Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:59:37.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LATE CICERONIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND VIRGILIAN EXEGESIS: SERVIUS AND PS.-ASCONIUS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2019

Giuseppe La Bua
Giuseppe La Bua*
Affiliation:
‘Sapienza’, Università di Roma
*
giuseppe.labua@uniroma1.it
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Late Antiquity witnessed intense scholarly activity on Virgil's poems. Aelius Donatus’ commentary, the twelve-book Interpretationes Vergilianae composed by the fourth-century or fifth-century rhetorician Tiberius Claudius Donatus and other sets of scholia testify to the richness of late ‘Virgilian literature’. Servius’ full-scale commentary on Virgil's poetry (early fifth century) marked a watershed in the history of the reception of Virgil and in Latin criticism in general. Primarily ‘the instrument of a teacher’, Servius’ commentary was intended to teach students and readers to read and write good Latin through Virgil. Lauded by Macrobius for his ‘learning’ (doctrina) and ‘modesty’ (uerecundia), Servius attained supremacy as both a literary critic and an interpreter of Virgil, the master of Latin poetry. His auctoritas had a profound impact on later Virgilian erudition. As Cameron notes, Servius’ commentary ‘eclipsed all competition, even Donatus’. Significantly, it permeated non-Virgilian scholarship from the fifth century onwards. The earliest bodies of scholia on Lucan, the tenth-century or eleventh-century Commenta Bernensia and Adnotationes super Lucanum and the scholia uetustiora on Juvenal contain material that can be traced as far back as Servius’ scholarly masterpiece.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 667 - 680
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Late Antiquity witnessed intense scholarly activity on Virgil's poems.Footnote 1 Aelius Donatus’ commentary,Footnote 2 the twelve-book Interpretationes Vergilianae composed by the fourth-century or fifth-century rhetorician Tiberius Claudius DonatusFootnote 3 and other sets of scholiaFootnote 4 testify to the richness of late ‘Virgilian literature’. Servius’ full-scale commentary on Virgil's poetry (early fifth century)Footnote 5 marked a watershed in the history of the reception of Virgil and in Latin criticism in general.Footnote 6 Primarily ‘the instrument of a teacher’,Footnote 7 Servius’ commentary was intended to teach students and readers to read and write good Latin through Virgil.Footnote 8 Lauded by Macrobius for his ‘learning’ (doctrina) and ‘modesty’ (uerecundia),Footnote 9 Servius attained supremacy as both a literary critic and an interpreter of Virgil, the master of Latin poetry. His auctoritas had a profound impact on later Virgilian erudition.Footnote 10 As Cameron notes, Servius’ commentary ‘eclipsed all competition, even Donatus’.Footnote 11 Significantly, it permeated non-Virgilian scholarship from the fifth century onwards. The earliest bodies of scholia on Lucan, the tenth-century or eleventh-century Commenta Bernensia and Adnotationes super Lucanum and the scholia uetustiora on Juvenal contain material that can be traced as far back as Servius’ scholarly masterpiece.Footnote 12

PS.-ASCONIUS AND SERVIUS: STATVS QVAESTIONIS

Since ThiloFootnote 13 and Gessner,Footnote 14 Ps.-Asconius’ linguistic commentary on Cicero's Diuinatio in Caecilium and on part of the Verrines (In Verrem 1, act. 2.1 and 2.2.1–35)Footnote 15 has been included in the canon of ancient commentaries relying on Servius for much of their material. The issue relating to the origin and the form of the commentary (whether a set of marginal or interlinear notes or a continuous work, later abridged and reshaped in the margins of a manuscript) has long puzzled modern scholars,Footnote 16 but the consensus has it that Ps.-Asconius ‘owes much to Servius’ commentary, and also that the commentary on the Verrines, like the commentary on Vergil, was a variorum work, summarizing and evaluating the scholarship of previous centuries’.Footnote 17 This is hardly surprising in the light of the place of Virgil in the school-curriculum and the established method of criticism, founded on the stratigraphic accumulation of material derived from different scholarly sources. As a school-teacher, Ps.-Asconius relied heavily on Virgil to explicate linguistic and stylistic features of the speech under scrutiny. His commentary abounds with citations from Virgil's poetry.Footnote 18 And, as expected, the surviving corpora of scholia on Cicero's speeches (other than Ps.-Asconius) are dominated by what one might call a ‘Virgilian texture’ (with the notable exception of the Bobbio commentary).Footnote 19 In particular, in the sets of marginal notes commonly known as scholia Gronoviana,Footnote 20 Virgil is dominant.Footnote 21 Analogously, though to a lesser extent, Terence, ranked among the idonei auctores, occupies a substantial space in the ancient scholarship on Cicero.Footnote 22 That said, there remains the strong possibility that, in quoting Virgil as linguistic support to his exegesis, Ps.-Asconius capitalized on Servius, the most authoritative interpreter of Virgilian poetry. He might reasonably have taken up and reworked Servian scholia to expound significant features of Virgil's text as a parallel to Cicero or to offer etymological explanations of baffling terms.

The question needs further clarification, however. In many cases the supposed dependence of Ps.-Asconius on Servius does not stand up to close examination. This paper aims to re-examine the alleged relationship of Ps.-Asconius with Servius by focussing on both patent similarities between the two commentaries and those notes that appear to be at variance with one another. It also reconsiders those cases in which Ps.-Asconius matches with the so-called Servius Danielis or Servius Auctus (henceforth Serv. Dan.), the work of a late unknown compiler who expanded and supplemented Servius with non-Servian material, probably derived in part from the lost commentary of Aelius Donatus.Footnote 23 Additionally, it devotes attention to at least one case in which the two scholiasts seem to offer diverging interpretations in evaluating Virgil's linguistic choices. The result will be a fundamental reassessment of the composite nature of Ps.-Asconius’ commentary on the Verrines as a ‘variorum work’, collecting and assembling material of disparate origin. A side-by-side comparison between Ps.-Asconius and the Servian commentary shows many similarities and even verbatim correspondences. Nevertheless, the divergences, evident in a number of cases, presuppose an exegetical tradition that developed in varying times and places.

Before approaching the issue in detail, I offer here a preliminary general observation upon Servius as a commentator of Cicero. The image of Servius as a Ciceronian scholar, a learned grammarian fascinated by Cicero's language and engaged in composing a commentary on his early invectives against Verres, in turn the source of Ps.-Asconius’ exegesis, was dreamt up by Gessner in what remains the only scholarly investigation into the relationship between the two scholiasts. But fascinating though it might be, the idea that Servius communicated his enthusiasm for Cicero's early literary Latin to his pupil Ps.-Asconius, who availed himself of his teacher's written lessons to compile his commentary on the Verrines, raises considerable doubts.Footnote 24 It is a matter of fact that Servius was well acquainted with Cicero's speeches. As an idoneus auctor, Cicero supported instruction in language and supplied grammarians and school-teachers with a vast store of linguistic material.Footnote 25 Just as Ps.-Asconius used Virgil to explain Cicero, Servius expounded Virgil by means of significant exempla drawn from Cicero's speeches. Yet, this does not authorize us to hypothesize a Servian commentary on Cicero. No subsequent ancient or medieval scholar refers to Servius as a commentator on Cicero and nothing else suggests that the grammarian left a written commentary on the Verrines.

PS.-ASCONIUS AND SERVIUS: SIMILARITIES

To begin now with Ps.-Asconius’ notes that bear a striking similarity to Servius’ scholia,Footnote 26 I select here four notes from the commentary on the Verrines, which might suggest the scholiast's reliance on (or at least knowledge of) Servian exegesis:

  1. 1) Ps.-Asconius 215.24–6 St. (on Verr. 1.29): the scholiast defines the quaesitor (‘inquisitor’) as a praetor de pecuniis repetundis quaestionem exercens (‘the city praetor charged with instituting proceedings for extortion’)Footnote 27 and corroborates his explanation by quoting a Virgilian line (Aen. 6.432).Footnote 28 Servius’ comment (ad loc.) explains quaesitor in similar terms (quaesitores sunt qui exercendis quaestionibus praesunt ‘inquisitors are those who preside extortion courts’);Footnote 29

  2. 2) Ps.-Asconius 220.23–6 St. (on Verr. 1.46): obseruant is explained either as speculantur (‘they keep a close watch on’) or as uenerantur (‘they pay homage to’).Footnote 30 Linguistic support comes from two Virgilian lines (G. 4.210–12):Footnote 31 Servius ad loc. offers an analogous explanation (obseruant] uenerantur. alias ‘obseruare’ est callide aduertere)Footnote 32 and quotes a line from Ter. An. 169;Footnote 33

  3. 3) Ps.-Asconius 226.1–2 St. (on Verr. 2.1.5): the word deposita, referred to the Republic in agony,Footnote 34 is interpreted as ‘despaired of, given up for dead’. This explanation is supported by the quotation of a Virgilian line (Aen. 12.395).Footnote 35 Nonius (430L) gives the same gloss and cites both the Ciceronian and the Virgilian passages, among others. Servius ad loc. expounds on the participial form in similar terms (ut depositi] id est desperati), adding the quoted passage from the Verrines.Footnote 36 Almost identical is the note of the Gronovian scholiast B (344.4–6 St.), supposedly depending on Ps.-Asconius;Footnote 37

  4. 4) Ps.-Asconius 241.4–7 St. (on Verr. 2.1.66): in opposition to those commentators who read the verb poscere (‘to ask’) as a synonym of potare (‘to drink’) by incorrectly lengthening the vowel o (poscunt maioribus] sunt qui producta o litera poscunt legunt, quasi saepe potant),Footnote 38 the scholiast interprets poscunt as prouocant (‘they challenge each other’);Footnote 39 Servius’ note on Aen. 8.614Footnote 40 supplies us with a similar explanation of the verb and cites the Ciceronian expression in support.Footnote 41 Again Nonius (596L) offers the same explanation and quotes the same passages.

PS.-ASCONIUS AND SERVIUS: CONFLICTING SCHOLIA

Concerned with the explication of difficult or obsolete words, all these linguistic notes provide a good rationale for assuming a relationship between Servius and the author of the Verrines commentary or, more likely, a dependence on one or more common sources. Yet, in other cases, mostly related to the interpretation of rhetorical devices or the clarification of proper names, places and antiquities in general,Footnote 42 the perceived connection between the two scholars appears at least controversial. To start with, Ps.-Asconius’ discussion about the ‘proper exordium’ in the scholium on Diu. Caec. 43 presents many puzzling features.Footnote 43 Cicero's Diuinatio in Caecilium is notorious for mocking Caecilius’ supposed ability to deliver a successful prosecution-speech against Verres in face of an audience made up of highly respectable senators. Displaying the usual exordial anxiety of the orator envisioning the excitement of the people and the vast concourse of hearers stimulated by the importance of the trial, Cicero addresses his opponent's absence of fear with a hint of mockery and sarcasm and scoffs at his stupidity: Caecilius is foolish enough to believe that he could be excellently prepared for his entrance into court, if he learnt by heart one or two phrases out of some old speech (uetus aliqua oratio), such as Iouem ego Optimum Maximum or uellem, si fieri potuisset, iudices (Diu. Caec. 42–3). The scholiast comments upon the former exordial feature as follows (198.15–24 St.):

Iouem ego Optimum Maximum] haec capita solent usitata esse causidicis imperitis: quod genus uitii in primordio in Rhetoricis uulgare nominat. incipiebant autem ueteres, ut Virgilius ostendit, aut ab inuocatione deorum, quale est:

praefatus diuos solio rex infit ab alto;

aut reprehensione superioris temporis, ut ait Lucilius:

uellem cum primis, fieri si forte potuisset

uitiose ambo capita; et Virgilius:

ante equidem summa de re statuisse, Latini,

et uellem, et fuerat melius.

I beseech almighty and most merciful God] Exordial topics such as these are usually employed by unpractised lawyers: Cicero in his books on rhetoric terms this type of faulty proem as a low-grade one. Nevertheless, the ancients usually started their proems either by means of an invocation to the gods, as Virgil shows: this is a good example:

The king began to speak, from his high throne, first calling on the gods (Aen. 11.301)

or by refutation of the past, as Lucilius says:

I wish I have done this before, if it had happened by any chance (26 Marx)

Both exordia are imperfect and fallacious; and Virgil states again:

Latins, I wish we had decided on this vital matter before now,

and it would have been better. (Aen. 11.302–3)

Taking up Cicero's definition of the ‘general’ (uulgare) exordium in the youthful treatise De inuentione (1.26),Footnote 44 Ps.-Asconius dwells upon the old habit of starting a speech by invoking god's protection or by regretting what has been said or done previously. The scholiast's argumentation is corroborated by a quotation from Latinus’ speech in Book 11 of the Aeneid (11.301–3), three lines interspersed with a citation from the satirist Lucilius (26 Marx).Footnote 45

Servius’ exegesis is only partially similar. When commenting upon the opening verse of Latinus’ discourse (Aen. 11.301),Footnote 46 the scholiast offers a general explanation of the antiquus mos of beginning a speech after invoking the gods by alluding to the established exordial practice in Cato the Elder's and Gracchus’ orations. Cicero's mockery of Caecilius at Diu. Caec. 43 is simply introduced as confirmation of this custom affecting ancient oratory. Servius returns to the topic of the proem in the note on line 302 (following a brief allusion to Turnus’ refusal to accept a peace-treaty with the Trojans): he interprets Latinus’ words, uellem statuisse, as a compendiosa elocutio, a sort of ‘pointed and short sententia’, by which the speaker displays his emotional disappointment at his past failure. The introductory deorum commemoratio, as a typical feature of ancient oratory, is commented upon again on the ground of Cato's and Cicero's examples (along with Aen. 11.301)Footnote 47 in the note on Aen. 7.259, the verse opening Latinus’ conciliatory speech to the Trojans.Footnote 48

Prefacing an oration with a prayer was a standard oratorical feature, as demonstrated by the opening lines of Cicero's Pro Murena (§1).Footnote 49 Harking back to the past, Servius indicates Cato the Elder and the Gracchan oratory as the most ancient examples of this custom.Footnote 50 Ps.-Asconius quotes the incipit of Latinus’ speech to demonstrate the antiquity of this tradition. But the commentators differ from each other in some basic points. Occupied with showing that either a prayer to the gods or a regretful statement about past events might negatively impact on the proem's quality, Ps.-Asconius instructs his pupils on making an appropriate use of exordial devices. This accounts also for the scholiast's reference to the treatment of the exordium in Cicero's rhetorical works. Servius takes a slightly different approach to the issue. Even if implied instructional injunctions are peculiar to didactic scholia,Footnote 51 Servius shows no interest in what a ‘good’ or a ‘wrong’ exordium consists of. His examination of the ancient exordial practice seems to be simply dictated by antiquarian interests, as may be argued from the reiterated mention of Cato's and Gracchus’ oratory (absent in Ps.-Asconius) and from the exploitation of Cicero's passage from the Verrines as an ‘antiquarian source’. It follows then that the diversity of scholarly approaches to the exordial topic may have originated in a different explanation of the commented text, based upon a deployment of varying sources. In any case, no matter which tradition the two commentators drew upon, both Virgil's lines and Cicero's passage served as exemplary texts in the scholarly treatment of the rhetorical exordium.

In other two cases Servius and Ps.-Asconius appear unrelated to each other. First, in the note on Diu. Caec. 48 the mention of one of Caecilius’ supporters, Titus Alienus, prompts Ps.-Asconius to inquire into the origin of this name of ill omen, reputed by some critics as connected to the Allia river (199.29–31 St.): a Virgilian line bears support to this explanation (Aen. 7.717).Footnote 52 Servius’ comment (ad loc.) lingers instead over the clades Alliensis, the battle fought by the Romans against the Gallic forces in 390 b.c.e. in close proximity of the river, and points to the correctness of the form Allia, with redoubling of l for metrical reasons.Footnote 53

Second, Ps.-Asconius’ comment on Verr. 1.17 concerns itself with establishing the meaning of alacris/alacer (210.22–211.4 St.).Footnote 54 Contrasting lacer (‘mangled, mutilated’), alacris is usually deployed to denote an ‘unimpaired, active’ man, integer sensibus uniuersis. ‘Liveliness’, alacritas, as a sign of a state of interior exaltation, and its derived adjective are applied to those individuals who display good intellectual and physical faculties: their senses are so ‘vigorous and intense’ (uegeti et intenti) that it could be possible to detect sincerity of sentiments through facial expressions (uultu). Body movements convey feelings and emotions: on this ground the scholiast draws a distinction between alacer and laetus,Footnote 55 and implicitly rejects the interpretation (advanced by some critics) of alacris as festinans et properus ‘acting or moving with haste’. Servius’ comments show no correspondences with Ps.-Asconius. alacris, at Aen. 5.380, referred to Dares,Footnote 56 is explained as a form correctly used in place of alacer; a linguistic reflection on the old, Ennian usage of alacris/alacer and acris/acer as feminine adjectives recurs in the note on Aen. 6.685.Footnote 57 In significant contrast to Ps.-Asconius, moreover, the Servian scholia on Aen. 1.35 and 4.295 interpret laetus as alacris et uelox (festinus). It might be tempting to say that Servius stood out among the interpreters criticized by Ps.-Asconius for their ill-founded etymology of alacris as alis acer (‘acting hastily with the wings’).Footnote 58

PS.-ASCONIUS AND SERV. DAN.

The interdependency between the two scholiasts seems complicated by the apparent connection of Ps.-Asconius with Serv. Dan. At least in two cases, it appears that the Ciceronian commentator and the late Virgilian compiler relied upon a common tradition.Footnote 59 First, difficultas is translated as a synonym of paupertas (‘poverty’) at Diu. Caec. 8 (189.1–3 St.). Ps.-Asconius supports his linguistic explanation by quoting a verse from Terence's Adelphoe (501), quam uos facillime agitis: employed as an argumentum ex contrario, the Terentian facilis is used as a synonym of diues and bears credibility to the opposition between the synonymic couples difficultas/paupertas and facilitas/opulentia (189.4–5 St.). A note of Serv. Dan. on Aen. 1.445Footnote 60 glosses facilis uictu with copiosus (diues) and cites the same line from Terence's comedy.

The second case occurs in the scholium on Verr. 1.17. The formula ecce autem (‘And now suddenly’), commonly employed to mark an unexpected change of course in the narrative, is a recognized feature of Cicero's style according to Ps.-Asconius (211.5–7 St.), who adds that Virgil legit et transtulit (‘read and copied’) the formula, as shown by Aen. 2.203 ecce autem gemini a Tenedo. Footnote 61 In his comment on Virgil's line, Serv. Dan. explains the adverbial particle ecce in a similar way and quotes Cic. Verr. 2.5.87, ecce autem repente ebrio Cleomene, esurentibus ceteris.Footnote 62 Cicero's passage, along with Verg. Aen. 2.203 and 2.403–4, is to be found in Donatus’ commentary on Ter. Ad. 722 and Phorm. 264.

In another case we are presented with a conflation of sources of varying origin. In the note on Diu. Caec. 3 Ps.-Asconius traces probable meanings and etymologies of the term delubrum ‘temple’ (187.25–188.3 St.). Pointing first to the potential use of delubrum in association with templum in an almost fixed formula, as shown by Cicero himself,Footnote 63 the scholiast provides three current explanations of the term delubrum: a) as a building which incorporates many shrines (multas aedes) under a single roof (sub uno tecto);Footnote 64 b) as a temple in which there are washbowls for ablution, such as the temple of Apollo at Delphi or of Jupiter at Dodona; c) as a wood with the bark stripped off (lignum delibratum, id est decorticatum) and worshipped as a simulacrum according to the ancient customs, more ueterum: this last etymology is rejected by the scholiast as groundless (sed male). A similar discussion occurs in two Servian scholia on Aen. 2.225Footnote 65 and Aen. 4.56.Footnote 66 Both of them refer to the (common) interpretation of delubrum as a ‘roofed temple covering more holy shrines’. Interestingly, in the comment on Aen. 2.225 (a line belonging to the tale of Laocoon's death) Servius reports the opinion of earlier critics,Footnote 67 holding that delubrum is properly called the place in front of the temple (ante templum), consecrated to the ritual daily ablutions: accordingly, the word stem would appear to be derived from the verb diluere ‘wash away’.Footnote 68 The supplement from Serv. Dan. singles out the sixth book of Varro's Divine Antiquities (fr. 70 Cardauns)Footnote 69 as the antiquarian source collecting the various etymologies of delubrum.Footnote 70 In addition to the usual interpretation of delubrum as a ‘holy shrine’ including altars or sanctuaries dedicated to many divinities, such as the Capitoline temple, Varro adds two more explanations: as ‘the open space taken over for the gods’ use, as in the case of Jupiter Stator's shrine in the Circus Flaminius, and as the place where a god's image or statue has been dedicated’;Footnote 71 the last is the alternative clearly endorsed by the antiquarian, who comments that ‘just as the place where a candle is inserted is called a candelabrum, so the place where a god is located is called a delubrum’.Footnote 72 The piece of lore documented by Serv. Dan. (succinctly repeated in the note on Aen. 4.56) and reported in almost identical terms in Macrobius (Sat. 3.4.1–3)Footnote 73 closes with the (false) etymology of delubrum from delibratio corticis (‘stripping the bark from the wood’), ascribed to the first-century jurist Masurius Sabinus;Footnote 74 this etymology (without mention of its source) is also alluded to in Servius on Aen. 4.56, along with the mentioned alternatives of delubrum as a ‘water basin for cleansing’ (lacus in quo manus abluuntur) or as ‘a roofed building joining several religious edifices’ (tectum coniunctum, quia una opera abluitur).Footnote 75

From this synthetic presentation of the ancient etymologies of delubrum it appears that both commentators followed a tradition which can reasonably be traced to Varro (as asserted by Serv. Dan. and Macrobius). This tradition was variously supplemented through the ages. In line with the established practice of ancient exegesis, Ps.-Asconius and the Virgilian scholiasts (Servius and the anonymous compiler Serv. Dan.) related divergent (both earlier and current) etymological interpretations, offering no judgements about the reliability or the correctness of the reported etymology (with the exception of delubrum as decorticatum lignum).Footnote 76 As has been stated, ‘cautious or conservative commentaries generally record, frequently without expressing judgement, the conflicting opinions of their predecessors’.Footnote 77 To turn to the presumed relationship between Ps.-Asconius and Serv. Dan., nothing suggests that the two scholiasts depended on each other. However similar might their terminology be,Footnote 78 it seems safer to assume that the commentators drew upon similar sources independently from each other.Footnote 79

The scholarly debate about the use of the verb uexare in Cicero (Verr. 1.12) and Virgil (Ecl. 6.76), as it is echoed by Ps.-Asconius and Servius, leads us to think about the two commentaries as fundamentally unrelated. Chapters 11–12 of the actio prima in Verrem deal with Verres’ recurring robberies during his political assignments. In Cicero's terms, Verres’ city praetorship had been ‘occupied in a plundering onslaught upon sanctuaries and public buildings, and in awarding, or failing to award, in the civil courts, personal and real property in violation of all legal precedents’. Cicero's passionate description of Sicily, so harassed and ruined by the governor that it could in no way be restored to its former condition, peaks in the deployment of verbs conveying emotional force, such as uexare (‘to devastate, harry’) and perdere (‘to ruin’). Cicero's use of uexauit stimulates Ps.-Asconius’ reflection (209.1–5 St.). The scholiast points to the ‘intensity’ of the verbal form, designed to signify an ingentis calamitatis ausum ‘a crime which brings about a great calamity’: linguistic support comes, as usual, from the same Cicero (Diu. Caec. 7)Footnote 80 and Verg. Ecl. 6.75–6 (candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris | Dulichias uexasse rates).

Gellius (NA 2.6.1–2, 2.6.5–8)Footnote 81 informs us of criticism against Virgil's inaccurate use of uexare. Recording the opinion of earlier learned grammarians and commentators of Virgil (among whom the literary scholar and Stoic Lucius Annaeus Cornutus),Footnote 82 who reproved the Mantuan poet for his careless and negligent choice of a word that was ‘weak and indicating a slight and trivial annoyance’ (leue et tenuis ac parui incommodi), unsuited to describe the atrocious death of seamen mauled and torn apart by the monster Scylla,Footnote 83 Gellius focusses on the ‘severity’ (graue uerbum) of the verbal form, adding that, in the same way as taxare (‘to tag’), iactare (‘to throw’) and quassare (‘to shock’) are stronger than tangere (‘to touch’), iacere (‘to toss’) and quatere (‘to shake’) respectively, the etymology of uexare (as an intensive of uehere) reinforces the sense of violent movement inherent in the verb. As usual in Gellius’ antiquarian encyclopaedic work, any semantic analysis finds its support in past writers: here the appropriateness of uexare is demonstrated on a passage from Cato the Elder's De Achaeis (142 Sbl.)Footnote 84 and Cic. Verr. 2.4.122.

Servius’ comment on the sixth eclogue gives rational grounds for understanding the charge made by Cornutus and other earlier commentators. The expression uexasse rates (‘harried the ships’) is, in fact, interpreted as an example of tapinosis, that is, a ‘low description of a big thing’.Footnote 85 In Servius’ view, uexauit would have been used here in place of a more forceful euertit (‘turned the ships upside down’): the deployment of uexasse as an intensive from ueho and its function as a near synonym of euertisse could then justify Virgil's linguistic choice, validated by similar arguments propounded by the celebrated first-century c.e. grammarian Probus of Berytus.Footnote 86

Recent scholarship has convincingly argued that Probus’ discussion (and legitimization) of Virgil's verbal form, presumably in one of his aduersaria on Virgil's poetry, represents the ultimate source of Gellius’ chapter.Footnote 87 Both Servius and Serv. Dan. would have derived their comments from Donatus, comments in turn traceable to Probus’ note on Virgil's verse, copied by Gellius verbatim.Footnote 88 Gellius’ scholarly presentation, in terms of language and style, appears in addition to be rooted in a grammatical source, as may be argued from the expression ab eo quod est, a standard formula for etymological explanations. Abiding by the common policy of not naming proximate sources, with the exception of those cases in which the source is to be rejected, the name of Probus is absent in Gellius’ discussion. And in the same way in which Gellius cited Cornutus (and not Probus), Servius, ‘in borrowing from Donatus, followed his own costume of crediting the ultimate source—Probus—while suppressing the proximate—Donatus’.Footnote 89

Probus criticized Virgil's style in a number of cases.Footnote 90 None the less, his authoritative (approving) comment on the use of uexasse seems to have impacted on later criticism. Passing through Gellius and other intermediary sources (Donatus?), it reached the late commentators, who took an active part in reassessing the value of Virgil's linguistic choice (not without a hint of criticism, however).Footnote 91 If the definition of Donatus as Servius’ main source is still under debate,Footnote 92 it is at least reasonable to suggest that the Virgil commentator acquired knowledge of the scholarly dispute over the Virgilian verb from a source directly dependent on Probus’ comment. This point may also be of some validity, I believe, for the alleged relationship between Ps.-Asconius and the Servian commentary. As we have seen, Ps.-Asconius limits his discussion to a simple explanation of uexasse as an intensive verbal form, supporting his arguments with examples drawn from Cicero's Verrines and Virgil's epic poem. In contrast, Servius calls attention to both the supposed ‘weakness’ of the verb and its origin, as a form derived from ueho. Again, Ps.-Asconius cites a passage from Cicero's Diuinatio in Caecilium, not present in Servius; at the same time, he does not cite Cato and the two passages from Cicero's Verr. 2.4, which are in Servius and Serv. Dan. But the line of demarcation between Ps.-Asconius and Servius is made much more evident when referring to Probus’ comment that, as we noted, may be placed at the beginning of a pro-Virgil tradition. Probus is totally absent in Ps.-Asconius’ discussion. All this leads to the conclusion that the two scholiasts founded their linguistic analysis on sources of different origin.

CONCLUSION

To pull some threads together, a side-by-side comparison between Ps.-Asconius and Servius reveals a substantive connection on more than one occasion. The Ciceronian scholiast shows correspondences with Servius and Serv. Dan. that are no doubt to be ascribed to a common source. Yet, we have seen that there are cases in which the Cicero commentator follows a tradition that cannot at all be traceable to Servius or Serv. Dan. supplements. More, in the last-discussed case of uexasse we are confronted with a neatly divergent approach to the linguistic choice of the master of Roman poetry. By their very nature both the marginal scholia and the continuous commentaries are ‘variorum works’, assembling and summarizing (sometimes discussing and refuting) earlier or current sources of disparate origin and date. As has been said, ‘each new commentary may draw heavily upon one or more original sources, but is itself a new and unique composition assembled from a diversity of material of varying age and value (some doubtless contemporary), at the compiler's discretion’.Footnote 93 Ps.-Asconius’ commentary fits perfectly this definition. As the result of a stratigraphic amalgam of sources of different origin and time, it represents a significant product of Late Latin scholiographic tradition.

References

1 On Virgilian exegesis in Late Antiquity and Virgilian material permeating scholarly works long before Servius, see Stok, F., ‘Commenting on Virgil, from Aelius Donatus to Servius’, Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (2012), 464–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Still important is Marinone, N., Elio Donato, Macrobio e Servio, commentatori di Virgilio (Vercelli, 1946)Google Scholar.

2 On the commentary of Donatus, see Zetzel, J.E.G., ‘On the history of Latin scholia’, HSPh 79 (1975), 335–54Google Scholar; Timpanaro, S., Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica (Salerno, 1986), 143–59Google Scholar; Kaster, R.A., Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1988), 275–8Google Scholar; Daintree, D., ‘The Virgil commentary of Aelius Donatus—black hole or “éminence grise”?’, G&R 37 (1990), 65–79Google Scholar; Brugnoli, G., ‘Il consolidamento della glossa virgiliana nella programmazione di Elio Donato’, in Cultura latina pagana fra terzo e quinto secolo dopo Cristo. Atti del Convegno Mantova 9–11 ottobre 1995 (Florence, 1998), 161–200Google Scholar.

3 Saccone, M. Squillante, Le Interpretationes Vergilianae di Tiberio Claudio Donato (Naples, 1985)Google Scholar.

4 On the Scholia Veronensia (and their relationship with Servius Danielis), see Baschera, C., Ipotesi di una relazione tra il Servio Danielino e gli scolii veronesi a Virgilio (Verona, 2000)Google Scholar.

5 For the date of Servius’ commentary, see Murgia, Ch., ‘The dating of Servius revisited’, CPh 98 (2003), 45–69Google Scholar (who proposes a date around 410 c.e.). See also Bruggisser, P., ‘Précaution de Macrobe et datation de Servius’, MH 41 (1984), 162–73Google Scholar; Velaza, J., ‘Servius et l'Histoire Auguste: un problème de datations en châine?’, RPh 82 (2008), 147–56Google Scholar (for a composition of the commentary between 410 and 430); Cameron, Alan, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2011), 247–52Google Scholar.

6 In general, on Servius, see Brugnoli, G., ‘Servio’, in Enciclopedia Virgiliana (Rome, 1988), 4.805–13Google Scholar; Kaster (n. 2), 169–97; Fowler, D., ‘The Virgilian commentary of Servius’, in Martindale, C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge, 1997), 73–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Uhl, A., Servius als Sprachlehrer. Zur Sprachrichtigkeit in der exegetischen Praxis des spätantiken Grammatikerunterrichts (Göttingen, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pellizzari, A., Servio. Storia, cultura e istituzioni nell'opera di un grammatico tardoantico (Florence, 2003)Google Scholar; Murgia, Ch., ‘The truth about Virgil's commentators’, in Rees, R. (ed.), Romane Memento. Virgil in the Fourth Century (London, 2004), 189–200Google Scholar.

7 Kaster (n. 2), 170.

8 Cameron (n. 5), 417. On Servius’ language-teaching, see now Foster, F., ‘Teaching language through Virgil in Late Antiquity’, CQ 67 (2017), 270–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Macrob. Sat. 1.2.15: Seruius inter grammaticos doctorem recens professus, iuxta doctrina mirabilis et amabilis uerecundia ‘He established himself as a teacher among the grammarians, both marvellously learned and likably modest’: cf. also Sat. 1.24.8, 1.24.20, 6.6.1 (Latin text and translation: Kaster, R.A., Macrobius Saturnalia [Cambridge, MA and London, 2011]Google Scholar). On Macrobius’ judgement, see Kaster, R.A., ‘Macrobius and Servius: uerecundia and the grammarian's function’, HSPh 84 (1980), 219–62Google Scholar; Cameron (n. 5), 248.

10 Servius’ influence on later Virgilian exegesis is easily detectable in the Bern scholia (Scholia Bernensia) to the Eclogues and the Georgics: see Ziolkowski, J.M. and Putnam, M. (edd.), The Virgilian Tradition. The First Fifteen Hundred Years (New Haven and London, 2008), 674–6Google Scholar.

11 Cameron (n. 5), 248.

12 On the relationship between Lucan's scholiasts and Servius, see Esposito, P., ‘Virgilio e Servio nella scoliastica lucanea: tra Adnotationes super Lucanum e scholia Bernensia’, in id., Gli scoli a Lucano e altra scoliastica Latina (Pisa, 2004), 25–107Google Scholar. For the scholia on Juvenal and Servius, see Göbel, J., ‘Beobachtungen zum Umgang mit Vergil in den Juvenalscholien’, Philologus 149 (2005), 110–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Thilo, G. and Hagen, H. (edd.), Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii (Leipzig, 1881–1902)Google Scholar, 1.praef.XXXI, drawing attention to the similarity between a note of Ps.-Asconius 217.1–4 St. on the Nonae Sextiles, mentioned at Cic. Verr. 1.31, with Servius’ comment on Verg. Ecl. 4.12 et incipient magni procedere menses. See also Stangl, T., Pseudoasconiana. Textgestaltung und Sprache der anonymen Scholien zu Cicero vier ersten Verrinen (Paderborn, 1909), 89Google Scholar.

14 Gessner, A., Servius und Pseudoasconius (Zürich, 1888)Google Scholar.

15 Transmitted together with Asconius Pedianus in the medieval manuscripts and erroneously attributed to a Neronian scholar by Angelo Mai, the commentary was definitely ascribed to a fifth-century grammarian by Madvig, J.N., De Q. Asconii Pediani et aliorum veterum interpretum in Ciceronis orationes commentariis disputatio critica (Copenhagen, 1828), 84Google Scholar. The text is now in the edition of the Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae by T. Stangl (Vienna, 1912), 185–264 (from which I cite).

16 Madvig (n. 15) formulated the hypothesis that the scholia had originally been scribbled down in the margins of a Ciceronian codex and later copied in the manuscript which has come down to the present day. Contra, Schmiedeberg, P., De Asconii codicibus et de Ciceronis scholiis Sangallensibus (Wrocław, 1905), 30–5Google Scholar, who argued that the commentary had been compiled from different sets of scholia, written by different hands. For Ps.-Asconius’ commentary as an independent scholarly work, similar to those of Servius and of Donatus, see Zetzel (n. 2), 338–9; see also Zetzel, J.E.G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (Arno, 1981), 172.Google Scholar

17 Zetzel (n. 16), 172. In general, on the distinction between marginal annotations and scholiastic commentaries in the form of ‘continuous works’, see Zetzel, J.E.G., Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance. The Commentum Cornuti and the Early Scholia on Persius (London, 2005)Google Scholar; Gioseffi, M., ‘A very long engagement. Some remarks on the relationship between marginalia and commentaries in the Virgilian tradition’, in Montana, F. and Porro, A. (edd.), The Birth of Scholiography. From Types to Texts (Trends in Classics 6.1) (Berlin and New York, 2014), 176–91Google Scholar.

18 Cf. Ps.-Asconius 198.15.24 St. (on Cic. Diu. Caec. 43: quotation from Verg. Aen. 11.301–3); 199.29–31 St. (on Diu. Caec. 48: from Aen. 7.717); 207.5–9 St. (on Verr. 1.5: from Aen. 8.222); 209.1–5 St. (on Verr. 1.12: from Ecl. 6.75–6); 211.5–7 St. (on Verr. 1.17: from Aen. 2.203); 215.25–6 St. (on Verr. 1.29: from Aen. 6.432); 217.3–4 St. (on Verr. 1.31: from Ecl. 4.12); 217.14–15 St. (on Verr. 1.31: from Aen. 8.636); 220.23–6 St. (on Verr. 1.46: from G. 4.210–12); 226.1–2 St. (on Verr. 2.1.5: from Aen. 12.395); 228.14–15 St. (on Verr. 2.1.15: from G. 3.347); 235.16–17 St. (on Verr. 2.1.48: from Aen. 3.73); 235.30–1 St. (on Verr. 2.1.50: from Aen. 1.16); 242.30–2 St. (on Verr. 2.1.77: from Aen. 1.358–9).

19 The only citation from Virgil (Aen. 1.203) in the Bobbio commentary is in a note on Cic. Red. pop. 4 (111.2–3 St.). On the rhetorical commentary on twelve speeches, preserved in a Bobbio palimpsest (Vat. Lat. 5750 + Ambrosian E. 147 sup, now S.P. 9/1–6.11) and commonly known as Scholia Bobiensia, presumably a fourth-century excerpted commentary stemming from a larger scholarly work composed in the second century, including in turn additions from a first-century historical commentary, see Hildebrandt, J.P., De Scholiis Ciceronis Bobiensibus Dissertatio Inauguralis (Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar; id., Scholia in Ciceronis Orationes Bobiensia (Leipzig, 1907); La Bua, G., ‘Sulla pseudo-ciceroniana Si eum P. Clodius legibus interrogasset e sull'ordine delle orazioni negli Scholia Bobiensia’, RFIC 129 (2001), 161–91Google Scholar. Latin text: Stangl (n. 15), 73–179.

20 Published for the first time by Jakob Gronovius in 1692, the so-called scholia Gronoviana, a numerically consistent series of late glosses or marginal notes on many Ciceronian orations, are preserved in a tenth-century Leiden manuscript (Voss. Lat. Q. 138): after Mommsen, T., ‘Handschriftliches’, RhM 16 (1861), 135–47Google Scholar and Stangl, T., Der sogennante Gronovscholiast zu elf ciceronischen Reden (Leipzig, 1884)Google Scholar, we individuate four different groups of notes ascribed to as many scholiasts. This is the order in which the scholia appear in the edition of Stangl (n. 15), 281–351: scholiast D (Cat. 1.9; 2.2–29; 3.argumentum + 1–26; 4.argumentum + 1–21; Lig. argumentum + 1–24; Marcell. 1–2; 20–34; Deiot. argumentum + 1–10; 31–41; Rosc. Am. argumentum + 1–21; 34–154; De imp. Cn. Pomp. 3–71; Mil. argumentum + 1; 15; 60; 65; 67; Cael. 17; 26: 281–323 St.); scholiast B (Diu. Caec. 3–73 + actio I Verr. 1–45 + actio II 1 argumentum + 1–5: 324–44.7 St.); scholiast A (actio II Verr. 1.45–62: 344.9–348.8 St.); scholiast C (actio I Verr. 16–30: 349–51 St.).

21 Cf. Schol. Gronov. D 283.4 St. (on Cic. Cat. 2.24: from Verg. Aen. 6.23); 285.20 St. (on Cat. 3.19: from Aen. 2.690); 285.25–32 St. (on Cat. 3.19–20: a collection of Virgilian lines, from Aen. 7.315; 8.398–9; 10.467; 10.624; 11.160); 287.20 St. (on Cat. 3.1: from Aen. 2.1); 299.3 St. (on Deiot. 1: from Aen. 2.79); 302.13–15 St. (on Rosc. Am. 1: from Aen. 1.151–3); 304.11 St. (on Rosc. 9: from Aen. 1.519); 316.22–3 St. (on Leg. Man. 5: from Aen. 8.18); 324.1–2 St. (on Diu. Caec. 3: from Aen. 2.522–3); schol. Gronov. B 324.17 St. (on Diu. Caec. 3: from Aen. 6.850); 328.21 St. (on Diu. Caec. 1: from Aen. 2.324); 330.14 St. (on Verr. 1.4: from Aen. 3.56; 4.412); 333.29 St. (on Verr. 1.12: from Aen. 5.538); 343.10–11 St. (on Verr. 2.1.3: from Aen. 1.176; 2.541); 344.5–6 St. (on Verr. 2.1.5: from Aen. 12.395); schol. Gronov. A 349.18 St. (on Verr. 2.1.17: from Aen. 12.337).

22 Quotations from Terence occur at Ps.-Asconius 187.21–2 St. (on Diu. Caec. 3: from Ter. Eun. 311); 189.5 St. (on Diu. Caec. 8: from Ad. 501); 200.21 St. (on Diu. Caec. 48: from Phorm. 27); 215.30 St. (on Verr. 1.29: from An. 61); 218.15 St. (on Verr. 1.34: from Eun. 987); 226.5–6 St. (on Verr. 2.1.6: from Eun. 1078–9); 246.4 St. (on Verr. 2.1.98: from Phorm. 508); 247.27 St. (on Verr. 2.1.105: from Phorm. 388); 263.24–5 St. (on Verr. 2.1.31: from Phorm. 266–7); 264.15 St. (on Verr. 2.2.33: from Ad. 118). The only quotation from Terence (Ad. 409) in the Bobbio commentary is in a note on Cic. Sest. 117 (136.9–10 St.). On Terence's popularity in Late Antiquity, see in general Cain, A., ‘Terence in Late Antiquity’, in Augoustakis, A. and Traill, A. (edd.), A Companion to Terence (Malden, MA and Oxford, 2013), 380–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 On Servius Danielis, see Goold, G.P., ‘Servius and the Helen episode’, HSPh 74 (1970), 101–68Google Scholar; Brugnoli (nn. 2 and 6); Daintree, D. and Geymonat, M., ‘Scholia non Serviana’, Enciclopedia Virgiliana (Rome, 1988), 4.706–20Google Scholar; Timpanaro, S., ‘Ancora su alcuni passi di Servio e degli scolii danielini al libro terzo dell’Eneide’, MD 22 (1989), 123–82Google Scholar, at 127; Vallat, D., ‘Le Servius de Daniel: Introduction’, Eruditio Antiqua 4 (2012), 89–99Google Scholar (with further bibliography).

24 On the dissimilar cultural and spiritual background of the two scholiasts, see Madvig (n. 15), 93 n. 2, who pointed to Ps.-Asconius’ Christian faith in contrast to Servius’ paganism (on the ground of the general Christian tenor of some scholia: e.g. 198.3 St., for the use of the term diuinitas in the comment on Cic. Diu. Caec. 41). Cf. also Ps.-Asconius 187.23–4 St. (on Diu. Caec. 3), cited by Gessner (n. 14), 18, in parallel with Serv. Aen. 1.447, to demonstrate the scholiast's Christian identity.

25 For the status of Cicero as idoneus auctor (together with Terence, Virgil and Sallust) in the so-called quadriga Messi, cf. Cassiod. Inst. 1.15.7. On Servius’ use of Cicero's auctoritas, see Pellizzari (n. 6), 231–2.

26 For Servius’ text, I follow the edition of Thilo and Hagen (see n. 13 above). For the scholia on Aen. 1–5, I also use the Harvard edition: Rand, E.K. et al. (edd.), Servianorum in Vergilii carmina Commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen: in Aeneidos libros 1 et 2 explanationes (Cambridge, MA, 1946)Google Scholar; Stocker, A.F. and Travis, A.H. (edd.), Servianorum in Vergilii carmina Commentariorum editionis Harvardianae volumen: in Aeneidos libros 3–5 explanationes continet (Cambridge, MA, 1965)Google Scholar.

27 English translations of the scholia on Cicero's speeches are mine.

28 quaesitor Minos urnam mouet ‘Minos, presiding, shakes the urn’: Latin text and translation of Virgil: H.R. Fairclough (Cambridge, MA, 1916). On the form quaesitor as derivative of quaerere, see Horsfall, N., Virgil Aeneid 6. A Commentary (Berlin and Boston, 2013), 326Google Scholar.

29 For the legitur-variant quaestor at Verr. 2.1.52 (236.16–18 St.), see Zetzel (n. 16), 175–6. On the designation of Minos as quaesitor in the argumentum to the actio II.1 (224.22–5 St.) as a late interpolation, see Stangl (n. 13), 105.

30 Cf. Cic. Rosc. Am. 106; Verr. 2.89; Off. 1.149; Sall. Jug. 10.8.

31 praeterea regem non sic Aegyptus et ingens | Lydia nec populi Parthorum aut Medus Hydaspes | obseruant ‘Moreover, neither Egypt nor mighty Lydia, nor the Parthian tribes, nor Median Hydaspes show such homage to their king’. See Thomas, R., Virgil Georgics (Cambridge, 1988), 1.186Google Scholar, for the political sense of obseruant (at G. 4.212).

32 ‘They look at] They worship. In other cases obseruare means “to turn the eyes towards someone or something thoroughly”.’

33 obserues filium | quid agat ‘Keep an eye on my son's doings’. Donatus’ comment on Terence's line runs as follows: obseruatio in duabus rebus est: in obsequio et in speculando (85 Wessner). See also Don. Ad. 2 (9 Wessner) and Festus 208 L.

34 Cic. Verr. 2.1.5: itaque mihi uideor magnam et maxime aegram et prope depositam reipublicae partem suscepisse ‘And I feel in consequence that I have undertaken to rescue an important part of our body politic, a part that is sick unto death and almost beyond recovery’. Latin text and translation of Cicero's Verrines: L.H.G. Greenwood (Cambridge, MA and London, 1978).

35 ille ut depositi proferret fata parentis ‘He, to defer the fate of a father sick unto death’.

36 See Tarrant, R., Virgil Aeneid Book XII (Cambridge, 2012), 191Google Scholar (on the Virgilian line and Servius’ comment).

37 Gessner (n. 14), 35.

38 ‘They asked for bumpers] There are many who lengthen the vowel o and interpret poscunt as it were potant more times.’

39 sed poscunt prouocant intelligendum est, ut sit sensus: prouocant se inuicem ‘Yet, poscunt should be interpreted as prouocant, so that the general meaning is: they challenge each other.’

40 aut acrem dubites in proelia poscere Turnum ‘So that you do not shrink … from soon challenging … the brave Turnus to battle.’

41 poscere] prouocare, Cicero poscunt maioribus poculis, id est prouocant ‘To ask] To challenge, Cicero says “they ask for larger cups”, that is, they challenge each other to drinking.’

42 See Gessner (n. 14), 20–37 for a list of connections between the two scholiasts in geographical, historical and juridical matters. It should be noted, however, that some scholia do not present any relationship with the Servian exegesis: e.g. Ps.-Asconius 227.25 St., on Verr. 2.1.14, an aetiological explanation of the names of the Roman tribes without any contact with Servius on Verg. Aen. 5.560 and 8.638; Ps.-Asconius 217.1–16 St., on Verr. 1.31, a discussion about the mutation of the names Sextilis and Quintilis into Augustus and Iulius, where the quotation of a Virgilian line (Ecl. 4.12) has no correspondence with Servius’ remarks on the same verses: see Madvig (n. 15), 141.

43 Gessner (n. 14), 51.

44 uitia uero haec sunt certissima exordiorum quae summopere uitare oportebit … uulgare est quod in plures causas potest accommodari, ut conuenire uideatur ‘The following are surely the most obvious faults of exordia, which are by all means to be avoided … A general exordium is one which can be tacked to many cases, so as to seem to suit them all.’ Latin text and translation of Cicero's De inuentione: H.M. Hubbell (Cambridge, MA and London, 1949).

45 On Lucilius’ verse, see Cichorius, C., Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Zürich and Berlin, 1964), 221Google Scholar.

46 On the Virgilian verses, see Grandsen, K.W., Virgil Aeneid Book XI (Cambridge, 1991), 98–9Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., Virgil Aeneid XI. A Commentary (Leiden and Boston, 2003), 200–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Serv. Aen. 11.301: praefatus diuos] more antiquo: nam maiores nullam orationem nisi inuocatis numinibus inchoabant, sicut sunt omnes orationes Catonis et Gracchi; nam generale caput in omnibus legimus. unde Cicero per inrisionem ait ‘si quid ex uetere aliqua oratione’ Iouem ego Optimum Maximum.

48 di nostra incepta secundent | auguriumque suum! ‘May the gods prosper our intent and their own prophecy’. See Horsfall, N., Virgil Aeneid 7. A Commentary (Leiden and Boston, 2000), 193Google Scholar. Cf. also Serv. Aen. 9.624; Ecl. 3.60.

49 Fantham, E., Cicero's Pro L. Murena Oratio (Oxford, 2013), 83–6Google Scholar.

50 Cf. also Gell. NA 13.23.1; Madvig (n. 15), 105 n. 8.

51 See Kaster, R.A., ‘The grammarian's authority’, CPh 75 (1980), 216–41Google Scholar.

52 quosque secans infaustum interluit Allia nomen ‘And those whom Allia, ill-boding name, severs with its flood’. See Horsfall (n. 48), 470.

53 Servius cites here a verse from Lucan's Pharsalia (7.633). The Servian note is reported, almost literally and with indication of the source, in the Commenta Bernensia on Lucan: Iannone, R., ‘Servio e i Commenta Bernensia’, in Esposito, P. (ed.), Gli scolii a Lucano e altra scoliastica Latina (Pisa, 2004), 153–70Google Scholar, at 155–6.

54 Gessner (n. 14), 48.

55 Cf. schol. Gronov. B 336.8-9 St.

56 ergo alacris cunctosque putans excedere palma ‘So, exultant and thinking all resign the prize’.

57 alacris palmas utrasque tetendit ‘He eagerly stretched forth both hands’. See Austin, R.G., P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Sextus (Oxford, 1977), 214Google Scholar; Horsfall (n. 28), 466.

58 Ps.-Asconius 211.3–4 St.

59 The interpretation of the word cuncti at Diu. Caec. 2 in Ps.-Asconius (187.17 St.) is noteworthy. The Ciceronian scholiast equates cuncti with omnes: (cuncti] simul omnes, quasi coniuncti). A note of Serv. Dan. on Aen. 1.518 initially denies any equivalence between cuncti and omnes. Drawing on Cicero's linguistic usage (Cicero saepe ait cuncti atque omnes, quia omnes non statim sunt cuncti), the Virgil commentator then backs off his previous assessment, propounding the possible comparison of cuncti with iuncti (nisi idem simul sunt iuncti), in terms similar to those used by Ps.-Asconius. If a direct relationship between the two scholiasts cannot be proved, at least the analogy in the treatment of the word cunctus is indisputable. Cf. also Paul. (Fest.) 44 L.

60 sic nam fore bello | egregiam et facilem uictu per saecula gentem ‘For thus was the race to be famous in war and rich in substance through the ages’.

61 Austin, R.G., P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Secundus (Oxford, 1964), 101Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., Virgil Aeneid 2. A Commentary (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Cf. also Serv. Aen. 2.57; 2.270; 4.152; 4.534.

63 Cic. Cat. 3.22; 4.2; 4.18; Sull. 19; for the difference between templum and delubrum in the grammarians, cf. Appendix Probi in GL 4.202; Isid. Diff. 1.407.

64 Stangl (n. 13), 18–19.

65 at gemini lapsu delubra ad summa dracones ‘But, gliding away, the dragon pair escape to the lofty shrines’.

66 principio delubra adeunt pacemque per aras | exquirunt ‘First they visit the shrines and sue for peace at every altar’.

67 A note from Serv. Dan. adds here the name of the first-century b.c.e. grammarian Lucius Cincius.

68 alii [Serv. Dan.: ut Cincius] dicunt delubrum esse locum ante templum, ubi aqua currit, a diluendo; cf. GRF fr. 16 incertae sedis.

69 Cardauns assigns the fragment to Book 6 de sacris aedibus (‘on sacred buildings’) of Varro's work.

70 See Maltby, R., Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1981), 181Google Scholar (for a list of ancient etymologies of the term).

71 Varro autem rerum diuinarum libro XIX, delubrum esse dicit aut ubi plura numina sub uno tecto sunt, ut Capitolium, aut ubi praeter aedem area sit adsumpta deum causa, ut in circo Flaminio Ioui Statori, aut in quo loco dei dicatum sit simulacrum.

72 ut (sicut) in quo figunt candelam, candelabrum appellant, sic in quo deum ponunt, delubrum dicant.

73 On the relationship between Macrobius and Serv. Dan., see Marinone (n. 1), 62–70.

74 For Masurius Sabinus, founder of a juridical school and author of antiquarian writings, at least two books of Fasti, cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.4.6; 1.4.15; 1.10.5; 1.10.8.

75 The etymology of delubrum as fustis delibratus (decorticatus) is also to be found in Paul. (Fest.) 64 L.

76 An interpretation, in Christian terms, of delubrum occurs in the schol. Gronov. B 324.3–9 St.: cf. also Isid. Orig. 15.4.9; Diff. 1.407.

77 Zetzel (n. 16), 75.

78 The etymological explanation of delubrum as associated with the ancient habit of removing the bark from wood shows the use of similar terminology: Serv. Dan. antiqui = Ps.-Asconius more ueterum; Serv. Dan. in effigies deorum formabant = Ps.-Asconius pro simulacris deorum … posita; Serv. Dan. cortice detracto = Ps.-Asconius decorticata. See also Paul. (Fest.) 64 L.

79 Ps.-Asconius and Servius/Serv. Dan. seem to be unconnected in another linguistic explanation occurring in a note on Cic. Diu. Caec. 46 (119.11–12 St.). Here the Ciceronian expression poterisne eius orationis subire inuidiam (‘Can you face the hostility that such arguments will arouse against you?’) prompted scholarly interest in the construction of the verb subire (‘to face’), either with the dative case (Ps.-Asconius, Non. 649L and Arus. Mess. in GL 7.507.11) or in the accusative case (Serv. Dan. on Aen. 9.369: the double use of the verb is recognized again by Servius, on Aen. 7.161, and by Serv. Dan., on Aen. 4.598; 8.125: 10.797).

80 Cf. also Cic. Phil. 11.8.

81 Holford-Strevens, L., Aulus Gellius. An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement (Oxford, 2003), 212CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 80.

82 On Cornutus as interpreter of Virgil, see Timpanaro, S. (n. 2), 71–5; id., Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta (Florence, 2001), 26–35Google Scholar; Cugusi, P., ‘L. Anneo Cornuto esegeta di Virgilio’, in Gualandri, I. and Mazzoli, G. (edd.), Gli Annei. Una famiglia nella storia e nella cultura di Roma imperiale (Como, 2003), 211–44Google Scholar.

83 A similar discussion, based on Gellius (reported almost verbatim), is offered by Macrob. Sat. 6.7.4–19.

84 Cugusi, M.T. Sblendorio, M. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (Turin, 1982), 365–6Google Scholar.

85 See Holtz, L., Donat et la tradition de l'enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l'Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe–IXe siècle) et edition critique (Paris, 1981), 167Google Scholar (on the Virgilian example of tapinosis, presumably introduced by Donatus into the grammatical tradition). On tapinosis as humilitatis uitium, cf. Quint. Inst. 8.3.48 (on the use of uerruca); Charisius 357.19–22 Barwick; see Maltby, R., ‘Servius on stylistic register in his Virgil commentaries’, in Ferri, R. (ed.), The Latin of Roman Lexicography (Pisa and Rome, 2011), 63–74Google Scholar, at 66–8.

86 The supplementary comment of Serv. Dan. adds nothing to Gellius’ discussion (it concentrates on uexare as derivative from uehere and cites the mentioned example from Cato the Elder and Cicero Verr. 2.4.104, not occurring in Gellius’ chapter). Cf. also Serv. Dan. on Aen. 10.314 (in accord with Gell. NA 2.6.19–22). For uexatus as portatus, cf. Isid. Orig. 10.281.

87 Murgia (n. 5), 192–4.

88 Murgia (n. 5), 193 (who claims that Serv. Dan. ‘has added from Donatus the parts which Servius omitted’: this would indirectly be confirmed by the use of the formula est enim as the result of the combination of additional comments without duplication of what was already paraphrased by Servius).

89 Murgia (n. 5), 194.

90 E.g. Serv. Dan. on Aen. 1.21; 2.173; see Timpanaro (n. 2), 114–19.

91 For the critical re-evaluation of Virgil's style, starting from Asconius’ times, cf. Donat. Vit. Verg. 46.

92 For the relationship between Servius and Donatus, see Vallat, D., ‘Conflits d'autorité: Virgile, Donat, Servius’, Eruditio Antiqua 7 (2015), 5–30Google Scholar.

93 Ziolkowski and Putnam (n. 10), 675.