Archives par étiquette : saec. II p. Chr.

Flauius Caper

inc. loc., saec. II/III in. p. Chr.

Très peu d’éléments sont connus de la vie de Flavius Caper. Son praenomen n’a pas été transmis, les auteurs qui le citent l’appelant majoritairement par son cognomen, Caper. Seuls Charisius, par le biais de Julius Romanus, et Rufin nous livrent son nomen et se réfèrent à ses propos en le nommant Flavius Caper (Char. gramm. 253,11. 269,16. etc. ; Rufin 10,3. 20,2 D’Alessandro), cependant de manière non systématique (cf. Char. gramm. 184,16. 253,19). Un unique témoignage de Pompée donne une indication possible sur la position de Caper : en GL v 154,13, il le qualifie de magister Augusti Caesaris. Cette mention, bien qu’imprécise, puisqu’il est difficile de déterminer à quel empereur Pompée fait référence, semble placer le grammairien à la cour impériale romaine. Ce renseignement reste toutefois peu fiable, venant d’un auteur connu pour sa propension à l’exagération et à l’approximation, et qui n’avait probablement pas accès aux textes capériens de première main.

Plusieurs indices nous permettent de proposer, à la suite de G. Keil (1889 : 246-247), qu’il aurait vécu dans la deuxième moitié du iie siècle après J.-C. L’étude des fragments (cf. Char. gramm. 150,32 ; Prisc. GL ii 171,14) nous montre que Caper connaissait et utilisait l’œuvre de Valerius Probus, grammairien ayant exercé sous le règne de Néron, posant ainsi un terminus post quem autour de 70 ap. J.-C. En ce qui concerne le terminus ante quem, le plus ancien grammairien ayant, à notre connaissance, lu les ouvrages de Caper est Julius Romanus (seconde moitié du iiie siècle, cf. Schenkeveld, 2004 : 29). Afin de définir plus précisément la période, il convient de prendre en considération la doctrine grammaticale du grammairien : son intérêt évident pour les phénomènes linguistiques archaïques et les auteurs anciens nous paraît indiquer qu’il a pu composer ses traités, notamment le De Latinitate, vers la fin du iie siècle.

Huit témoignages au total nous renseignent sur le titre des traités rédigés par Caper. Ils semblent se rapporter à seulement deux textes : l’un désigné comme De Latinitate, De lingua Latina et libri enucleati sermonis, et l’autre De dubiis generibus ou libri dubii generis. Suivant G. Keil (1889 : 251) et la majeure partie de la littérature successive sur la question, il apparaît que le premier traité devait être intitulé De Latinitate, nom transmis par Charisius via Julius Romanus (gramm. 253,11 = GL i 194,31 ; gramm. 269,16 = GL i 207,31) ; quant au second, le témoignage de Priscien (GL ii 171,15 ; GL ii 212,15), qui est la source la plus importante pour ce grammairien, nous amène à conclure qu’il devait s’agir d’un traité De dubiis generibus, ce que les indications transmises par Servius (Aen. 10,377) et Pompée (GL v 175,30) viennent confirmer.

Le De dubiis generibus, comme son nom l’indique, devait être uniquement consacré aux questions de variation en genre grammatical des noms latins, probablement sur le modèle de l’ouvrage du même nom de Probus, si l’on accepte que le titre donné par Priscien – GL ii 171,14-15 : supra dictorum tamen nominum usus et apud Caprum et apud Probum De dubiis generibus inuenis – se réfère à chacun des deux grammairiens. Outre ce traité spécifique, Caper a rédigé un De Latinitate, œuvre de large envergure dans laquelle il étudie l’ensemble des phénomènes linguistiques ayant touché la langue latine depuis les origines de la littérature. L’étude de la cinquantaine de fragments où le nom de Caper est explicitement cité, mais aussi des très nombreux passages où les grammairiens se sont inspirés de ses écrits sans le nommer, permet de découvrir son intérêt indéniable pour les phénomènes archaïques qu’il a pu recenser dans une grande quantité d’œuvres littéraires de tous genres des siècles précédents. Barwick (1922 : 205) en vient ainsi à qualifier cet ouvrage, à juste titre, de « thesaurus totius Latinitatis ». Le De Latinitate ne devait pas être une grammaire de type scolaire, destinée à l’usage en classe, mais plutôt une encyclopédie linguistique savante : en se référant à un grand nombre de textes du passé faisant autorité, Caper tente de proposer une étude de l’évolution de la langue, afin de déterminer la manière la plus correcte de parler à son époque.

Bibliographica

Editiones

Keil (1889), 254-268.

Studia

Gräfenhan (1843-1850), iv, 89-90;  Goetz, RE iii/2 (1899), 1506-1508; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), iii, 138-139; Schanz–Hosius–Krüger (1922³), 163-164; PIR² iii (1943), F 231; P.L. Schmidt, HLL iv (1997), § 438; P.L. Schmidt, ‘Flauius ii.14’, BNP.

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

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

Schenkeveld, Dirk M. (2004), A rhetorical grammar. C. Iulius Romanus: Introduction to the liber de adverbio, Leiden-Boston.

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.

Statilius Maximus

inc. loc., saec. II p. Chr.

 

Referred to as either Statilius Maximus or simply as Maximus, his identification with the T. Statilius Maximus Seuerus (the author of CLE 227) is not sure, even if it is defended by Zetzel (1981: 211), admitted by Pecere (1982: 99), but rejected by Schmidt (in HLL). He is cited as a grammatical authority in some of the sections of Iulius Romanus copied by Charisius, so he may well have been a professional grammarian (Schmidt); this is confirmed by his activity as textual critic, indicated by the verb notare which is often applied to him (Merello 1977: 114), and by his emendatio of Cicero’s speech De lege agraria (Pecere 1982). Although the terminus post quem is deduced (ex silentio) from his not being cited in Suetonius’ De grammaticis (Zetzel 1974: 109), in GRL the proposal is put forward, on similar grounds, that he is later than Gellius, whereas Zetzel (1974: 109) thinks that he was a contemporary of Gellius. The diffuse dating (around the first half of the third century) of his only certain terminus ante quem (Iulius Romanus) can be only tentatively precised by means of some prosopographical evidence (further details in Pecere 1982: 98-99) which invites to fix Statilius’ activity at the end of the second century (Merello 1977: 116; Schmidt). That he checked at least one speech by Cicero is known from a marginal annotation at the end of book I of De lege agraria as transmitted in Vat. Lat. 11458, autograph of Poggio Bracciolini (Pecere 1982: 73). From this annotation we know that he collated six manuscripts.

As for the preserved fragments, it is disputed whether they belong to the same work (Froehde 1892: 647, and Zetzel 1974: 115) or, on the contrary (Schmidt, following Bergk 1884: 597-598), we must assume that there existed some notes on Cato’s speeches, and a separate work on rare words used by Cicero: the one cited by Romanus as De singularibus apud Ciceronem quoque positis. With the exception of fr. 20 Zetzel, found in Romanus’ chapter de interiectione, all other citations come from de aduerbio, although it is very likely that Statilius included other partes orationis in his work. An alphabetical organisation is assumed by most of modern scholars, but the fact that Romanus (ap. Char. p.252.28) expressly states that he is going to organise his chapter alphabetically makes it probable that some of the methods he rejects are the ones he had read in his sources (on this issue see further Uría 2012: 234-237).

Apart from the interest for rare words (or rather, in this particular case, for rare ‘forms’), which was typical of the time, the fragments show an attention to analogical rules, as can be directly observed in fr. 17 Zetzel, and –maybe– in fr. 5 Zetzel (cf. Zetzel 1974: 112), as well as, indirectly, in the number of adverbs with a productive suffix (–e, -ter, -im) which are commented upon (Uría 2012: 235-236); on similar grounds, comparisons such as Singularie… quasi unice (fr. 16 Zetzel; cf. fr. 14, 15 and –perhaps–8) may have a formal rather than a semantic sense.

Bibliographica                                                         

Editiones

Suringar (1834-1835), i, 63-65, 200-203; Froehde 1892: 645-647; Zetzel, BICS 21 (1974), 110-115; Merello, Studi e Ricerche dell’Istituto di Latino, 1 (1977), 113-136.

Studia

PIR¹ iii (1898), S 601; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), iii, 138; Schanz–Hosius–Krüger (1922³), 164-165; P.L. Schmidt, HLL iv (1997), § 445.3; P.L. Schmidt, ‘Statilius ii.6’, BNP.

Bergk, Theodor (1884), ‘Anecdoton Parisinum’, in R. Peppmüller (ed.), Kleine philologische Schriften von Theodor Bergk, Halle, i, 580-612.

Froehde, Oskar (1892), ‘De C. Iulio Romano Charisii auctore’, Jahrb. f. class. Philol., Suppl. Bd. 18, 645-647.

Merello, Margherita (1977), ‘Statilio Massimo’, SRIL 1, 113-136.

Pecere, Oronzo (1982), ‘La ‘subscriptio’ di Statilio Massimo e la tradizione delle ‘Agrarie’ di Cicerone’, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 25, 73-123.

Suringar, Willem Hendrik Dominicus (1834-1835), Historia Critica Scholiastarum Latinorum, Leiden, i, 63-65; 200-203.

Schenkeveld, Dirk M. (2004), A rhetorical grammar. C. Iulius Romanus: Introduction to the liber de adverbio, Leiden-Boston.

Uría, Javier (2012), ‘Iulius Romanus and Statilius Maximus (Char. gramm. 252, 14-31): A reappraisal’, MD 69, 225-238.

Zetzel, James E. G. (1974), ‘Statilius Maximus and Ciceronian studies in the Antonine age’, BICS 21, 107-123.

Arruntius Celsus

inc. loc., saec. II p. Chr.?


Es citado como Arruntius Celsus por Carisio (gramm. 276.9, 287.12, 286.13) en tres ocasiones, las mismas en que Prisciano (GL iii 408.2, ii 98.8, 251.13) lo llama Arruntius. Además, se admite que está detrás del Arruntius Claudius al que alude Diomedes (GL i 321.11), y en el que tal vez no haya que ver, con Keil (GL v 334, seguido por Froehde 1892: 637-638) un simple error de copia, sino la confusión, en Diomedes o ya en su fuente, del nombre de Arruntius con el de su fuente Claudius Didymus: tal hipótesis fue enunciada por Jeep (1909: 7-8), que consideraba difícil una corrupción textual de Claudius en Celsus, y que, basándose en el hecho probable de que Prisciano conociera a Dídimo a través de Arruncio (así lo indica la mención consecutiva de ambos en Prisc. GL iii 408.1-8), propuso que los dos autores debían de estar también implicados en el pasaje de Diomedes, donde Arruncio aduciría la autoridad de Dídimo para sostener la raigambre griega del sistema onomástico latino; tentativamente propone Jeep (1909: 8 n. 10) que el texto original pudiera haber sido Arruntius teste Claudio (Didymo). La propuesta de Jeep fue aceptada, entre otros, por Barwick (1922: 239), y por Mazzarino (GRFM, 103), que de hecho incluye por ello el testimonio de Arruncio entre los fragmentos de Dídimo (GRFM, 112-113), aunque prudentemente no llega a enmendar el texto de Diomedes en el sentido propuesto por Jeep (cabe indicar que el giro del tipo teste Claudio no es conocido por Diomedes). Con cautela apoya la hipótesis de Jeep también Kaster (1988: 396), aunque éste extrae una errónea conclusión cronológica, a saber, la de que, de aceptar la propuesta de Jeep, Arruncio no podría ser posterior al siglo I (parece que Kaster interpreta la conjetura teste Claudio como “según el testimonio de Claudio” y no, como debe ser, “aduciendo (Arruncio) la autoridad de Claudio”). Por el contrario, Morelli (1984: 18-24, esp. 22) encuentra dificultades en esa confusión y prefiere descartar la intervención de Dídimo, a favor de la simple confusión textual Celsus/Claudius que sin mucho fundamento había descartado Jeep, frente a la autoridad de Keil, Froehde (v. supra) y Wessner (1905: 15).

Son más frecuentes las alusiones simplemente como Celsus (Charisius, gramm. 288.1, 274.18, 268.20, 276.9, 261.1, 277.12, Priscianus, GL ii 148.7, 215.14, 201.1, 357.12, 485.20, iii 11.14, Consentius, GL v 375.1, 390.6), lo que, en último término, ha provocado una verdadera controversia (detalles en Stok 1994: 282): la de si hay que atribuirle también a él, o más bien al enciclopedista del s. I A. Cornelius Celsus, seis citas de los comentarios de Servio a Virgilio (Servius auct. georg. 1.277, 2.333, 2.479-482, 3.188, 3.296, 3.313), donde se alude a un Celsus. Que esas citas procedían de Cornelio Celso lo sostuvo Ribbeck (1866: 25-27), luego Mazzarino (GRFM, 40-41) y, más recientemente, se inclina a favor de ello Stok (1994: 282, 301). La hipótesis a favor de Arruncio fue propuesta por Suringar (1834: 159-166), defendida por Ritter (1843: 61-65), y luego sostenida, entre otros, por Thilo (1887: xvi n. 3); a ella se ha adherido más recientemente Timpanaro (1986: 69 n. 1), alegando que Cornelio Celso fue un enciclopedista que no se ocupó de gramática (esto parece deducirse también de Quint. inst. 12.11.24), por lo cual difícilmente podría haber discutido cuestiones gramaticales o de crítica textual. Es difícil deducir, sin embargo, a partir de Quint. inst. 12.11.24 cuál fue el contenido exacto de la enciclopedia de Celso (discusión en Marx 1915: vi-x).

La naturaleza de las citas conservadas invita a considerarlo un gramático de profesión (así Kaster 1988: 390), lo que podría explicar también el que Consencio (GL v 390.6) lo llame uir doctus, si bien Fögen (1998: 179-180) no cree que esta sea una deducción necesaria. Su terminus ante quem lo proporciona Julio Romano, fuente de Carisio, que suele situarse hacia la primera mitad del s. III d.C. Hay que descartar, por ello (cf. Kaster 1988: 390), dataciones tardías como las de PLRE I (s. III/IV), y considerar sólo como probables las de mediados del s. II, entre Apuleyo y Capro (Jeep 1909: 5-7). Los pasajes transmitidos por Carisio apuntan a que Arruncio escribió un comentario al Phormio de Terencio y otro que incluía al menos el libro XI de la Eneida de Virgilio. Aunque no hay total acuerdo sobre este punto (Wessner 1905: 16; Ritschl 1845: 370), la crítica más reciente aporta razones para pensar que fue así: Deufert (2002: 209 n. 57) pone de relieve que: 1) las seis glosas de Terencio provienen del Phormio; 2) en Char. 268.19-23 se discute la distribución de los hablantes en Phorm. 643, lo cual sería difícil de imaginar en una obra de carácter lexicológico, y 3) en Char. 276.7-10 se explican dos palabras, una tras otra, respecto de Phorm. 82, lo cual apunta a un comentario consecutivo. En la misma línea, Welsh (2010: 282) concluye que Julio Romano cita el Phormio de Terencio a través del comentario de Celso, y no de la obra original.

Las citas en Prisciano, Consencio y Diomedes permiten deducir (Wessner 1905: 15) un interés por cuestiones tanto gramaticales como léxicas, con especial preocupación por las palabras antiguas o raras (citer, dextimus, sinistimus, Cim, capis, capidula, hoc peripetasmatum emblematum, mius) que descubría en autores antiguos (Afranio, Lucilio, Cicerón). Algunos fragmentos (Diomedes, GL i 321.11-12, Priscianus, GL ii 251.12-17, Consentius, GL v 390.10-11) revelan un interés por la lengua griega.

Bibliographica

Editiones

Suringar (1834-1835), i, 97-98, ii, 159-166; Froehde (1892), 637-639; Wessner (1905), 14-15; GRFM, 44-46.

Studia

Gräfenhan (1843-1850), iv, 66-67; G. Goetz, ‘Arruntius 16’, RE ii/1 (1895), 1265; Teuffel–Kroll–Skutsch (1910⁶-1916⁶), iii, 99-100; Schanz–Hosius–Krüger (1922³), 174; PLRE i (1971), 194 ‘Arruntius 6’; Kaster (1988), 390; P. Gatti, ‘Arruntius ii.9, BNP.

Deufert, Marcus (2002), Textgeschichte und Rezeption der plautischen Komödien im Altertum, Berlin–New York.

Fögen, Thorsten (1997-1998), ‘Der Grammatiker Consentius’, Glotta 74, 164-192.

Froehde, Oskar (1892), ‘De Iulio romano Charisii auctore’, Jahrb. f. class. Philol., Suppl. Bd. 18, 637-639.

Jeep, Ludwig (1909), ‘Priscianus’, Philologus 68, 1-51.

Marx, Fridericus (1915), A. Cornelii Celsi quae supersunt, Leipzig–Berlin.

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

Ribbeck, Otto (1866), Prolegomena critica ad P. Vergili Maronis opera maiora, Lipsiae, 25-27.

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

Ritter, Fr. (1843), ‘Paldamus: De Cornelio Celso’, N. Jahrb. f. Phil. u. Päd. 13/38, 52-66.

Stok, Fabio (1994), ‘Celso e Virgilio’, Orpheus 15, 280-301.

Suringar, Willem Hendrik Dominicus (1834-1835), Historia Critica Scholiastarum Latinorum, Leiden, i, 70-71, 97-98; ii, 159-166.

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

Timpanaro, Sebastiano (1986) , Per la Storia della Filologia Virgiliana Antica, Roma.

Welsh, Jarrett T. (2010), ‘The Grammarian C. Iulius Romanus and the Fabula Togata’, HSCPh 105, 255-285.

Wessner, Paul (1905), Aemilius Asper. Ein Beitrag zur römischen Literaturgeschichte, Halle, a. S.