Ars grammatica

Citation preview

THOMAS J. BATA Ll BRARY TRENT UNIVERSITY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/corpuschristiano040dunse

CORPVS CHRISTIANORVM

Continuatio Mediaeualis

XLd

CORPVS

CHRISTIANORVM

Continuatio Mediaeualis

XLd

GRAMMATICI HIBERNICI CAROLINI PARS

AEVI IV

TVRNHOLTI TYPOGRAPHI

BREPOLS

EDITORES

M C M L X X X II

PONTIFICII

DONATVS ORTIGRAPHVS

ARS GRAMMATICA

EDIDIT

JOHN

CHITTENDEN

TVRNHOLTI TYPOGRAPHI

BREPOLS

EDITORES

M C M L X X X I I

PONTIFICII

jLR 6R

v, 4oI>

SVMPTIBVS

Svpremo

Belgarvm

PVBLICAE

atqve

SVPPE DITANTE

Optimis

Magistratv

INSTITVTIONI

Artibvs

Praeposito

EDITVM

© Brepols 1982

No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher.

In M emoriam

REX

CHITTENDEN 1953-1966

PREFACE The work on this edition has been rewarding to me in many ways and will, I hope, be productive for those who use it. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Prof. Bengt Lofstedt of the University of California, Los Angeles, who has encouraged and guided my efforts on this project. While maintaining the rigorous schedule of his own publications, he has generously shared his time and knowledge with me. He has been patient in his criticisms and helpful in his guidance. I also want to express my appreciation of the tremendous efforts Mr. Frans Glorie of Corpus Christianorum has expended on this work. His diligence and resourcefulness in addressing textual problems and in emending (or expanding) the apparatuses have been remarkable. Finally I want to thank my parents, Edward and Helen Chittenden, for supporting me psychologically and fmancially in the long and laborious scholarly path. And I am very grateful to my wife, Pat, for understanding the moods and manuscripts of scholarship so well. Los Angeles, March 1982 John Chittenden

TABLE Preface

OF

CONTENTS

.

Table of Contents Works

vn

.

ix

Cited:

Texts

.

Scholarly Works Introduction

xvi

.

Ch. i. The Work Ch. 2. Donatus

xm

.

xix

.

Ortigraphus

xxi

.

xxm

Author (xxm) - Date (xxm) - Location (xxiv) Ch. 3. The Manuscripts

.

xxv

Description (xxv)-Related Manuscripts (xxvm)- Abbreviations (xxix) - Stemma (xxx) Ch. 4. Sources

.

xxxiv

A. Insular . 1. Irish Grammars .

xxxiv xxxiv

Nanc.-Clm grammar (xxxv) - Clemens (xxxvn) - Wiirzburg grammar (xxxix) - Ars anonyma Bernensis (xxxix) Cruindmelus (xl) - Other Irish Grammarians: Sed., Mur., Laur. (xli) 2. Anglo-Saxon B. Continental

Grammarians

Grammarians

.

xli

.

xlii

Augustine (xlii) - Charisius (xlii) - Consentius (xlii) Donatus (xliii) - Isidore (xliii) - Paperinus (xliv) Pompeius (xliv) - Priscian (xlv) - Ser(e)gius (xlvii) Virgilius Maro grammaticus (xlvii) Ch. 5. Linguistic Features . Orthography (xlix) - Morphology (l) - Syntax (L)-Diction (LI) Ch. 6. Editorial Principies . Text (liii) - Aparatuses (liv) Ch. 7. Appendices a. Manuscript

liii

.

lv

Foliation (Mss. V, P, B) (chart) ..

b. The Manuscripts

of Donatus

V, P, B, L, A,C,M\

xlix

Ortigraphus

lv

(Mss.

D, W) (chart) .

c. The Manuscripts of the Nanc.-Clm grammar (Mss. Nane., Clm, P, V) (chart) .

lxi lxii

TABLE

X

OF CONTENTS

Donatvs Ortigraphvs : Ars grammatica Monitum .

.

i 2

EGLOGAE DE LIBRIS GRAMMATICORVM

DE LITTERA ET SYLLABA ET ACCENTV ET POSSITVRIS De disciplina et arte . De litteris communibus .

De voce

.

3 5

7

De littera . De litteris Latinis .

9 12

De De De De

uocalibus et consonantibus transitu . medietate . nihilo .

De De De De De

digammo . duplicatione . aspiratione . liquidis . accidentibus litterae .

34 37

De syllaba . De accidentibus syllabae . De diptongo . De syllabis longis breuibusque .

39 40 42 43

De accentv

48

De positvris

.

. .

15 18 20 22 24 28 32

56

DE

De OCTO

PARTIBVS

PARTIBVS

ORATIONIS

ORATIONIS

.

De nomine . De definitione . De accidentiis .

De qualitate . De propriis nominibus .

59 65 65 68

70 71

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

De propriis nominibus et appellatiuis . De appellatiuis nominibus . De patronomicis nominibus . De nominibus qualitatis et quantitatis . De aliis speciebus nominum . De conparatione . De generibus . De figura . De casibus . De pronomine De De De De De De

.

qualitate . personis . generibus . figura . casibus pronominum . numero .

De verbo . De definitione . De qualitate . De modis . De inpersonali . De gerendi modo . De formis . De coniugationibus . De generibus . De figuris . De temporibus . De persona . De formis . De adverbio

.

De significatione . De conparatione . De figura . De participio

.

De conivnctione

.

De potestate . De figura . De ordine .

XI

77 78 80 82 83 86

92 95 97 101 103 105 106 107 111 119 121 121 122 123 129 136 147 150 151 155 155 158 158 160 165 167 168 176 181 181 182 183

De praepositione

.

187

De interiectione

.

194

TABLE

XII

OF CONTENTS APPENDIX EX

COD.

PARISINO

COD. COD.

LAT.

LAT.

modo

317

MONACENSI

DE GERENDI De gerendi

13026

NANCEIANO

6415

MODO

.

197

Indices . Monitum . la. Index

locorum

lb. Index

Auctorum

Sacrae non

Scripturae

Emendanda

.

.

Ars Donati Grammatici

.

grammaticorum

II. Index Grammaticorum Concordantia

201 202

.

.

.

203 205

213 259 261 266

WORKS

CITED

Texts

A = Codex Leidensis B.P.L.135, ff. 75r-8ir = DO (cf. infra: 'Introduction’, 3). ad Cuimn. = Anonymus ad Cuimnanum: Commentum in Donati partes minores, e codice Lauantino (Sankt-Paul im Lavanttal) 2, 1, ff. 21-42. Agr. = Agroecii

Ars de orthographia, ed. H. Keil, GL 7 (1880), pp. 113-125.

Alc. = Alcvini Grammatica. Pars ia: De octo partibus orationis, ed. J.P. Migne (= J. Froben), PL 101 (1851), coi. 849-902. Ambros.

=

Ars Ambrosiana:

Commentum

anonymum

in Donati

partes

maiores, e codice Mediolanensi (Bibi. Ambros.) L.22.Sup., ff. ir-i45u, ed. B. Lofstedt, CCSL 133C (1982). Anon. ad Cuimn.

= supra: ad Cuimn.

Anon., Nom.litt. = Anonymi (Scotti) Versus de nominibus litterarum (seu De alphabeto), ed. Fr. Glorie, CCSL 133A (1968), pp. 725-741. Ars anon. Ambros.

= supra: Ambros.

Ars anon. Laur. = infra: Laur. Ars anon. Nane.

= infra: Nanc.-Clm.

Asper = (ps.) Aspri grammatici Audax

= Avdacis

Ars, ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 547-554.

Excerpta, ed. H. Keil, GL 7 (1880), pp. 320-362.

Aug., Ciu. = Avgvstinvs

De duitate dei, ed. B. Dombart

48 (I9552)Aug., Conf. = Avgvstini

Confessiones, ed. L. Verheyen, CCSL

Aug., Gen. ad litt. = Avgvstinvs 28-1 (1894). Aug. mai. = (ps.) Avgvstini Aug. min.

=

(ps.) Avgvstini

et A. Kalb, CCSL

47-

27 (1981).

De genesi ad litteram, ed. J. Zycha, CSEL

Regulae, ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 496-524. Ars pro fratrum

mediocritate

breuiata, ed.

Ch.Fred. Weber, 'Index lectionum’ (Marburg, 1861). ps.-Aug. (Ambrosiaster ) , Quaest. exutr. mixt. = ps.-Avgvstini Quaestiones ueteris et noui testamenti cxxvn, ed. A. Souter, CSEL 50 (1908 ; repr. 1963)Auson., Technop., 12 = Avsonii Technopaegnion,

12 [Idyllia, 12,11: De litteris

monosyllabis Graecis ac Latinis], ed. S. Prete, ‘Decimi Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis opuscula’ (Leipzig, 1978), pp. 126-137. B = Codex infra: Bernensis Bern.

123, ff. ir-3iu = DO

(cf. infra: 'Introduction', 3). - Cf.

Bern. = Ars (anonyma) Bernensis, e codice Bernensi 123, ff- 78u-ii7r, ed. H. Hagen, Gramm. Suppi. (1870), pp. 62-142. - Cf. supra: B. Bern. 123, 207 , 522 = Codices Bern, Biirgerbibliothek, 123 ; 207 ;522.-Cf.H. Hagen, Gramm. Suppi. (1870), pp. xv-xliv. Bon. = Bonifatii Ars grammatica, 133B (1980).

ed. G.J. Gebauer

Bon., Aenigm. = Bonifatii Aenigmata CCSL 133 (1968), pp. 273-343.

(j) - B. Lofstedt, CCSL

de uirtutibus et uitiis, ed. Fr. Glorie,

WORKS

XIV

CITED

C = Codex Monacensis Clm 6415, ff- 4F-4411 = DO (cf. infra : 'Introduction’, 3 ). - Cf. infra: Clm ; Nane. -Clm. Cassiod. = Cassiodori Institutionum diuinarum et humanarum libri 11, ed. R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937; repr. 1961). CCCM

= ‘Corpus Christianorum. sqq.).

Continuatio

lectionum

Mediaeualis’ (Turnholti, 1966

CCSL = ‘Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina’ (Turnholti, 1953 sqq.). Char. = Charisii Artis grammaticae libri v, ed. C. Barwick (Lipsiae, 1925 ; repr. 1964).

Cledon. = Cledonii

Ars grammatica,

ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 9-79.

Clem. = Clementis

Scotti Ars grammatica,

ed. J. Tolkiehn (Lipsiae, 1928).

Clm = Codex Monacensis Clm 6415, ff. ir-40u = Ars (anonyma) infra: Nane. -Clm). - Cf. supra: C. Comm.

(cf.

Einsidl. = infra: Einsidl.

Comminianus

= supra: Char. — Cf. infra: Flauianus.

Cons. = Consentii

Ars grammatica,

Cruindm. — Crvindmeli 1883).

CSEL

Nanceiana

ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 338-404.

(siue Fvlcharii)

= ‘Corpus 1866 sqq.). Scriptorum

Ars metrica, ed. J. Huemer

Ecclesiasticorum

Latinorum’

(Wien,

(Wien & Leipzig,

D = Codex Bambergensis Class.30 (M.V.18), ff. 56u-70u (cf. infra: 'Introduc¬ tion’, 3, § ‘Related Mss’). Diom. = Diomedis Artis grammaticae libri m, ed. H. Keil, GL 1 (1857), PP- 299~ 529Thrax = Dionysii Thracis Texvri YpawiaTiKri, ed. G. Uhlig, ‘Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica’, GG 1, 1 (Leipzig, 1883), pp. 1-101. = Donatvs Ortigraphus: Ars (anonyma) grammatica, ed. J. Chittenden, CCCM 40D (1982)!

Dion. DO

DO-app. Don.

= Id., Appendix,

ibid.

= Donati Ars grammatica, ed. L. Holtz, ‘Donat et la tradition de 1’enseignement grammatical. Etude sur l'«Ars Donati» et sa diffusion (ive-ixe siecle) et edition critique’ (Collection ‘Documents, etudes et repertoires publies par l’IRHT’) (Paris, CNRS, 1981), pp. 585-602 = ‘Ars minor’ ; pp. 603-674 = ‘Ars maior’.

Einsidl. = Remigii Autissioderensis Commentum in Donati artem maiorem, e cod. Einsidlensi 172, ed. H. Hagen, Gramm. Suppi. (1870), pp. 219-266. Erch. = Erchanberti (Frisingensis ?) Tractatus Clausen (Diss. Chicago, 1948).

Eut. = Evtychis Flauianus

=

ed. W.V.

Ars de uerbo, ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 447-488.

= supra: Char. - Cf. supra: Comminianus.

GG = ‘Grammatici GL

super Donatum,

Graeci’, t. 1-4 (Leipzig, 1867 sqq.).

'Grammatici Latini’, t. 1-7, ed. H. Keil (Lipsiae, 1857-1880; Hildesheim, 1961); t. 8 = infra: Gramm. Suppi.

Gloss. = 'Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum’, t. 1-7, ed. G. Lowe (Leipzig, 1888-1923; repr. Hakkert, 1965).

repr.

- G. Goetz

WORKS

CITED

xv

Gramm. Suppi. = GL, t. 8 ‘Supplementum : Anecdota (Lipsiae, 1870; repr. Hildesheim, 1961). Hier., Hebr. nom.

= Hieronymi

Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum

num, ed. P. de Lagarde, CCSL ps.-Hier., Litt. =

Heluetica’, ed. H. Hagen

ps.-Hieronymvs

nomi¬

72 (19593), pp. 57-161. De formis Hebraicarum

litterarum, ed.

J.P. Migne (= D. Vallarsi), PL 30 (1846 [1865^ ]) coi. 307-310 [310-320]. Hraban. — Hrabani Mavri Excerptio de arte grammatica Migne (= G. Colvener) PL in (1852), coi. 613-678. Isid. = Isidori (Originum (Oxford, 1911).

siue) Etymologiarum

Prisciani, ed. J.P.

libri xx, ed. W.M. Lindsay.

Iulian. = Ivliani Toletani Opus deperditum: Gramm. Suppi. (1870), pp. cciv-ccxxxix.

excerpta

ed. H. Hagen,

L — Codex Leidensis Voss.Lat.Qu.33, fb 76r-82u = DO (cf. infra : ‘Introduction’, Laur. = 3)Ars (anonyma) Laureshamensis : Expositio in Donatum B. Lofstedt, CCCM 40A (1977). M

— Codex

maiorem,

ed.

Matritensis 19 (A.16), ff. i62r-i63r = DO (cf. infra: ‘Introduction’,

Mals. = 3)Malsachani Ars, ed. B. Lofstedt, ‘Der hibernolateinische Grammatiker Malsachanus’ (‘Acta Vniuersitatis Vpsaliensis. Studia Latina Vpsaliensia’, 3) (Uppsala, 1965). Mar. Viet. = Marii Victorini Ars grammatica, ed.I.Mariotti (Firenze, 1967). MGH,

Auct.antiq. = ‘Monumenta mi (Berlin, 1877 sqq.).

Germaniae

Mur.

= Mvrethach (Mvridac) Holtz, CCCM 40 (1977).

Scottus In Donati

Nane.

= Codex

Nanceianus

Historica' : Auctores antiquissi¬ artem

maiorem,

ed. L.

317, ff. ir-52u (cf. infra: Nanc.-Clm).

Nanc.-Clm = Ars (anonyma) Nanceiana: Glossa de partibus orationis, e codicibus Nanceiano 317 et Monacensi Clm 6415. - Cf. supra: Clm\ Nane.

P = Codex Parisinus Lat.13026, ff. I2ir-i59u = DO (cf. infra: ‘Introduction’, 3). Pap. = Paperini (siue Papiri[an]i) Ars, ed. H. Keil, GL 7 (1880), p. 16, et H. Hagen, Gramm. Suppi. (1870), pp. ccli-ccliv. Petr. =

Petri

Diaconi

Ars grammatica:

excerpta ed. H. Hagen, Gramm.

Suppi. (1870), pp. 159-171; inedita e codice Bernensi 522 (supra: Bern.

522)PL

= ‘Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina’, t. 1-221, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1844-1864 & 18792 sqq.).

Pomp.

= Pompeii

Commentum

312. Prisc. //; III = Prisciani

i859)-

artis Donati, ed. H. Keil, GL 5 (1868), pp. 95-

Opera grammatica,

ed. M. Hertz, GL 2-3 (1855,

Prob. = Probi (iunioris) Instituta artium, ed. H. Keil, GL 4 (1864), pp. 3-192. Rem.

—

supra:

Einsidl.

WORKS

XVI

CITED

Sed. = Sedvlii Scotti Commentarium Lofstedt, CCCM 40B (1977).

in Donati

Sed. min. = Sedvlii Scotti Commentaria,

artem

maiorem,

ed. B. Lofstedt, CCCM

ed. B.

40C (1977),

pp. 1-54 = In Donati artem minorem ; pp. 85-130 = In Eutychem ; pp. 55-84 = In Priscianum. Serg. = (ps.) Ser(e)gii Explanationes artis Donati, ed. H. Keil, GL 4 (1864), ff. 475-485 = De littera, de syllaba, de pedibus, de accentibus, de distinctione (siue Commentarius in Donati artis maioris primam partem) ; pp. 486-565 = Explanationum Seru. = Servii Commentarius

405-448. Seru., Cent. metr. = Servivs De centum 456-467. = Smaragdi

Smar.

Tatu. = Tatvini

in artem Donati libri 11.

in artem Donati, ed. H. Keil, GL 4 (1864), pp. metris, ed. H. Keil, GL 4 (1864), pp.

Liber in partibus Donati, e codice Parisino Lat. 13029-

Ars, ed. Maria de Marco, CCSL

133 (1968), pp. 3-93.

V = Codex Valentianus 393 (376), ff. 77u-ii2r & I23r-i39u = DO (cf. infra: ‘Introduction’, 3). Viet. (Max 205. .) = Victorini grammatici

Ars, ed. H. Keil, GL 6 (1874), pp. 187-

Virg. = V irgilii Maronis grammatici Opera, ed. G. Polara, 'Virgilio Marone grammatico Epitomi ed Epistole’ (Napoli, 1979) - [within square brackets follows the reference to the former edition by J. Huemer, ‘Virgilio Maronis grammatici

opera’ (Lipsiae, 1886)].

W

= Codex Wirceburgensis M.p.th.f.132 (fragm.), ff. ir-2u & 7r-8u (cf. infra: ‘Introduction’, 3, § ‘Related Mss’). Wirc. = supra: W. SCHOLARLY Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie

WORKS

und Grammatik

(Leipzig, 1884-1908).

Arctos. Acta philologica Fennica (Helsinki, 1930 sqq.). CGD

= infra: Omont,

CLA

— infra: Lowe,

H.A. E. A.

Classical Philology (Chicago [111.], 1906 sqq.). CPL

= Dekkers, E., Clauis Patrum brugis, 19612).

Latinorum

('Sacris Erudiri’ III), Steen-

Glotta. Zeitschrift fur griechische und lateinische Sprache (Gottingen, 1909 sqq.). Hagen,

H., Gramm. Suppi.

Hertz,

M. =

Holtz,

L., Donat

=

supra: Gramm. Suppi.

supra: Prisc. (in GL, t. 2-3). =

supra: Don.

H-S = Leumann, M. - Hofmann, J.B. - Szantyr, A., Lateinische Grammatik, 2: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (von Manu Leumann und J.B. Hofmann [19285], neubearbeitet von Anton Szantyr = 'Handbuch Altertuijiswissenschaft’ II, 2, 2) (Miinchen, 1963-1965).

der

WORKS Huemer,

J. =

Keil, H. = Lindsay,

supra: GL. Notae

Latinae

(Cambridge,

Lofstedt,

B., Ambros.

=

Lofstedt,

B., Laur.

supra: Laur.

Lofstedt,

B., Mals(achanus)

Lofstedt,

B., Sed. =

=

B., Sed. min.

E., Coniedanea

LOfstedt,

E., Syntactica,

E. A., CLA

=

LOwe,

G. - Goetz,

=

N-W

supra: Mals.

supra: Sed. min.

1-11 (Lund, Latini

G., Gloss. = =

1950). 1942, 1933). Antiquiores

der lateinischen

Fr., Formenlehre

C., i-iv (Leipzig, 1892-1905).

des Mittel-

IX, 2) (Miinchen,

H.A., CGD

=

Catalogue

der lateinischen Sprache, 3. Aufl. von

general

publiques de France. Departements

Puckett,

Literatur

(Miinchen, 1959 sqq.).

=- Neue,

G. =

sqq.).

supra: PL.

Wagener,

Polara,

1934

der Altertumswissenschaft’

= Mittellateinisches Wdrterbuch

Omont,

(Oxford,

supra: Gloss.

Geschichte

alters, i-in ('Handbuch I9ii-i93i)-

MLW

=

(Uppsala,

Codices

M., Literatur

J.P. =

1963).

supra: Sed.

LOfstedt,

Lowe,

1915; repr. Hildesheim,

supra: Ambros.

LOfstedt,

Migne,

XVII

supra: Cruindm. ; [Virg.].

W.M.,

Manitius,

CITED

supra:

Anna,

des manuscrits

des bibliotheques

(serie in-8°) (Paris, 1886 sqq.).

Virg.

Clem.

=

Clementis

qui dicitur ars grammatica : A Critical

Edition (Diss., University of California - Los Angeles, 1978). Thurneysen,

R., Irische und Britannische

Glossen

(‘Zeitschrift fiir Celtische

Philologie’ 21) (1940). TLL

= Thesaurus

Linguae Latinae (Lipsiae, 1900 sqq.).

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER

THE

1

WORK

Donatus Ortigraphus’ Ars grammatica consists of two sections: (i.) De littera et syllaba et accentu et possituris (hereafter referred to as “De littera”) and (ii.) De octo partibus orationis (1>. Seven extant manuscripts contain the text. They are: Valenciennes 393, ff. 77u-ii2r & I23r-i39u (V ); Paris Lat.13026, ff. I2ir-i59u (P) ; Bern Leiden

123, ff. ir-3iu (B ); Leiden

Voss.Lat.Qu.33,

B.P.L. 135, ff. 75r-8ir (A ); MUnchen

(C); Madrid

Clm

ff. 76r-82u (L); 6415, ff. 4ir-44u

19, ff. i62r-i63r (M).

This edition of Donatus Ortigraphus (DO) accomplishes two things. First, in narrow perspective, it filis a void, since DO has never been edited. Second and more important, an edition of DO’s grammatical compilation contributes to our knowledge of the Latin grammatical tradition. Mario Esposito States the case very The work of [Donatus Ortigraphus] is, Iike the other grammatical treatises of the early Middle Ages, merely a compilation from the writings of previous grammarians. But none the less the publication of these treatises offers a real interest, as M. Roger ... has well pointed out : - "... Ia publication de traites, comme celui de notre ... permettra de reformer ou de preciser ce que nous savons a cet egard,

1grammairien

et contribuera ainsi a eclairer une epoque peu connue". I may add that they are also of importance for the textual criticism of the earlier grammarians they quote, as frequently they worked on better manuscripts of the latter than we now possess. Sometimes, too, they preserve passages from grammarians whose works are no longer extant.

Donatus Ortigraphus' grammar is not an original or even interpretive work. The author has merely compiled quotations from numerous sources, of ten without comment, and strung them together as a teacher-student dialogue, the same format that his rence contemporary Clemens uses. At times he attempts to summarize the quotation in the guise of the teacher and then produce the to Bern quotation as a “proof”. Often these summaries resemble the original very closely and sometimes they are muddled versions of it. (2): one considers the number of grammarians cited or the When . vast extent of Priscians work (from which DO has taken many quotations), he might suppose the author to be a very well read man. Such, I think, is probably not the case. A more likely supposition is that the author had before him an anthology of

(1) There is a slight possibility that DO's Ars may also contain a De barbarismo section, but it is much more likely that the De barbarismo found in V (ff. ii2u123“), L, A and D belongs to Clemens. See pp. xxvm f. (chapter 3, section 'Related Manuscripts'’), and p. lxi (chapter 7, section b), below. (2) Mario Esposito, Hiberno- Latin Manuscripts in the Libr aries of Switzerland, Part II, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 30, section C (1912), pp. 9-10.

XXII

INTRODUCTION,

1

grammatical quotations from which to culi his own “grammar”. This earlier compilation would explain similarities among the Clem./Nanc.-Clm/Wirc./DO below).

grammars

(see chapter 4, '‘Sources”,

Organization was definitely not one of the authors strengths. He makes no ciear division among the various accidentia of a given part of speech, and if we credit him and not a scribe with the error on p. 194, 8 (see app.crit.) he assigns an extra accidens to the interjection. In the noun section, however, he compensates by omitting “number” from the accidentia of the noun. He does almost the same for the pronoun, but manages to wedge in a paragraph about number at the end of the section while speaking about case and quality. As a rule, DO does not cite the illustrative verses from his sources. Of those he does keep, he obviously prefers Vergil. Only a few Bible verses are quoted and these are almost ali from the garbled and difficult De gerendi modo section. As used in the extant manuscripts they do not illustrate DO’s point very clearly, and their utility is only slightly improved by reference to the similar passage in Nanc.-Clm (see the Appendix De gerendi modo). It is difficult to see any methodology or effective pedagogy behind DO’s procedure. His work is not a complete or thorough grammar like Donatus’ or Priscians. Neither is it a commentary on Donatus like Sedulius’, where lines of Donatus are explicated and developed. DO’s grammar is a thing unto itself. A student could not possibly look to it for clarification of difficult passages in the original grammarians nor could he easely locate a discussion of any given topic he might be interested in. The lack of organiza¬ tion simply does not allow it. DO’s grammar must be used simply as a means of review. One must read it by itself and for itself.

CHAPTER

DONATUS

2

ORTIGRAPHUS

Author.

Despite the title I have given this work, it is an anonymus grammar. I identify it by the “name” of “Donatus Ortigraphus” only to facilitate its classification as a distinet work and to remain consistent with references already made to it by that name(3>. (One should quickly note that this grammar is not related to the fragment in the manuscript Vaticano (CittA del) Regin.lat.980, Ortigraphus” from the beginning of the text in Valenciennes 393, f. 77u, which

reads: Donatus

ortigraphus (5> dicit: Partes

orationis sunt octo (see p. 59, 4). Here the anonymous author simply identifies his source: Donatus, and gives him a title: ortigraphus. “Ortigraphus” is an Irish spelling of artigraphus (6), which means “grammaticus”, the common surname for Dona¬ tus (7). Date.

) graphus3 5). Like his name, the author’s date cannot be precisely determined. The terminus post quem based on sources identified by DO which himself would have to be about 650, because DO cites Isidore begins (f 636). Historical probability would not deny such an early date Donatus even supposing (as I do) that DO was an Irishman writing on the Continent. Columbanus arrived in France in 591 and so it is I havewrite his grammar in France possible that an Irishman could taken anytime thereafter. There are at least three Irish grammars “Donatus Malsachanus, Anonymus ad Cuimnanum, and Ambrosianus L.22. Sup. - which have been dated on or before 700 (8).

(3) B. LOfstedt, e. a. (4) See

B.

Malsachanus, pp. 22; 65, 166 sq. ; L. Holtz,

LOfstedt,

Malsachanus,

p. 22, note

Donat, p. 436;

5 - LOfstedt

makes

this

distinction between the author of our grammar and the "Donatus ortigraphus" of the Vat., Regin.lat.980 fragment. He also notes that the Vat., Regin.lat.980 fragment passage is found elsewhere, most notably in "our” manuscript Leid., Voss.Lat.Qu.33, f- 72r- - "Donatus artigraphus” is also the opening of Paris, Arsenal, 3807 (see B. Haureau, Initia operum scriptorum Latinorum medii potissi¬ mum aeui, ex codicibus manuscriptis et libris impressis ..., II: D-F [Turnholti, ed. anastatica (5) Not (6) See (7) See

1973], f. ioi111). orthographus as wrongly quoted by B. Haureau, B. LOfstedt, Malsachanus, p. 98. Seru. 440; Cassiod. 2, 1, 2; TLL 1, 707 s.u.

(8) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus,

p. 25.

l.c.

INTRODUCTION,

XXIV

2

While an early date (seventh century) is possible, a later date (ninth century) is much more likely. Most of the manuscripts are ninth century; none is earlier. Hence the latest possible terminus ante quem would be 900. But the extensive manuscripts divide into at least two distinet recensions, and time must be allowedfor two ninth century branches of the manuscripts to come into existence. Consequently the terminus ante quem may be moved back to 850. Manitius dates Clemens’ grammar at circa 815 (9). Since Clemens and DO may be associated in many respects (see chapter 4, "Sources”, below), DO also may be tentatively dated circa 815. The extensive use of Priscian further supports the contention that DO’s is a post-Alcuin work(10). Location.

DO’s grammar was probably compiled in France because it is so closely related to the Clem./Nanc.-Clm/Wirc. grammars and be¬

rance* cause

most

(9) M.

Manitius,

Literatur

I, p. 719. - See

also L. Holtz,

of the where "s. IX1” should be read instead of "s. vili2”. "Ort.”, extant

(10) In

given at UCLA manuscripts

a lecture

(University

Donat,

of California,

Los

p. 578 s.u. Angeles),

March 1978, Margaret Gibson said that she believes Alcuin to have been the first were produced grammarian to rigorously and extensively culi material from Priscian. On the in other hand, B. LOfstedt says that the Irish were early users(I1). of Priscian (see Malsachanus, p. 49) and so it may be that Ms. M. Gibson's discovery should not be applied to Irish grammarians. (11) For V see H.A. Omont, CGD 25, pp. 360-361 ;J. Mangeart, Catalogue des Manuscrits de Valenciennes (Paris, 1860), p. 365 ; and also L. Holtz, Donat, p. 436. - For P see H.A. Omont, CGD 19, p. xxxix ; M. Manitius, Literatur I, p. 127 ; Ch.H. Beeson, The Manuscripts ofBede, in Classical P hilology 42 (1947), p. 82 ; M.R. James,

The

Wanderings

and

Hotnes

of Manuscripts

(New

York,

1919), pp. 49-50.

-

For B see E. A. Lowe, CLA 6, pp. xxi and 6; M. Manitius, Literatur I, p. 458; Ch.H. Beeson, The Manuscripts of Bede, in Classical P hilology 42 (1947), p. 87.

CHAPTER

THE

3

MANUSCRIPTS

The dates and provenances which I give for the DO manuscripts below (with the exception of Madrid 19) were supplied by Profes¬ sor Bernhard Bischoff, who kindly responded to my request for information more recent (and accurate) than that provided by the old catalogues. Description.

V

Valenciennes,

Bibliotheque municipale, 393 (formerly 376), ff. 77u-ii2r & I23r-i39u, saec. ix1, possibly from the Loire area. Cat.: H.A. Omont, CGD 25 (1894), pp. 360-361. V is an anthology of grammatical texts consisting of Alcuins Commentary in Priscianum (“Albini in Priscianum’’, inc. : Oratio est ordinatio dictionum ), DO’s text, Clemens’ De barbarismo, and Seruius’ De centimetro. The V text of DO appears as two separate sections: The eight parts of speech (ff. 77u-ii2r), and letters and accents (ff. I23r-i39u), with Clemens’ De barbarismo (ff. Ii2u-i23r) between them. The section following DO’s “De littera” is from the Nanc.-Clm grammar. The other manuscripts have one or two of these sections (see chapter jc below). V is by far the most lengthy of the manuscripts and in some passages has a fuller text than either Paris or Bern.

P

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Lat. 13026, ff. 12P-15911, saec. ixmeA, probably from near Paris. Cat. : L. Delisle, Inventaire des manuscrits conserves a la Biblio¬ theque Nationale sous les numeros 8823-18613, II : Inventaire des manuscrits de Saint-Germain-des-Pres, nos 11304-14231 (Biblio¬ theque de l’Ecole des Charles, xxvm, Paris, 1868), p. 85. P , like V, is largely a collection of grammatical texts. In addition to DO’s it contains the grammars of Euticius, Virgilius, Cruindmelus, and Malsachanus. P also contains the poems of Boethius’ Consolation, some Verse by Prudentius, and the Fables of Arienus. DO’s text in P is introduced thus (f. I2ir); Incipiunt egloge de libris grammaticorum de littera et syllaba et accentu et possituris. The P text has two sections : The eight parts of speech, in a version which ends letters and Following mood from

B

in the middle of the “verb” section (ff. I38u-i59u), and accents (ff. I2ir-i38u), which is equal in extent to V’s. DO’s grammar in P are two folia on the impersonal the Nanc.-Clm grammar.

Bern, Biirgerbibliothek, 123, ff. ir-3iu, saec. ix2, France. Cat.: H. Hagen, Catalogus codicum Bernensium (Bern, 1875), p. 178. - A more complete description is found in H. Hagen,

INTRODUCTION,

XXVI

3

Gramm. Suppi., pp. xxxii-xxxvii, and in M. Esposito, HibernoLatin Manuscripts in the Libraries of Switzerland, Part II, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 30, section c (1912), pp. 810. B was at one time a possession of the monastery at Fleury. It has a Fleury ex libris on ff. 11911, 12 yu, and I28u. B subsequently came into the library of Jacob Bongars (f 1612) whoseheir, J.Gravisset, donated his books in 1632 to the city of Bern(12). The manuscript may not have been written at Fleury. As Manitius says(13): Auf Fleury ais Entstehungsort deutet nichts unmittelbar hin.

However, Beeson discusses the relationship between Fleury, Corbie, and Bobbio in connection with a manuscript closely related m date and subject to B (Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, IV.A.34) (14) and it is apparent from his discussion that there was surprisingly close contact between “Irish” monasteries during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries. Thus if B was not written at Fleury, it was probably written at a “sister” monastery like Corbie. I do not know where Bongars acquired the manuscript, but B could easily have made its way to Bern well before 1600, since Bern, too, was an “Irish” monastery (,s). B is the most mteresting, and also the most troublesome, manuscript with respect to the identity of DO and his relation to Clemens. B, like V and P, contains several grammars. DO’s grammar is attributed to Clemens Scottus on the cover of the manu¬ script in a hand which is old but stili more recent than the text’s nor is it an expansion of that work. Two considerations would deny any such connection

(12) E. A. Lowe, (13) M.

CLA

Manitius,

6, p. 6.

Literatur

I, p. 469.

(14) Ch.H. Beeson, The Manuscripts of Bede , in Classical Philology 42 (1947), p. 82.

(15) For a very helpful map showing "the most important centers of IrishChristian influence’’ on the British Isles and the Continent, see Ludwig Bieler, treland, Harbinger of the Middle (16) H.

Hagen,

(17) M.

Manitius,

(18) My

colleague,

Ages (London,

Gramm.Suppl., Literatur Anna

1963), p. vm.

p. xxxm. I, pp. 456

Puckett,

and

469.

has prepared

a new

edition

of Clemens

(Diss., UCLA, 1978). She informs me that there is really no firm evidence that the historical figure Clemens Scottus is the author of this grammar. However, until such time as there is definite proof one way or the other, the most likely supposition (to me) is that it is Clemens’ grammar.

THE

MANUSCRIPTS

XXVII

between Clemens and DO. First, Clemens is not identified as the author in V, P, L, or A even though these are ninth century manuscripts written in a location where Clemens’ name must have been known and respected. Second, there is much dissimilarity in procedure, source selection, and competence between the two. A much more likely supposition is that DO’s Ars was attributed to Clemens as a sign of respect for the better man. The B text has two sections : The eight parts of speech (ff. 6u-3ir), and letters and accents (ff. ir-6u) in a version that is much shorter than either V’s or P’ s, because it begins in medias res (see p. 35, 763). The first four folia of B are extensively damaged and nearly half of the material in them is impossible to read. A

Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, B.P.L.135, ff. 75r-8ir, saec. ix1, from near Saint-Amand. Cat.: Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae V niuersitatis Leidensis, III : Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Latini (Leiden, 1912), pp. 72-73. A, as we have it today, consists of three parts distinet in ruling and size of quarto. They are all attributed to the ninth century and apparently came to Leiden as one codex from northern France. According to P.F.J. Obbema(19): The provenance from the library of St.-Bertin has been based on a xvth century inscription on the fly leaf (f. T) giving a summary of the contents and the first words of the 2nd folium (20 f° id est trahunt, now f. 3'). Similar inscriptions are found in our manuscripts Periz.F.14 and Voss.Lat.Qu.94 - that are from St.-Bertin.

Saint-Bertin was a monastery in northern France, near modern Saint-Omer. Both monasteries were founded in the seventh centu¬ ry by monks from Luxeuil. Saint-Bertin is thus in the same neighborhood, ethnically and geographically, as Corbie and SaintAmand. Most of A is filled with grammatical treatises. Pompeius’ is the longest work, but Sergius, Servius, and Clemens are also present. The A text of DO contains a lengthy passage on the gerund. L

Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss.Lat.Qu.33, ff. 76r-82u, saec. ix2, France. Cat.: K.A. de Meyier, Codices V ossiani Latini, 2: Codices in Quarto (Codices manuscripti Bibliothecae V niuersitatis Leidensis, XIV, Leiden, 1975), p. 85-94. L is a miscellaneous collection of material including Cicero’s De inuentione, Lactantius’ De aue Phoenice, a pseudo-Priscian’s Car¬ men De ponderibus et mensuris (inc. : Pondera peonis, expl. : sine aquis = Riese 486, vss. 1-163), Serenus’ Liber medicinalis, and a smattering of short excerpts on grammar. (19) Mr.

P.F.J. Obbema

is Keeper

of Western

manuscripts

at the

Leiden

University Library. This Information is from a letter he wrote in response to my questions.

XXVIII

INTRODUCTION,

3

L contains DO’s sections on adverbs, participles, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections in a more complete version than V has.

M

Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 19 (formerly A. 16), ff. i62r-i63r, saec. xn, Monte Cassino or Ripoll. Cat. : R. Raz Remolar & J. Lopez de Toro, Inventario generat de M anuscritos de la Biblioteca Nacional, I (Madrid, 1953), pp. 2023 ; G. Loewe & W. von Hartel, Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Hispaniensis (nach den Aufzeichnungen Dr. Gustav Loewes herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Wilhelm von Hartel), I (Wien, 1887), pp. 51-53. I have found no explanation for this manuscripts presence in Madrid. Possibly M was taken to Madrid by the Spanish during the Hapsburg rule of what is now northern France. M has only one and a half folios on letters and accents, but even in this small sampling, it provides short passages not found in the other manuscripts. M is a mixture of material from Bede’s Liber De temporibus and Aratus’ De astronomia to Isidores De homine et partibus eius.

C

MFnchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6415, ff. 4T-4411, saec. ixmeA. Cat. : C. Halm, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis, I, m (Miinchen, 1873), § 780, p. 108; more recent and more informative is Bernhard Bischoff, Die Siidostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken, I : Die Bayrischen Diozesen (Wiesbaden, 1960), p. 134. C contains only two grammars:

the Nanc.-Clm

(ff. ir-40u) and

DO (ff. 4D-4411). C has only the De inpersonali section, but it preserves this section in the full question and answer format. V, the only other manuscript with this portion of the text, has been reduced (only here) to a simple presentation of the source quotations without questions, answers, or summary. Related

D

Manuscripts.

Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Class.30 (M.V.18), ff. 56u~70u, saec. ix, belonged to the Bamberg Cathedral. Cat.: Friedrich Leitschuh, Katalog der H andschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg, I, 2 (Bamberg, 19662), pp. 30-31. Folios 56u-70u of D contain a De barbarismo which is probably by Clemens. The entire manuscript is listed as Clemens’ Ars grammatica. However, Manitius has cited Steinmeyer’s “translation” of the initials of f. 54r (cgpahlfdhuim = Clemens grammati¬ cus principi augustissimo Hlothario filio domni Hludouici impe-

THE

MANUSCRIPTS

XXIX

ratoris ) as signaling the end of Clemens’ Ars^20). The following "signed”: Pauca tibi caesar de multis magne hlothari \ lure tuus clemens saepe legenda dedi \ Caetera quo ualeas per te penetrare

sophiae (21). These lines are naturally of great importance in the dating of the work and make the attribution of ff. 56u-70u to Clemens seem secure. They tend to confirm Manitius’ suggestion that this section may really be the Ars maior of Clemens, although Manitius himself believes 11 that these lines were put at the end of 70* section (ff. 56u-70u) may or may not the manuscript by the person whobe finally arranged the conby Clemens. Folio is tents (22). Since a detailed textual examination of this section must be done to show conclusively that it belongs to Clemens, I cannot say with certainty that the Bamberg Class.30 (M.V.18) De barba¬ rismo together with the Valenciennes 393 De barbarismo and those found in L (ff. i6or-i7ir) and A (ff. 87r-93u) are not by DO. It does appear, however, that they are not (23). W

WUrzburg,

Universitatsbibliothek,

ment).

M.p.th.f.132,

saec.

ix (frag-

See chapter 4 “Sources”, section a.i “Irish Grammars”: (Wiirzburg grammar)”, below.

“Wirc.

Abbreviations.

The manuscripts employ many breviations (24):

characteristically Insular ab¬

fT = autem p. 169, 262 V A ; tr (= autem) mistaken by an earlier scribe for (fl = ) haec p. 146, 700 V A ; and vice versa p. 149, 794 V ; tr = haec p. 184, 86 B ;

(20) M. Manitius, Literatur I, p. 457. (21) M. Manitius, Literatur I, p. 457. (22) M. Manitius, Literatur I, p. 457. (23)

L. Holtz,

has examined

in his recent

work

the V version of DO

on

Donatus

(see "Works

Cited”,

Donat)

and remarks on the unusual order of the three

sections : II. De Octo Partibus Orationis, III. De Barbarismo, and I. De Littera (the numerals indicating the traditional order). Holtz was apparently unaware that B, which has only sections I and II, has them in the traditional order (see Chapter 7B "The Manuscripts of DO”). Nevertheless Holtz does conclude that the V arrangement was not done by the "author" and that the "De Barbarismo" probably does not belong with the other two sections : "Mais 1’ordre inhabituel II, III, I nous

avertit que leur groupement,

tel qu’il figure dans le temoin,

est

artificiel et recent. Le traite correspondant a Mai., III se rencontre en effet sous

forme isolee en d'autres manuscrits et doit etre mis a part des deux autres” (p. 436). (24) See

B.

LOfstedt,

Latinae, pp. 32 and 35.

Malsachanus,

pp.

32-33,

and

W.M.

Lindsay,

Notae

XXX

H t 4+ §

(= hoc) mistaken 38oapp V ; = est p. 81, 4341 = enim p. 60, 49 = sed p. 113, 377

INTRODUCTION,

3

for (hr= ) autem, p. 36, 783app V ; and vice versa p! 22, V ; p. 101, 15 V ; P; p. 65, 14 P; P;

S

(= sed) confused with (,S = ) sunt p. 92, 731 P P ; p. 92, 749 P ; p. 127, 172 V ; p. 180, 119 L \

ST

= sicut p. 122, 48 V [si in P P]; p. 125, 129 V [sf in P B)\

tm

(= tantum) confused with (t n = ) tamen p. 88, 6372 P ; p. 92, 733 V ; p. 148,

0

= con- p. 115, 409 B ; p. 118, 504 B ; p. 122, 49 B ;

3

= eius p. 116, 447 B ; p. 123, 74 B.

754 V ; p. 172, 320 V L\

Stemma.

P;

The sequence of manuscripts is: P; V

3- 148 V P M [M fuller) ; 915- 35

pp. pp. 35-129 pp.129-136 pp.136-147 147-159 pp.16 0-195 pp.

V

A) V P B (V ftiller) ; V

C (P different, like Nanc.-Clm);

V V V L B [L B often fuller).

pp. pp.

Examinatiori of this sequence shows that comparison of the following manuscripts is impossible since they never contain the same text: PC; PA[ PL\ BC \ BA\ C A\ CL\ LA \ MC\ M A ; MB \ M L. Of the other groupmgs, comparison reveals no one best manuscript. There are three extensive manuscripts: E P P. Of these E is the longest but does not always have the best readings or even the complete passage. P and B do seem to form a separate group, the most striking evidence for which is F’s greater length in many sections and their differing versions of passages (on pp. 69, 108/111 ; 121, 25 ; 123, because V is distinet that L B are more possible. See above.)

6iaPP ). L may also be a part of this PP group from L B at the end of the work, primarily in extensive. (No comparison of P and L is If so, P L B should tentatively be grouped

together. But an unusual passage (p. 193, i88app ) suggests that V and L may also be a subgroup (see “V L B”, below). In view of all this, we may distinguish V with some certainty from the P P group, but whether L is closer to P P or to E is an open question. A and C can only be compared with E and neither has consistently better readings, although C is fuller than E in the section of the work it covers. M is really too short to provide a sufficient number of errors to establish its place in the stemma. It does have two interesting passages not found in E P (pp. 9, 19/27; 11, 63/83).

THE

MANUSCRIPTS

XXXI

The distinguishing errors are as follows: V P B

V - P B : In addition to the many passages it has which are not found in P B, V differs from P B and has the correct reading on p. 49, 58 where P B omit the phrase apud

Latinos

penultimum

et antepenultimum

through

haplography;

on p. 71,

162/163 V has ab una uocali incipit ut A Aulus uel ab una consonante ut P Publius, which P B render as ab una uocali incipit ut P Publius ; and on p. 123, 80 V reads omnes

modi

accipiunt regulam, while P B have incipiunt.

P B have the correct reading in the vast majority

of their differences. On p. 95,

812/813 V mistakenly has parte for P B’ s (Pompeius’) arte and then through haplography omits the following phrase descendit - arte ; on p. 101, 19 P B have the correct version of Priscians ante se positorum, but V has a te se conpositorum ; see also pp. 108, 234/235; 112, 335; 114, 403; 118, 516; 125, 123/124; 126, 150. P - V B : P is sometimes

correct when

V B are not. On p. no, 283 P follows

Priscians cum pronomine praepositio est, unde et casus, but V has cum pronomina est praepositionem

co et casus, and B has cum per nomen

conuersionem

in pronomine

et praepositio est unde et casus ; on p. 114, 383 P follows Virgilius' unusual phrase diei gandi, while V has uicissitudine, and B reads diei grandi ; on p. 112, 330 P, following

Priscian, reads solet, but V has solum, and B through haplography with a following solet omits the phrase altogether. On p. 19, 274/276, in a passage

which

B does not

have, P has a phrase which V omits through haplography. On the other hand, V B often have a correct reading where P does not : on pp. 68, 79/80 ; 105, 141 ; 125, 116/117 ; 128, 185 P omits phrases through haplography ; on p. 97, 888 P mistakenly reads accusatiuum ire for V B' s accusatum ire ; on p. 112, 339 P reads legitimus plecti, while V B accura tely give Virgilius' legimus flecti. B -V

P. B has better readings than V P several times. On p. 73, 205 it is the only

manuscript which has Priscians cognomina ; on p. 99, 925 it again follows Priscian with its obliquos, while V P mistakenly read aliquos ; on p. 102, 53 B' s secundae is not mistakenly written as secundum by attraction of the following unum, as it is in V P ; on p. 108, 233 B properly has adiectio in the nominative instead of V P’ s adiectionem. B also has its faults. On pp. 39, 7/ 8.23/25 ; 50, 87/89 ; 52, 138/139 ; 54, 175/176 ; 78,

346/347; 112, 330/331 it commits omnibus

errors of haplography; on p. 99, 932 B reads pro

instead of pronominibus ; and onp. 113, 370 fi has nominum

numero

instead

of V P’ s omni numero.

VLB

L-V

B.Lis

seldom

incorrectly written and several times it has better readings

than V B. On p. 160, 17 L follows Virgilius accurately and completes a quote with the phrase sed uir fortiter, without which the sentence is meaningless as in V B ; on p. 160, 14 L alone reads quod, while V B have the meaningless quae. L, however, does have mistakes not in V B. On p. 160, 20 V P follow Priscian's adiectiua nomina, while L has adiectiui nomina ; and on p. 162, 54 L has script for V

fi’ s scripsit. V -L

B:V

is certainly the most corrupt of the three manuscripts. In this section

there is no instance where V alone has the correct reading — it is always shared with either L or B. However, it can be established that V is not a copy of fi by reference to the previous section. Nor was V copied from L since it does share with fi correct readings not in L. L B are in many

places better than

V . On p. 161, 27 V has nominibus

for L fi’ s

(Priscians) omnibus ; on p. 164, 108 V reads actiuum for actutum in L B (and Priscian) ; on p. 164, 118 V reads uiro for L B' s (Priscian’s) uice ; and on p. 168, 215/ 216 V has deleted a phrase; see also pp. 164, 123.126; 165, 138; 171, 3o8app

INTRODUCTION,

XXXII

3

B - L V : B has several correct readings not found in the other manuscripts.

On p.

164, 110 B properly renders Priscians (Vergils) Ascanius while Z. V have Anius (for Aeneas?)]

on p. 164, 112 B alone makes

sense of the sentence

with secundum

rather

than V’s sed or L' s sicut ; on p. 172, 320 L V mistake Priscians tantum for tamen, but B has tantum.

B has its faults. On p. 164, 128 B has facere for L V’s (Virgilius') facile ; on p. 172,

337/342 B omits a passage found in L V (and Clemens) ; and on p. 182, 27 B has the nonsensical uenenum

illo for L' s ueneno illum.

L V share a strange passage (p. 193, i88app ) not in B which I have decided to place

in the critical notes. It seems spurious because it does not fit in the context, is from none of the usual sources, and occurs in different places in L and V. It certainly does suggest, however, that L V could be considered as one separate subgroup.

VC

C s version of "De inpersonali” has the full question and answer

format. V in this

section drops the questions and the authors answers, retaming only the initial Cur dicitur impersonalis

? (p. 129, 207), and gives only the quotation of a source for each

question. (In the following section, “De gerendi modo” [p. 136, 419], V resumes the original format.) We can therefore securely posit that C is not derived from V. Moreover there are many errors in F’s version of the quotations to support this. On p. 129, 213 C reads quod propriis personis (as do Nanc.-Clm), while V has the awkward

qui proprius personis ; on p. 130, 229 C has Consentius’ rnuat but V reads

uiuat ; see also pp. 130, 238.244/246app ; 133, 318/319. V, although full of errors in this section, does have correct readings not found in C, so we may

conclude

that V is not a copy of C. On p. 129, 215 V (and Nanc.-Clm)

read atque for C’ s meaningless ad quam ; on p. 130, 240 C wrongly has posita for K’s (Consentius1) positam ] on p. 131, 281 C incorrectly renders F’s (Consentius1) istius with istis ; see also pp. 132, 312.313; 133, 326.

V A

A has more

correct readings than V. On p. 136, 420 V omits the verb discernun¬

tur] on p. 139, 508 V omits

an entire phrase; on p. 142, 580 V mistakenly

desinentia for A’s (Priscian's) deponentia] potest. There are many other examples. A too has its mistakes.

reads

on p. 146, 686 V has uerbo instead of ^4’s

On p. 137, 445 A wrongly

gives uerba for 7's uerbi ; on p.

140, 523 V has nominis, but A has the garbled moniis] on p. 145, 654 V correctly reads usurpatiua species est, while A has usurpatiuas species est ; on p. 146, 697/698 V (like Charisius) has adoratum,

Q

but A reads adortatum.

Finally there are errors to suggest that ali of these manuscripts

derive from an

archetype (Q), rather than the original. Of course, these errors could have been made by DO himself, who was after ali often a simple copyist, but in many of these instances it seems more likely that we are dealing with a later scribe who was not thinking about the sense of the passage he was ropying. In the “De littera" section there is a surprising number of haplographies, especiall v with Pompeius quotations (see pp. 17, 238/239 ; 18, 26iapp ; 23, 39iapp ; 30, 6n/'6i3app ; 34, 72gapp ; 39, 2b/2gitpp ; 47, 228/229 ; 50, 66/67.68/60.69/70 ; 54, 188). On p. 100, 964 V P B ali have quae flecti for Consentius'7?ecbgMe ; on p. 103, 65 K P B have the meaningless equam (et quam in P) for Priscian (and Nanc.-Clm)’s etiam] on p. 129, 217 V C commiban error of haplography (judging by the version in Nanc.-Clm: the ultimate source is not identified) ; on p. 132, 302 V C both commit an error of dittography ; on p. 133, 326 V C mistakenly

render Virgilius’ nomen

by nominatiuum]

and on p. 163, 97 VLB

omit

a phrase from Priscian, leaving their sentence suggesting a false relationship: 'paene' ex quo 'nempe' for 'paene' (ex quo ...), 'nempe'.

THE The stemma thus:

MANUSCRIPTS

xxxm

constructed from the information above appears

DO

Q

CHAPTER

4

SOURCES

As I mentioned above (p. xxi) the quotations of authors identified in the text were probably not taken directly from their works but from an intermediate compilation of grammatical excerpts. I would think this especially true of Priscian. Often Priscian quotes begin with item. It could be that the compilation from which DO got his Priscian passages began each new quote with item. DO, then, simply copied it into the text. Donatus, on the other hand, is used mostly for those definitions which would have been committed to memory by any medieval grammarian and there is absolutely no reason to suspect an intermediate source for such passages. Because an intermediate source is likely for some passages, however, even those passages in DO for which I have not been able to find a source may not be original, but only copied from the “lost source”. Some of the questions may not even be original since a few of them are very close to Clemens’ questions and may again derive from a common source (cf. DO p. 60, 32/33, Clem. 24, 27/28 ; DO p. 115, 428/431, Clem. 57, 18/23 ; DO p. 118, 492/495. Clem. 59, 1/6 ; DO P- 119. 517/519. Clem. 59, 25/30; DO p. 119, 523/525. Clem. 54, 13/16 ; e.a.). In short, it is difficult to be sure that any given part of this grammar was written by DO himself. In a few places DO has obviously misunderstood his source or at least used it very clumsily (see pp. 36, 780/785; 69, 112/129; 71, 162/170; 76, 294/303; 87, 608/610). This fact suggests two things: first, the loose organization and haphazard presentation of subject is due to incompetence rather than any abstruse intention not detected by the modern reader; and second, if DO used an anthology of grammarians for his source material, he may have misunderstood some passages because he was reading them out of context and possibly in corrupt form. a. Insular

i. Irish Grammars The “Irish grammars” can be grouped roughly into two chronological groups : (a) the early group : Ambrosianus L.22.Sup., Asper, Anonymus ad Cuimnanum, Malsachanus: circa 700 (and perhaps preceded by Virgilius Maro grammaticus, who may have been Irish); (b) the ninth century group: Cruindmelus, Ars anonyma Bernensis, Ars Laureshamensis, Murethach, Sedulius Scottus, Cle¬ mens Scottus, Nanc.-Clm, Wirc., DO. L. Holtz and B. Lofstedt have shown

that Sedulius maior,

INSULAR

Laureshamensis, and Murethach a common source (25>.

SOURCES

xxxv

form a subgroup since they share

Clemens, Nanc.-Clm, Wirc., and DO also are very closely related, but chronological precedence among them cannot be surely determined. Probably their similarity stems from a common, but lost, source for much of their material. Clemens is, however, only a cousin in this subgroup because he relies on Alcuin in many places where the other grammars below).

use Priscian (see section “Clemens”,

Nanc.-Clm. Nancy, MUnchen,

Bibliotheque Bayerische

contain a grammar

municipale,

317, ff. ir-52u (Nane.), and

Staatsbibliothek,

Clm

6415,ff. ir-40u (Clm),

which is very similar in content to that of DO

and is also Irish in origin . This Nanc.-Clm Ars consists of a series of quotations from a variety of explicitly identified grammarians. Although it does not use the question-answer format and is only about half the length of DO’s Ars, the amount of material common to both denies coincidence. The inevitably question is: which grammar is the source of which ? The eventual answer is : it cannot be determined. If one of these works was known to the author (compiler) of the other, the borrower covered his tracks by reference back to the original sources. The analysis of these two works in greater detail takes three steps. (i.) DO

and

Nanc.-Clm

are

closely related.

Roughly fifty percent of the quotations in Nanc.-Clm are found in DO. The order is not always exactly the same and sometimes Nanc.-Clm will quote, say, twenty lines from Priscian, while DO only quotes sixteen. In general terms, though, the two grammars follow approximately the same order with very many identical sources, as the following comparison of one folio from Clm (Nane.) with the corresponding material in DO indicates:

I. {. I2U, 29 - f. I3r, II

2.

f. 13', 11/16 16/24

DO

Nane.

Clm

f. i8r, 1712/19 - f. i8u, 6 f. i8u, 6/n

p. 104, 93/104 p. 112, 343/348 p. 107, 180/187

3-

(25) L. Holtz,

Sur trois commentaires

irlandais

de 1’Art majeur

de Donat

siecle, in Revue d’histoire des textes 2 (1972), pp. 58-72 ; B. LOfstedt, (26)

B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , pp. 21-22.

au ixe

Laur., p. xm.

INTRODUCTION,

XXXVI

4a

24/25

not in DO

20/23 (Prisc. II, 587, 5/7 continuous 19/20 from passage n. 3 above) 25/27

46. 8.

IO. II.

12. 13-

14-

(unidentified )

f- I3“. 275/9- f- 13”. 5

24 - f. 199 8 f. 191, I5/I7 8/14

5-

(Prisc. II, 591, 7/13 : this is the passage in 12/15 11 passages nn. 7 above 21/23and 9 below) Prisc. -between 9/ 7 15/17 17/21 20/25 17/20 23 - f. 19“, 2 f. 19“, 2/ 8

9- 25/28 (Prisc. II, 594, 20/23 continuous n. 12 above)

not in DO p. 108, 233/240 p. 107, 197/202 “ Reliqua' ' in DO (p. 107, 202)

p. 107, 202/206 p. 108, 228/230 p. 108, 217/220 p. no, 282/288 not in DO

from passage

28 - f. I4r, 3 12/18 (Prisc. III, 21, 5/10). 9/12

not in DO

Although the chart does not indicate it, passage n. i above actually represents two distinet excerpts frond Priscian: the first (p. 104, 93/94) is Prisc. II, 578, 18/19 ; the second (p. 104, 94/104) is Prisc. II, 579, 15/23. Both DO and Nanc.-Clm render these two Priscian excerpts as one passage. Surely this kind of similarity is not coincidence. Other such similarities may be found on pp. 90, 681/692 ; 91, 718/727 ; 95, 821/827 ; 96, 840/847, and so on throughout the work. And there are common mistakes, like that on p. 70, 138 where DO and Nanc.-Clm have nomina accidentium for nomi¬ num accidentia. On p. 91, 725 both DO and Nanc.-Clm commit an error of haplography. Finally, the codices themselves show how close the relationship between Nanc.-Clm and DO must be. Miinchen Clm 6415 (= DO cod. C), Paris Lat. 13026 (= DO cod. P), and Valenciennes 393 ( = DO cod. V) all contain sections of both works side by side: (a.) Clm ff. ir-40u is the Nanc.-Clm grammar, but ff. 4P-4411 is the “De inpersonali’’ section of DO’s grammar ; (b) P ff. I38u-i59u is pages 59-128 of DO’s grammar, ff. i59u-i6ou contains Nanc.-Clm’s secti¬ on “De gerendi modo”; (c) V ff. 77u-i39u contains DO’s “De octo partibus orationis”, Clemens’ “De barbarismo” and DO’s section on letters and accents, ff . I39u-i42r is a section of Nanc.-Clm (Nane, ff. 38u-44r, Clm ff. 25r-28u). Clearly these two works come from the same tradition or even the same author. But when one examines them to determine precedence, he finds the task impossible, as the next two steps illustrate. (11.) Nanc.-Clm is not copied from DO. This assertion may be substantiated in three ways. First, Nane,-

INSULAR

SOURCES

XXXVII

Clm has quotations not found at all in DO (see nn. 5 and 14 in the chart above). Second, Nanc.-Clm has many quotations from the grammarians which are more extensive than those found in DO (see nn. 4, 8, and 13 above). Third, there are mistakes in DO not found in Nanc.-Clm. On p. 69, 107 Nanc.-Clm has the crucial occedit, where DO makes nonsense of the very point he is making with occidit ; on p. 96, 840 DO omits Priscians quod, Nanc.-Clm does not; and on p. 103, 65 Nanc.-Clm correctly gives Priscians etiam, while DO has equam {et quam in P). (m.) DO is not copied from Nanc.-Clm. As in the case above there are three ways in which this assertion can be supported. First, there are many quotations in DO not found in Nanc.-Clm. Second, at times DO has given a quotation from a source more fully than Nanc.-Clm : on p. 62, 113/128 DO has a Virgilian passage, of which Nanc.-Clm only has the middle section (p. 62, 115/126) ; and the Pompeius passage on p. 73, 217/235 is given in Nanc.-Clm, but both Nane, and Clm skip p. 74, 231/234. Third, DO has correct readings where Nanc.-Clm has mistakes : on p. 61, 77/78 Nanc.-Clm omits the Priscian phrase et pronomina modo nominum ; and on p. 70, 137 Nanc.-Clm omits extrinsecus accidunt ; on p. 96, 843 DO correctly renders Priscians oportere compaginem, while Nane, has only compaginem and Clm has comp cognom{en). (iv.) A common source? A third possibility must also be mentioned. DO and Nanc.-Clm could have been derived from a common source. This is certainly not improbable, and it would explain “expansion” of sources from Nanc.-Clm to DO and vice versa. But, since no extant work meets the requisites, nothing more can be said of this. Another possible supposition is that Nanc.-Clm was written first and later revised by the same author or by another grammarian, who added the question-answer format, altered the order to suit his new purposes, at times deleted material, at times added new material, and at times looked up original quotations to expand them (which, lf he had written Nanc.-Clm first, he would know where to find). It is less probable that DO was written first and then condensed to Nanc.-Clm. The large number of DO manuscripts written in a rather short period of time suggests that scribes did not hesitate to copy such a lengthy work. There would therefore seem to be no reason to suppose that the Nanc.-Clm compiler decided to shorten DO and leave a bare, unconnected list of grammatical quotations (although this is exactly what the V scribe did on pp. 129-136). Clemens. The close relationship between

DO

and Clemens, implied by

XXXVIII

INTRODUCTION,

4a

Clemens’ name on Bern 123’s cover (see chapter 3, “Description” section : B, above), is confirmed by a comparison of the texts. Even when they differ, they often remain similar because Clemens many times uses Alcuin as a source while DO cites Priscian. In most of these instances Alcuins source seems to have been Prisci¬ an. In such passages, then, Clemens cites Priscian as modified by Alcuin, while DO quotes Priscian directly. See, for example, DO p. 61, 58/109, Clem. 24, 33 sq. ; DO p. 99, 920, Clem. 39, 22 sq. ; and DO p. 191, 141/142, Clem. 107, 28 sq. The crucial passages for a comparison of DO and Clemens are those for which no source is known (e.g. pp. 69, 109/m; 72, 187/189; 75, 274/278). In such passages, an examination of the errors indicates that Clemens is probably the source for DO or at least more accurately transcribes the common, unknown source ; it is certain that Clemens is not the borrower. On p. 153, 908, for example, DO has the inexplicable faxumus and ficio while Clem. (80, 26/28) has faximus and facio. On p. 153, 884/887 none of the many errors in DO is found in Clem. (82, 8/11). The affinity between DO and Clemens receives support from two other kinds of similarity. First, there are passages where both grammars have the same divergence from a common, explicitly identified source. On p. 169, 242 both DO and Clem. (87, 22) omit Priscian's phrase a potente ‘potenter’, a misericorde ‘misericor¬ diter' ; and two lines below both DO and Clem. destroy Priscian’s parallel construction si igitur inuenias . . . scias . . . with inuenitur ... scias ... On p. 172, 334/338 (Clem. 84, 22/29) both grammars delete several phrases from Priscian. Second, in many places DO and Clemens make contiguous two separate quotations from a source. On p. 60, 41/45 DO quotes Virgilius 4, 50/52 [5, 9/12] followed immediately by Virgilius 6, 55/56 [5, 15/16] ; Clem. (23, 12/16) does exactly the same. On p. 63, 142/146 (Clem. 24, 10/14) they do this with two Pompeius passa¬ ges ; on p. 74, 236/242 (Clem. 27, 19/26) with Diomedes ; and on p. 4, 63/76 (Clem. 11, 22 - 12, 6) they both combine the same Victorinus and Isidore quotes. On p. 191, 116/120 (Clem. 105, 6/9) and other places this similarity occurs with Priscian quotes. Whether Clemens was a direct source for DO or not, I cannot say. Clemens is never explicitly cited as a source, and it is possible that even when Clemens seems to be the source for a passage, there is an intermediate (but lost) source for DO or a common (lost) source for both. The most striking differences in the two gram¬ mars are the Priscian-Alcuin split mentioned above and the much greater variety of explicitly identified sources for DO. Clemens does not use Virgilius, Pompeius, or Charisius nearly as much as DO. Finally, there is the matter of competence. Here the difference is to Clemens’ credit. He orders his material more rigorously and does not seem to have passages where he misinterprets the material he is using, as does DO. For this reason one doubts the

INSULAR

SOURCES

XXXIX

suggestion made above (chapter 3, “Description” section: B) that DO’s grammar could be Clemens’ Ars maior. Wirc. (Wiirzburg grammar)

(W).

Wiirzburg M.p.th.f.132 is a ninth century manuscript fragment. I ha ve this reference from Lofstedt (Mals., p. 167), but I can find no catalog reference to this fragment. W is two bifolia on the parts of speech. These two bifolia come from the same quire and, judging from the content, I believe that two bifolia, which would have been laid “on top” of them when Thus I have numbered the extant that this was a quire of eight. Since on these folia, I will identify them

folding the quire, are missing. folios 1, 2, 7, and 8, assuming no identifying numbers appear by first lines:

f. ir : protentus in octo et ubique . . . f. iu: cuio cua cuiae cuie ... i. 2r: item legere etiam hodie possum

et heri potui ...

f. 2U: -do aduerbio uel coniunctione ... f. 7r: f. 7“: f. 8r : f. 8U:

et uisso possumus desideratiua dicere ... (. )tra sunt ea quoque frequentatiua ... cum in ostendenda coniugatione . . . (...)ificat ut est uapulo ita ...

W contains a grammar similar in format to Nanc.-Clm and similar in content to DO and Nanc.-Clm. However, it does not seem to be related more closely to one than to the other. It has passages not in DO or Nanc.-Clm and lacks many passages from both. Since so little of the Wiirzburg grammar exists, no specific conclusions can be drawn concerning this grammars date or status in the DO/Nanc.-Clm/Clem. group, though W clearly is a member of it. W, like the others, is of Irish origin . Ars anonyma

Bernensis.

Of the remaining Irish grammars the closest to DO’s is the Bern grammar, which in its extant version treats only nouns and pronouns. Although it is ciear that Bern. is not as closely related to DO as are Clem., Nanc.-Clm, and Wirc., it does have a few striking similarities. First, it shares a large number of “confer’’ passages. One might say that it is in the same milieu as DO, but not in the same “local tradition”. Second, some of the “confer” passages are surprisingly similar to DO’s in content. For example, Bern. 72, 24 - 73, 29 contains eight passages on types of nouns which, even though not verbatim copies of DO’s corresponding passages p. 82, 478 - 85, 538, nevertheless occur in the same order and contain very much the same material. The same type of correspondence may be found between Bern. 75, 30 - 76, 19 and DO p. 85, 552 - 86,578. (27) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , p. 22.

INTRODUCTION,

XL

4a

One further comment might be made about Bern. itself and consequently about its relation to DO. Hagen did not do an exhaustive source study and therefore I have no authority for the following statement except my own observations as I went through the work. It seems to me that Bern. often has its own particular version of quotations from various sources. It tends to work these sources rather thoroughly into the text. This is the primary reason, I think, why Bern. and DO share only “confer” passages. The author of Bern. must have felt quite free to revise or “splice” his source quotations. For example, Bern. 134, 12/24 gives a Virgilius quotation, and Hagens comment is(28): Non extat hic locus apud Maium

and later:

neque in epistulis neque in epitomis,

cf. ... p. 137 Maii.

This passage, however, is found in Huemers edition and in DO. The problem is that Bern/s compiler has not only changed the order of the sentences, he has also rephrased the middle section of the passage and even added some new material. Thus 134, I3/I5. with which Bern. begins the quotation, is actually its conclusion (DO p. 63, 126/128). The following lines 134, 16/17 are the beginning of the quotation (DO p. 62, 115/117), and 134, 17/22 are a vaguely similar paraphrase of Virgilius (DO p. 62, 117/125). The last lines, Bern. 134, 22/24, are the penultimate sentence in Virgilius (DO p. 63, 125/126). See also Bern. 71, 4/11 (Virgilius, in DO p. 79, 388/401) ; 78, 16/20 (Priscian, in DO p. 88, 645/647) ; 85, 24/25 (Pompeius, in DO p. 95, 812/814). CrUindmelus.

Cruindmelus

was, according to Huemer,

an Irishman and a

contemporary of Clemens*29). The "De littera” and "De syllaba” sections of Cruindmelus’ Ars metrica are close enough to DO’s and Clemens grammars to warrant Cruindm.’s inclusion in the DO/Nanc.-Clm/Clem./Wirc. group, at least to the extent that Cruindm. covers the same subjects. Given the nature of his work, Cruindm. obviously does not include a treatment of “De 0( to partibus orationis and consequently he ignores the topics covered in the larger part of DO and Clem. 1 he proximity

of Cruindmelus

grammar

to DO’s is indicated

by the number of parallels they have : Cruindmelus is an "ad litt.” or paene ad litt. analogue to DO in fourteen passages and a confer in as many others. Two passages in particular should be noted. The first is a Seregius quote (DO p. 35, 746/752, and Cruindm. 13, 34 — 14, 6) in which both grammars diverge from

(28) H. Hagen,

Gramm.Suppl

(29) J. Huemer,

Cruindmelus , p. iv ; - see also Anna Puckett, Clem., pp. 30-31

p. 134, nn. 12 and 16.

INSULAR

SOURCES

XLI

Seregius in the same way: they both have remanent hae quae necessariae liquidis praeponuntur de septem semiuocalibus f et mutae sex while Seregius reads remanent quae necessario liquidis praeponuntur, semiuocalis f et mutae sex. Thereafter both DO and Cruindm. give a list of twelve words in the same order, although Seregius’ order is quite different. Finally both DO and Cruindm. read in Platone lectum est (hoc est 'exaruit') for Seregius’ in Plauto lectum est (hoc est ' exhauriuit’ ). In a second passage (DO p. 44, 157/158, and Cruindm. 6, 2/3) DO and Cruindm. write ‘amo’ unde natum est? Ab ‘amore’. Pom¬ peius, the ostensible source, has ‘amor’ ... ‘amare’. After this sentence, however, DO departs from the wording in his identified source and Cruindm. continues to follow Pompeius. Other Irish Grammarians

(Sed., Mur., Laur.).

Between the other Irish grammarians and DO there is no particular affinity ... only a few general ones such as fondness of Priscian and Virgilius grammaticus. There are, of course, a few places where DO has a verbatim passage with one or more of these Irish grammarians and a few more where there are “confer” passages. But DO’s difference from these other grammars is not surprising since many of the other Irish grammars (such as Sed., Mur., and Laur.) were written as commentaries on Donatus or Priscian, and consequently they have a considerably different intention behind them. DO was written as a review of various grammatical questions, centered around no one grammarian and without any single prevailing philosophy directing which topic should follow another. 2. Anglo-Saxon

Grammarians

DO apparently had no use for, or exposure to, the Anglo-Saxon grammars. Beyond a nebulous “association” with Alcuin through Clemens (see section a.i “Irish Grammars”: “Clemens”, above), there is no indication that Anglo-Saxon grammarians influenced DO at ali. Bonifaces grammar is really too short and basic for an esoteric eclectic like DO to find very rich in grammatical ore, and Tatwine may not even have been known at DO’s Continental monastery. DO’s not referring to Alcuin by name should not cause any wonder, since no contemporaries are named, but the fact that he apparently did not use Alcuin at all is interesting. Many circumstances could account for this : Alcuin was not available in DO’s library ; DO knew that Alcuin had used Priscian and saw no use for Alcuin when he already had Priscian (30); or perhaps DO (30) For a brief but interesting article on Alcuin’s Priscian by Reginald

0'Donnell, Naumann

see Latin Script and Letters, A.D. 400-900, ed. J.J. CVMeara (Leiden,

1976), pp. 222-235.

- B.

XLII

INTRODUCTION,

4a-b

wrote before Aleum. Unfortunately I can find no evidence at ali to raise any one conjecture to probability. b. Continental

Grammarians

Augustine. Twelve passages (for which no extant work by Augustine is the source) appear under the name Augustinus or Agustinus. DO did not need to have a (lost) work of Augustine before him to pen these passages. They probably came from one of his “anthology” sources and were falsely attributed there to Augus¬ tine. Eight of the passages have no identified source (pp. io, 30/32 ; 19, 289/291.292/307 ; 21, 348/356 ; 27, 524/533 ; 30, 587/595 i 31, 641/651 ; 41, 58/65) verbatim in Cassiod. verbatim in Clem. and a passage in Bern. ;

(31). One passage (p. 4, 57/61) is foundalmost ; a second passage (p. 6o, 32/36) is found Laur. ; a third (p. 66, 43/46) is comparable to and a fourth (p. 93, 769/772) reproduces

verbatim a passage in Nanc.-Clm (32). Charisius (Comminianus). Charisius is quoted twenty times under the nam eComminianus (the name is almost always abbreviated Cam ; I take this spelling from cod. P on pp. 144, 637 and 145, 670). Lofstedt (Mals., p. 44) has remarked that Malsachanus quotes Charisius’ list of verbs in shortened form. DO also relies on Charisius, but his list is of adverbs (p. 169, 247/314). Of the twenty quoted passages six are not found in Charisius: one may be simply a paraphrase by DO (p. 144, 637/639), and one is too short to be identified (p. 145, 671). Nine passages are almost verbatim from Charisius. Five, however, are found in other related Irish grammars as well (pp. 127, 162/166 ; 128, 180/184 ; 146, 697/703 ; 152, 878/882 ; 165, 146/147), mdicating that for Charisius too there is very likely an intermediate source. In addition to these, DO identified two passages as Flauianus^33\ The hrst of these (p. 144, 646/651) occurs twice in Nanc.Clm (where it is once assigned to Probus), but is found nowhere else. The second (p. 154, 913/916) is Charisius’. A third time Flauianus is mentioned, but no passage is given (p. 4, 37). Consentius. DO cites Consentius by name twenty-six times. Here again DO seems to have used an intermediate source because in twelve of

(31) Fr. Glorie

nevertheless

(in a letter ofjune

27, 1979) has recognized

the

first passage as Augustinian. See the first apparatus on p. 10. (32) H. Hagen

(p. CCLiv)

(33) See H. Hagen,

lists these last two

Gramm.Suppl.,

as unidentified

pp. clxiii-clxvii.

Augustine.

CONTINENTAL

SOURCES

XLIII

these cases Nanc.-Clm or Wirc. or both also have all or most of the quotation, usually verbatim. In a few instances Clem. has the passage too. In thirteen of the remaining fourteen passages no other Irish source shares the Consentius quote. In one of these DO has made a scribal error (p. ioo, 963/971). The remaining passage (p. 153, 896/897) is probably a DO paraphrase. Donatus. As one would expect, Donatus is often referred to, but seldom quoted at any length. Full quotations were unnecessary since ninth century grammars would have had much, if not all, of Donatus memorized. DO uses Donatus mainly for definitions of the parts of speech and grammatical terms, and could easily have taken the quotations in his work from Donatus directly, from a Donatus commentary, or from an anthology. Donatus’ name is mentioned more often than his work is cited, but there are twentysix passages from one or the other of his grammars. Five of these are also found in Nanc.-Clm or Clem. One quotation deserves special attention: p. 160, 2/4. It is attributed to Donatus in V and to Charisius (Coni) in L. It is, in fact, found verbatim in both works. Since Charisius is the earlier grammarian, but Donatus the more widely known, DO must have attributed the quote to Charisius and later a scribe, recognizing the quotation, must have changed the attribution. The passage is a definition, so attribution to Donatus would have seemed natural. Besides the "legitimate” quotations, there are five “Donatus” passages of doubtful authenticity. One of them (p. 51, 107/109) may be from Don., but if so, it has been garbled in transmission. For two of them (pp. 72, 192/197 ; 98, 905/906) comparable passa¬ ges may be found in Don. and they are both probably paraphrases by DO. The last two are actually the same passage, one sentence in length (pp. 136, 423/424 ; 143, 627). The remote source is Don. 594, 12, but the fact that the first part of the passage uses tipicalia as does Mals. instead of participalia as in Don. (but Donatus adds uel tipica J j h2 : see DO p. 136, 422 uel tipici), and that the end of the first passage in DO p. 136, 423/424 (ut amandi - amatu) is not from Don. but is found in Mals., really does not prove that DO used Mals. Instead he probably got this phrase from a grammatical compilation where it was attributed to Don. Isidore.

More passages are attributed to Isidore in this work than are actually his. As Hagen says(34k

(34) H. Hagen,

Gramm. Suppi., p. cclv.

XLIV

INTRODUCTION,

4b

Restant in [Arte Donati Ortigraphi) loci nonnulli, quos in Isidori opere aut diuerse scriptos aut omnino non scriptos esse intellegas.

The grammar section (book I) of Isidore’s Etymologiae is not very extensive. Consequently, in the thirty-seven “authentic” passages DO uses Isidore primarily for definitions. Fourteen of these passages also appear in one or more of the Irish grammars. Isidore is cited seven other times, but no extant work by Isidore is the source: for one passage (p. 63, 132/141) I have found no source at ali; for three passages (pp. 62, 110/113; 74, 252/254; 87, 612/614) comparable passages exist in other Irish grammars; two passages (pp. 86, 574/576; 97, 867/870) are found verbatim in Irish grammars; and one passage (p. 153, 911/912) is barely more than a reference, so certain attribution is not possible. Paperinus. Bernhard Bischoffs recent article(35) provides a quick and informative summary of the editions and manuscripts of three Paperinus passages in DO (pp. 21, 333/337; 52, 122/130; 85, 542/551), one in Nanc.-Clm, and one in Clem. Pompeius. DO cites Pompeius sixty-six times and generally the Pompeius passages are long and treat rather detailed and complex topics. In the case of Pompeius DO must have had an intermediate source, because in the “De octo partibus” section of this grammar a definite majority of Pompeius quotations are found in other Irish grammars, especially Nanc.-Clm. Of the twenty-four instances where Pompeius is cited in this section, only four are not found in Nanc.-Clm, Clem., or Bern. However, in the “De accentu” section, none of the forty-one Pompeius passages has an Irish source. Since neither Nanc.-Clm nor Bern. has a section on syllables and accents and since Clemens’ treatment of this topic is not extensive, this is to be expected. My certainty concerning an intermediate source grows from three considerations. First, there are six passages found “ad litt.” (or “paene ad litt.”) in Nanc.-Clm and one in Clem. which are composites of two separate Pompeius quotes (pp. 63, 142/146; 68, 76/82; 75, 257/266; 85, 552/563; 86, 594/597; 90, 681/692; 91, 718/727). Second, two passages attributed to Pompeius are not in Keils edition, but one is found in Bern. 14, 24-15, 20 and the other in Nanc.-Clm 27, 17/21. Third, in one passage (p. 78, 348/352) the Nanc.-Clm version is closer to DO’s than Pompeius’ version.

(35) B. Bischoff,

ErgUnzungen

zur (Jberlieferung des Paperinus /Papirius (Papi¬

rianus?) (BeitrUge zur Geschichte der Deutsche Sprache und Liter atur, 1978, pp. 420422).

CONTINENTAL

SOURCES

XLV

One peculiar feature of DO’s use of Pompeius should be noted. In the “De accentu” section, DO makes an exceedingly large number of haplographies in transcribing Pompeius quotations (pp. 18, 26iapP-; 23, 39DPP ; 30, 6n/6i3aPP ; 34, 729^ ; 39, 26-29^ ; 47, 228/229; 50. 66/67.68/69.69/70; 54, 188). Despite these errors, Hagen has found many passages where DO’s excerpts from Pom¬ peius are an improvement on Keils edited text. As he says(36): Clementi igitur Scoto, qui uulgo dicitur, cod. Bern.123 f. 1-31 [i.e. Donato Ortigrapho], in excerpendo Pompeio meliores libri praesto fuerunt, quam hodie extant.

On pp. clxxxviii-cxc Hagen lists these passages. One passage in particular (p. 54, 173/189) he prints (on p. clxxxvi) to show its superiority to Keils version. However, since Hagen was using only the Bern.123 version, he was unable to produce a version as complete as the one in this edition, which relies also on the V and P texts. Priscian. Clearly DO preferred Priscian to any other source. He cites over 300 distinet passages from Priscian. In doing so, he reveals the Irish fondness for Priscian . Stated in simple statisties, the situation is this: (1) 163 passages are found only in Priscian; (11) 116 passages are found in Priscian and in one or more Irish grammars closely related to DO’s (Clem., Nanc.-Clm, Wirc.) ; (m) the remaining 32 passages are not taken verbatim from Priscian, but some are undoubtedly paraphrases by DO. These figures do not reveal much more than Priscians popularity. A closer examination of the passages, however, does raise some interesting questions about DO’s procedure. (1.) For example, in the first group - quotations found in no other Irish source - there is a group of thirteen excerpts which are from various places in Priscian, but which are put together without intervening material in DO (p. 163, 80/122). Ali thirteen excerpts may be found between pp. 67 and 88 in volume 111 of Keil’s edition, but DO does not reproduce them in order. Two explanations might account for this phenomenon plausibly. Either DO’s “mtermediate” source reproduced this section of Priscian, or DO actually culled these passages directly from Priscian himself. In this instance the latter seems more likely to me. I mentioned (p. xxi above) that I thought DO was not so well read that he could judiciously extract small passages from Priscians huge grammar. As a rule, I do not think he did so, but used instead an anthology with Priscian quotations in it. Here, however, the crucial factor is the limited extent of the section of

(36) H. Hagen,

Gramm.Suppl.,

(37) See B. LOfstedt,

p. clxxxv.

Malsachanus , p. 49.

XLVI

INTRODUCTION,

4b

Priscian from which these very brief excerpts were taken. DO could easily have referred to this limited section of Priscian and copied out passages himself. The simplicity of this task is even more apparent when one looks at the nature of these passages and sees that they are essentially lists of adverbs. Creating a pastiche of Priscian excerpts becomes a regular “expository” technique towards the end of DO’s grammar. After this thirteen-piece pastiche there are others of varying length: three excerpts (p. 165, 135/139), four (p. 171, 316/326), ten (p. 177, 29/68), and nine (p. 190, 104/122), although within each of the last two groups is a series of three quotations also found in Clem. (pp. 178, 61/68; 191, 113/122). (11.) While the evidence above suggests deal directly with Priscians grammar, the cian material common to DO’s and related raises the probability of an intermediate

that DO did at times large amount of Pris¬ Irish grammars again source. As is the case

with other sources, DO’s Prisc. quotations frequently appear m the same groupings in other Irish grammars. In seven instances Nanc.-Clm has two Priscian excerpts grouped exactly as they are m DO (pp. 77, 314/322.330/343 ; 83, 497/503 i 95- 821/827.829/833 ; 98, 910/917 ; 107, 197/206) ; in another place Nanc.-Clm has a series of three (p. 96, 840/847). Wirc. has one series of two in common with DO (p. 117, 461/463) and one series of five (p. 158, 1054/1078). Clem. has three series of two (pp. 20, 321/332; 167, 213/222; 168, 239/243) and two series of three (pp. 178, 61/68; 191, 116/120). Further evidence for an intermediate source comes from two passages (pp. 59, 8/10 ; 91, 7 00/705) where another Irish grammar has a passage verbatim with DO’s, of which a Priscian quotation is only a part. The non-Priscian quotation is in each case unidentified, and consequently it must have been found m the “intermediate” source common to DO and Clem. or Nanc.-Clm. In three places (pp. 140, 530/531; 143, 627/628; 145, 667) DO gives the same three word reference to Priscian which would be impossible to identify with certainty if the passage did not appear more fully in Nanc.-Clm. Finally, a rather unusual circumstance (p. 87, 607/610) reveals DO’s affinity to Clem. through a common source. Here the material preceding a Priscian quote is nearly the same in Clem. and' DO. (m.) Of the thirty-two quotations in the third group mentioned above, thirteen are clearly paraphrases of Priscian by DO (pp- 2T 437/445 ; 28, 543/544 ; 29, 565/567 ; 33. 700/701 ; 42, 100/102. 113/114; 71, 148/154; 77, 308/310; 98, 907/910; 143, 605/609:144, 639/641.642/643; 145, 676/678). Usually the quotation on which the paraphrase is modeled follows it immediately. These passages, together with most of the “students” questions, are the only portions of this work which can with some degree of confidence be assigned to DO himself. Even so, they are hardly indicative of his

CONTINENTAL

SOURCES

xlvii

own thought or prose style since they imitate Priscian very closely. Eight other passages (pp. 88, 629/632 ; 108, 223/225 ; 116, 438/441 ; 138, 479/48i ; 141, 551/553 i 156, 973/974; 182, 29/30 ; 190, 89/90) are very likely paraphrases also, but they have no Priscian quotations following to support that assertion. One passage (p. 158, 1039/1042) may have been arbitrarily assigned to Priscian. It occurs in Clem. (unassigned) ; therefore one suspects that DO found it in an anthology and needed only to give it a name. Another passage (p. 186, 129) is, I think, a hopelessly garbled rendition of the material in Priscian which follows the preceding quotation given in DO. A third passage (p. 158, 1032/1035), unidentified, has its etymologies backwards and one therefore hopes it is not Priscian. If I may be permitted a subjective statement, it “sounds” more like Virg. Ser(e)gius. Seregius is spelled in several ways in this work. It appears most often as Seregius. Twice the scribe in V spells it Sergius. In one instance V P render it as Serenius , and twice L has it Sif. In all the other places it is simply Ser. As the spelling is uncertain, so is the man. These quotations may not be confidently attribured to either of the fourth century grammarians, Sergius or Servius (if they are indeed two different people and obviously the abbreviation Ser leaves the distinction ambiguous in DO ). As Hagen says (38) :

Citatur in prima arte codicis Bernensis 123 ... multis locis Sergius quidam uel Seregius uel Ser grammaticus hactenus incognitus : nam quae sub Sergii uel Seruii nominibus ad Donatum commenta et explanationes ad nostra tempora deuenere, nullam cum hisce locis cognationem habent, nisi forte rerum tantummodo : uerbis certe multum a se inuicem abhorrent.

Unfortunately

Hagen

was working only with the Bern.123

manuscript, which lacks the bulk of the “De littera” section. Consequently he overstates the case a bit. of the thirty quotations given in DO, eleven are found in Keils Sergius and Servius. Of the nineteen other quotations, only five appear elsewhere: p. 176, 2/4 is in Clem., part of pp. 165, 143/145 and 181, 2/7 is also; pp. 151, 850/857 and 162, 76/79 are in Ambros. Four others are introduced as Seregius nouus : pp. 26, 499 ; 30, 598 ; 34, 720 ; 45, 174. Perhaps DO was aware that there were a diverse group of "Sergii”, but beyond the adjective he gives no clue. None of the four "nouus” passages has an identified source. Virgilius Maro grammaticus. After Priscian, Virgilius is used most often (85 times to Priscians 300). The Irish partiality to Virgilius is clearly indicated by (38) H. Hagen, Gramm. Suppi., p. cxcu.

XLVIII

INTRODUCTION,

4b

the fact that of the eighty-five Virgilius quotations in DO, fortyfour are also found in other Irish grammars. Here again multiple quotations common to DO and another grammar indicate an intermediate source. On DO p. 60, 41/45 Clem. has the same two Virgilius excerpts that DO has ; on p. 119, 531/549 Wirc. has three ; on p. 128, 187/199 Nanc.-Clm has two. Moreover, on three other occasions, Wirc. has the same Virgilius quote as DO, preceded by the same Priscian quote: pp. 123, 78/88; 124, 91/97; 126, 136/154. This is surely beyond coincidence. Also on p. 152, 871.872 DO (or a later scribe) gives a two or three word reference to Virgilius which would be difiicult to identify if the passage did not appear at greater length in Wirc. Of the forty-one quotations not found in other Irish grammars, six are almost certainly paraphrases by DO (pp. 65, 10/12; 121, 20/22 ; 137, 436/439 ; 156, 977/978 ; 158, 1031/1032 ; 179, 93/98). One passage (on p. 180, 119/120) has been drastically altered from the way it appears in Virgilius. Another (on p. 41, 73/75) is not to be found in Virgilius. The following excerpt is probably by Virgilius but is found in no extant version of his works nor in any other Irish grammar : quando dico ‘doceo hominem ’ uel ‘amo hominem est accusatio sed glorificatio (p. 97, 886/887).

’ , non

CHAPTER

LINGUISTIC

5

FEATURES

To speak of the linguistic, stylistic, or orthographic characteristics of DO himself is really impossible, since no extensive portion of this work can be confidently assigned to him. The paraphrases of Priscian and Virgilius mentioned above are very likely by DO, but they could have been copied verbatim from another grammatical compilation. Even if they are by our author, their brevity forbids any reliable linguistic or stylistic study. Consequently the following linguistic comments concern the extant work, but not necessarily the “author”. These linguistic features could stem from three different roots : DO himself, later scribes, or the scribes of his direct sources, many of whom were undoubtedly Irish themselves. Orthography. The common orthographic variants in Medieval Latin (e.g. i for e \ diriuantur ; or e for i: trea) appear so frequently that I do not note them here. I will only discuss those which possess particular interest - either because they are typically Irish or because the orthographic variants make a semantic difference. In the former group are the insertion of i or u in verbs contmguit p. 135, 376(39) - and a parasitic i or u before other vowels : longua pp. 39, 3 ; 116, 439 ; 121, 4 ; anomalia p. 88, 635 (but see below); uerbialia p. 138, 483(40). The interchange of 0 for U, and e for 1 is not exclusively Irish, but seems to occur more frequently in Irish than in other texts(41). Commonio occurs throughout DO, as does motare (for mutare). Note also sopina p. 136, 421. In addition there are scattered instances where the opposite interchange of u for 0 makes a morphological difference: honus (for honos ) p. 33, 697 ; nepus (for nepos) p. 78, 337.338 ;filius (for filios) p. 82, 462 ; populus p. 145, 673 ; Latinus p. 108, 224 ; socius p. 63, 126. The interchange of e for i also makes morphological difference, e.g. omne (for omni) p. 8, 33 ; sociare (for sociari) p. 99, 944. The opposite change, i for e, also creates morphological confusion: mari (for mare) p. 90, 686; generi (for genere) p. 79, 389 ; hominis (for homines) p. 97, 873; demonstrari (for demonstrare) p. 82, 460/461 ; motari (for motare) p. 98, 914. Another common feature of DO’s grammar is the use of ut pute for ut puta. According to Lofstedt (42) this form was created by

(39) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , p. 90.

(40) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , p. 89.

(41) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , p. 101.

INTRODUCTION,

L

5

influence of utpote. V t pute as well as ut puta (and a f ew times even a variant utpote in one manuscript) occurs throughout DO : pp. 73, 218; 78, 351 ; 79, 369; e aThe interchange of ob and ab is an Irish f eature : obsurdam pp. 62, 121; 133, 314; obsolutum pp. 76, 300; 92, 747; 134, 360. The spelling theticum (for ctetica ) is also Irish (44): pp. 81, 445.452.453; 82, 456. Concerning ortigraphus (for artigraphus) pp. 59, 4; 148, 3, “Author” section. 751/752, Finally seeit chapter should be noted that the confusion between double and single consonants twice leads DO to write amittunt (for ammittunt) pp. 80, 420 ; 138, 462. Morphology. Twice DO uses uim as nominative p. 147, 704.705 (45); twice he uses nullo (for nulli ) pp. 89, 663 ; m, 315 ; and twice he uses alio (for alii) pp. in, 315; 153, 902. DO follows Virg. in writing casorum p. 126, 153, but once he changes the declension of casus on his own: casi as genitive singular p. 191, 129. His declension of the adjective anomalus is uncertain: at times it is third declension: anomalia -ibus p. 88, 630.635.636) ; at times second : anomalum -?s p. 88, 627.647 (see Lofstedt, o.c., pp. 143-144). Accidentibus, too, is once rendered in a heading as accidentiis p. 68, 83. DO seems to have been puzzled by the Greek word monoptota which he found in Cons. Thus monoptotis p. 100, 963 may be nominative singular for DO, and monoptatis p. 100, 965/966 geniti¬ ve singular. DO is also careless with the gender of res : he writes multorum

rerum twice p. 84, 528.530 (46).

DO’s quislibet p. 109, 247 has parallels in other works (47). His future forms of ait - aiam and aibo - are also found in Mals. (48). But DO’s derivation of is ea id from is issa id and eus ea eum on p. no, 290 has no parallels that I can find. Syntax. DO at times misuses pronouns which are similar in sound to others. He uses aliud for aliquod pp. 90, 687 ; 93, 771 ; aliquis for

(42) B. LOfstedt,

Sed.min., p. xxiv.

(43) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus,

(44) B. LOfstedt,

Zu Tatwins

(45) See B. LOfstedt,

Bemerkungen

(1974), and Weitere Bemerkungen (46) See B. LOfstedt,

73-

p. 99, n. 2. Grammatik,

Zum

in Arctos 7 (1972), pp. 49 ff.

zur Sprache des Jonas von Bobbio, in Arctos 8

zum spanischen Mittellatein, in Arctos n (1977), p. spanischen Mittellatein, in Glotta 54 (1976), p. 155.

(47) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , p. 109.

(48) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus,

pp. 109 and 242, 23.

LINGUISTIC

FEATURES

LI

quisque p. 74, 253 ; cuiuscumque for cuiusquam p. 96, 856/857 ; and ipsum for istum p. 124, 98. His confusion of apud and cum pp. 14, I5I-I52 I7- 227 24> 439 63, 134 ; 64, 149 ; 106, 160 ; 108, 221 ; 125, 108/109 is, according to Lofstedt, a particularly Irish characteristic (49). DO’s use of an for utrum p. 95, 810 is not without parallels , nor is his use of nisi for nonnisi p. 180, ii6. One of DO’s syntactic traits is to interchange maius, magis, and plus : he uses maius for plus on pp. 6o, 49 ; 62, no ; he confuses maius and magis on PP- 35, 76 4; 78, 349; 91, 7°6,' 167, 208. There are some problems of congruence in DO, especially with respect to agreement in number between subject and verb (526 propria ... demonstrat ; appellatiua ... ostendit p. 77, 313/314; ueniunt . . . una species ...? V enit p. 81, 433/434 ; An aequalis est figura simplex et conposita ? p. 95, 810; Vtrum potest ... pnma persona et secunda et tertia demonstrari ? M. Potest p. 105, 143/144 ; An potest meditatiuum et inchoatiuum et frequentatiuum ab uno origine esse ? M. Potest p. 150, 813/814. In addition DO does not decline present participles to fit the syntax of the sentence on pp. 147, 704; 181, 24. Diction. DO seems to have had a fondness for recondite knowledge. His use of Virg. and his Hebrew alphabet (p. 10, 44/54) reveal this to some extent, and so do two passages of odd, unidentified words: pp. 175, 407^; 193, i88aPP. In the former DO is supposedly giving a list of the parts of speech in Hebrew, but if it is Hebrew it is hopelessly corrupt. The list may be part of a minor tradition, however, and not due entirely to DO’s imagination, since it appears also in Bern. A.92 (saec. xii). The latter passage is probably supposed to be a list of rare Latin prepositions ("De praeposi¬ tionibus inusitatis”), but it is found nowhere else to my knowledge. DO’s use of Greek also indicates his love of that knowledge which is beyond him. He transcribes the Greek correctly at times, but, judging from the incorrect passages, I suspect the correct ones are due as much to happenstance as to understanding (see, for example, pp. 106, 162; 112, 334). Aspiramentum (p. 34, 723/724) is, according to TLL (2, 838, 19/20), found only one (other) time: in cod. Vat.6925 (saec. x), as

(49) B. LOfstedt,

Malsachanus , pp. 117 ff.

(50) H-S, p. 466; MLW,

(51) E. LOfstedt,

p. 602.

Coniectanea, pp. 28 ff.

(52) See B. LOfstedt,

Sed.min., p. xxxii.

lii

INTRODUCTION,

5

a gloss of 7tvof|(53). Funck says it is formed from aspiramen, as cognomentum is from cognomen (54). Finally, there is the troublesome word achiumlnacchius (p. 74,

226aPP ). It may be only a scribal error for Pompeius’ auus, but it is

also in Nanc.-Clm, and I suspect that it may have some further explanation, although I cannot find it.

(53) Gloss. m, p. 426, 38. (54) A. Funck, Glossographische Studien, in Archiv ftir lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893), p. 371.

CHAPTER

EDITORIAL

6

PRINCIPLES

Text. Since no one manuscript of DO is the best, the edited text is a composite of the various manuscripts. In choosing which form of a word to print, I ha ve been guided by two basic principies. First, if one version of a word has an Irish spelling, I always print that one (e.g. if P has commonis, and V B have communis, I use P’ s typically Irish spelling). If not, the spelling which appears in the majority of the manuscripts has priority. If there is no majority, I choose the version which appears in the source. None of the scribes makes any distinction between ae, $, and e. I have made no effort to standardize the spelling in such cases ; I take the reading given in the majority of the manuscripts, with two exceptions. First, I have regularized mflectional endings, so that first declension adjective forms in ae may be easily distinguished from adverbial forms in e, and iste from istae, ipse from ipsae. Second, the abbreviations p {prae) and q {quae) are used so frequently that, instead of giving pre once in a very great while when it is written out that way, I have used prae and quae every where (except for -que, which also is rendered -q or -quae at times). With Greek letters a special problem exists. The scribes (and probably the author ) were not familiar with them and some words are consequently rather haphazardly spelled. In these cases I have given the proper version from the source because I could see no way to disentangle how much the author might originally have known about what he was copying. If any ninth century Irishman really knew Greek, he was not concerned in the production of these manuscripts. The A and M, which must have represented discipulus and magister in the author ’s mind since he writes out magister once (p. 18, 252), are also found in Clem. I have not indicated editorial addition or deletion of letters in the text. They are only indicated in the notes. However, deletions of words or phrases are indicated by square brackets [ ] and additions by pointed ones < ). No quotation marks or capitals are used to indicate passages taken verbatim from a source, because, had I done so, the text would have been a maze of punctuation. Quotations of literary sources within a grammatical quotation are in italics. Almost all of the marginalia in the manuscripts are much more recent than the text and I have not reproduced them in the notes. At times I have taken a heading from the margin, and I have indicated it in the notes. The manuscripts which contain any given portion of the text

liv

INTRODUCTION,

6

are indicated in the left margin of the textual notes ("apparatus criticus”). The foliation of the major manuscripts is given by the charts (chapter 7, section a, below). The foliation of V is also indicated in the right margin of the text. Apparatuses. Apparatus fontium. - I have divided the source notes into two sections: the grammatical sources are noted separately from the literary or biblical sources. (a.) Within

the grammatical

sources

there

are three

divisions:

(1) unlabeled (verbatim), which means that a given passage is reproduced word for word, although orthographic differences or minor inflectional changes are allowed; (2) paene ad litt. (almost verbatim), indicating that only a few differences exist between the source and DO’s text (in other words, they are essentially the same passage); (3) c/. ("confer”), indicating that the source has a similar passage, but that many differences exist and DO’s text was not simply copied from this source. These three categories take precedence in ordering the list of sources. If a given passage has more than one type of source, the types are separated by a semi-colon. If a given passage has more than one source reference within one of these types, the authors are arranged chronologically and also separated by a semi-colon. As far as the passages themselves are concerned, length is the determining factor. If two sources of different lengths begin at the same line, the longer is listed first, since it seems more likely that the longer passage might be the one actually used by the author. (b.) In a second

section

follow

the

literary

or biblical

sources.

Apparatus criticus. - My textual notes do not record ortho¬ graphic variants unless for some special reason they are signi¬ ficant (e.g. if the text has approximando, a variant adproximando would not be noted; neither would such things as double vs. single consonants or i for e). Abbreviations are not recorded in the notes unless, as above, they are significant for a particular reason or are uncertain.

CHAPTER

7

APPENDICES a. Manuscript

T ext :

Manuscripts : V

p

Foliation

line8,

first word

I23r I23u

I24r

I2Ir

page

I2IU

I24u

I22r

I25r

I22u

125“

I26r

\212f6“

I23r 123“ I24r

124“ I25r

signa intellelguntur scribi scriptas scribam caracteres Vnde accilperunt2 sed consolnantes habent dissilnunt nihili

125“

cetelris quia uicilnat

I28r

I26r

optumus

I28u I29r

126“

127“

I29u 130' 130“ I3Ir

I27r 127“ I28r

128“

pinlguius sermone et digammon in et sonum ut De

I29r

producitur Pompeiii iniulria

129“

Vt

I3°r

132'

130“

nilhili uocalibus efficilunt Araychthomus

132“

IO, IO,

13,

3. 3. 13. 3. 14. 14. 15. 5. 16, 5. 17. 4. 18, 7. 19. 19. 20, 21,

I3Ir

131“

Quot

101337 174

35

214

IOI

142 186

249 227849 4i

32 231

22,

23. 25. 2

5.323 344 26, 367 26, 27.

40

28, 444 28, 29. 477 619 29. 6 534 25 06 547 577 6649 693450 493

iii

131“

I

3

Incipiunt disciplina loquendi Emendatio

85 19

Edition :

B In

67

23

3h

656

512

3i. 32, 32, 33. 34.

582

733

34.

712

INTRODUCTION,

LVI

T ext :

M anuscripts : V

7a Edition :

B

P

first word, istas Latinum

I33r

815 page, line

(see app.)

755

dum addunt

132“

I34r

36,

8n 11

regulam non

39.

i33r

rationem

133“

Sunt uocales

I34r

halberi Penultimae aut2 nulla

I34'1 I35r

Nomen (? cannot be read) Grece non2 sex ir

I32r

763

iu

40, 40, 40,

4b

134“

42, 43, 42, 43,

uel cytra

I35r

commones A.

135“

ut potest accentus (see app.)

54 134 55 143178771 86 796 209 100 213 95 22 140 5 234 83

176

44.

2U

I35“

36. 37.

2r

I33u

35.

38

45,

136“

3'

45,

1361

4646,

8 12 125

47, 46,

33 131337

Circumflexus

48,

177

Vt depolnat

49. 48,

136“

I37r

i38r

137“

138“ i39r

i38r

138"

139“

nos

49,

ultimo uel2(see app.) corrumpunt sed errolris

23

5i, 52,

apostrofum Latinfus,) (see app.) ad presidium orationis Incipit Vt

8

50,

52, 60,

53. 52, 54, 6o, 54,

6i, 63, 63, 56.

l6l 181 6 22

aduerbii

44 49

sequestratis

"

1“39 78

r

ro praepositione id p quis2

6U

146

7'

78r

7“

79

I24 I24

I

6r

63, 56, 59, 56, 59, 13“9' 77

2

49,

4"

I37“

5r

136'

5“

i37r

4r

3“

Vt utrum

INSTRUMENTA LEXICOLOGICA LATINA Fasc. 10 CM 40 D

DONATUS ORTIGRAPHUS ARS GRAMMATICA Divisions

de 1’ceuvre

De littera et syllaba et accentu et posituris De disciplina et arte, De litteris communibus De uoce De littera

References ILL I>3

57

1,1 U4 1,2 U5 2,3 2,4

i,6 2,1 2,2

De pronomine De uerbo De aduerbio De participio De coniunctione

2,6

De praepositione De interiectione

2,8

Appendix : De gerendi modo

3 -

i

De syllaba De accentu De posituris De partibus orationis De nomine

1’edition Pages de

3 - 6 7- 388 48 - 47 55 939 56 -

57

2,5 2,7

2,9

59 121 IOI 65 160

---

1564 9 120 100 175

181 176 - 186 180 187 - 193 194 - 195

3

197 - 200

MANUSCRIPT

T ext :

M anuscripts : P

V

FOLIATION

B

first word cognicio (see app.) rerum

14011

i4i'

accido excepto accidunt dicit

141“

84'

143' 143“

9“

habere ut IOr

10"

synonima terltia M. abiecta Vtrum Athenenlses

144'

Grecis IIr

84“

possunt ellatiuum

144"

II"aplp

145'

r I2superllatiuus

qualitate intelriat

85'

O 86r

praelatiuus Ideo 145“

87'

M.

OO

85“

i46r 146"

M. (see app.)

132 148 170 297 212 32

256

51

288 271

91

74. 75,

329

80, 76, 76, 81, 374 379 77, 81, 79, 82, 82, 417 78, 82, 79, 331 0 83. 434 34 79, 85, 86, 634 87, 479 86, 381 644 88, 585 428 68650 88, 4 602 476

id

638 500 538

Aliquando

678

Ergo 13'quidem doctissimus

688

quomodo Genera

13“siquod

indubiltatam

88r

147“

7b 73, 72< 73,

12“habet

87"

147'

70, 70,

7i.

agnomen Consenltius omnium (see app.)

142"

6 6

77

accelpisset Vt

I42r

line

175 95 130 215

nomen

8iu

83"

page 68,

Sabini 8" Priscianus et

8ir

83'

65. 66, 67.

Quomodo natura

8ou

82r 82"

65,

68, 68,

commoniterue

9'

8or

Edition :

8r

79“

i40r

LVII

ut

14'A

90, 90, 90, 91»

92, 93, 92,

93,

88“ 14“

586

94, 95,

739 725 767 810 784

722 766

INTRODUCTION,

LVIII

T ext :

M anuscripts : V

P

7a 835

Edition :

B

885834

first word

page, line

Figura illiusmodi illud i48r

148“

89r

sectari (see app.) facit A. actiuus

812 851 95, 95, IOO,

I5r

96, 97. 100,

149'

te generis

96, 97, IOI, IOI,

149"

5U Ietiam Igitur

89“

obliqluis et

goir50r 150“

goui5ir

911'51“ I52r

“ 9i152“

r

i6 tantus polni uni esse

Ad

°

92

I53u i54r

1r54“ 93

105,

1973 96 77 75 2950 29 126

IO7, 106, IO7, 162 130

(see app.)

nostras numerus addere 7U Iinuenio sulapte

3r 92I'5

105,

IO7,

hoc MOY i7r

903 924

IOI, 103, 957 98, 99. 21 102, 103, 127 99. 57 104, 28 105,

6u iSubiunctatiua

est

890

8r iFata

conposita interest 2 “ non 18genetiuos Dirice (see app.) et litteras (see app.)

108, 108, 108, IIO, IIO,

180 202 230

III,

236

112, 272 112, 114. 276 112, 114, 114. 115, 115,

i9r

serluent

“ 55r 93 I r 94 I55u

I56r

9“ Iin

Quam solent Vtrum1 0rillius 2dici

“

94

156“ r

95

I57r

“ I57“

95

r

96

M. faciunt 20u

prolnomina specialliter Aut' 2Ir Quid 2IU

379 117. 117. Il6,

312 328

n8, 434 330 119, n8, 350

479 378 120, 121,

122,

493 382 553 434028 4 28 66 4

508 528

MANUSCRIPT

T ext :

Manuscripts : V

FOLIATION

B

p

first word utrum accidentium 158'

“

96

22r

158“

97r

“ 97

r 98

“ 98 99' IOO.r 99“ IOOu IOIr IOIu 102' I02u 103' 103“ 104' i04u 105' 105“ 106'

inpersonalis inferior habet

Vt ut 22u cursum (see app.) Item t2 of text in P studeo] uend 23' /'misereor frotn l. 36 3:

159'

159“

'5

P59“

Aliisee app" 3,9363 ) et etquod A. meditatiuis communio (see app.)

10711 MO

00

io8u

109' 109“ IIOr IIOu

III'

Edition : 122, 123, 123, I24, page 125, 125, 12 7, 12 7,

coniugationis dicimus 23“Anius (see app.)

205 219

198 50

131. 134. 137.

138, I4O, 143. 145. 141. 147.

72

282 349 665 523 804 618895

150, 153. 151. 155.

fcOTlV

60 1165 73

129,

148,

simplex Ita et ut1

115 124

I29, 128, 156

frequentaltiua neutrale aibis

line 103

I27,

species in

a 106“ 107'

LIX

7i3

848

47483i 568

156, 160, 158, IO4O 160, 162, 164, 162, 164,

7 1 9 157 76 60

257

no 941 166, 62 0 167, 166, 16 7, m 2 99

59

ibidem 24'hoc

alis1 24“ appelllationes conparantur 25'furaciter

169,

65

156

169, 211 212 173, 171.

25“ saracte aduerbium quod 26'funguntur ex eo (see app.) 26“ de

173.

locuturus 27'

178,

175, 175.

353 359

177.

306

od

27“ qu 28'

02 4406

INTRODUCTION,

LX

T ext :

M anuscripts : V

P

first word Haec non ipso alterius iurabant ut USUS 28“

2gr

9u 2Eurusque

quando Gerendi

II2r

nuf . fidendum Sunt 3°r uerba]3°uend 0 f text in P

^59^

[I12u-I23r

Edition : 179.

£

111“

7a

i6or i6ou

183, 181, 184,

page,

line l6 97

186, 189, 188,

IO7

163

102

131 59 190, 197. 192,

199. 198, 200,

2

68

De Barbarismo] (55). 3ir 3iu

1Ii6ou

50

(55) See p. xxv,

above.

THE

MSS

OF DONATUS

ORTIGRAPHUS

LXI

b. The Manuscripts of Donatus Ortigraphus

MS

11. De

octo partibus

barbarismo ]

orationis

[m. De

1. De littera

et syllaba

V -ii2r ff. 77u (ali sections)

p

ff. II2"-I23r

ff. i38“-i59“

ff. I2ir-i38u

De partibus De modis

B

ff. I23r-i39"

ff. 6U- 31“ (almost all sections)

ff. ir-

6"

L 82u ff. 76r De - aduerbio

ff. i6or-i7ir

De interiectione

A ff. 87'- 93“

ff. 75r- 8ir

De gerundi modo

C

ff. 4P-

44"

De inpersonali

M ff. i62r-i63r

D

W

ff. 56"- 70" ff. ’ posu440 erunt Greci sub eodem sono digammi pro V et ‘n’. Similiter Latini ‘f’ pro ‘p’ et ‘h’ posuerunt et postea inuenerunt Greci istam litteram quae nunc dicitur ‘digammon’; deinde Latini eundem sonum posuerunt super v in loco consonantis positum. Sicut enim pin-

416/420 cf. Sed. 10, 78/81. 419/427 Pomp. 105, 3/8. 422/433 cf. Mur. 12, 78/89. 422/427 cf. Sed. 10, 78/87. 425/427 cf. Laur. 154, 7/8. 427/433

I/P

416

Pomp.

105, 13/18 (paene ad litt.).

disciplicuit V

417

dasen

P, cf. p. /4, 192 infra

V, digammos Pomp. 423 duo gramma si, superposita VP Pomp. Haec] add. Velena]

scripsi (sec. Pomp.), Felena

contaminationis digammus V digammus

V

438 Grecos]

accidit (cf. Pomp. 431 pinguem F illud] om. V Greco

si V

419

digammon

Pomp. 424 superpositae] scrip¬ f V 426 Helena] Elena Pomp.

VP

427

sonum]

dein fortasse error

/0/, S.i}) 429 illa2] illis Pomp. fit P 431/432 iungitur altera V 433

440

uenitus] Velenus

Grecis

P

430 432

Pomp. (cf. I. J12 infra )

442 quae] quem

V

DE LITTERA guem sonum 445 nantis

apud

habet digammon

apud Eolenses, ita v in loco conso-

Latinos

sonum

pinguem

habet.

Vt Priscianus

dicit:

‘F’ Aeolicum digamma, quod apud antiquissimos Latinorum uerius eandem uim quam apud Eoles habuit. Eum autem prope so¬ num, quem nunc habet, significabat ‘p’ cum aspiratione; sicut etiam apud ueteres Grecos pro ‘’ ‘tt’ et V, unde nunc etiam I 450 in Grecis nominibus antiquam scripturam seruamus pro ‘4>’ ‘p’ et ‘h’ ponentes, ut ‘Orpheus, Pheton’. Postea uero in Latinis uerbis placuit pro ‘p’ et ‘h’ ‘f’ scribi, ut ‘fama, fuga, factio’, loco autem di¬ gamma v pro consonante, quod cognatione soni uidebatur adfinis esse ea littera. 455

A. Cur v specialiter in loco consonantis potestatem digammi habet ? M. Ideo quia quicquid habet digammon in contextu uerborum apud Grecos, similiter v habet apud Latinos. Vt Priscianus dicit: V uero loco consonantis posita eandem prorsus in omnibus uim habuit apud Latinos quam apud Eoles digamma. Vnde pleris-

460 que ei nomen hoc datur quod apud Eoles habuit ‘f’ digamma, id est ‘uau’ ab ipsius uoce profectum teste Varrone et Didimo, qui id nomen ei ‘uau’ esse ostendunt. Pro quo Cesar hanc figuram scribe¬ re uoluit, quod quamuis illi recte uisum est, tamen consuetudo antiqua superauit. Adeo autem hoc uerum, quod pro Eolico di465 gamma ‘f’ v ponitur : quod sicut illi solebant accipere digamma pro consonante simplici teste Astiage, qui diuersis hoc ostendit uel uersibus uel usibus, ut in hoc uersu: 'Ocpo/jevog FeAevav iAixci)mSa, sic nos quoque pro simplici habemus consonante v loco ‘f’ digamma positum, ut: at Venus haud animo nequiquam exterrita 470 mater. Est tamen quando Eoles inueniuntur pro duplici quoque

445/454 Prisc. II, n, 5/12 (paene ad litt.). (paene ad litt.) ; cf. Sed. 10, 93/95.

467/468

«Alcmanis

Prisc. II, 15, 1 - 16, 12

458/481

uersus esse uidetur» (Hertz).

469/470 Verg., Aen.,

8, 370.

V P

446 Aeolicum]

cumi-nFP etiam cod. D

add. uel V, Eolicum

449 4>]fl/

*-]hV

VP

462 cod. D

447 Eum

452/453

ab] apud

eius V

V

uocis

ostendant

Prisc., scribre

V

452 factio]

digamma]

etiam codd.

codd. R D G L K Prisc.

V, digammae

460 datur] etiam Prisc., dicitur V

461

autem] scripsi (sec. Prisc.),

451 ut Orpheus] om. V

Prisc., facio rell. codd. Prisc.

rd Prisc. (ed. Hertz), digammi

sus P

P

458 prur-

quod] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), quam

qui id] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), quod

V

Cessar V

P, scribi Prisc.

466

462/463

Astigiade

V

VP

scribere] etiam hoc] om.

V

466/467 uel uersibus uel usibus] scripsi, uersibus uel usibus V, uel uersi¬ bus usibus P, uersibus codd. GKL Prisc., usibus rell. codd. Prisc. (ed. Hertz) 467/468 ’0NANNAN KOIH^AAN V, OOOMHNOC ONAHNAN ion) 469 ad V haud] ut V

scripsi (sec. Prisc.), oOMNNOOC HAH KOnYAAN P (cf. Prisc. II, //,

DONATVS

26

ORTIGRAPHVS

consonante digamma posuisse, ut: Nioropa 6e FCj rratdog. Nos quoque uidemur hoc in praeterito perfecto tertiae et quartae coniugationis, in quibus 'i’ ante (v) consonantem posita produ¬ citur eademque subtracta corripitur, ut ‘cupiui cupii, cupiueram 475 cupieram’. Inuemuntur etiam pro uocali correpta hoc digamma illi usi. Et sic est proferendum ‘f ut faciat breuem syllabam. Nostri quoque hoc ipsum fecisse inueniuntur et pro consonante v uocalem breuem accepisse. Horatius ‘siluae’ trisyllabum protulit hoc uersu: niuesque deducunt Iouem nunc mare nunc siluae. Est enim 480 dimetrum iambicum coniunctum pentameberen heroico, quod aliter stare non potest, nisi 'siluae’ trisyllabum accipiatur. A. Cur displicuit grammaticis exemplum quod posuit Donatus pro digammo, ita dicens ‘seruus, uulgus’ ? M. Ideo quia duas regu¬ las habet digammon: prima pinguem sonum praestat in sermoni485 bus quibus iungitur ; altera, si tollatur de sermone, nihil turbat in sensu licet sonum minuit sicut asspiratio facit. Donatus uero pinguem sonum tantum aspexit quando dixit ‘uulgus’, sed non possumus v trahere de eo nomine. Vt Pompeius dicit: Est autem aliquid hic in quo possis uituperare Donatum, non in peritia sed in 490 exemplo. Ait enim sic: ‘seruus, uulgus’. Verum est, pinguius sonat (‘seruus’, non ‘serus’, ‘uulgus’, non ‘ulgus’): uere digammos. Sed exemplum non est aptum, quoniam detracta omnis digammos redit in naturalem I sonum, ut pute quando dico ‘ualidus’, tolle inde v, facit ‘alidus’; quando dico ‘Venitus’, tolle inde v, facit 495 ‘Enitus’ ; naturalis sonus est. Quando dico ‘uir’, tolle inde v, reman¬ sit naturalis sonus ‘ir’. A. Sciendum est utrum in propriis nominibus an in appellatiuis inuenitur digammus? M. Aliquando in propriis, aliquando in ap¬ pellatiuis, sicut ‘h’ utrique praeponitur. Vt Seregius nouus dicit: 500 Itaque v digammos factum sit consonans separata. Ipsa facta 483 Don. 604, 6; Laur. 154, 97/98. 488/496 Pomp. 105, 19/25 (paene ad litt. ) ; cf. Mur. 13, 87/99; Sed. 10, 94/95. 500/514 cf. Mur. 13, 3/17.

471 loc. non rep.

VP

471

Neoxopa

479 Horat., Epod., 13, 2.

6e Fd) rraiSog] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), Hector

ABN FcoY nAiAcoC

V,

Hector AD HFcolTlAlAAcuC P 472 et] om. V 473 v] s uppleui (sec. Prisc.) 475 Inueniuntur] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), inuenitur VP 475/476 illi usi] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), illorum

V, illius P

6aFiov, est enim dimetrum

476

usi] add. ut 'AXxpQY : Kai XElpa rrOp te

iambicum Prisc.

477 inueniantur V

479

nunc2] add. tellus V 480 penthemimeri Prisc. (cf. Prisc. II, 16, un ) 481 accipiat P 482 displicit gramaticus P 484 prima] add. a V 491 ser¬ uus - ulgus] scripsi (sec. Pomp.), sed seruus uulgus VP, et add. non V di¬ gammus V 4 93 pote V 494 Enitus P, Venetus Pomp. 495 Euenitus V, Enetus Pomp. 499 utrique] scripsi, utriusque VP nouus] om. V

DE LITTERA digammus

naturalem

nominis sonum

ostendit uel sermonis cui

accidit digammus, ut pute (‘FcAcvq’): Eolici aspirationem addi¬ tam exossi hac digammon utebantur, tali figura ‘F’ quasi duae gammae, in illis nominibus quae apud Atticos adspirationem 505

habent.

Eolici

hanc

digammon

pro

adspiratione

ponebant,

ut

cum

illi dicerent ‘hennitus’, isti dicerent ‘fennitus’; cum Attici dicerent 'hespere’, Eolici ‘fespere’, quod etiam nobis commune est. Sed Donatus inquit (quod) tum est digammus cum semel transierit in consonantium 510

consonantem

digammus,

potestatem, ut est ‘uulgus’. Male dixit. Nam

illam

cum

possum

dicere

non

separata naturam

digammon.

Tunc

enim

erit

prioris soni integram demon-

strauerit, id est ut inde sublata sit exorta. Quod si dicas ‘uenitus’, tolle inde v, erit ‘enitus’; hic si detrahas v, erit ‘ulgus’, quod nihil significat. 515

A.

Vtrum

habent

Eolenses

sonum

digammi

in

alia

littera?

M. Habent etiam in beta, id est in ‘b’, sicut apud Latinos aliquando v digammus transit in ‘b’. Vt Priscianus dicit: Item in ‘b’ etiam apud Eolenses solet transire F digamma, quoties ab 'r’ incipit dictio, qua solet aspirari. Apud nos quoque pro v consonante ‘b’ 520

ponitur,

ut

‘caelebs’

quod v consonans

(‘caelestium

uitam

ante consonantem

ducens’),

per

‘b’ scribitur,

poni non potest. Sed etiam

‘Bruges’ et ‘Belena’ antiqui dicebant. A. Quis de Eolensibus inuenit digammum? M. Agustinus dicit: Inuentores autem digammi poetae scilicet Eolensium, a quibus in 525

usum

Eolensibus

uenit.

Inde

confines

Latini

animaduertere

sub¬

stantiam digammi, id est pingue quoddam, quod adieci sine fasti¬ dio et demiti sine damno ab illis acceperunt. Inuentores autem digammi non idem sunt et scriptores. Cardonius enim filius Mathusaii huius carecterem digammi conposuit, quia praeceptor et 530

auctor

Eolicae

linguae

tali

nomine,

517/519 Prisc. II, 18, 5/6. Cruindm. 2, 29.

VP

502 pote V

id

519/522

est

‘uauth’,

et

tali

Prisc. II, 18, 9/12.

figura

‘fi,

526/527

cf.

FeAevp] scripsi (sec. Sed. 10, 8/), flena V, uel fylena P

503

digammo P 505 Eoli P aspirationem V adponebant P 507 fespere] f uespere P est] esse P 508 quod] suppleui 510 consonante V

511/512

ennitus V

demonstrauit

uulgus V

Prisc., p rell. codd. Prisc.

P

512

518 sola P 519

v] una

uennitus

V (cf I. $3 supra )

quotiens V V

520

513

r] etiam codd. R AD

b] om. V

521 quod]

quando V 523 digammon V Augustinus P dicit] add. inter seniores grammaticos et posteriores haec differentia est, quod seniores digammon in appellatiuis nominibus pingue quiddam non rationem sectantes ostenderunt, ut 'hennitus uennitus, alidus ualidus’ ; numquam

enim Latinum

nomen

pro¬

prium ratione digammi Grecorum, nisi 'ueius' : 'helus' enim prius fuit, sed nunc utimur 'ueius’ V 527 demiti] scripsi, demi VP dampno V 528 idem sunt et] desunt P 528/529 Mathusai V 529 carattere V 530 fj om. P

28

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

et tali exemplo digammon dictauit, ut pute ‘festiar’: ‘hestiar’ enim prius, non ‘festiar’. Huic autem digammon adscribi solet, cum sibi ipsa praeponitur, ut ‘seruus, uulgus’. I De duplicatione 535

Nam

i litteram

gant. Donatus

geminari

in unam

syllabam

posse

plurimi

ne¬

ostendit quod non saepe inuenitur geminatio i in

una syllaba, sicut geminatio v inuenitur in una syllaba, ut ‘seruus, uulgus’. Sed Seregius dicit quod geminatur i in praeterito perfecto uerbi, quod est ‘eo’. Vt ipse dicit: I uero litteram ideo dicit 540

plurimos

negare

in

una

syllaba

posse

geminari,

quod

inuenitur

istius litterae geminatio in eo uerbo, ‘eo is’. Facit enim praeteritum perfectum ‘ii’. Priscianus uero dicit quod duo ‘ii’ in praeterito perfecto uerbi, quod dicitur ‘eo ii’, pro duabus uocalibus habetur. Vt ipse dicit: 545

Item

in

omnibus

uerbis

dissyllabis

quibus

interest

consonans,

quod, si pares sint in praeterito et in praesenti syllabae, penultima uel natura uel positione producitur, siue sit in praesenti longa siue non, ut ‘iuuo iuui, rego rexi, frango fregi’. Item si pura sit penulti¬ ma, in plerisque corripitur etiam in praeterito, ut ‘luo lui, nuo nui, 550

spuo

spui,

suo

sui,

ruo

rui,

eo

ii’ (inuenitur

et

‘iui’ ).

A. In quo loco inuenitur 1 duplex, id est pro duabus consonanti¬ bus? M. Inter duas uocales posita et tunc antecedentem uocalem longam facit in metro. Vt Pompeius dicit: Ergo hoc speciale est huic litterae, ut inter duas uocales constituta sit pro duabus

555

consonantibus

et

faciat

longam

superiorem,

idcirco

stat

‘Troia’

ut

est : arma uirum tabulaeque et T roia gaza per undas : ‘T ro’ naturali¬ ter breuis est, sed pro longa ponitur, quoniam inter ‘o’ et ‘a’ inuenitur 1 littera et facit superiorem longam. A. Quando in his locis pro duabus consonantibus habetur, 560

utrum

debent

duo

‘ii’ scribi

ibi

et

sonari?

M.

Alii

dicunt

quod

duo

536/538 cf. Don. 604, 6/7. 539/542 Serg. 476, 22/24; cf. Mur. 13, 3/17. 545/550 Prisc. II, 459, 19/26 (paene ad litt.). 553/558 Pomp. 105, 35

- 106,

3 (paene

ad

litt.).

556 Verg., Aen., 1, 119.

VP

531 pote V

festiar] fester V

536 Donatus] add. hic V

534 tit. om. P

538 Sed] om. V

riti V

539 quod] quo V

om. P

549 luo lui] etiam Prisc., iuuo iuui P

ut est Troia ~ Pomp. quando, qmo

560 quod] quo V

facit Pomp.

559 Quando] ~

una

545 interest] interposita est Prisc.

consonantibus] add. habetur V dio: «.qno —

535

geminatus P

syllaba V

praete¬ 546 in2]

554 huic] huius Pomp.

stat ] om. Pomp.

scripsi , quomodo

555

555/556

VP (confusio in compen¬

quomodo #, u. Lindsay, Notae Latinae, pp. 221 et 226)

DE LITTERA ‘ii’ scribuntur et sonantur, sed Isidorus dicit quod sonus 1 his locis geminantur. Vt ipse dicit: I uero interdum ‘duplex’ dicitur, quia quotiescumque inter duas uocales inuenitur, pro duabus conso¬ nantibus habetur, ut ‘Troia’. Geminatur enim ibi sonus eius. 565

Priscianus

uero

nominibus, ut unam

dicit

quod

ueteres

duo

‘ii’ scribebant

in

his

1 iungebant antecedenti uocali et alteram 1

iungabant sequenti uocali, ut 'maius, peius’. Vt ipse Priscianus dicit: Item 1 pro duplici habetur, quando in media dictione ab ea incipit syllaba post uocalem antepositam subsequente uocali in 570

eadem

syllaba,

ut

‘maius,

peius,

eius’,

in quo

loco

antiqui

solebant

geminare eadem litteram ut ‘maiius, peiius’ et ‘eiius’ scribere, quod non aliter pronuntiari posset quam si cum superiori syllaba prior 1 cum sequenti altera profertur, ut ‘pei ius’, et duo ‘ii’ pro duabus consonantibus accipiebant. Nam quamuis sit consonans, in eadem 575

syllaba

geminata

iungi

non

potest.

Vnde

‘Pompeiii’

genitiuo

per

tria ‘iii’ scribebant, quorum duo superiora loco consonantium accipiebant, ut si dicas I ‘Pompeiii’. Nam tribus ‘iii’ iunctis qualis possit syllaba pronuntiari? Nam postremum pro uocali est acci¬ piendum. 580

A.

Vtrum

inuenitur

1 pro

simplici

in

medio

? M.

Inuenitur

etiam,

sed non saepe. Vt Priscianus dicit: Item in medio pro simplici dictione inuenitur, sed in conpositis, ut ‘iniuria, adiungo, adiectis, reice’. Tetrasyllabon Virgilius in Bocolicis: Tityre pascentes a flumine reice capros, tetrabrachon conposuit pro dactilo. 585

A. Quem

paruum

sonum

habet

1

inter

duas

uocales?

M.

Alii

dicunt

de suo sono proprio. Alii uero dicunt quod sonum

sadae

562/564 Isid. 1, 3, 7. 568/579 Prisc. II, 14, 3/13 (paene ad litt. ). 581/584 Prisc. II, 14, 15/18 (paene ad litt.). 583/584 cf. Cruindm. 21, 35 - 22. 5-

583/584

VP

566

Verg., Ecl., 3, 96.

ut] et V

unam]

scripsi, unum

VP

(cf. alteram

infra )

antece¬

dente V 567 sequente V uocali] add. syllaba V 568 media dictio¬ nis P, medio dictionis Prisc. 569 antepositam] etiam codd. ADHGLK Prisc., ante se positam

cod. d Prisc. (ed. Hertz)

570 eius] om. V

peiius eiius] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), maius peius eius VP ius] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), peius VP ADGLK

iii P

574 consonans]

577 Pompeiii] etiam codd. GLK

codd. Prisc. (ed. Hertz), Pompe

tres P

Prisc., om. rell. codd. Prisc.

578 Nam

posttremum

pei

et - accipiebant] etiam codd.

Prisc., om. rell. codd. Prisc. (ed. Hertz)

575 Pompi DGL

573/574

571 maiius

573 cum] con V

- accipiendum] V

sonans

P

Prisc., Pompeiii cett. etiam codd.

581 in - simplici] pro

simplici quoque in media Prisc. 582/583 adiectis reice] iectus reiece P 583 Tetrasyllabon] tetrasyllabum V, om. Prisc. 584 reiece P capros] capellas Prisc. Verg. tetrabrachon conposuit] tribracho posuit V

- dactilo] om. Prisc.

tetrabrachon

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

Hebreicae adsimulat. Vt Agustinus dicit: Quidam enim errant dicentes i litteram transire in consonantium potestatem, quas 30 uarie putant, quod rationis non est. Nec ‘c’ nec ‘g’ nec ‘s’ nec ‘x’ nec 590 ‘y’ nec

‘z’, quas

nos

ratione, sed sonum

possumus

scribere

ac sonare

ortographiae

sadae Hebraicae sibi uindicat, quam

aures

nostrae audire formidant, ut ‘Troia, Maia, Gaia’, quod ex natura primi sermonis in nostris eloquiis retinetur, ut ‘y’ et ‘z’ in Grecis nominibus. Pro hoc autem eam amissimus, quod non nostro pecto595

re

eius

semiuocalis

totum

exprimere

sonum

possumus.

A. Vtrum longae sunt an breues uocales apud Latinos ? M. Quan¬ do solae sunt, longae etiam, ut aeiov. Quando uero iunguntur, aliquando breues, aliquando longae. Vt Seregius nouus dicit: Om¬ nes uocales, cum sint solae et separatae a consonantibus, natura 600 longae

certo

loco penitus

fiunt. Aliter

non

potest. Item

cum

coniuguntur consonantibus, similiter sonant quam cum solae fuis¬ sent. A. Quot uocales habent Greci et utrum longae sunt an breues ? M. Septem uocales habent, et duas semper breues, E et O, et duas 605 semper

longas, H et Q, et tres aliquando

breues

aliquando

longuas.

Vt Pompeius dicit : Omnes uocales et produci et corripi possunt, id est omnes uocales dicronae sunt apud Latinos. Greci septem uocales habent, sed de istis septem duas semper breues, E et O, duas longas, H et Q, et tres dicronas, id est modo longas modo correptas, 610 AI Y. Quales

sunt

uocales, aeiov:

illae Greci

dicronae,

tales sunt

apud

nos omnes

et produci et corripi possunt. (Sed quod dico

‘produci possunt et corripi’, non ubique et produci possunt et corripi, sed) certis locis. Nam ecce inuenies uerbum ubi longum fit et inuenies alium, ubi breue sit. Non in uno uerbo et produci et 615 corripi possunt,

sed certis locis. Vt ecce ‘mala’ aliud est quando

dico ‘mala poma’, aliud est ‘mala missera’. Dico ‘mala’: si poma sit, longa est, ut : aurea mala x misi ; si ‘mala missera’, ‘mala’ breuis est. 596/617 cf. Laur. 155, 18/26; Mur. 14, 19/28. 606/617 Pomp. 106, 5/15 (paene ad litt. ). 607/609 Cruindm. 2, 14/16 (paene ad litt. ). 617 cf. Bon., Aenigm., prol., 1 (CCSL 133, p. 279, 1).

617 Verg., Ecl., 3, 7ia.

VP

587 Augustinus

P

588 litterae P

590 nos] non

V

possumus]

add.

s V 591 Ebreicae P 594/595 nostro pectore] scripsi, nostri pectoris VP 595 expremere P possimus P 599 consonantibus] consonis P 600 longa V

601 coniunguntur] add. cum

P

603 quod V

604 et duasJ]

om.P 605 O] A V longas P 609 O] A V 61 1/613 Sed - sed \suppleui (sec. Pomp.) 613 longam Pomp. (cf. breue /. 614 infra ) 614 alium] aliud

uerbum

Pomp.

breues P, breuis Pomp.

617 mala3] scripsi, misera VP

615 est] om. P

6l6 misera V

DE LITTERA Item Seregius dicit: Latini omnes uocales dicronas habent, quemadmodum Greci 111, aiv. Nam producuntur omnes et corri620

piuntur,

sicut

‘ater

amor,

erigit

erit,

itur

item,

omen

opus,

unus

utique’. A. Vtrum suum sonum obseruant proprium uocales apud Lati¬ nos quando breues sunt et quando longae? M. Tres de ipsis suum sonum obseruant in longitudine et in breuitate: aiv. O uero et E 625

commotant

sonum

quando

breues

sunt

et

quando

longae.

I Vt

Pompeius dicit: Praeterea de istis quinque litteris tres sunt, quae, siue longae sunt siue breues, uno modo proferuntur : a i v. Similiter unum sonum habent: siue breues sunt siue longae. O uero et E non ita sed aliter sonant longae aliter breues. 630

A.

Ergo

quomodo

exprimendae

sunt

istae

litterae?

M.

Dicit

ita

Terrentius: Quotiescumque E longam uolumus proferre, uicina sit ad 1 litteram, et ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat 1 littera quando uerbi gratia dicis ‘euitat’; debet esse sic pressa sic angusta ut uicina sit ad 1 litteram. Quando uis dicere breuem, 635

uicina

sit

ad

diptongon,

ut

pute

si dicas

‘Emulus’

uel

‘Enulus’.

Similiter o et ipsa pro qualitate prolationis habet sonum, utrum longa sit an breuis. Si longa est, debet sonus ipse intra palatum

sonare, ut si dicas ‘orator’, quia intra palatum sonat; si breuis est, debet in primis labris sonare, ut pute si dicas ‘obiit’. 640

A. Quot

potestates

habent

1

et

v

in

contextu

lectionis

apud

Latinos ? M. Agustinus dicit: Scire autem debemus quot et quibus potestatibus 1 et v in usu habentur uocalium. XVIII autem in Grecis nominibus 1 habet, x apud Latinos: transit in consonantium potestatem sine transfusione figurae, ut ‘luno’; interdum transit 645

in

uocales

‘patris uocem sonum nuum 650

absque

remansione

figurae,

ut

'pauli

paulatim’,

in ‘o’ ut

patronis’, in ‘y’ transfundit sonum ut ‘uirtus’, mediam ut ‘maximum’, pro duabus consonantibus ut ‘Troia, Maia’, obscurum ut ‘ambiui’ et ‘tepiui’, sonum garrulum et stre¬ ut ‘temperantia’, uocalis sonum ut ‘Iulius’, sonum ‘z’ ut

‘uitium’,

sonum

acutum

ut

‘pix’.

V

autem

litteram

Greci

non

pro quo utuntur ‘u’. habent, A. Scire debemus v litteram quibus potestatibus offitio Romani sermonis fungitur. M. VIII: medium sonum, ut ‘uanus’, quasi tri¬ syllabum loqueretur; sonum ‘uauth’ litterae Eolicae in Romanis

618/621 Serg. 476, 24/26. 626/629 631/633 cf. Cruindm. 4, 5/7.

VP

6 23 longae] add. an non V

Pomp. 101, 29 - 102, 2 (paene ad litt.).

625 commutant

V

sint P

626 tres

sunt] om. P 635 pote V 638 quia] quando P 639 sonare] add. que si extremis labris V 642 potestatibus] om. P 643 x] sic V P , sed xr potestates sequuntur

646 patronos

649 Ilius P

P

648 tepiui] tebui P

654 uauh V (cf. I. /30 supra )

648/649

in] om. V

strennuum

P

3i

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

655 dictionibus, ut ‘uir’; nihil sit ut ‘quod’, et iterum nihil ut ‘sanguis’; 32 ‘y’ apud ueteres more Grecorum nihili loco ut ‘que’ ; transit sonum ut ‘uotum’ ; iterum in uocales transit in ‘i’ ut ‘cornu cornicen’, in ‘o’ ut ‘nemus nemoris’.

De aspiratione 660

A. Vtrum iungitur aspiratio consonantibus? (M.) Iungitur etiam. Sed uocalibus praeponitur ut minime sonent; consonanti¬ bus subiungitur ut plus sonent. Vt Priscianus dicit : Item aspiratio ante uocales omnes poni potest ; post consonantes autem quattuor

tantummodo more antiquo Grecorum: cptr, ut 'Chremes, Thras665 so, Phillippus, Phyrrus’; item uocalibus, ut ‘habeo, Herennius, hiemps, homo, humus’. Ideo extrinsecus adscribitur uocalibus, ut minimum sonet, consonantibus intrinsecus, ut plurimum. Omnis enim littera siue uox plus sonat cum ipsa secum postponitur, quam cum anteponitur, quod I uocalibus accidens esse uidetur, 670 nec, si tollatur ea, periit etiam uis significationis, ut si dicam ‘Erennius’ sine aspriatione, quamuis uitium uidear facere, intel¬ lectus tamen permanet. Consonantibus autem sic coheret ut eius¬ dem penitus substantiae sit, ut, si auferatur, significationis uim minuat prorsus, ut si dicam ‘Cremes’ pro ‘Chremes’. Vnde hac 675 consideratione Grecorum doctissimi singulas fecerunt eas quoque litteras, quippe pro ‘th’ 0, pro ‘ph’ cj), pro ‘ch’ x scribentes. Nos autem antiquam scripturam seruamus. In Latinis autem dictioni¬ bus nos quoque pro ‘ph’ coepimus ‘f’ scribere, ut ‘filius, fama, fuga’, nisi quod, ut supra docuimus, aliquam pronuntiatione differen680 tiam habet ‘f’ cum sono ‘ph’. ‘Rh’ autem ideo non est translatum ab illis in aliam figuram, quod sic coheret nec, si tollatur, minuit significationem. Quamuis subtracta aspiratione dicam ‘retor, Pyrrus’, intellectus manet integer, non aliter quam si antecedens uocalibus auferatur aspiratio ; unde ostenditur ex hoc quoque esse

656 transit ] cf. 1. 271 supra. cf. Mur. 14, 30/34.

V P

662/686 Prisc. II, 18, 15 - 19, 8 (paene ad litt.) ;

656 que] (?) VP 659 tit. om. P 660 M] suppleui 661 minimam P 662 sonant P 665 Pyrrus P 668 cum ipsa secum] etiam codd. GLK Prisc., ipsa sese cum rell. codd. Prisc. (ed . Hertz ) 670 perit Prisc. 674 prutsus P dicas P Cremes ... Chremes] etiam Prisc., Chremes ... Cremes ~ V 675 consideratione] considerata ratione Prisc. quoque] om. V 676 th] ph P, t i- Prisc. 677 autem2] deferentia P translatum] quomodo mutis

om. 680 add. nec

ch] c et h K, xi- Prisc.

x] ttiam Prisc., k pro cs ix V

V 678 ph] p et h V 679/680 differentiam habet] ph] p et h V Rh] r V, p 1- Prisc. ideo] et id h V sed V 681 sic coheret nec] nec sic coheret huic Prisc. sic] si V 683 manet] ma P

DE LITTERA 685

690

cognatio

‘r’ litterae

cum

uocalibus.

Ex

33

quo

quidam

dubitauerunt,

utrum praeponi debeat an subiungi huic aspiratio. A. Quomodo scribunt Greci dasian et psylen? M. Seregius dicit: H propter hoc excludendum nonnulli putant, quod maius pro signo aspirationis quam pro littera poneretur. Nam quemadmodum Greci

aspirationis

notam

habent

1-, quam

‘dasian’

uocant,

ad

eius

similitudinem et ‘psylen’ h , nos his sociatis aspirationis facimus notam h, cuius si dimedium separes, notas inuenies Grecorum, quae contra se positae notam nobis efficiunt ut diximus. A. Vtrum potest H pro littera esse apud Romanos? M. Potest 695

etiam

et

facit

commonem

syllabam

apud

poetas.

Vt

Pompeius

dicit: H quae aliquando aspiratio est, aliquando littera in syllaba, ut pute: quisquis honus tumuli : hic aspiratio est; terga fatigamus hasta : hic pro littera habetur. Sed quae sit ratio haec, ex ratione syllabarum intellegimus: ubi sit aspiratio, ubi sit littera. 700

Priscianus

dicit

quod

nihil

de

accidentibus

litterae

habet

H

nisi

figuram tantum. Vt ipse dicit: H autem aspirationis nota est; nihil aliquid habet litterae nisi figuram et quod in uersu scribitur inter alias litteras. Quod si sufficeret ut elementum putaretur, nihilomi¬ nus quorundam etiam numerorum figurae, quae in uersu inter 705

alias

litteras

scribuntur,

elementa

sunt

habenda.

Sed

minime

hoc

est adhibendum, nec aliud aliquid ostendit ex accedentibus pro¬ prietatem uniuscuiusque elementi, quomodo potestas, quae caret aspiratione; neque enim uocalis neque consonans esse potest. Vocalis non est quia a se uocem non facit; nec semiuocalis, cum 710

syllaba

Latina

nec muta

cum

et Greca

per

in eadem

dictiones

688/693

Serg. 477, 20/26 (paene ad litt.).

701/713

Prisc. II, 12, 20 - 13, 8 (paene

697 Verg., Aen., 10, 493.

686

VP

integras

syllaba duabus

687

an] in V

697/698

silen V

in eam

non

dissinat

;

mutis bis ponitur, ut

696/699

Pomp.

110, 23/27.

ad litt.).

Verg., Aen., 9, 610.

688

nonnulli] add. dicunt

690

et V

re//, codd.

notam] add. h P, add. hanc Serg. disian V cod. B Serg., Saoaav Serg. 691 silen V cod. F Serg., psilen cod. B Serg., i|uAf|v rell. codd. Serg. aspirationem poetam honos

P

692

V

dimedium]

medium

696 aspiratio est] aspirationem

Pomp. Verg.

haec] etiam Pomp., hoc

Serg. P

aspiratio est] aspirationem

V cod. L Pomp.

695

communem

V

697 pote V, puta Pomp. 698 fatigumus P P

ex ratione] etiam codd. ABCL

Pomp.,

701 tantum] litte¬ in syllabis dicemus ex ratione rell. codd. Pomp. (ed. Keil) 703/704 703 si] om. P 702 aliquid] aliud Prisc. quod] om. V rae V P codd. nihilhominus Hertz), (ed. Prisc. V nihilominum scripsi, nihilominus] 707/708 qua caret aspiratio Prisc. 708 Prisc. 704 etiam] ea V 710 desinat V codd. DGL 709 facit] etiam Prisc., implet V enim] om. V Prisc., desinit rell. codd. Prisc. 711 bis ponitur] his ponit V RD

34

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

‘Phitheus, I Araychthomus’. Nulla enim syllaba plus duabus mutis 132“ habere iuxta se potest, nec plus tribus consonantibus continuare. A. Vtrum iunxerunt Greci dasian et psylen in unam figuram 715

sicut

Latini?

M. Priscianus

dicit:

H

autem

litteram

non

esse

ostendimus, sed notam aspirationis, quam Grecorum antiquissimi similiter ut Latini in uersu scribebant. Nunc autem diuisserunt et dexteram

eius partem h supra litteram ponentes psyles notam

habent, quam Palemon 720

Seregius

nouus

‘exilem’, Grillius ‘leuem’ nominat et uocat.

dicit

quod

nulla

consonans

apud

Latinos

potest

aspirationem habere ita dicens: Sane sciendum est aspirationem non debere praeponi apud Latinos nisi uocalibus. Consonantibus autem non heret. Apud Grecos enim uidemus ‘r’ litteram aspiramentum habere, quod apud Latinos consonans non meretur. 725

Et

dicit

Pompeius:

Praeterea

sciendum

est quod

aspirare

non

debemus, nisi quando sequitur uocalis. Vt pute ‘homo’: ideo prae¬ pono h, quia sequitur ‘o’ uocalis; ‘Herculis, hic, huius, huic’ et cetera: ideo praeponuntur istae aspirationes, quia uocales secuntur easdem. Ergo non, ubicumque uocalis fuerit, necesse est ut 730

aspiremus;

tur.

sed

ubicumque

aspiratio,

necesse

est

ut

uocalis

sequa¬

(De liquidis) A. Quot sunt liquidae apud Grecos et apud Romanos? M. Quat¬ tuor apud Grecos : A n M N ; duae apud Latinos : L et R et alii addunt 735

N.

Vt

Pompeius

dicit:

Sunt

autem

liquidae

quattuor,

sed

non

omnes liquidae sunt apud Latinos. Omnes quidem liquescunt apud Grecos; apud Latinos duae frequenter, L et r; M uero numquam apud Latinos liquescit, nisi in Grecis nominibus ; N uero raro. Et hoc debes sic intellegere, quomodo et illud quod diximus de 740

aspiratione,

quoniam

non,

quotiescumque

liquescunt; sed quotiescumque sitae sint.

postpositae

fuerint,

liquescunt, necesse est ut postpo¬

715/719 Prisc. II, 35, 24 - 36, 2 (paene ad litt. ). 725/731 Pomp. 107, 26/32 (paene ad litt.). 734 cf. Cruindm. 4, 13/14. 735/738 Pomp. 109, 22/25 < cfMur.

VP

16, 93/99 ; Cruindm.

712 Phiteus

4, 11/13.

Erechtonius

P, Phthius

714 iunxerunt] scripsi , iuxerunt psilen V, psiles Prisc.

739/742

722

Pomp.

109, 26/29 (paene ad litt.).

Erichthonius

V, iunxerint

uocalibus]

P

add.

Prisc.

713 iuxta] iux P dasyan ... silen V 718

cum

V

Consonantibus]

consonis P 723/724 aspiramentum] u. introd. p. LI 728 praeponitur P 729 fuerit] add. ubique aspirare debemus ; non recurrit hoc. Non enim, ubi uocalis est Pomp. ; fortasse error contaminationis

est

quod P 734 A] n P 738 raro] add. z P

735

n] scripsi , p KP 739 debemus V

732

n] s P

tit. suppleui

733

736 liquesunt

V

DE LITTERA

35

A. Quomodo possumus intellegere quando sunt liquidae L et R apud poetas ? M . Ita : elegerunt grammatici sex mutas, B c D G p t, et 745 unam

semiuocalem,

F. Quando

L uel R istas litteras secuntur

tunc

possunt liquescere, si necesse fiat poetis. Vt Seregius dicit: Rema¬ nent hae quae necessariae liquidis praeponuntur: de septem semiuocalibus F et mutae sex bcdgpt, ut ‘bruma, crimen, Drusus, gradus, primus, tritus, flos, frigus, blandus, clarus, gloria, plenus’. 750 Nam

ante

L numquam

inuenimus

D, uerum

in paucis T, ut: exant-

lauit, quod in Platone lectum est (hoc est ‘exaruit’), et ‘Tleptolemus’ siquis uocetur. A. Vtrum liquescunt semper apud poetas L et R post istas mutas ? M. Nonnisi quando necessitas poetae fiat, sed non possunt 755 liquescere

dicit.

nisi post I istas quas

praediximus

litteras, ut Pompeius

A. Quis fecit liquidam de s littera? M. Tusci quia displicuit illis sonus illius et postea alii ita fecerunt liquidam de illa. Vt Agroecius dicit: Quaeritur ab aliquantis quare s littera inter liquidas 760 posita sit, cum

ueluti sola syllaba uideatur

ac per hoc dicta sit suae

cuiusdam potestatis. Aliae autem liquidae in ipso concursu litte¬ rarum ita conglutinantur ut pene interire uideantur. Haec ratio est: apud Latinum, unde Latinitas orta est, maior populus et magis egregiis artibus pollens Tusci fuerunt, quidem natura lin765 guae

suae

s litteram

raro

exprimunt.

Haec

res eam

fecit habere

liquidam. Hoc sciendum quod ista s littera liquida fuit apud antiquos poetas. Apud posteriores uero de metro excluditur. Vt Maximia¬ nus dicit quia licentius antiqui et ipsa quasi pro liquenti utebantur

746/752

Cruindm.

13, 34 - 14, 6; Serg. 477, 7/12 (paene ad litt.).

u. Pomp. 109, 26/29 (11. 739/742 supra). 756/785 Mur. 16, 3/16. 756/772 cf. Pomp. 109, 14/17. (paene ad litt.).

750/751

VP

769/772

cf. Cruindm.

755

cf. Laur. 157, 87 - 158, 5; 759/766 Agr. 118, 7/13

4, 14/16.

Plaut., Stich. I, 3, 116.

745 uel] et V

746 dicit] om. P

necessario Serg. 747/748 de septem tem semiuocalis Serg. 748 bruna P

etiam Serg., exeantlauit V

747 necessariae] etiam Cruindm ., semiuocalibus] 749 tritur P

etiam Cruindm., sep¬ 750/751 exantlauit]

751 Platone] etiam cod. F Serg. Cruindm., Plauto

rell. codd. Serg. (Plautus uere istum scripsit ) est2] om. V exaruit] etiam Cruindm., exhauriuit Serg. 751/752 Tleptolemus] etiam cod. F Cruindm., Dleptolemus 758/759 uideatur

V, Tlepolemus Agryeius

facere Agr.

P

Serg. 760

hoc] haec

P

VP B tur] etiam cod. C Agr., conclutinuntur sic incipit, f. f : clementis

752

siques P

757.758

syllaba uideatur] add. 76l

P

liquida V

liquidem

P

V, syllabam

762 conglutinan-

763 Latinum] abhinc adest B (qui

scoti liber de partibvs

tas orta] Latinas horta V, legi non potest B tura linguae] naturae longa V

facere

764

orationis/

maius

P

Latini¬

764/165

na¬

133'

DONATVS 770 inerudita

adhuc

nouitate.

ORTIGRAPHVS Quod

posteriores

poetae

non

gerunt,

non36 quod ista diffinitio rata non esset sed quod uersus suos

liquidius discurrere | uilibus salubris f noluerunt. A. Quomodo differt s et aliae liquidae? M. Pompeius ostendit: Nam aliud est esse in metro nec conputari, aliud proieci de metro. 775 Nam si dicas ‘lumina prima’, 'lumina’ dactilus est, licet sequantur p et R et possunt facere superiorem longam ; et licet sit ibi R, tamen

non conputatur. E contario in illo metro ubi est s, non potes eam ibi permittere et sic proferre, sed necesse habes illam excludere. Non

enim possum

780 habeo

‘ponite pes

785 autem

numquam

dicere ‘ponite spes sibi quisque', sed dicere sibi quisque’.

Vides

quoniam

differunt

a se

liquidae, et illa quidem est sed non conputatur. fsta autem non solum non conputatur sed nec est quidem, nam excluditur inde. Hoc quidem leue est; aliquid est uerius, quod differunt a se. Liquidae enim numquam liquescunt, nisi antecedant aliae, fila liquescit, nisi ipsa antecedat.

A. Cur praeponitur f liquidis, sicut praeponuntur mutae, cum sit semiuocalis? M. Ideo quia naturam mutarum f obseruat in omnibus nisi tantum quae ab ‘e’ incipit. Ideo inter semiuocales ponitur sed muta est secundum Priscianum. Vt ipse dicit: Quare 790 cum

F loco mutae

ponitur

(id est ‘ph’ siue ‘4>’), miror

hanc

inter

semiuocales posuisse artium scriptores. Nihil enim aliud habet haec littera semiuocales nisi nominis prolationem, quae a uocali incipit. Sed hoc potestatem litterae motare non debuit. Si enim esset semiuocalis, necessario terminalis nominum inuemretur,

795 quod

minime

repperies,

nec ante L uel R in eadem

syllaba posset

inueniri, qui locus mutarum est I dum taxat, nec communem ante easdem posita faceret syllabam. Postremo Greci, quibus in omni doctrina auctoribus utimur, 4> cuius locum F apud nos obtinet, mutam esse confirmant.

774/777

Pomp.

(paene ad litt.).

VPB

109, 1/4 (paene 788/799

ad litt.).

777/785

Pomp.

771 rata] rati (?) P, legi non potest B

772 uilibus] uilis P, legi non potest B

salubres

11 A proieci] legi non potest B, proici

Pomp. 111

exspectes

115/116

773

sequantur

in illo metro]

defert P B

... possunt] legi non potest B, sequatur

... possit Pomp.

legi non potest B, in illa littera Pomp.

potes] scripsi

(sec. Pomp.), potest VPB (cf. habes l. 778 infra ) 780/785 antecedat] DO Pompeium non recte descripsit 781 est] om. V nam tem

(=

109, 5/12

Prisc. II, 11, 12/22 (paene ad litt.).

- quidem] om. P, legi non potest B V quidem] scripsi, quid e V

-uae) P, legi non potest B 789 pinitur P

790 ph] p V

haec VPB mutare V trina V, in omnia doctrinae

783 uerus

mutarum] ] i V

Hoc] V

differunt 782/783

scripsi (sec. Pomp.), au¬ 787 Ideo quia] ide q

mutauerunt

V

788 e] 0 P

793 hoc] scripsi (sec. Prisc.),

797/798 in omni doctrina] cod. R Prisc. (ed. Hertz)

etiam Prisc., doc¬

37 DE LITTERA 800

Et

prope

sonum

‘ph’

habet.

Vt

Priscianus

dicit:

Item

debemus quod non fixis labris pronuntianda F, quomodo solum interest pronuntiando.

scire

‘ph’; hoc

(De accidentibus litterae) A. Quot accidentia habet littera? M.Trea. Vt Isidorus dicit: 805

Vnicuique

litterae

tria

accidunt:

nomen

quo

uocetur;

figura

quo

caratere significetur; potestas qua uocalis qua consonans habea¬ tur. A quibusdam ordo adiecitur, id est quae praecedit, quae sequitur, ut A prior sit, sequens b. Et iterum dicit: A autem in omnibus gentibus ideo prior est litterarum, pro eo quod ipsa prior 810

nascentibus

uocem

aperiat.

Alii addunt ordinem. Vt Priscianus dicit :Quidam addunt etiam ordinem, sed pars est potestatis. Aliter uero Victorinus de potestate litterarum narrat. Vt dicit: Quot res accidunt unicuique litterae? Tres. Quae? Nomen, figura, 815

potestas.

Nomen

litterae

quid

est?

Quo

appellatur,

ut

A. Quo

genere efferuntur? Id est neutro, ut quidem omnes litterae, ueluti cum dicimus deesse ‘unum a’ uel ‘unum b’. Figura litterae quid est? Qua notatur. Potestas litterae quid est? Qua in ratione metrica ualet, cum aut correpta aut producta sit. 820

Sed

de

his

tribus

accidentibus

potestas

principalem

locum

tenet. Vt Priscianus dicit: Item figura accidit quas uidemus in singulis litteris. Potestas autem ipsa pronuntiatio, propter quam et figurae et nomina facta sunt. A. Quomodo constituerunt auctores ista accidentia ?M. Isidorus 825

ostendit

ita

dicens:

Nomina

litterarum

gentes

ex

sono

proprio

linguae dederunt notatis oris sonis atque discretis. Nam postquam

800/802 Prisc. II, 11, 27 - 12, 1 (paene ad litt. ). Clem. 17, 23/29 (paene ad litt.). 805/808 Cruindm. 811/812

Prisc. II, 9, 3 ; cf. Cruindm.

(paene ad litt.).

821/823

4, 25/27.

805/810 Isid. 1, 4, 16; 4, 21/25 (paene ad litt.). 814/819

Prisc. II, 9, 1/3 (paene ad litt.).

Viet. 194, 17/22 825/832

Isid. 1,

4» I7-

VPB

803 tit. suppleui

804 quod B

805 acciduntur

B

nocetur

P

806

qua'] etiam cod. A Isid., quia P, legi non potest B, quae rell. codd. Isid. qua2] etiam cod. A Isid., quae rell. codd. Isid. 807 adicitur V Isid. (cf. I. 774 supra, 813 litterarum narrat] litterae 809 gentibus] om. P et p. 43, /j/ infra ) narrat alii addunt ordinem P, legi non potest B 814 quod P res] tres V litterae] littera V, legi non potest B Tres] om. V ut] scripsi (sec. Viet.), ait V, legi non possunt PB neutri V quid] quae

quidem]

Viet.

821

scripsi (sec. Viet.), quidam

815 Quo7] quod V 816 effertur Viet.

V P, legi non potest B

figura accidit] legi non potest B, figurae accidunt

818 Prisc.

824 coacciden822 quam] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), quod VP, legi non potest B tia P 825 propriae Isid. 826 oris] etiam Isid., horis V, legi non potest B

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

eas animaduerterunt, et nomina illis et figuras inposuerunt. Figu¬ 8 ras 3autem partim ex placito, partim ex sono litterarum formauerunt: ut pute 1 et o, quarum uni sicut exilis sonus, ita tenuis 830

uirgula,

alterius

pinguis

sonus,

sicut

plana

figura.

Potestatem

autem natura dedit, uoluntas ordinem. Haec tria tribus accipi¬ mus: oculo, auditu, intellectu. Reliqua. (Finit de littera.)

VPB

827 animaduerterint tenus

P

V, legi non potest B

pingus B

829 puta V 830

uni] unum

B

tenuis] etiam Isid.,

alterius] sic etiam lsid. (cf. uni /. 829 supra)

831 tria] tres PB

833 expl. suppleui.

(De

syllaba)

A. Quomodo differunt inter se apex et littera ? M. Isidorus dicit : Apicem ueteres esse dixerunt propter quod longue sit a pedibus, sed in cacumine litterae adponitur. Est enim linea iacens super 5 litteram aequaliter ducta. A. Quomodo interpraetatur Grecum nomen quod dicitur ‘sylla¬ ba’ et unde nomen accepit ? M. Ita : ‘syllaba’ Grece, Latine ‘concep¬ tio’; et a conceptione litterarum nomen accepit. Vt Isidorus dicit: ‘Syllaba’ Grece, Latine ‘conceptio’ siue ‘conplexio’ dicitur. Nam io ‘syllaba’

dicta

est ano

tou

auXXapPdvetv

Ta

ypappaTa,

id est a

conceptione litterarum. ‘Syllabannin’ enim I Grece dicitur ‘conci- 134" pere’. Vnde uera est illa ‘syllaba’, quae ex pluribus nascitur litteris. Nam ‘una uocalis’ pro ‘syllaba’ abusiue dicitur non proprie, quae non tam ‘syllaba’ dicenda est quam ‘ratio temporum’. 15 A. Quod litteras habet una syllaba in se? M. Aliquando unam sed abusiue, ut A E 1 o v ; aliquando duas ut ‘ab’ ; et deinde usque ad sex litteras crescit syllaba. Vt Priscianus dicit: A singulis tamen incipiens non plus quam ad sex litteras procedere syllaba potest in Latino sermone, ut ‘a, ab, ars, Mars, stans, stirps’. Non plus quam 20 tres consonantes antecedere uocalem nec prorsus consequi nisi tres possunt, quod si tres praecedunt uocalem non possunt nisi duae consequi, ut ‘monstrans’. Nec iterum si consequantur m, non possunt antecedere nisi duae, ut ‘stirps’. Aliquando enim duae consonantes praecedunt uocalem et tres secuntur, ut ‘stirps’ et 25 una syllaba est et consonantes quae secuntur praecedentem uoca¬ lem longam positionem efficiunt. Vt Pompeius dicit: Praecendentes enim consonantes non ipsi prosunt, sed alii syllabae, id est

3/5 Isid. 1, 4, 18 (paene ad litt. ). 9/14 Isid. 1, 16, 1. 9/12 Laur. 160, 3/6 (paene ad litt.). 12/14 cf. Mur. 19, 11/17. 17/23 cf. Cruindm. 3, 6/12. 17/19 Prisc. II 44, 5/7 ; cf. Clem. ad litt.).

VPB

27/29

Pomp.

1 tit. suppleui

cacumme

V

om. P

8 nomen]

19, 7/9.

3 esse] om. VB

6 quod] quae V om. V

(sec. Isid.), MIOTOCYQA

ad] a V

Pomp.

112, 19/20 (paene

BANNI

longue] longe V, legi non potest B

7 /8 Ita - accepit] om. B

10 6nd

toO auAAapPavciv

TORPAHATA

V, apu

tica P, (. )ocuaa BANA TOP/./p/./mata B legi non potest B

26/27

112, 17.

XuAAapPdveiv

Isid.

19 a ab] om. V, legi non potest B

conceptio et a]

Ta ypdppaTa]

tu syllabanni

a] om. PB

12 uere P

scripsi

tu gramma¬

11 conceptio P,

13 propriae

20 prursus P

4

V

18

22 duae] scripsi,

duo V P, legi non potest B (cf. I. 2 $ infra ) consequi] consequitur P, legi non po¬ test B consequentur V 23 duae] duo P, legi non potest B (cf. I. 22 supra) stirs P

23/25

Aliquando

- una] om. B

26 effitiunt P

26/29

Praecedentes - semper] error contaminationis (u. Pomp. 112, ///20 ) 27 ipsi] etiam Pomp., sibi V, legi non potest B alii syllabae] aliae syllabae V, legi non potest B, alicui litterae Pomp.

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

anteriori, quoniam omnis syllaba incipit habere rationem a uocali semper. 0 4

30

Clem.

II, 51, 21/26 (paene ad litt.). 41/42 cf. 11. 70/72 infra.

VP

B

28 omni

P

28/29

35 tria VB

add. y V

rell. codd. Prisc. (ed . Hertz ) 38 quod

num

V, nominum

quae

quam

P, pro B

V

om. V

B

am

test B

quod]

quam

plummo

rint PB sic] sicut P 54 confitentur V

PB

P, cf ( =

45 47

-uaej B

Prisc.

30 tit. suppleui

P

51 aut rationis] aurationis

V

inue-

V

42 quod] scribo

46 argento

uirtutibus] uiribus 48 accedat

Prisc., nec

scripsi, nomi¬

add. pro eo quod

barbarum

Prisc.

ad litt. ).

aput V

inmutabilis

43 scrimbo]

44 prodita] scripsi, proditi VPB

Pomp.

41 nominumque]

q: P , legi non potest B V

32/33

36 non] etiam codd. GL

plus] add. quam

regulam]

accepit

argentam

19, 12/16.

Prisc. II, 53, 4/6 (paene

uocali semper] uocali. Semper

numerus]

nire V

35/37

V V,

P, legi non po¬

PB

50 defice-

52 opinionem

PB

DE SYLLABA A. Vtrum naturam an consuetudinem obseruamus hodie in so¬ nis? M . V trumque seruamus. V t Agustinus dicit : Hominum prisca et placida consuetudine aliis minor aliis maior mora data sit 60 syllabis. Nam profecto si natura uel disciplina fixae essent ac stabiles, non recentioris temporis nonnullas produxissent quas corripuerunt antiqui uel non corripuissent quas produxerunt, quia in hoc nomine, quod ‘Italia’ dicitur, prima syllaba quorundam hominum corripiebatur et nunc per uoluntatem quorundam 65 producitur. Sed alii dicunt quod plus ualet consuetudo in sonis quam natura hodie. Vt Hieronimus dicit: ‘O cecam insaniam' siquis dixerit ‘natura commotabilis est et transfertur de loco ad locum’: sicut uidetur quia aliquando dispiciunt quod grammatici produxerunt. 70 Etsi natura esset in sonis stabilis, statuta erit natura uerborum nequicquam: aut minus aut plus traxissent quam quod ab ortu accepissent. Item Virgilius dicit: Hic mos modo paene in toto terrarum orbe ualet ut relictis rationibus ueritatis sola consuetudo pro uera 75 teneatur. A. Quot regulas habent syllabae ? M. Tres: syllaba breuis, sylla¬ ba longa, syllaba communis, sed plus commones apud poetas seruantur. V t Pompeius dicit : Omnes syllabae aut breues sunt aut longae aut communes. ‘Breues’ dicuntur quae semper breues fiunt. 80 ‘Longae’ dicuntur quae semper longae sunt. ‘Commones’ dicuntur quae nunc breues nunc longae sunt. A. Quomodo possumus intellegere quando sunt syllabae longae et quando breues? M. Pompeius ostendit ita dicens: Ergo istae sunt syllabae breues, istae longae. Breues istae ubi inueneris 85 syllabam non habentem productam uocalem aut duas consonan¬ tes aut ‘x’ duplicem aut ‘i’ inter duas uocales, id est si non habuerit aliquid de his rebus, breuis est. Si autem habuerit aliquid, longa est.

63/65 3/5.

VP

B

cf. Mur.

83/88

195, 9/12.

Pomp.

58 Augustinus non potest B

115, 21/25

P B

70/72

cf. 11. 41/42 supra.

(paene

dicit] add. cum

64 per] quae PB

V

uoluntate

naturam commutabilis V 69 discipiunt V 70 statuta] scripsi , statutus V, status PB commones]

om. B

communes

V

78/81

Pomp.

112,

ad litt.).

59 mora P

data] morada

66 sonis] uoce

V

V, legi 68

quod] quam P, q; ( = -uaej B 76 quod B 77 sed plus

78 seruitur P, seruit B

79 fiunt] legi

non potest B , sunt Pomp. 80 quae] qui P 85/86 duas - duplicem] legi non potest B , duas consonantes non sequentes aut x duplicem non sequentem Pomp. 87 Si autem]

om. B

habuerint

V

41

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

(De diptongo) 42 90

A. Quot

sunt

dyptongi

apud

Latinos

et quomodo

interpraetatur

nomen Grecum quod dicitur ‘diptongon’? M. Priscianus dicit: Sunt igitur diptongi quibus nunc utimur v. ‘Diptongi’ autem dicuntur quod binos pthongos, hoc est uoces, conpraehendunt. Nam singulae uocales suas uoces habent. 95

Item

Pompeius

dicit:

Scire

debes

diptongos

longas

esse.

Sunt

apud Latinos quattuor usitate; nam una, id est quinta, periit: ‘ae’ ut ‘Aeneas’, ‘oe’ ut ‘poena’, ‘au’ ut ‘aurum’, ‘eu’ ut ‘Eurus’. Istae sunt usitatae; una est quae in usu non habetur, ut ‘ei’. A. Quomodo

100

duabus

sonamus

uocalibus

facimus

diptongon quando ? M. Priscianus

unam

dicit quod

syllabam de

duae

I uocales

suas uoces habent. Ideo ‘diptongon’ dicitur quod binas uoces ha¬ bent. Virgilius tamen dicit quod prima uocalis in dyptongon partem sui soni amittit. Vt ipse dicit: Quaedam autem uocalium mobiles 105

sunt,

quaedam

stabiles:

mobiles

quae

aliquoties

fortes

nonnum¬

quam proscriptiuae uidentur, ut ‘a,o,u’; etenim ‘a’ cum in principio fineue alicuius partis posita fuerit, ‘e’ statim non subsequente, maxime cum producitur fortis erit, ut ‘ars, amor, scola’; at cum in praedictis locis ‘e’ eam subsecuta fuerit, ‘a’ infirmis habebitur, ut no

‘aes, Aeneas,

Micenae,

gannae’.

Sic et ‘o’ fortis

erit in his locis, ut

‘amo, os, origo, sermo’ at cum ‘e’ sequatur diptongi loco ponetur, ut ‘coena, foedus’. Priscianus ostendit duas regulas in uocalibus: aliae de ipsis praepositiuae, aliae subiunctiuae. Vt ipse dicit: Fiunt igitur uoca92/94

Prisc. II, 37, 13/15; Cruindm.

95/98

Pomp.

8, 12/15.

92/93

115, 12/14 (paene ad litt.) ; cf. Cruindm.

cf. Mur.

7, 16/20.

21, 54. 99/112

u. Hagen 189, 1/12. 104/112 Virg. ro, 31/40 [8, 13 - 9, 7] (paene ad litt.). 110 aes Aeneas] Cruindm. 8, 17. 114/116 Prisc. II, 37, 8/9.

V P B

89 tit. suppleui 90 quod B dygtongi V tur P 91 quod] quae P dipthongon B quinque

codd. BL

Prisc., quattuor

Latin' ( = -us ) B itptae92 v] etiam codd. GK Prisc.,

rell. codd. Prisc. (ed. Hertz)

93 tongos

V,

b tongus B, phthongos Prisc. 95 debemus V Sunt] sed V 96 Latin' ( = -us) B 97 Erus V 99 quando] quoniam V 100 quod duae] quia duo P, que duae B 101 dyptongos V, dypton/...) B 103 quod] quae B uocales

B

partem]

om. V

104 sona

V

105 quae] etiam codd. P L

Virg., q P, legi non potest B, -que cod. N Virg. (edd. Polara, Huemer ) aliquotiens P 105/106 nonnumquam] add. et per se syllabam facere possunt hoc

ut ipse inter se tantummodo

non

cumque

fine uel V

B

partis] artis Virg.

in] om. B git Hagen) B sequitur V

miscentur

106 proscriptiuae] 109 e] om. B

et syllabae sonus

etiam Virg., scriptiuae P

108 amori

habetur

B

sic et] sicut PB 111 114 Fiunt] sunt Prisc.

B

at] aut V

1 10 Aenius

efficiatur V, 107 fineue] cum] cuius B

(legi) B, Aemias

at] scripsi (sec. Virg.), aut

(le¬

VPB

DE SYLLABA 115 les praepositiuae aliis uocalibus subsequentibus in his syllabis ‘a, 43 e, 0’, subiunctiuae ‘e, u’, ut ‘ae, oe, au, eu’. Item Probus: Vocales sunt litterae numero quinque quae per se proferuntur, hoc est a uocabulo suo nullius consonantium egent societate, ut pute ‘a, e, i, o, u’. Et per se syllabam facere possunt, 120

hoc

est

ut ipsae

inter

se tantummodo

miscentur

et syllabae

sonus

efficiatur, ut pute ‘a, e, i, o, u’: 'io, ia, ua, ue, oe, au, ui’ et cetera talia. Earum, id est uocalium, (hae duae, ‘i’, et ‘u’, transeunt in conso¬ nantium potestatem) tunc, cum aut ipsae inter se geminantur, ut ‘iuuo, uulgus’, uel quando cum aliis uocalibus iunguntur, ut ‘uatis, 125

uechors,

iam,

uos,

maiestas,

maior’

et cetera

talia.

Nunc

quaeritur

quando ‘i’ uel ‘u’ litterae loco consonantium sint uel quando inter se uocales accipi debeant. Quare hoc monemus, ut tunc ‘i’ uel ‘u’ loco consonantis accipiantur, quando praeponi uocalibus in sylla¬ ba scilicet sua inueniuntur; quando uero subiunctae, et ipsae 130

uocales

uidentur

: ut pute

‘iu’, utique

‘i’ nunc

loco

consonantis

et ‘u’

loco uocalis accipitur, ut ‘huius’; item ‘ui’ [tunc] utique nunc ‘u’ littera loco (consonantis et ‘i’ loco) uocalis accipitur. Considera¬ tur sic et iuxta ceteras uocales alias ‘i’ et ‘u’ litterae in syllaba sua praeponuntur, ut ui consonantium haberi iudicantur; si uero 135 subieciantur, uocalium loco funguntur. (De syllabis longis breuibusque) A. Quomodo possumus intellegere de primis syllabis quando longae sunt et quando breues? M. Pompeius ostendit: Planae sunt artes de ultimis syllabis: quales sunt ultimae syllabae, utrum 140

longae

sint

an

breues,

praestat

ars.

licet non sit scriptum, tamen

Penultimae

138/148

117 quae] om. P, legi non potest B, hae Prob. sua. Prob. luno

aegent

119 pote V

Pomp.

etiam de

106, 26 - 107, 2

per] pro B

121 pote V

sint,

118 uocabula

ia] etiam Prob., iu VP

ue] om. V 122/123 hae - potestatem] suppleui (sec. Prob.) 124 iuuo] V, legi non potest B uocalibus] om. PB iunganturS 125 uethors V,

uecors Prob. test B 127

maiestas] scripsi (sec. Prob.), mestas V, maestas P, legi non po¬ se] om. Prob. Quare] scripsi (sec. Prob.), quaeritur VPB

monemus] V

V

quales

potest tractari. Nam

117/135 Prob. 49, 9/25 (paene ad litt.). (paene ad litt.).

VPB

etiam

monen

praeponi] iu utique

i nunc]

(sec. Prob.), uno littera] om. P Rr Prob. subiciuntur intellegi V

V

128

praepositae

accipiantur]

scripsi (sec. Prob.), iunctae

V P B

131ui]huiPB

consonantis

134 uim

consonantis

Prob. (cf. subiunctae

V

VP,

iuncto

tun c] seclusi

B

135 subieciantur]

subiciantur

Plane est ars Pomp.

sint

130 putae P u] scripsi

nun cjom.V

et i loco] suppleui (sec. Prob.), om. VPB

Prob. (cf. p. }6, 774, et p. y/, 807 supra) 138/139

consonantium

/. /23» infra)

132 codd.

V, legi non potest B,

136 tit. suppleui

140 sintJ] sunt V

137

praestas P

DONATVS

44

ORTIGRAPHVS

penultimis potest esse ars, quando producuntur uel quando corri¬ piuntur. De primis uero I nulla est ars. Idcirco debemus ad exem¬ pla confugere quoties nos aliquis interroget, ut pute si dicas mihi 145

‘unus : u qualis

est ? ’ dico

tibi ‘nescio

utrum

br euis

an

longa,

nisi me

ad exempla contulero : unus abest medio in fluctu, quem uidimus

ipsi’. Ergo debeo primas syllabas colligere, quo loco posita sit longa, quo loco breuis, et sic respondere. A. Si possumus explorare primam syllabam nominatiui singula150

ris uel

primae

utrum

longa sit an breuis, utrum

personae

uerbi

per

exemplum

poetae

ut

sciamus

necesse est nobis exemplum

poetae postea quaerere in omnibus personis uel casibus qui nas¬ cuntur ab ipsis? M. Non est necesse. Quae enim nascuntur ab aliis regulam primae positionis obseruant in longitudine et breuitate. 155

Vt

Pompeius

cogamur

dicit:

Sed

habemus

conpendium

unum

huius

rei, ne

singula uerba exemplis quaerere: ethimologias intueri

uerborum et sequi naturam rei, ut pute ‘amo’, unde natum est ? Ab ‘amore’. Ecce ‘a’ qualis est? ‘A’ breuis est: seuus amor docuit natorum sanguine matrem. Ecce inuenitur ‘amor’ quoniam ‘a’ 160

breuis

est. Siue

nomen

inde

facias

ut

‘amor’

siue

uerbum

ut

‘amo’

siue ut ‘amans’, ubique breuis est. Quicquid illud facit, seruatparticipium naturam illius. A. Vtrum possumus inuenire uocalem breuem ante duas conso¬ nantes? M. Possumus etiam, ut ‘uassa, fossa’. Istae uocales secun165

dum

naturam

breues

sunt,

sed

istae

tres

litterae

id est ‘a’ et duo

‘ss’

possunt syllabam longam facere possitione, licet breuis est uocalis secundum naturam. Vt Virgilius dicit: Sciendum est sane quod ubicumque

uocalem quamlibet in media parte positam ‘s’ duplica-

144/147

Cruindm.

157/161

Cruindm.

12, 4]; u. Hagen

146/147

VPB

155/162

Pomp.

Verg., Aen., x, 584.

syllabam

158/159

ars] ratio V

144 pote V

B , erit Pomp.

147 primas

VPB

intueri ... sequi] intuere B

Virg. 14, 9/16 [11, 13 -

Verg., Ecl., 8, 47.

149 possimus

P

145 u ]om.V

... sequere

unde] unum

B

Pomp.

157/158

amo

146 abest]

syllabas] scripsi (sec. Pomp.), explorari B 155 Sed] se V

rei ne] etiam Pomp., regine P, legi non potest B puteamus

107, 3/12 (paene ad litt.).

167/173

189, 13/19.

143 est] esse P etiam Verg., habem primam

5, 27/30.

6, 2/7 (paene ad litt.).

156cogamusP

156/157

157 pute amo] pote amo V, ... amore] etiam Cruindm., amor

... amare Pomp. 158 A2] om. V seuus] setius B 159 quoniam] (sec. Pomp.), quando V, quo (?) P, quam B 160 fatias P, facies B amans ubique] amas utique V parte] arte Virg. posita V

166 positione s] om. B

VP

est] om. P

scripsi 16 1 168

DE SYLLABA 45 ta secuta fuerit, eandem 170

uessit,

uissit,

clussit’;

uocalem

aut

si una

corripiemus, ut ‘uassa, fossa,

‘s’, uocalis

producetur,

ut

‘glorio¬

sus, uisus’. Omnis superlatiuus gradus ‘s' duplicatam semper habe¬ bit, ut ‘altissimus’. Sic et ‘m’ duplicata antesitam corripit uocalem ut ‘summus, gammus’, sin alias, producetur ut ‘sumus, ramus’. Item Seregius nouus dicit: Praepositiones accusatiuae: ‘ad’ bre175

uis; ‘ante’

ambae

breues;

‘apud’

ambae

breues;

‘aduersum’

omnes

breues; ‘cis’ longa; ‘citra’: ‘ci’ breuis ‘tra’ longa; ‘circum’ ambae breues; ‘circa’: ‘cir’ breuis ‘ca’ longa; ‘contra’: ‘con’ breuis ‘tra’ longa; ‘erga’: ‘er’ breuis ‘ga’ longa; ‘extra’: ‘ex’ breuis ‘tra’ longa; ‘inter’ ambae breues; ‘intra’: ‘in’ breuis ‘tra’ longa; ‘infra’: ‘in’ 180

breuis

‘fra’ longa;

‘iuxta’

prior

breuis

‘ta’ longa;

‘ob’ breuis;

‘pene’

ambae breues ; ‘per’ breuis ; ‘prope’ ambae breues ; ‘propter’ ambae breues; ‘praeter’: ‘prae’ longa ‘ter’ breuis; ‘post’ breuis sed longa positione. A. Quot tempora habet syllaba longa? M. Duo; syllaba breuis 185

unum,

sed

apud

antiquos

grammaticos

potuit

una

syllaba

duo

tempora et semis habere et aliquando trea in communi sermone. Vt dicit Priscianus : In longis natura uel positione duo sunt tempo¬ ra, ut ‘dos, ars’, duo semis, quando post uocalem natura longam una sequitur consonans, ut ‘sol’, trea quando post uocalem natura 190

longam

duae

consonantes

sequuntur

uel

una

duplex,

ut

‘mons,

rex’. Tamen in metro necesse est unamquamquae syllabam uel unius uel duorum accipi temporum. A. Cur efficiunt duae consonantes longam syllabam? M. Ideo quia unaquaquae 195

pus

habet

atque

consonans idcirco

secundum

breues

uocales

naturam cum

uno

dimedium tempore

tem-

et unum

tempus duarum consonantium longam syllabam efficiunt cum duobus temporibus, istae tres litterae. Vt Pompeius dicit: Haec etiam ratio est, ut tantum ualeat syllaba naturaliter longa, quan¬ tum ualet positione longa. Quare? Nam quemadmodum illae

VP

B

174/183

cf. Cruindm.

197/208

Pomp.

6, 14 - 7, 15.

187/192

Prisc. II, 52, 18 - 53, 3.

112, 34 - 113, 5 (paene ad litt. ).

170 uessit] uesit et suprascr. id est scit V, suprascr. tsat P, add. id est scit B uissit] suprascr. id est uidit VP, s] etiam Virg., est P, om. B duplicatam!/

173 summus]

add.

id est uidit B

clussit] om. PB

171 gradus] legi non potest P, grandus sumus

VP

17 4 ad] add. i B

B

172

175 ante ...

apud] apud ... ante ~ B apud] apre V 180 pene] paenes V 182 post breuis] om. P 184quodI/£ 185 sed] om. B 188 dos] etiam codd. R BHL Prisc., desunt B, do(.) codd. DGK Prisc., do rell. codd. Prisc. (eti. Hertz) ram B longa V 189 sole B ocalem B 190 longa VB 191 unamquamque] VP, legi non potest B 198 tantum]

tamen

unam tempori VB

quae B B

natu¬ dua B

192 unius] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), unum 195 habet] om. P

196 efficiuntur VB

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

200 uocales naturaliter longae duo tempora habent (ut : a, te ne frigora 46 ; ‘a’ longa est naturaliter, duo tempora habet), sic etiam ledunt syllaba, quae positione longa sit, habet duo tempora. Quomodo ? Vnum habet a uocali et unum a duabus consonantibus. Idcirco fit

ut non quaerantur ad positionem nisi duae consonantes, quia duae 205 consonantes singulatim demedium et demedium tempus habent et faciunt longam syllabam praecedentem. Ob hanc causam dixi¬ mus esse duo tempora et naturaliter syllabae longae et positione longae. I A. Quot modis intelleguntur communes syllabae? M. VIII. Vt 136' 210 Pompeius dicit: Diximus longas syllabas quattuor modis fieri et breues syllabas quattuor modis fieri. Aequum ergo fuerat ut etiam communes syllabae vm modis fierent, quia utrarumque fungun¬ tur officio. Ideo itaque commones modi sunt vm. A. Quomodo possumus intellegere communes syllabas ? M. Pom215 peius dicit: Ergo litterae quae faciunt commones syllabas istae sunt : liquidae, T et ‘r’ ; ‘h’, quae plerumque aspirationis nota est ; ‘s’, quae de metro excluditur; syllaba quae partem terminat oratio¬ nis; diptongus quoties eam uocalis sequatur; et una uocalis si eam uocalis sequatur; ‘c’ et ‘z’. 220 unaHoc sciendum in ratione commonium syllabarum, quod mutae et liquidae non possunt facere positionem de alia parte orationis. Vt Pompeius dicit: Ipse etiam primus uersus: arma uirumque cano : ‘no’ breuis est, et tamen pro longa habetur. Nec dicas mihi, positione fit longa. Non : nam liquida non iuuat. Ergo tunc liquida I 225 potest iuuare, quoties in illa parte orationis fuerit; non iuuat in 136“ alia. Vt quemadmodum illud diximus superius exemplum ‘patris amor’, ‘pa’ ideo fit longa, quoniam sequitur ‘t’ et ‘r’, et in una parte 209/231

cf. Mur.

215/219

Pomp.

24, 28/31.

210/213

116, 20/24 (paene

Pomp.

ad litt.).

166, 6/9 (paene ad litt.). 222/231

Pomp.

118, 5/15

(paene ad litt.).

200/201

VP B

Verg., Ecl., 10, 48.

222/223

200 a te ne] scripsi (sec. Pomp.), Athene est] om. B

sic] sicut P

ad positionem] 209 quod

B

communes]

VP,

203 sit P

appositionem

cod. A

Verg., Aen., 1, 1.

ad te ne B

201 longo Pomp.

204 non] om. B

Pomp., a positione

scripsi, commune

quaeratur

V

rell. codd. Pomp.

V, legi non possunt P B

211

syllabis P quattuor] m B 212 quia] etiam Pomp., quam P, q ( = -uod ?) B 213 commones modi] communis modis V, legi non potest B 216 quae] qq ( = quoque ?) P, legi non potest B 218 digtongus V e V 220 quod] quae V 221 alia] aliqua P positione

fit] etiam Pomp., positione

Non] scripsi (sec. Pomp.), no V P B tam B, tum Pomp.

quotiensPS 223 est] om. V

est (fit suprascr.) P, positionem iuuat] niuat P, legi non potest B

219cj 224

fit est B tunc]

DE SYLLABA

47

orationis est. Et e contrario: arma uirumque cano Troiae, (in alio uerbo est ‘no’, in alio ‘Tro’. Hoc apud Latinos seruatur,) apud 230

Grecos

non

seruatur.

Nullus

uersus

Latinus

potest

fieri positione

longus sequente muta et liquida in alia parte orationis. A. Cur ‘c’ potest esse pro duabus consonantibus? M. Pompeius dicit : Item ‘c’ littera aliquando pro duabus consonantibus habetur et facit longam, ut est illud: hoc erat, alma parens : conlide ‘c’ 235

litteram

ut

sit pro

A. Quomodo

duabus

consonantibus.

differunt inter se duplex Greca littera quae dicitur

‘z’ et duplex Latina quae dicitur ‘x’? M. Pompeius dicit: Hoc interest inter z et x, quod x nostra semper duplex et pro duabus consonantibus habetur; z non, sed aliquando pro duplici habetur, 240

aliquando

pro

simplici.

Inuenitur

duplex,

ut:

Mezenti

ducis

exu-

uias \ inuenitur simplex, ut: nemorosa Zachintus. A. Vbi ponuntur Y et z litterae? M. In Grecis nominibus. Vt Priscianus dicit: Y et z in Grecis tantummodo dictionibus ponun¬ tur, quamuis in multis ueteres haec quoque motasse inueniantur 245

et pro

Y

v

et pro

zsd

coniunctis

posuisse.

A. Vtrum possunt tres consonantes facere communem sylla¬ bam? M. Possunt etiam. Vt Priscianus dicit: Illud quoque non est praetermittendum, quod tribus consonantibus potest communis syllaba, quando in principio sequentis syllabae post uocalem 250

correptam ‘s’ et muta postea liquida metro subtrachi more etsoleat uetere.

sequatur,

quippe

cum

‘s’ in

(Finit de syllaba.)

233/235 10/16.

Pomp.

243/245

12/15 (paene

ad

119, 13/15. Prisc.

VP

B

241

Pomp.

Verg.,

Aen.,

247/251

11,

Prisc. II, 52,

234 Verg., Aen., 2, 664.

collide Pomp.

235

Grecam

V, legi non potest B

litteram Mezentii

litteram] add. tamen

VP

240/241

Verg., Aen.,

3, 270.

228/229 in - seruatur] suppleui (sec. Pomp.) Pomp., sermo rell. codd. Pomp. (ed. Keil ) 234

240

iu, 1/5; cf. Cruindm.

ad litt.).

litt.).

228 Verg., Aen., 1, 1. 9, 7.

237/241

II, 36, 17/19 (paene

241

V

237

Zacinctus

fit V

Latinam

V

V, Zacintus

244 haec] scripsi (sec. Prisc.), hoc VP, h B posuisse] pro e fuisse B

230 uersus] etiam codd. ABC illud] aliud B conlido V, littera]

238 quod] quia P B, Zachynthos

Pomp.

245 y v] f et P, legi non potest B

248 permittendum

et2] om. V 251 ueter / = -untj V, ueteriPwr. Prisc. 252 expl. suppleui.

236 Greca

P

quod] quae P

{ed. Hertz), ueterum

250

codd. DGK

(De

accentv)

A. Cur dicuntur ‘accentus’ et quae sunt nomina accentuum apud Latinos? M. Pompeius ostendit dicens ita: Greci ‘prosodias’ dicunt accentus hac ratione: ‘ad’ ‘rrpoq’ dicunt, ‘cantum’ ‘cp5f|\ Ita uer5 bum de uerbo Latini expresserunt, ut dicerent ‘prosodias’ ‘accen¬ tus’. Sed Latim habent et alia nomina. Nam et ‘accentum’ dicunt Latini et ‘tonum’ dicunt et ‘tenorem’ dicunt, quod nihil interest: siue ‘accentum’ dicamus siue ‘tonum’ siue ‘tenorem’; eadem ratio est; nomina sunt tamen dissimilia, io

A. Quid

demonstratur

per

accentuum

uim

in sermonibus?

M. Ratio sonandi. Nescimus enim quomodo debemus sonare sylla¬ bam longam uel breuem, I utrum circumflexam an acutam an 137' grauem, nisi per accentum. Vt Isidorus dicit: ‘Accentus’ autem dictus, quod iuxta cantum sit, sicut ‘aduerbium’, quod iuxta uer15 bum

sit.

A. Quomodo possumus scire quae syllaba debet specialiter uocis accentum habere? M. Ita: etiam syllaba quae in alto loco pectoris sonat - etsi longa etsi breuis - accentum habebit, quia plus apparet sonus illius. Vt Pompeius dicit: Sunt plerique qui natura20

liter non

habent

acutas

aures

ad

capiendos

hos

accentus,

et induci¬

tur hac ratione. Finge tibi quasi uocem clamantis longe aliquem positum. Vt pute: finge tibi aliquem illo loco constare et clama ad ipsum. Cum coeperis clamare, naturalis ratio exigit ut unam syllabam plus protrahas reliquis illius uerbi ; et quam uideris plus 25

sonare

a

ceteris,

ipsa

habet

accentum.

Vt

pute

si dicas

‘orator’,

quae plus sonat ? ‘Ra’; ipsa habet accentum. ‘Optumus’, quae plus sonat? Id est, illa quae prior est. Numquid sic sonat ‘tu’ et ‘mus’, quemadmodum ‘op’? Ergo necesse est ut illa syllaba habeat accentum, quae plus sonat a reliquis, quando clamorem fingimus. 30

A. Quot

sunt

accentus

uocis

apud

Latinos?

M. Duo

acutus et circumflexus. Et circumflexus sonum

principales:

ostendit circum¬

flexum in syllaba cui superponitur. Acutus uero altum demon-

3/9 Pomp. 125, 35 - 126, 4 (paene ad 19/29 Pomp. 127, 1/11 (paene ad litt.).

VPB

1 tit. suppleui

2 dicitur V

haec] scripsi (sec Pomp.), ac rrpwq P B idia V tus P di PB

VP,

claStq] scripsi, coaiNN 6 Sed

tenorem]

quae] scripsi, quod V, odien

tenore P

13/15

VPB

legi non potest B

Latini] siue Latine

12 agutam

litt.).

V, legi non potest B 13 Accentus]

3 Grece

P

4

rrpoq] scripsi, npco V,

P, o(...)n B, oden

P

Isid. 1, 18, 2.

Pomp.

5 pros-

7 nihil] add. est P

8 accen¬

10 Quid] quia B

11 sanan¬

accentius

B

14 dictus] add.

quasi adcantus V quod*] quia P, quae B 25 pote V 28 op] ob V, opus B 29 reliquiis V clamarem B 30 quod B 31 et circumflexus] om. P, legi non potest B

DE ACCENTV 49

strat sonum in syllaba cui superponitur. Vt Pompeius dicit: Ac¬ centus qui necessarii sunt duo sunt tantummodo apud Latinos, 35

acutus

et circumflexus.

‘Acutus’

dicitur

accentus,

quoties

cursim

syllabam proferimus, ut si dicas ‘arma’: non possumus dicere ‘aarma’; ‘arcus’: non possumus dicere ‘aarcus’. ‘Acutus’ ergo dici¬ tur quando cursim syllabam proferimus. ‘Circumflexus' dicitur quando tractim syllabam proferimus, ut ‘meta Musa’: non possu40

mus

dicere

‘meeta

Muusa’.

Ergo

‘circumflexum’

dicimus

illum

qui

tractim profertur, ‘acutum’ illum qui cursim est. A. Vtrum possunt acutus et circumflexus in una parte orationis esse? M. Non potest enim pars orationis simplex et conposita nisi unum accentum uocis habere, id est acutum uel circumflexum. 45

Grauis

uero

ponitur

in

reliquis

syllabis.

Vt

Pompeius

dicit:

Dixi

duos esse accentus apud Latinos: acutum et circumflexum. Et necesse est ut in uno quoque aut acutus sit aut circumflexus. Grauis uero uel cum acuto uel cum circumflexo ponitur : in reliquis syllabis, ubi non fuerit ille uel ille, ibi grauis erit. 50

A. Quomodo

ponuntur

accentus

in partibus

orationis?

M.Ita

etiam: a fine numerantur syllabae sub accentu nec ascendunt nisi usque ad tertiam syllabam. I Circumflexus enim unum locum habet: penultimam natura longam quando ultima breuis. Acutus duo loca tenet: penultimam et antepenultimam. Vltima enim non 55

potest

accentum

uocis

habere

nisi

in paucis.

Vt

Donatus

dicit:

Toni igitur tres sunt: acutus, grauis, circumflexus. Acutus, cum in Grecis dictionibus tria loca teneat (ultimum, penultimum, et antepenultimum), apud Latinos penultimum et antepenultimum tenet, ultimum numquam. Circumflexus autem, quotlibet sylla60

barum

sit dictio,

in eadem

non

tenebit

dictione uel cum

nisi penultimum

acuto uel cum

33/41 Pomp. 126, 4/11 (paene ad litt.). litt.). 56/61 Don. 609, 5/9.

VPB

35 Acutus2] ... possum P arma

... arma

40 meeta

accutus V 37 aarma

39 tractatim

muusa]

Pomp.; DO

circumflexus

V

41

Grauis

poni

45/49

Pomp.

127, 12/15 (paene ad

cursum B 36 syllaba V 36/57 possum ... aarcus] etiam cod. C Pomp., arma ... arma B,

rell. codd. Pomp. meta

locum.

circumflexo potest.

musa

cursim

V, tractum

P

non recte accentum

est] cursim.

Est Pomp.

cursi P

V

44 uel] et V

P V

48 cum2] om. V ponitur] etiam Pomp., ponetur P B 51 iaccentu B 52 Circumflexus enim] circumflexus autem V,

B

B

53 penultima

antepenultimum

... longa PB

V

-it) B

42

unaquaque numeratur penultimum

dix P, dix ( —

B

intellexit

circuflexus

circumfenimlexus

45 requis B

meta] moeta acutum

54 loco P

ultimum

V, ultimam

47

penul P, B

57

peneultimum P 58 apud - antepenultimum] om. P B 59 quodlibet VB 60 dictio non] dictioni B peneltimum (ait. e expunct., u suprascr.) V, peneltimum

P

61 cum2] om. V

circumflexu

V

DONATVS

ORTIGRAPHVS

A. Cur a fine numerantur syllabae sub accentu? M. Pompeius dicit: 50 Immo uideamus in quibus syllabis conputantur accentus, quomodo conpotantur accentus: a fine non ab initio. Vt puta 65

‘indoctissimus’,

utrum habeat ita ab finalis) 70

non

quinque

sunt

prima syllaba habeat accentum,) inde ‘tis’, initio conputare, sed syllaba non habuerit,

habuerit,)

tertia

a fine

syllabae:

nunc

incipio

conputare

accentum, 6/7 322. 4/9 324. 2/4 1

Avgvstinvs

Loci non reperti; [u. Introd. cap. 4.B] 10,

30/32

4-

57/6i

19, 289/291 19, 292/307 21, 348/356 27. 524/533

3°. 587/595

31, 641/651 41, 58/65 60, 32/ 36 66,

43/46

93. 769/772 Confessiones : [CPL

251]

10, 37, 60

[CCSL

27)

(p. 188, 2/3)

c/

10,

29/30.31

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

215

pag., lin.

Avgvstinvs

De genesi ad litteram : (CPL

266]

9, 12, [20] (PL

(CSEL 28-1) (p. 281, 24)

34, 400D)

c f.

IO,

29/30.;

Sermones : [CPL

(PL

284]

i°7. 6, 7

38)

(coi. 630B)

'i aPP'

12,

78

10,

30/32

c]

De duitate dei : [CPL

313]

(CCSL

16, n 16, 43

47-48)

(48, p. 513, 14/15.17/18)

i8, 39

(48, p. 550, 72/ 73app' ) (48, p. 634, 1/2)

Avgvstinvs

1 c) c)

IO,

30/ 31

10,

29/ 30

(ps.-)

Quaestiones ex utr. mixt. u. Ambrosiaster

Avsonivs

Technopaegnion : [CPL

1412]

(MGH,

Auct.antiq.

Bernensis

cod.

v-2) f.

12, 9 (PL 19, 901C)

(p. 138)

II, 62/ 65

e

123

Liber [Clementis] de partibus orationis (exc.) (GL

(ff. ir-3i“) / [= DO,

cod.

B; - u. Introd.

cap.

8)

3] (p. 189, 1/12) (p. 189, 13/19)

42, 99/112 44, 167/173

2“

5“

5' 3'

f: app(p. CCLIl) (p. CLXXXVl)

c

54. 52, 173 122/130 66,

43/46

66, 47/5°

(p. CCLIV )

8r

(p. CCLIl)

(p. CCLIIl)

8U

85. 54i/55i

9r I2f

68, 84/111 70, 130/139

(p. cxciii-cxciv)

(p. CCLIl) (p. CCLIV ) (p. CXCl)

15'

f. aPP Cj

96, 93. 858 769/772 109, 245/253

(p. CLVI )

i8u

(p. CLVl)

22U

(p. CLI-CLIl) (p. clii; CLVl) (p. CLVl)

23“ 24U-25' 24“

(p. cxciv) (p. CLVIl)

127, 161/166 127, 167/176 128, 177/184 161, 28/37 165, 143/145 166, 155/209

216

index

grammaticorvm

et rhetorvm

Bernensis

cod.

2/4

167,

exc.)

pag., lin.

123

Liber [Clementis] de partibus orationis (

211/213

{GL

(ff- ir-3*u)--

8)

2/7

2/3 176, 175. 400/ 4°3 176, 82/85 181,

(p. CLVII ) (p. cxciv) (p. cxciv)

*5r

178, 187, 181,

(p. CCLIV )

27'

5/7

187,

(p. cxciv)

27"

187,

(p. cxcv)

28'

(p. cxcv)

28“

(p. cxcv)

22/ 28

H

w

29' (p. CLVIIl) 25/28

0'

Commentum3 (anon .) in Donati partes maiores (exc.) {GL

(ff. 3iu-53')-

8) 194.

6/7

60,

47/48 49/54

62,

110/113

(p. xxxvi) yfw

anonyma

Bernensis

(ff. 78u-ii7').' ' 53 cap. [a. Introd.

(GL

8)

4.A.1] (p. 62, 4/6)

3 00

r-

(p. 62, 6/18) (p. 63, 7/9) (p. 63, 12)

u

7§

"

79

(p. 63, 35 - 64, 8) (p. 64, 6/7)

65,

20

f.

63, 142/ 146

f

65. 5/6 66, 40/46

Cj

(p. 63, 32/34)

"g

'

79

n

(p. 63, 15/23)

Cjf

66,

35

cj

(p. 64, 14/15)

f r Cj

(p. 64, 16/24)

c)

(p. 64, 64, 33/34) 27aPP ) (p.

Cj

f. “pp

66,

67,

31

53/57

69,

108/111

70,

141/142

72,

181/200

(p. 65, 4/21) (p. 65, 21) 8o'

Cj

76, 282/284

(p. 65, 23/26) (p. 65, 28/29) (p. 65, 29/33)

8ou

83'

“

83' 83“

75. 274/278

cj

(p. 66, 22/27)

c]

74. 245/249 71, 154/159

(p- 70, 5/7)

c]

78, 362/363

(p. 66, 28/33)

81' 2 8 u

208 73, 271/272 75, 76, 288/293

(p. 66, 11/14)

(p. 71, 4/11)

c)

(p. 71, 25/29)

cj

78, 79. 337/338 39°/ 401

(p. 71, 31/33)

cj

78, 341/342 80, 407/409

(P- 7i. 33 - 72, 1)

cj

INDEX

Bernensis

cod.

Ars anonyma

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

217

pag., lin.

123

Bernensis (GL

(ff. 78u-n7r)

83“

83u-84r

84r

8)

(p. 72, 2/ 4)

cf.

(p. 72, 11/13)

cf.

(p. 72, 24/36)

cf.

(p. 72, 31/35)

cf.

(p. 73, 2/4)

cf.

(P- 73> 5/i7)

cf.

84m

f/

84, 506/ 512 83. 494/496

84, 528/531

(p. 73, 23/25)

cf.

84. 532/536

(P- 73. 25/25))

c/

85. 537/538

(p- 75. 3° - 76, 7)

cf

(p. 76, 15/16)

85“

82, 4-78/ 48-7 84, 504/ 505

84, 524/527

(p. 73, 10/13) (p. 73, 17 /23 )

81, 429/432 81. 451/454

85. 552/563 86, 577/578 86, 574/576

(p. 76, i7/i9) 86r

(p. 76, 31/33)

cf.

87, 612/614

(p. 77, io/ii)

cf.

88, 626

(p. 78, 6/9)

86“

00

(p. 79, 15/1-7)

cf

(p. 79, 1-7/20)

cf

(p. 79, 24/28) (p. 80, 2/4)

cf.

(p. 80, 8/18)

cf.

88, 678/68o 645/648 9o,

89, 661/665 91. 709/ 712 9i, 700/702 89, 668/6-75

do

00

cf.

87, 621/624

87r 8yu e

(p. 78, 16/20)

89r 89u u 9°

(p. 82, 33 - 83, 2) (p. 83, 31/34)

93. 760/ -763

(p. 85, 24/25)

93. 773/778

(p. 86, 9/i6)

95, 810/812

(p. 86, I9/22) r

9i

95. 829/ 83-7

97. 867/87o

(p. 86, 21/22) (p. 86, 22/24)

97. 8-72/874

(p. 87, I9/22) cf.

97. 87i

97, 886/887 (p. 87, 22/25.28.251)

u

9i

cf.

(p. 87, 30/32) (p. 88, 10/16)

cf. 97, 95 876/ 902 100, 3/5*62

(p. 88, 35 - 89, 13) ' 92

(p. 89, 21/23)

u

(p. 133, 27/29)

92

113'

101, 2 94, 805/808

(p. 134, 12/14)

102 63, 44/47 62,, 126/128 115/117

(p. 134, i6/i7) U

H3

97, 887/89o 98, 892/894

(p. 134, 25/25)) (p. 134, 31/32)

(p. 135, 1/8) (p. 135, 18/21)

f/

61,

67/68

102,

60/61

103,

80/81

103,

84/86

218

index

Bernensis

cod.

Ars anonyma

grammaticorvm

et rhetorvm

pag., lin.

123

Bernensis {GL

(ff. 78u-n7r)-

8)

102,

(p. 135, 22/24)

51/55

63, 125/126 (p. 135, 25) 119. 531/532 119. 534/543

(p. 136, 24)

n4r

(p- i37. 4/10) (p. 137, 21 - 138, 4) (p. 138, 3/4)

n4u-ii5r n4u

(p. i4i, 4/6) (p. i4i, 22/33)

c f.

f.

c f

f

n5r

u6r Bernensis ii6u

cod.

io4, 109/112 I04, 112 158,1039/10^

hi,

311/316

207

Scripta Donati (fragmenta) (GL

(ff- 2r-i7r) •'

(p. CCLV, CCLV,

5 - CCLVI,

(p. CCLVI,

9“

7r

(p. CCLVI,

ior

8)

62, 110/113

i/4) 2)

63. I32/i4I

3/5)

74. 25i/254

6/11)

(p. CCLVI,

12/15)

86, 75. 572/576 271/278

(P- (p. CCLVI,

16/18)

87,

(p. CCLVI,

19/22)

6ii/6i4

97, 866/ 870

I2r De partibus I2U

orationis (luliani Toletani ) (GL

(ff. I8iu-ioir) : 5r 8iu-82r

8)

(p. CCXII,

28/31)

(p. CCXVIII,

23/25)

f Cj f Cj

62,

110/113

i94,

6/ 7

De littera l' IO

(GL

(ff. ii2r-ii3r) :

II2r

8)

(p. XXIV,

i/4

13, 774/ 105/110 36, 777

109,

5/12

109,

14/17

109,

22/25

36, 777/785

f-

35, 756/772 34- 735/738

cf

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

POMPEIVS

Commentum

241

artis Donati (GL 5 ) :

109, 26/29

34. 739/742 35. 755 no,

23/27

33, 696/699

in, 1/5 112, 3/5

47. 237/241

112, 15/20

41,

78/81

112, 17

39.

26/29

39.

27/29

39.

26/27

112, 19/20 112, 34 - 113, 5 115, 12/14 115, 21/25

p' cf ap

45. 42, 197/208 95/98 41, 83/88 46, 215/219

116, 20/24 118, 5/15

46, 222/ 231 119, 13/15

47, 48, 233/235 3/9

125, 35 - 126, 4

cf

126, 4/11

49.

33/4i

127, 12/15

49,

45/49

127, 15/24

50,

63/71

48,

127, 1/11

19/29

cf

127, 21/23

5°, 7° 5°, 74/78

129, 18/21.23/24 131, 22/34

52, 132/146

132, 5/6 132, 15/27

cf. app'

i5app' 132, 4/6 134,

63, i30/i32 62, 110/113

134. 9/i3

63, 142/144

135. 3/5 i35> 15/19

53, 163/164

54, i73/i89 54, 173

cf. app

135, 25/26

cf

63, 144/ 146 62, 110/113

cf

173, 348/355 135, 36 - 136, 6

173, 355/359

136, 11/16 136, 20/22

i73> 360/ 361 68,

76/80

x37> 15/25

68, 67,

81/82 58/69

137, 33/36

67.

69/72

138, 16/30

69, 114/129

138, 16/20

69,

112/114

138, 32 - 139, 6

70,

118/129

i37. 2/6

137. 13/14

140, 19/20 140, 24 - 141, 4

cf. app-

72, 181/182 73, 217/235

I4*> 7 141, 12/16 73, 202/207 75, 280

cf

242

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Pompeivs

Commentum

artis Donati (GL

5 ):

141, 12/15

cf.

72, 182/187

141, 16/17 75, 269/270

141, 21/22 I41. 25/33

75. 257/258

143, 20/25

78, 258/268 75, 348/352

143, 30 - 144, 5

79. 368/377 cf

146, 28 - 147, 4

147, 3/9

81, 429/432 81, 441/448

cf cf.

147, 21/24 148, 12/30 i49. 25/29

83, 489/492 83, 494/496 85. 552/556 85,556/563

149, 32 - 150, 3 150, 13/16

f/

151, 18/22 152, 29/30

85,564/570 86, 582/587 86, 594/595

87. 595/597

252, 33 - i53. 2 c/

i54. 7/20

88, 635/639

155, 21/23

90, 681/683

*55. 26/35

90, 683/692

156, 1/6

91» 718/723

156, 6/8

91. 723/725

156, 15/17

92, 725/727 92, 730/735

158, 29/34 166, 6/9

46, 210/213

169, 2/5 171, 21/24

cf.

183, 11/31

c/

98, 905/906 /816 95, 812 102, 48 98, 905 / 906

r/

133. 329/331

211, 27/28 216, 13/23

Priscianvs

[u. Introd. cap. 4.B] Institutiones grammaticae [CPL (GL

(GL

2-3) :

1546] 2)

5. 1/2 5. 5/9

7.

2/4

7,

10/15

7, 7.

17/22 25/29

9.

5/8

5. 9/24 6, 10/14

5,

i4/i5app'

6, 14/17 6, 24 - 7, 5

7, 15A9 7, 19/23

15, 158/162 15, 165/172 20, 321/326 20, 328/332

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae [CPL (GL

243

(GL

2-3) :

1546} 2)

8, 11/14

17, 220/224

8, 19/20 8, 20/23

17, 225/226 16, 208/211

9. i/3 9. 3

37, 821/823 16, 190/193

811/812 37, 198/203 16, 25. 445/454

9, 18/21 9, 24/29 11, 5/12

36, 788/799

u, 12/22 II, 27 - 12, I 12. 3/4

17, 233/234 37, 800/802

12, 10/15 12, 16/19

23. 397/4°2

12, 20 - 13, 8

13, 112/116 33. 701/713

13, 8/10

13, 13, 18, 29.

13, 14/16 14. i/3 14. 3/i3

29. 581/584

14. 15/18 15, 1 - 16, 12

25. 25. 26, 27.

15, io“PP' n‘PP 16 i8,, 5/6 18, 9/12

cf. *pp-

18, 15 - 19, 8 19 . H

28, I5*pp 35, 24 - 36, 2 36. 5/9

662/686 916/917 405/412 4«

34- 715/719 H7. 487/491

36, 17/19

47, 243/245 pcf. *p

37. 8/9 37. 13/15 44. 5/7

42, 92/94 42, 114/116 39. 17/19

48, 16/17

4°. 32/35 77, 308/ 310

51, 21/26 52, 12/15

47, 247/251 40, 35/37 45, 187/192

52, 18 - 53, 3

54. 8/22

458/481 467/468 480 517/ 519

27. 519/522

32, p- 98, i/ *p 23. 23.

28, 9 - 29, 2

53. 4/6 53. 28 - 54, 4 54. 5/7

119/120 121/123 267/270 568/579

cf-

60, 52/55 59, 23/31 62, 110/113

cf

244

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546} (GL 2)

61,

55, 4/28

56/84

64, 155/164

55. 6/12

102, 61,

55. 13/20

60/68 85/109

56, 3/27 169, 244/246

56, 10/11

57, i/7

71, 154/159 65, 19/26

57, 13/17 57, 17 - 58, 4 71, 245/249 170/180 74,

58, 7/10 58, 14/18

77, 3W

3i9

58, 25 - 59, 1

77, 77, 330/335 319/322

59. 4/8 59, 13/19

78, 336/343

60, 1/2 60, 19/20

83, 501/503

cf

60, 23/27 61, 3/4

83, 494/496 83, 497/501 84, 504/505

61, 28

cf.

84, 528/531

62, 1/2 62, 3/4

f/

84, 532/536

c/1 63, 6/9

84, 506/512 80, 418/422 80, 424/427

63, 11/13 81, 427/428

64, 10/11 65, 12 - 68, 13

f/

81, 81, 436/439 429/432

65, 12/14 80, 409/ 416

65, 15/21

82, 461/470

68, 17 - 69, 1

7i, 80, W13 5/9

c/

79> 380/384

80, 11

79, 384/385

83, 2/5 83, 17/20

116,438/441

cf. app

83, 20/21

87, 608/610 598/ 601 87, 608/610

83, 22 - 84, 2

87, 604/608 87, 616/619

87, 11/14

9°, 17 - 91, 4 90, 17/20 91, 14/18

f/

89, 653/660 84, 519/ 521 89, 679 661/665 90,

92, 14/15 93, 12/14 93, 20 - 94, 6

94, 15/1°

91, 700/702 89, 91, 668/675 709/712

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

245

pag; lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546] (GL 2) 88, 629/632

95, 7/n 98, 3/5

87, 621/ 624 88, 627/629

99, 14/15

100, 1/4

88, 645/648

101, 11/14

91, 702/705

128, 24 - 129, 4 51, 115/118

129, 18 - 130, 2 141, 4/7

92, 51, 739/743 118/121

141, 16/19

94, 789/ 792 94, 794/797

-D

142, i/3

143, i/3 H

HO

94, 799/8oi 158, n/12

cf.

94, 803/ 808 143, 621/622

178, 19 - 179, 1

179, 4/5

95, 821/825

180, 12/14

95, 825/827

180, 15/16

95, 96, 829/831 842/844

180, 17/19 181, 1/3

95, 831/833 96, 840/ 842 96, 844/847

181, 8/n 183, 1/5

95, 833/837 100, 953/962

184, 6/17 186, 13 - 187, 11

99, 920/947

187, 7/8

188,

14

99, 950/ 942/943 100, 951

cf

143, 624/625

190, 2/7 i77, 32/34 98, 910/916 22, 378/379

191, 1/6 214, 17/18 215, 4

22, 381

215, 5

22, 380 22, 381/383 22, 372/ 375

215, 6/7 265, 7/11

365, 13A4

cf.

373, 4/7 4°5, 9/*7

155, 96o/969 155, 953/954

406, 1/2 407,

124,

22 - 408, 1

4°9, 5/io 4°9> 5/8 4°9> 5 410, 13/20

143, 621/622 151, 840/ 843

cf cf

99/113

138, 479/481

139- 495/499

144, 644 138, 482/487

246

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546} (GL 2)

199. 693 48/53 146,

410, 13/20 410, 14 (?)

4IX> 9/i2

cf.

141, 549 139. 508/512

cf.

199, 68/69

411, 17/18

411, 20/24 143, 609/612 140. 143, 534/535 612/614

412, 5/7 412, 16/18

cf.

413, 21/28

141, 551/553 133.

336/343

134.

347/354

413, 28 - 414, 5 414, 9 - 415, 17

cf

418, 28 - 419, 8

x54> 919/926 156,1003/1007

419, 19/22 420. 7/i3

156, 991/996

cf.

420, 9/10 421, 17/19 421, 21/27

152, 863/864 123-

74/76

123,

78/83

129, 201/205 158,1043/1044 124, 91/94

422, 8/12

423. x5 424. i/3 424, 8/11 424, 12 - 425,

156,973/974

124, 100/ 104 126, 136/147 5

425. 9/i2

127, 157/161

425, 13/18

x34. 358/364 142, 589/592 x42, 593/594

425, 20/22 426, 7/9

x42, 595/597 426, 19/21

158,1054/1059

427. xx/x5 149, 782/784

429, 1/2

x49> 79°/ 795 159,1059/1060

429, 10/14

159,1060/1065 x49> 773/775 429, 16/18 150, 815/817 429, 19 - 430,

x59,io65/xo75

3

150,

429, 21/24 429. 24/25 430,

24/25

801/803

r/

150, 803/806

f/

150, 806/ 807

431, 19/21

159,1076/1078

432, 9/10

x35> 37x/372 x35. 372/373

432, 12/13

247

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546] (GL 2) 432, 14/17

135, 102, 374/376 36/41

437, 19/24 442,

150,

22/27

448, 10 - 449,

f/!

5

821/827

158,1039/1043 I45 , 652/653

45°, i/2

cf.

45°, 1 459- 19/26

136, 421 28, 545/550

200 75/77 H1-, 553/555

472, 9 A1

483, 22/25

1:40 >

486, 26 - 487, 3

53:8/522

I4I, 5 5 7/ 563:

498, 17/23

142, 580/ 582

508, 12/15 19, 278/281

522, 1/2

59,

8/9

158,1046/1053

535, 9A6

cf

549, i/3

144, 645

552, 21 - 553, 3

176,

13/28

554, nA3

377,

29/ 31

179,

86/88

177,

37/38

177,

46/51

377,

52/ 60

557, 2/3 557, 4/5

177,

557, 14A6 558, 2/4 0°

HH

"4

558, 7A9

35/36

143:, 572/576 143:, 565/569

559, 25/28 561, 15/19 562, 2

178, 178, 178,

65/68 61/63 64

180,

124/129

179,

89/92

562, 13/18 565, n/13 567, 6/7 568, 8/10

179, 99/100 179, 180, 101/103 121/123

568, 16/17 569, 25/30 179, 571, 12/14

577, 14/20

107/111

179, 112/114 104, 136/142 105, 93/94

578, 18/19 104,

94/ 104

104,

113/123

581, 8/12

105,

125/130

586, 17/23

106, 160/166

586, 26 - 587, 5

107,

579, 15/23 580, 16/24

180/187

9

.

.

i

4

INDEX

248

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546} (GL 2)

106, 168/174

587, 17/22

cf.

589, 14/16 589, 23 - 590, 10

109, 257/260 260/171

107,

197/202

107, 202/206 108, 228/230 108, 217/220 109, 242/244

2

2, 59 1 3 /2 /2 17 22 24

, , , 7 591 591 591 i/

109,

591, 24/25

107, 592, 16/22

209/215

108, 233/240

593, 18/24

110, 274/278

593. 25 - 594. 1 594. 4/ 5

no,

278/280

101, 17/ 31 no, 282/288

594. 15/2° 595. 20 - 596, 4 (GL 3) 1, 2/6 2, 8

ni,

cf.

302/306

143, 624/625 in,

3i9/325

2, 25/30 112, 328/336 2, 3° - 3. 6

114, 39i/399

4/i3

4. 24/25

c/i

108, 223/225 115, 432/434

5. 17/18 6. 19/22

cf.

108, 223/225 117, 461 117, 462/463

8, 21

9. 4/5 9. 14

cf.

9, 20/25

116, 467/473 458 117, 116, 445/452 118, 495/ 497

11, 9, 26 2/3- 10, 10 118, 502/505

n, 4/8 11, 15/16

119, 520/521 ni, 309/ 311

n, 23/24 12, 7/n

ni, 311/316 114, 401/417

16, 12 - 17, 2 16, 15/16 17, 21

i/

108, 223/225

c/

115, 416/417

27, 4/i3

191,

141/15°

28, 19/24

190,

91/ 96

30, 9/i3 31, n/15 32, 10/17

33, i/4

192, 157/161 192, 162/165 188, 55/62 192, 165/167

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

Priscianvs

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) [CPL 1546 } 192, 167/169

33. 12/14

190,

87/ 89

36, 9/11 38, 26/27 38, 28/29

190, in 191, 114/115

40, 23/24

190,

112/113

40, 29/30

191,

113/114

47. 27 - 43. 1 43. 13A4

191, 116/118 191, 118/119 191, 119/120

43. 20 44. 22/24

191,

121/122

50, 26 - 51, 1 193, 177/181 192, 151/156 188, 46/54 190, 104/110

52, 19/25 52, 26 - 53, 1 56, 4/12

57, 9/i4

160, 18/19 193, 182/188

61, 13/15

172, 330/332 172, 332/333 161, 42/45

60, 2/5

61, 21/22 63, 10/13

161,

45/48

63, 18/19 64, 11 - 65, 7

cf

172, 334/338

172, 339/347

66, 4/11 67. 7/13 163, 67, 19/21 68, 12/13 68, 16/18 69, 18

96/102

163, 100/102 163, 103/105 163, 105/108 165, 135/136 165, 136/137

69, 28 - 70, 1

165, 137/139

7°, 4/6

163,

90/93

71, 6/8

163,

93/95

162,

56/58

7i. n/13 74, I5/I7 74, 20/21

75, 3/9 76, 5/9

!72, 324/326 164, II7/122 164, I08/lI0 169, 242/243

77, 6/7 77, 12/13 78, 22.25

164, II0/lI2 163, 89/90 164, II3/H5

79, 18/20 79, 27 - 80, 2 80 , 3/7

164, II5/116

80, 9/12

l68, 219/222

167, 213/218

250

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

Priscianvs

pag., lin.

Institutiones grammaticae (GL 2-3) : [CPL 1546} (GL 3)

168, 239/242

80, 22/25

172, 322/324

85, 22/24 86, 1/7

172, 318/321 87, 26/27

171, 316/318

88, 11/18

160, 163, 182,

89, 14/18

22/27 80/88 42/45

127/ 129 186, 129 186 ,

93, 13/16

95, 27 - 96, 1

96, 1/7 cf.

96, 23/24

182, 29/ 30 182,

51/58

183, 183,

60/61 62/65

103, 5/11 x°4, 14/15 104, 20/25 233, 25/29

cf

144, 639/647

Institutio de nomine , pronomine et uerbo (GL 3) : [CPL

102,

75.50]

51/55

n6, 435

449. 7/io 449. 35 - 45°. 2 449. 35

103.

72/77

i°3>

77/79

450, 9/11 140, 530/531

454. 4

143, 627/628 142, 602/603

454. n/12

143. 615

454. H 454. 17/18

142, 598/ 599 143, 616/617

454, 20/21 456, 18/23

i77.

39/45

Partitiones XII uersuum Aeneidos principalium (GL 3): [CPL 475,

7552]

21/22

496, 27app'

< :/ 1

f

143, 621/622

9°, 694/ 697

Probvs

Instituta artium {GL 4) : 39. 18


1 - i97, 34 202, 24/27 203, 28/48

24/ 25

cf f/ 329/336 aPP' 133, 334

203, 32 210, 6/10

cf.

149, 782/784

211, 21/26

cf.

149, 784/787

270, 19/21

cf.

178,

65/68

158, 1041/1043

321, 57/60

Ser(e)givs

(ps.-)

[a. Introd.

cap.

4.3]

De littera, de syllaba, de pedibus, de accentibus, de distinctione ( GL 4) : 9.

3/4

475. 5/6 475. 6/9 19, 5. 273/277 94/98

475. 14 ^ 476, 2

20, 315/320 28, 539/542

476, 3/8 476, 22/24 476, 24/26

31, 618 / 621

477. 7/12

35. 746/752

477, 20/26 482, 9/14

33, 688/693

484, 5/10

51, 107/109 53, 156/162

484, 27/30 484, 30 - 485, 7

Explanationes

Ser(e)givs

56,

15/18

56,

20/30

in artem Donati, u. Explanationes

"novvs”

(?)

26, 499

Loci non reperti [u. Introd. cap. 4.B] -

3°. 598

-

45. I74 34. 720

INDEX

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

253

pag., lin.

Servivs

181,

2/ 4

187,

2/3

cf cf.

176, 181,

2/4 2/4

420, 9/12

cf cf. cf.

181, 181, 187,

13/17 18/21 13/17

420, 22/24

cf.

178,

82/85

430,

19/23

cf

430,

29/ 32

Commentarius

in artem Donati (GL 4) .•

406, 5/6 406, 6/7

4i6, 27 418, 4/14 418, 6/17 418, 17/20

438, 17/22

83, 494/496

cf.

178,

f/

161, 34/35 162, 76/ 79

439. 22/23

82/85

165, 144/145

44°. 17

cf

187, 2/ 4 17 6, 2/3

cf

187. 13/17

cf.

194,

22/28

cf.

194,

22/28

745/754 78, 354/361

(p. 31, 12 - 32, 4)

52, 160/163

96, 859/ 863

(p. 33, 7/10) 56, 215/217 56, 222/230 68, 1/19

97- 872/874

(p. 35, 12/13)

97’ 890/897 102, 44/47 62, 113/128

(p. 35, 18 - 36, 7) (p. 42, 8 - 43, 10)

70, 26/30

70, 30/34

65,3887/10 79, 80, 405

46, 6

46> 56/73

93/107 10/17

105, 145/149 162, 52/55

(p- 43. 17/20) (p. 43, 20 - 44, 4)

7°. 47/52 72, 53/67 74, 98/103 74, 104/109

74’ I09 - 76, 113 76, 113/120 76, 124/127

(P- 44- 17/20) (p. 44, 22 - 45, 13)

n9> 120, 53i/543 551/555

(p. 46, 32 - 47, 1)

112, 343/348 H2> 339/343 120, 544/549

(p. 47, 1/6) (p. 47, 6/10)

106,

(p. 47, 10/17) (p. 48, 3/6)

118, 516 121, 512/ 23/24

76, 129/134 80, 10/12 80, 14/17 82, 27/33 82, 35/40 82, 40/44 84, 53/61 84, 66/71

151/154

(p. 48, 7/12) (p- 50, 3/5)

121,

(p. 50, 6/10) (P- 51. 3/9)

16/19

123, 61/ 66 124, 84/89 124, 95/97

(p. 51, 11/16) (p. 51, 16/19) 119/126 125, 128/133

(p. 52, 8/17)

126, 150/154

(p. 52, 21 - 53, 5)

84- 72/77 (p- 53’ 5/10) 84, 78 - 86, 93 86, 95/98 86, 100

- 88, 112

128, 187/198 128, 198/199

(p. 53, 10 - 54, 5) (p- 54- 7/9)

133,

(P- 54- 9 - 55- 3)

88, 114/119 88, 129/138 90, 147/157 90, 169 - 92, 175 92, 175/181 92, 185/190 96, 34/36

96, 39/44 104, 154/163 104, 154

318/327

130, 246/250 (p. 55, 5/10)

13I’ 255/264

(p. 55, 20 - 56, 4) (p. 56, 13/21)

147. 721/728 148, 762/767

(p. 57, 8/14)

147- 728/734

(p. 57, 14/20)

148’ 734/738

(p. 58, 2/7)

p (p. 59, 15/16)

aPP'

151, 827/829 152, 829/834 872 151,

(p. 59, 19/24) (p. 63, 23 - 64, 2) (p- 63, 23)

c) 152, 872

INDEX

Virgilivs

Maro

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

lin.

pag

grammaticus

255

Epitomae (ed. Polara); [CPL 106, 206 no,

1559] - 108, 216

243/253

112, 18 - 1x4, 22 114, 22/35 114, 35/38

114. 39/43

(ed. Huemer) 156, 979/987 (p. 65, 20 - 66, 1) (p. 67, 3/13)

160, 14/17 157,1022/1031

(p. 68, 12/16)

164, 124/ 134

(p. 68, 16 - 69, 6)

(p. 69, 10/14)

118, 82/85

49/52

162,

58/62

164, 123 /124

116, 60/62 116, 66/71 ix6, 74

162,

(p. 69, 6/10)

(p. 70, 8/10) 174, 374/ 378

(p. 70, 14/19) (p. 70, 22)

cf.

(p. 71, 6/9)

c/

136, 422 137, 436/439 138, 456/458 197, 9/11 139, 489/491

118, 85/87 (p. 71, 9/11)

197, 118, 87/88

n8,

(p. 71, 11/13)

12/ 14

i39. 502 r97. 500/ I4/I5

89/98 (p. 71, 13/22)

118, 92/96 120, 128/133 120, 134 - 122, 141 122, 141/147 X22, I47/15O 124, I79/l87

(p. 71, 17/20)

cf.

(P- 73. 2/7)

157, 1012/ 1020 138, 458/460 185,

(p- 73. 7/i4)

121/126

184, 101/106 186, 130/133 185, 107/112

(p. 73, 14 - 74, 3) (p. 74, 3/6)

191, 129/134

(p. 75, 12/19)

Epistulae (ed. Polara) ; [CPL

7559]

184, 37/47

(ed. Huemer) (p. 110, 15/25)

173. 365/373 *94. 197/207 206, 14 - 208, 39 208, 39/43

(p. 121, 13 - 122, 15) (p. 122, 15/19)

224, 302 - 226, 310

(p. 130, 30 - 131, 6) (p. 131, 7)

226, 310 252, 373/397 260, 515/518 280, 15 - 282, 32 284, 64/69

(p. 142, 32 - 143, 8)

113, 358/362 117. 477/483 cf. cf.

(p. 147, 9/12)

296, 76 - 298, 88 302, 173 - 304, 190 - 306, 217

308, 254/255

n7,

474/476

158, 1031/1032 134, 366/368

(p. 156, 15 - 157, 9)

174. 389/393 379/388 174,

(p. 158, 7/12) (p. 161, 8/15)

292, 8/x6

304, 210

93. 760/768 113, 365/385

(p. 115, 29 - 116, 9)

176,

(p. 163, 15/27)

cf.

(p. 166, IO - 167, 1)

cf.

8/12

179, 104/106 179. 93/98 180, 115 /119

(p. 167, 22 - 168, 3) (p. 169, 7/8)

cf.

180,

119/120

256

Virgilivs

INDEX

Maro

Fragmenta

GRAMMATICORVM

ET RHETORVM

pag., lin.

grammaticus

(in cod. Bern. 123).'

(GL

8)

(p. 189, 1/12) (p. 189, 13/19)

42, 99/112 44, 167/173

2U

Loci non reperti:

3r

[u. Introd. cap. 4.B] -

4B

73/75

97, 886/ 887 Wirceburgensis

Fragmenta

cod.

M.p.th.f.132

duo de partibus orationis:

[u. Introd. capp. 3 ; 4.A.1]

116, 450/452 117, 461/463 117, 467/473

ir

117. 477/483 117, 118, 487/491 495/497 118, 502/505 118, 512/516 121, 520/521 7/i3 119, 119. 531/ 555 121,

16/19

121, 122,

23/24 48/49

123, 122, 123,

60/61 51/59 61/66

iu

iru

IU-2'

“3.

74/75

123,

78/97

124,

99/113

2r

124, 100/ 104 125, 128/133 119/126 126, 136/154

127, 157/161 162/166 127, 168/175

2m

2U

i

128, 180/184 128, 187/189 148, 749/758 148, 762/767 158,1046/1053

t 150, 818

INDEX

Wirceburgensis

GRAMMATICORVM

cod. M.p.th.f.132

Fragmenta duo de partibus orationis : T

ET RHETORVM

257

pag., lin.

150, 821/827 151, 827/829 151, 829/834

00 ^

c

151, 835/838 158,1054/1078 151, 840/ 843 151, 844 151, 850/857 152, 859/861 154. 932/938 8U

CONCORDANTIA ARS DONATI

GRAMMATICI

ed. L. Holtz

—

ed. H. Keil

CONCORDANTIA

DONATI

ARS GRAMMATICI ARS MINOR H. Keil

L. Holtz

Pag-,

585, 586,

lin.

i/3 II 4

pag., lin. = 355. 1 II 2/3

6 II 7 II I3-

= =

1 || 19/20 20/21

|| 25.

587.

1 II 29-

588,

t || 2 || 21/22.

589.

1 || 16/17 i7/i8

590. 59T

592,

1 || 24. 1 II 3

594. 595.

597-

602^

37/38

|| 40.

1 3 II 4/5 II 19/20 20/21 || 37.

= 360,

1 || 3

=

4 II 33/34

1 || 30.

1 II 3/4

=

4 II 28.

= 361, 1 | 26/27 = 27/28 || 38.

1 || 11 11/12

1 II I3/C5 15/16 I

|| 21.

599.

601 ,

=

5 II 6 || 21. 1 || 18/19

4 II 5 II 18. 1 || 11 598, 11/12 || 28. 1

600,

= 358, 1 || 11/12 = 12/13 II 36/37

= =

24 || 25 || 26.

596>

6/7 II 35/36.

= 359.

| 22.

1 || 4/5

= 1 II 2/3 II 20 =357. 21/2 2 || 37.

3/4

19/20

593-

II 27-

= 356.

4 II 5/6 II io/ii 11/1 2 II 29.

= 362, =

=363. =

=

II 37-

1 14 || 15/16 || 16/17 17/18 || 32. 1 9II 7/8 8/ 12 || 13/14 || 24/26 26/27 II 35-

= 364. 1 II 18/19 = 19/21

12 || 13 II 19

=

20 || 21. 1

= =365.

7 || 8 || 18. 1 || 9/10 10/11 || 20.

= -

1 II 2 || 5.

34/35

= 366,

32 || 33/34

II 39-

1/2 || 2/3 3/4 9 | 10/11 || 21/22 22/23 || 32. 1 || 11 12 || 13/14

II 16/17.

262

CONCORDANTIA ARS MAIOR L. Holtz

H. Keil

lin.

603, pag.,

-

= pag., 367. lin.l/3 =

I || 2 604,

605,

OO 607,

608, 609,

6lO,

5 II 6 || 9. N I ||O-IO/II 11/12 | 16. 1

IO 1 II II

II 4

II 15.

I4/I5

II 17-

1 || 26. 1 II 2/3

4 II 5 II 1717/1 1

= 370,

1 || 2 || 8. I

615,

1 || 2 || 9.

6i6,

11. || 4/5 1 II 1

5/6 || 10. 1 || 14.

621,

14/15

|| 18.

1 || 16. 1 II 91 || 1/2

16 || 17/18

4/5

II 33/34

34/35

II 37-

= 37T 1 II 2/3 II 14/15 = 15/16 || 32/33 = 3333 /2

= 372, 1 || 12/13 = 14 II 15/16

|| 23

= =

|| 29/30.

— 24

|| 25/26

= 373. 1 II 2/3 || io/ii = 11/12 || 22/23 = = 374. = = = 375.

23/24

|| 28.

1 II 5/6 6/7 || 18/20 20/21 || 34. 1 II 4/5

= =

5/6 || 23/24 24/25 || 33/34

=

34/35

II 35-

622, 623,

2/3 II ii-

= 1 13 II 11/12 =376, 12/ II 24

1 || 12. 1 II 7/8

=

624,

8 || 9.

= 377.

625,

1 II i4-

= =

1 II I3/I4 626,

I4/I5

II 15-

1 II i9-

|| 25.

1 II 3/4

=

1 II 13/14

620,

17 II 18/19 || 22/23 23/24 || 27.

=

=

2 || 3 II 7-

619,

1 9|| 6/8 8/

=

6l4,

618,

= =

111 2

II 22.

5 II 6 || 13/14

1/2 || 9.

617,

=368, =

8 || 9/10 12/13

= 369, 1 || 10/11 = 11/12

6l2,

613,

=

4/5 II r3I

1 II I76ll,

=

4 II 5/6

24/25

|| 32.

1 II 2 3 II 17/18 18/20 || 33.

= 378,

1 II 1/2

=

3/4

II 22/23

263

ARS ARS

DONATI MAIOR

L. Holtz

H.

Keil

lin. pag., 627, 1 || 9/IO 10/11 || 16. 628, 629,

631,

= 379.

1 II *3-

=

1 II 2 || 9

=

9/10

630.

pag., lin. = 378, 23/24

|| 13.

1 II i31 || 9/10

10 II i4-

=

380,

= =

633.

1 II II 95 II i24

= =

9/10

= 382, =

636,

637. 638, 639.

1 || 21. 1 II 3/4

5 II 151 || 11. 1 || 2

4 II M1 || 14.

1 II 4/5

=

640, 641,

642,

643. 644. 645.

646,

i3 II 14/15 II 21/22 22/23 II 3i1 || 6/8

8/9

|| 29/30

30/31

II 34-

=

384,

= =

1 || 12/13 13/14 28/29

II 27/28 II 33-

1 II 9

1 || 2 || 15.

=

10

1 II 2/3

=

26/27

3/4 II x4-

= 386, 1 || 14/15 = 15/16 || 33.

|| 11/12

|| 25/26

II 28-

1 || 16/17. 1 II i5-

=

1 || 2 || 15.

=

1 || 1/2

2/3 II i7I 13 II 14 II i7-

647.

7/9 II 21/22 22/24 II 33-

= 383. 1 II 9/1» = 10/11 || 19/21 = 21/22 || 23.

= 385. 5/6 || 12.

|| 30.

I || 6/7

I II 6/7

1

635-

II 21

|| 23/24

7/8

632,

|| 15.

7/8

22

= 381, =

634.

|| 34.

1 II 6/7

17/j 1 1/2 || 11.

387,

1 || 16

17 II 18/19 II 30/31

= 31/32 II 32= 388, 1 || 16 = 16/17 = =

27 || 28/29 II 30/31 31.

=

3 1/-T

= 389. I II 13/14 = 14/16

648,

I

3 II 4 II I

=

18 II 19/20 II 29/30

649.

=

30/31-

2 || 19-

= 390, I II 19/20 = 20/21 II 30.

650.

I || IO 11 || 13.

= 39T

1 II 4

264 CONCORDANTIA:

ARS

ARS

DONATI

MAIOR H.

L. Holtz

Keil

lin. pag., 651,

652,

1 II 15I

4 II 5 II 9/Jo 10/11

653, 654. 655.

656,

| 13.

I II 2 || 12. I II 13/14

14/15 II 153 II 4 II 171 II 13

1 II l61

4 II 5 II 11

659, 660,

11/12

|| 14.

1 || 14. I

7 || 8 || io/ii 12 || 13. 66l , 1 12.

662, 663,

664,

665, 666,

= = 392,

=

= = 393,

25

|| 26/27

4 II 16/17

5/6 || 15/16 || 28.

2/ 1 3II 1/2

1 II !31

= = = 394,

5 II 6/7 || 19/20 20/21 || 33. 1 II 5

= =

6/7 || 21/22 22/ 23

=

25

= 395, =

|| 26/27

5 II 19

=

20/21

=

27

= 396,

|| 28/29

3/4

=

16/17

II 15 II 29.

1

4 II 5 II 13-

= —

4 II 5/6 16 || 26

-I || IO

=

26/29.

11

II 15-

1 II 7 1 15-

= 398, = =

|| 15

1 II 5/6

7 II 23 24

|| 31.

8 || 17.

668,

1 II || 7 2 || 13.

= 399, 1 II 11 = 12 || 13/14 = 24 || 30.

669,

8 || 17.

= 400, 131 || 11/12 = II 29

670,

1 || 14. 1 II 2/3

=

672,

673. 674.

II 12. 4 II 151 II 4

5 II 131 II 15I || IO.

30/31

II 33-

=401, 121 || = 10/11 || 27

=

28/29

|| 31.

= 402, 1 | 9/10 = 10/11 II 24 =

II 31-

1 || 2

=

= 397,

II 32-

1 II 4

667,

671,

II 3°-

1 II 3

I

657. T4 II 17658,

pag., lin.

/23 || 20/21 ==39*. 215/6

24/25

II 34.

II 23

■

EMENDANDA

pag., lin.

42, 90 46, 218

emendanda

app.crit. lege: dygtongi V (cf. I. 21S infra ) app.crit. lege: digtongus V (cf. I. 90 supra )

ERRATA lin.

corrigenda

p*g •>

22,

2

383 7. 671 64, 777 32> l6l 36.

Imprime

loco: Priscinanus loco: uestustissimi loco: aspriatione loco: E contario

lege: Priscianus lege: uetustissimi lege: aspiratione lege: E contrario

loco: autum lege: autem.

par les Usines Brepols S.A. — Turnhout Printed in Belgium D/1982/0095/25 ISBN ISBN ISBN

2-503-03409-8 relie 2-503-03400-4 broche 2-503-03000-9 serie

(Belgique)

DATE

CARR

McLEAN,

DUE

TORONTO

FORM

#38-297

3763 70