No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
LATE CICERONIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND VIRGILIAN EXEGESIS: SERVIUS AND PS.-ASCONIUS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 January 2019
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.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2019
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.