2008: pp. xxxviii-xli). The ars minor which Law (1987) had attributed to Scaurus has been recently shown to be a later work (Reinikka 2008).

That Scaurus was a professional teacher of grammar is proved by the information provided by Gellius (Gell. 9, 15, 3 grammaticus uel nobilissimus) and in the Historia Augusta (Hist. Aug. Ver. 2, 5 grammaticus Hadriani, a phrase that seems to imply he was the teacher of Hadrian himself [so Holford-Strevens 2008: n.1]); also, he is mentioned next to other famous grammarians (such as Aemilius Asper, Valerius Probus, Verrius Flaccus) by Arnobius (Arnob. nat. 1, 59, 13) and Ausonius (Auson. 1, 1, 20; 11, 15, 12; 11, 20, 7; 27, 10, 27). Moreover, both his alleged quarrel with Caesellius Vindex (Gell. 9, 15) and a supposed (cf. below) correspondence with the Emperor on linguistic matters (Char. gramm. p. 271, 12) attest to his great prestige. As defended by Tempesti (1977: 176-177), and accepted by Schmidt (2000: 254), Holdford-Strevens (2008), and (more cautiously) Biddau (2008: p. xxvii), he might be the addressee of a letter in which Pliny (Plin. epist. 5, 12) asks a prestigious (5, 12, 4 auctoritas tua) Scaurus (Scauro suo) for approval of a speech he is planning to publish. If Pliny’s addresse is our Scaurus, his letter is the first notice we have on him; book five of Pliny’s letters is dated between 106 and 110 (Biddau 2008: p. xxvii), so it can be deduced that Scaurus was probably a respectable grammarian by the turn of the century; then he could have been born in the third quarter of the first century AD (“tra il principato de Nerone e quello di Vespasiano” is Biddau’s [2008: p. xxvii] proposal). Since Gellius seems to mention him as a “grammatico del passato” (Biddau 2008: p. xviii), and since there is no news linking Scaurus with the Emperors after Hadrian, his death is supposed to have occurred before 138 AD. His activity was obviously developed in Rome, but there is no evidence about his place of birth.

The only work of Scaurus which has been preserved through direct tradition is his De orthographia; its preface and initial section are lost, this raising uncertainties about authorship (Biddau 2008: p. xxxiii and pp. xxxviii-xli). An influential teacher as he was, his impact was certainly more profound than one could guess from the relatively few fragments nominally ascribed to him. For instance, it is accepted (pace Barwick 1922: 86-87, who thinks it is the Scaurus iunior whom Audax excerpts) that much of his doctrine is behind the excerpta Audacis, even if mixed with material from Palladius (Schmidt 1993: 122). Also, in view of Scaurus dealing with pronouns (fr. 2-3 Tempesti = fr. 19-18 Kummrow = Char. gramm. p. 169, 20-25 and 173, 3-7), it has been proposed (Froehde 1892: 635) that other ‘entries’ dealing with pronouns in Charisius (ego [p. 162, 24-25], tu [p. 184, 8-9], te [p. 184, 11-13]) come from Scaurus as well; similar proposals are made by Tolkiehn (1910: 162) in respect to several quidam (allegedly = Scaurus) mentioned by Charisius: but so far this is only speculation. As for the nominal attributions, they allow to identify several grammatical works by Scaurus, although not all of them are unanimously accepted as genuine. This controversy is reflected in the two editors of his fragments, Kummrow (1880) and Tempesti (1977): the former identifies 26 fragments, whereas the latter only admits 13.

Thanks to Iulius Romanus it is certain that he wrote an ars grammatica in several books (Roman.-Char. gramm. p. 173, 4-5 artis grammaticae libris), probably organized around the “triade traditionnelle”, as proposed by Schmidt (2000: 255 “les notions fondamentales, les parties du discours et la stylistique”; cf. Barwick 1922: 239, and Wessner 1934: 672), although this scholar partly relies on the ars minor identified by Law (1987), which is now seen as unauthentic. The other uncontroversial work by Scaurus is a commentary on Horace: Iulius Romanus refers twice (fr. 8 and 7 Kummrow = fr. 5 and 6 Tempesti) to a book X of a commentary in artem poeticam; given that it would be difficult to accept that Scaurus wrote ten books on only one work of Horace, scholars tend to accept Zangemeister’s (1862: 42, with additional supporting arguments in 1884 and 1885) proposal that this book is the last one of a full commentary on Horace including two books on sat., one on epod., four on carm., two on epist. and one (the tenth!) on ars (Wessner [1934: 674], Tempesti [1977: 194] and Schmidt [2000: 258] support this hypothesis, whereas Froehde [1892: 636] and Lo Monaco [1995] are skeptical; on the separate traditions of the ars and the epist. see Brink 1963: 243 n. 4). Whatever the extent of this commentary, its existence seems to be proved by a quotation in Porph. Hor. sat. 2, 5, 92 (= fr. 6 Kummrow = fr. 7 Tempesti).

Even if only a few fragments (fr. 3, 4 and 5 Kummrow = fr. 8, 9 and 10 Tempesti) attest to a commentary on Virgil by Scaurus, and no matter that those fragments do not contain any information about title and book partitions, scholars admit (since Suringar [1834: ii 188-189] and Ribbeck [1866: 171]) that it existed (Tempesti 1977: 203;  Schmidt 2000: 258; Baschera 2006: 207), and accordingly reject the possibility that those fragments come from scattered remarks in other works by Scaurus, as suggested by Wessner (1934: 675). Doubts on the alleged (on the basis of fr. 1-2 Kummrow = fr. 12-13 Tempesti = Rufin. gramm. 15, 3-4 d’Alessandro [GL vi 561, 2-3] and 19, 19-21 d’Alessandro [GL vi 565, 1-2])  Commentarii in Plauti fabulas (Kummrow 1880: 2) are better founded, and expressed by most scholars (Keil, GL vii 7; Wessner 1934: 675; Schmidt 2000: 258; Baschera 2006: 207), in spite of the defense Ritschl (1845: i 375, followed by Cybulla 1907: 11-12, and, more cautiously, by Froehde 1892: 635, and Tempesti 1977: 212-213) made of the hypothesis that Scaurus had commented not only on the Pseudolus, but also on other plays of Plautus. Deufert (2002: 210 n. 63) leaves the question open; Carilli (1979: 38) and Jocelyn (1987: 61-62) suggest that Scaurus is known to Rufinus through Sisenna, and this is accepted by Deufert (2002: 245), but it is “non verificabile”, according to d’Alessandro (2004: p. xxiii, n. 26).

Finally, there is also a great controversy on the information implied in a chapter of Gellius (fr. 9 Kummrow = fr. 9 Tempesti = Gell. 11, 15). The phrasing of Gell.  11, 15, 3 (inter alia [illa codd.] quae de Caeselli erroribus composuit) led some scholars to think of a specific work on the mistakes of Caesellius Vindex (Kretzschmer 1866: 94; Kaster [1996] also mentions his ‘lost’ polemics against Caesellius), but doubts were already expressed by Kummrow (1880: 3, n. 8), who suggest that the remarks could have come from a letter. The richest discussion of the passage (Tempesti 1977: 179-184) concludes that Scaurus’ criticism on Caesellius must come from a more general work. Biddau (2008: p. xxx) seems to accept Tempesti’s view, even if he admits the doubts raised from the use of composuit, which Gellius usually refers to books.

Although it is now seen as a fragment falso adscriptum, the so-called Appendice Scaurina (Biddau 2008: p. lxviii-lxxi) deserves some attention. It is quite a long portion of text (GL vii 29, 3–33, 13) added at the end of the De orthographia in all manuscripts transmitting its  final part; it is also preserved in a later shortened version in the Parisinus Latinus 7520 (also edited by Keil, GL vii 34, 5–35, 6). The efforts of some scholars (especially Keil, GL vii 9-10, and Goidanich 1906: 46-53) to prove that Scaurus is the author behind the anonymous fragment, have been recently dismissed with good arguments by Biddau; however, Schmidt (2000: 257, where “extraits de Varron” seems to be a mistake for “extraits de Scaurus”) seems to accept that the fragment includes “questions isolées” which were a complement to a lost work of Scaurus (the De litteris novis mentioned at GL vii 33, 11-12), itself part of the extra material which Scaurus promises at the end of the De orthographia (GL vii 28, 17–29, 2). Usener (1869, followed by Mazzarino [GRFM 288]) had assigned the piece to Varro, who is also seen by Schmidt (2000: 257) as the “contexte de la source”.

As for the sources, there is an extensive analysis by Biddau (2008: pp. xlii-liv, with rich bibliography), who deals with the influence of Varro, Remmius Palaemon, Verrius Flaccus and Annaeus Cornutus in Scaurus’ De orthographia. We can safely assume that he also draw material from Palaemon for his ars grammatica. On his part, Scaurus is thought to have been directly read (Schmidt 2000: 256) by Sulpicius Apollinaris, Caper, Diomedes, Cominianus (see Tolkiehn 1910: 161-164) and Donatus. It is still discussed whether or not his De orthographia was read by his contemporary Velius Longus (De Paolis 2010: 243, n. 36)

Fragments relating to definitions of both parts of speech and ‘virtues and vices’ suggest that Scaurus’ ars grammatica included the “triade traditionnelle” (see above). But more interestingly, he seems to have paid particular attention to quaestiones (as it was the case also in the De orthographia [see De Paolis 2010: 249 n. 52]), that is to say specific remarks on rare and dubious forms/uses, singularly in the antiqui (Pacuvius in fr. 19 Kummrow = fr. 2 Tempesti = Char. gramm. p. 169, 20-25; Laberius in fr. 10 Kummrow = fr. 4 Tempesti = Char. gramm. p. 271, 10-20; see Barwick 1922: 239). It is possible that two of these quaestiones are the source of both fr. 10 and 11 Kummrow (= fr. 4 and 13 Tempesti), even if Kummrow (1880: 3) suggests they might come from scholarly letters: Tempesti (1977: 192-193 and 213-215) thinks that Kummrow may be right (De Paolis [2010: 251 n. 56] speaks of “richieste scritte” and “scambi di opinione”), but she also mentions the possibility (as earlier Keil [cf. Froehde 1892: 635]), and later Law [1987: 74]) that those fragments come from the ars grammatica. This interest in quaestiones links Scaurus with the tradition of the treatises de latinitate (cf. De Paolis 2010: 245).

Bibliographica

Editiones

Kummrow (1880), 2-7; Tempesti (1977).

Studia

PIR¹ iii (1898), T 71; Gräfenhan (1843-1850), iv, 88-89; P. Wessner, ‘Terentius 70’, RE v a/1 (1934), 672-676; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), iii, 67-68; Schanz–Hosius–Krüger (1922³), 156-158; R. A. Kaster, OCD (1996³) 1485; P.L. Schmidt, HLL iv (1997), § 433; P.L. Schmidt, ‘Terentius iii.3’, BNP.

Baratin, Marc (1989), La naissance de la syntaxe à Rome, Paris.

Barwick, Karl (1922), Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars grammatical, Leipzig.

Baschera, Claudio (2006), ‘Scauro, esegeta virgiliano e non solo’, BStudLat 36, 205-209.

Biddau, Federico (2008), Q. Terentii Scauri De orthographia, Hildesheim.

Brink, Charles Oscar (1963), Horace on Poetry. Prolegomena to the literary Epistles, Cambridge.

Carilli, Maria (1979), ‘Le citazioni dell’Amphitruo plautino nella tradizione di Carisio’, SRIL 2, 35-56.

Cybulla, Kurt (1907), De Rufini Antiochensis commentarii, Königsberg.

d’Alessandro, Paolo (ed.) (2002), Rufini Antiochensis commentaria in metra Terentiana et de compositione et de numeris oratorum, Hildesheim – Zürich ­– New York.

De Paolis, Paolo (2010), ‘L’insegnamento dell’ortografia latina fra Tardoantico e alto Medioevo: teorie e manuali’, in L. Del Corso and O. Pecere, Libri di scuola e pratiche didattiche Dall’Antichità al Rinascimento. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Cassino, 7-10 maggio 2008), Universitá di Casino, vol. 1, 229-291.

Deufert, Markus (2002), Textgeschichte und Rezeption der plautinischen Komödien im Altertum, Berlin-New York.

Froehde, Oskar (1892), ‘De C. Iulio Romano Charisii auctore‘, Jahrb. f. Class. Philol., Suppl. Bd. 18, 565-672.

Goidanich,  Pier Gabriele (1906), ‘Note di esegesi e critica di testi grammaticali latini’, RFIC 34, 35-56.

Holford-Strevens, Leofranc (2008), review of Biddau 2008, BMCR 2008.11.34.

Holtz, Louis (1981), Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVᵉ-IXᵉ siècle) et édition critique, Paris.

Jeep, Ludwig (1893), Zur Geschichte der Lehre von den Redetheilen bei den lateinischen Grammatikern, Leipzig.

Jocelyn, Henry D. (1987), ‘Studies in the indirect tradition of Plautus’ Pseudolus I: Rufinus, Pliny, Varro’, in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte, Urbino, vol. 2,  57-72.

Kretschmer, Julius (1860), De A. Gellii fontibus. Part. I. De auctoribus A. Gellii grammaticis, Poznań.

Kummrow, Hermann (1880), Symbola critica ad grammaticos Latinos, Greifswald.

Law, Vivien (1987), ‘An unnoticed Latin grammar: the Ars minor of Scaurus?’ RhM , 130, 67-89.

Lo Monaco, Francesco (1995), ‘Note sull’esegesi oraziana antica’, Studia Classica Iohanni Tarditi oblata, eds. L. Belloni, G. Milanese & A. Porro, Milan, 2, 1203-1224.

Meyer, Paulus Ericus (1885), Quaestiones grammaticae ad Scauri artem restituendam spectantes, Diss. Jena.

Nettleship, Henry (1886), ‘The study of Latin grammar among the Romans in the first century’, Journal of Philology 15, 189-214 (= Lectures and essays II, Oxford, 1895, 145-171).

Reinikka, Anna (2008), ‘On the attribution of a Latin schoolgrammar transmitted in MS Clm 6281’, Arctos 42, 147-157.

Ribbeck, Otto (1866), Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis opera maiora, Leipzig.

Ritschl, Friedrich (1845), Parerga zu Plautus und Terenz. Erster Band, Leipzig.

Schmidt, Peter Lebrecht (1993), ‘Grammaire et rhétorique’, in Herzog, R. and Schmidt, P. L. (eds.), Nouvelle histoire de la littérature latine V. Restauration et renouveau. La littérature latine de 284 à 374 après J.-C., French ed., Turnhout, 113-181.

Suringar, W. H. D. (1834), Historia critica scholiastarum Latinorum. Pars secunda, Leiden.

Tempesti, Anna Maria (1977), ‘Quinto Terenzio Scauro, grammatico adrianeo’, SRIL 1, 175-220.

Tolkiehn, Johannes (1910), Cominianus. Beiträge zur römischen Literaturgeschichte, Leipzig.

Uría, Javier (2009), Carisio. Arte gramática, Madrid.

Usener, Hermann (1869, ‘Varronische Exzerpte’, RhM 24, 94-114.

Zangemeister, Karl (1862), De Horatii vocibus singularibus, Berlin.

Zangemeister, Karl (1884), ‘Zum Horaz-Commentar des Scaurus’, RhM 39, 634-635.

Zangemeister, Karl (1885), ‘Zum Horaz-Commentar des Scaurus (cont.)’, RhM 40, 480.

Aristius Fuscus, Marcus

Roma, saec. I a. Chr. – I p. Chr.

The tria nomina of this grammarian can be recovered from the inscriptio to Hor. carm. 1.22, transmitted in some Horatian MSS (GRFF test. 1). Whilst the praenomen ‘Marcus’ is nowhere else attested, he is commonly referred to as ‘Fuscus’, ‘Aristius Fuscus’ or ‘Fuscus Aristius’. Being a very close friend to Horace, Fuscus is the addressee of Hor. carm. 1.22 and epist. 1.10, and appears in sat. 1.9.60 ff. as one of the characters of the piece. In sat. 1.10.83 Horace names Fuscus as one of his learned friends and critics of his work. We can suppose that Fuscus dwelt in Rome (cf. GRFF test. 2). According to Porphyrio and Pseudo-Acro (GRFF test. 3), Fuscus was a grammarian, and even a very distinguished one; HARRISON (1992: 543), grounding on the aforementioned testimonies, stated that he was a professional schoolmaster; furthermore, taking into account the information which can be drawn from Horace, HARRISON (1992: 543-547) argued that he was influenced by the Stoic philosophy. According to Porphyrio (GRFF test. 4), Fuscus wrote comedies. A notice about his alleged activity as tragic writer depends on an interpolation to Ps.-Acro (Hor. epist. 1.10.1) and does not deserve credibility.
The attribution of frg. Parisinum de praep. et uerbis GL VII 35.1-6 (olim Aufustius GRFF frg. 1) to Aristius Fuscus depends on a conjecture by HAUPT (1838: 40); cf. NISBET-HUBBARD 1970: 262 and HARRISON 1992: 543. Conversely, USENER (1868: 100-101 = 1913: 212; followed by FUNAIOLI GRFF 491-492) attributed this fragment to Aufustius. The mention of Asinius Pollio as the addressee of the treatise from which this fragment was taken, points to Fuscus (cf. Horace sat. 1.10.81–83) and not to Aufustius – no connection of the latter with Pollio is known. The fragment deals with the formation of the indicative imperfect of the verbs in –io, and more precisely with the alternation between the regular forms in –ĭēba– and those in –ība-. The latter are noticed by Char. gramm. p. 229.18-24 (e Cominiano); Diom. GL I 350.32-37; Prisc. GL III 450.40-451.1; Prob. inst. gramm. GL IV 178.1-9; Mart. Cap. 3.322; Audax GL VII 362.1; Consent. GL V 384.3-9 and Macr. exc. gramm. GL V 639.11 (cf. also Cledon. GL V 55.14- 15). Such imperfects in –ība– of the fourth conjugation are ascribed to the ueteres by Charisius, Diomenes, Consentius and Martianus Capella; Priscian, in turn, considers them to be a poetical feature, stating furthermore that they are originated by syncope of the forms in –ĭēba-. A similar origin is stated by Audax, even if he labels such forms as barbarisms; Consentius, in turn, thinks of an analogy with the verbs in –eo of the fourth declension. In this fragment Fuscus states that the forms in –ĭēba– are more correct (rectius dici) than those in –ība-; perhaps he was implying that the latter may be used in some contexts (e.g. in poetry?). The reason of this choice is not stated. Even though, if the examples reported by Terentius Scaurus may be traced back to Aristius Fuscus, the counterexample rursus ‘ueneo’ prima producta ‘uenibam’, non ‘ueniebam’, may show that this grammarian (like Charisius, Diomedes, Consentius, Priscian and Martianus Capella) clearly recognized two different groups in the fourth declension, namely the verbs in -io (forming the indicative imperfect in –ĭēba-) and those in –eo (making such tense in –ība-). Even though, it is rather doubtful whether 5-7 tamquam uenio … non ueniebam can be ascribed to Fuscus; in turn, the two last couples of examples, 6-7 ‘audio’ ‘audiebam’ ; ‘audeo’ ‘audebam’, do not fit with the present discussion and may be surely regarded as an adventitious element.

Bibliographica

Editiones

GRFF p. 507 (test.), p. 492 (olim Aufustius frg. 1, nobis Fuscus frg.).

Studia

E. Klebs, ‘Aristius 2’, RE ii/1 (1895), 906; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), ii, 79; PIR² i (1933), A 1048; Schanz–Hosius (1927⁴-1935⁴), i, §. 320 [p. 293 and n. 2]; K.-L. Elvers, ‘Aristius 2’, DNP ii (1997), 1104.

Harrison, Stephen J. (1992), ‘Fuscus the Stoic: Horace Odes 1.22 and Epistles 1.10’, CQ 42, 543-547.
Haupt, Mauritz (1838), Ouidii Halieutica. Gratii et Nemesiani Cynegetica, Lipsiae.
Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch – Hubbard, Margaret (1970), A Commentary on Horace Odes. Book I, Oxford.
Usener, Hermann (1869), ‘Varronische Excerpte’, RhM 24, 94-114 (= 1913: 201-223).
Usener, Hermann (1913), Kleine Schriften, ii, Leipzig-Berlin.