Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T02:51:11.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Donatvs's Commentary on Virgil Lost?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. K. Rand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Aelivs donatvs, the note d grammarian of the fourth century of our era, wrote commentaries on Terence and Virgil. The commentary on Terence has been preserved, though in a curiously heterogeneous form which thus far has defied analysis. The most plausible supposition is that our present text is a conflation of two commentaries, one by Donatus himself, and one by Euanthius, whose work was obviously utilized for part of the introductory note on comedy. But even if this is the right statement of the question, the question remains to be solved. The problem of the commentary on Virgil is, unfortunately, more simple, or at least is universally adjudged more simple. We have extant Donatus's life of Virgil, his dedicatory letter to Lucius Munatius, and his introductory remarks on Bucolic poetry. The commentary itself, save for scattered references in later grammarians, glossaries, and commentaries, has been lost.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1916 , pp. 158 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 158 note 1 Leipzig 1866, pp. 104 sqq., 189 sqq.

page 158 note 2 History of Roman Literature (translated by Warr, ), Vol. II. (1892), pp. 396 sqGoogle Scholar.

page 158 note 3 Geschichte der römischen Literatur, II, 1 (1899), PP.87 sqqGoogle Scholar.

page 159 note 1 Halfpap-Klotz, , Quaestioncs Servianae, 1882, p. 30Google Scholar. The same suspicion also occurred to Wessner. See Bursian's, Jahrestericht, CXXXIX. (1908), p. 164: ‘Google Scholar Wer alle diese Untersuchungen verfolgt, der gewinnt den Eindruck als wenn hinter mancherlei Werken, namentlich auch hinter gewissen Scholienmassen, ein Vergil-kommentar stände, der infolge seiner Reichhal-tigkeit eine gern und vielbenutzte Fundgrabe bildete; ferner liegt der Gedanke nahe, dass in manchen Fällen, wo man jetzt Servius als Quelle ansieht, vielleicht eher jener Kommentar in Frage gezogen werden müsste, dem dann eben Servius sehr viel entnommen hatte. Ich will mich mit dieser Bemerkung genügen und nur hinzufügen, dass es wohl lohnend und für einen erheblichen Teil der Scholienliteratur von Bedeutung sein möchte, diesen Dingern genauer nachzufolgen.’

page 159 note 2 Barwick, K., Zur Serνiusfrage, in Philologus, LXX. (1911), p. 106Google Scholar.

page 159 note 3 Prolegomena to the Thilo-Hagen edition of Servius, I., pp. v sqq.

page 160 note 1 I had reached the conclusions presented in this paper in 1914, before the revision of Teuffel by Kroll and Skutsch (Vol. III., 1913) was accessible to me. I naturally sympathize with the statement (p. 307) that ‘man ist versucht, an Donats Vergilkommentar zu denken,’ and that ‘eine umfassende Prüfung dieser Frage ware sehr erwünscht.’ Wessner, apparently, is re-sponsible for the article on Servius, and should be credited with the first statement of the pro-position that I am here defending. He had not mentioned it in his review of Barwick's, dissertation (De lunio Filargirio Vergilii interprete in Commentationes philologae Ienenses, VIII., 1909, pp. 57 sqq.)Google Scholar; see Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 1910, coll. 848 sqq.

page 160 note 2 See Teuffel, , op. cit. (1913), p. 305Google Scholar.

page 160 note 3 The Works of Virgil, edited by Conington, and Nettleship, , revised by Haverfield, I, (1898), p. xciiGoogle Scholar.

page 160 note 4 Philologus, loc. cit., p. 122.

page 160 note 5 FL in the one manuscript (Paris, 11308, s. IX.) in which this letter is found. For the text see Brumner, , Vitae Vergilianae, 1912, p. viiGoogle Scholar.

page 161 note 1 Migne, , Patrologia Latina, LXIV., 1247:Google Scholar ‘Quae autem a nobis scripta sunt, bene exercitatis lee-authenticis toribus non modo rationibus firma, uerum etiam scripturis adeo consona esse uidentur, ut nostra non tarn inuenta quam furta esse credantur.

page 162 note 1 Op. cit., I., p. xv.

page 162 note 2 Multi histeron proteron putant, non respici-entes superiora etc.

page 162 note 3 3 Quidam ne hísteron proteron sit alios tor-rere, alios frangere, accipiunt.

page 163 note 1 Bernensis 165, s. IX. On the basis of a con-siderable study of the books of Tours, I should date this manuscript nearer the beginning than the middle of the ninth century. It exhibits orwhat I would call the Alcuinian variety of the script developed at St. Martin's. It is not at all impossible that Alcuin superintended a special edition of the works of Virgil.

page 163 note 2 E.g. on Aeneid VIII. 593, 611; XI. 243.

page 163 note 3 Ed. H. Georgü (1905), I. 41: ‘hic errant male interpretantes et disputando pessime suum confitentur errorem dicendo praeposterum or-dinatione posuisse Vergilium cum prius sit frangere saxo hoc est molere postea uero tor-rere flammis quasi panem coquere.’

page 164 note 1 See Manitius, , Geschichte der lateinischen Litera-tur des Mittelalttrs, 1911, pp. 133 sqGoogle Scholar.

page 164 note 2 Servius, edition Thilo-Hagen, III., 2, p. 149.

page 164 note 3 Ibid., appar. criticus to I. 17.

page 164 note 4 I am indebted to Wessner in his review of Barwick (see above, p. 3, note 1) for the instance here given. Wessner also cites Georgics I, 164. He is concerned here with supplementing Barwick' proof that Philargyrius used Donatus. The same material, which can be considerably in-creased, is still more valuable as evidence that D is identical with Donatus.