The latin of roman lexicography. Ediz. multilingue 9788862273763, 9788862273770

Table of contents :
Titlepage
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
HOW DO LEXICA FIT INTO A WORK OF FICTION Dirk Uwe Hansen
DE L’ENCYCLOPÉDIE AU GLOSSAIRE: FESTUS ET SON ADAPTATION PAR PAUL DIACRE Marie-Karine Lhommé
NONIO MARCELLO E LA
SERVIUS ON STYLISTIC REGISTER IN HIS VIRGIL COMMENTARIES Robert Maltby
AS LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE: A REASSESSMENT* Jonathan G. F. Powell
«QVAE NVSQVAM NISI IN DIVERSIS COTTIDIANIS GLOSSEMATIBVS REPPERI» (
THE MAKING OF A LATE-ANTIQUE BILINGUAL GLOSSARY* Rolando Ferri
ETYMOLOGIEN IN DEN
PROBLÈMES DE LEXICOGRAPHIE HUMANISTE: UN SAVANT ET UN DICTIONNAIRE, PAOLO MANUZIO ET LE CALEPIN Martine Furno
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX OF PASSAGES DISCUSSED
INDEX OF SUBJECTS1
PLATES

Citation preview

T HE LAT IN OF RO M AN L E X I CO G RAP HY

isbn 978-88-6227-376-3 isbn elettronico 978-88-6227-377-0

Ricerche sulle lingue di frammentaria attestazione_Sovracoperta 03/02/11 10.05 Pagina 1

T H E LAT I N O F RO M A N LEXICOGRAPHY edited by ROLANDO FERRI

rice rche su l l e l ingu e di fr amme ntaria atte stazione

7.

P I SA · RO MA FABRIZIO SERRA EDITORE MMXI

RI CE RCH E S U LLE LIN G UE DI F RA M M E N TA RI A AT T E S TAZ ION E col la na diretta da paolo po cc etti *

7.

T H E LAT I N O F RO M A N LEXICOGRAPHY edited by ROLANDO FE RRI

PIS A · ROMA FABRIZ IO SERRA E DITO RE MMXI

The publication of this volume was funded by the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Lucca and the Università degli Studi di Pisa. Photos of Suppl. gr. 43 have been included by kind permission of önb, Wien. * Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, l’adattamento, anche parziale o per estratti, per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica, il microfilm, la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta della Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma. Ogni abuso sarà perseguito a norma di legge. * Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved © Copyright 2011 by Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma. www.libraweb.net Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, i 56127 Pisa, tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, [email protected] Uffici di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I, i 00185 Roma, tel. +39 06 70493456, fax +39 06 70476605, [email protected] * Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy isbn 978-88-6227-376-3 isbn elettronico 978-88-6227-377-0

This page intentionally left blank

C ONTEN T S Rolando Ferri, Introduction Rolando Ferri, List of Contributors Dirk Uwe Hansen, How do lexica fit into a work of fiction Marie-Karine Lhommé, De l’encyclopédie au glossaire: Festus et son adaptation par Paul Diacre Paolo Gatti, Nonio Marcello e la Compendiosa doctrina Robert Maltby, Servius on stylistic register in his Virgil commentaries Jonathan G. F. Powell, The Appendix Probi as linguistic evidence: a reassessment Frédérique Biville, «Quae nusquam nisi in diversis cottidianis glossematibus repperi» (gl , vii .167.8-9). Gloses et glossaires bilingues chez Martyrius Rolando Ferri, Hermeneumata Celtis. The making of a late-antique bilingual glossary Paolo Pieroni, Etymologien in den Variae Cassiodors Martine-Noëlle Furno, Problèmes de lexicographie humaniste: un savant, et un dictionnaire. Paolo Manuzio et le Calepin

9 11 13

187

Abbreviations and Bibliography

223

Index of passages discussed

235

Index of subjects

241

Plates

251

29 49 63 75 121 141 171

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODU C T I O N Rolando Ferri

T

his volume collects the written versions of a research conference which took place in Pisa on 5-6 December 2008 (The Latin of Roman Lexicography from Verrius to the Corpus glossariorum). My original intention, in inviting speakers to discuss this topic in Pisa, was to investigate levels of awareness of language register in the works of the Roman lexicographers, as a coda to work done with Philomen Probert on Roman authors’ awareness of language register, in Chahoud and Dickey (2010). Different perspectives were of course welcome and warmly encouraged, in the hope that a broader picture of this relatively neglected field could emerge from the final proceedings. The selection of the speakers also reflected some attempt to cover the entire chronological span of lexicographical activity in Rome. The volume offers therefore a multifaceted approach to the study of Roman lexicography, hopefully useful to readers coming from different departments of knowledge. However, the amount of intersection between the papers is highlighted by cross-references in various chapters and in the final subject index. The label of ‘Roman lexicography’ is naturally inclusive of anonymous or pseudo-epigrapha glossaries and word-lists, both monolingual (Latin-Latin) and bilingual (Greek-Latin or the reverse). These lexica are extant mostly in medieval redactions but, thanks to papyrus finds, we now know them to have been common from a relatively early period in antiquity. Such word-lists are of extraordinary interest from a linguistic perspective because they transmit vocabulary which is rare or entirely unknown from the literary evidence, since the latter makes up for the most part what we have and what we know about Latin. Indeed, the first Latin dictionaries aiming at a comprehensive account of the language, irrespective of whether a word was obsolete or otherwise interesting because of some grammatical irregularity, are the bilingual alphabetical dictionaries, of which we have evidence from the iii century onwards, such as P. Sorb. inv. 2069 – on which see now Dickey and Ferri 2011 and Dickey 2011 –, P. Sorb. 2140, and the originally huge sixth-century glossary, perhaps written in Constantinople, surviving only in the two fragments of Cologne and Göttingen (Köln, Historisches Archiv W* 352; Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Diplomatischer Apparat 8 C, D), which I discuss in this volume, 143-144. In the present volume, the historical-linguistic perspective is represented in the three chapters written by J. G. F. Powell, F. Biville and myself, dwelling mostly on the nature, origins, and register − and, equally frequently, the exact meaning − of the Latin preserved in glossaries and word-lists, respectively the Appendix Probi (perhaps v century), the essay On consonantal B and vocalic V by

10 rolando ferri Martyrius (v century), and Hermeneumata Celtis (extant in a Humanistic copy, but dating back to late-antique sources). Particularly centered on definitions of register and style level in poetic language is also R. Maltby’s chapter on Servius, whereas P. Pieroni’s piece on Cassiodorus investigates this crucial intellectual figure’s analysis of language through etymology, an omnipresent factor in ancient and modern lexicography. D. U. Hansen’s chapter, devoted to the narratological strategies used in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae in deploying and accommodating word-lists to the ‘story’ of his «Learned Banqueteers», is poised between the literary and the linguistic and includes a lively analysis of Athenaeus’ flaunting of some far-fetched Latin vocabulary. Readers will find a different, not purely linguistic approach, in the papers by Lhommé and Gatti, in which sharp outlines are offered of the working methods of the two most important extant Roman lexicographers, Festus and Nonius. Ancient lexicography tended to be either prescriptive (teaching the correct selection of words) or philological (intending to explain difficult vocabulary, especially poetic, for school reading). Festus and Nonius fall into the latter category, discussing many obsolete words, or word used in earlier poets in meanings remote from current usage. Festus in particular dwells on many words connected with Roman religious custom and can be said to come closer to an encyclopedia, especially of realia, a Daremberg - Saglio ante litteram. Lhommé and Gatti include original contributions on, respectively, the cultural presuppositions and the characteristics of the abridgements of Festus’ entries by Paul the Deacon (Lhommé) and the compositional methods of Nonius (Gatti). Finally, Martine Furno, before plunging into a presentation of Paulus Manutius’ methods and purpose in preparing his Additamenta to Ambrogio Calepino’s dictionary, surveys the methods and readership of medieval and Humanistic lexicography up to Estienne’s Thesaurus.

L IS T OF C ONTRI BUTO RS Frédérique Biville is Professeur émérite at the Université Lumière Lyon ii . She has written numerous books and articles on Latin linguistics. She is particularly well-known for her books on Greek borrowings in Latin (Les Emprunts du Latin au Grec, i-ii, 1990, 1995), and on Greek-Latin bilingualism. Rolando Ferri is Professore ordinario at the Università di Pisa. He has worked on Horace (I dispiaceri di un epicureo, 1993), Pseudo-Seneca, Octavia (2003) and the bilingual Hermeneumata. Martine-Noëlle Furno is Professeur de langue et littérature latine at the Université Stendhal Grenoble 3. She has published widely on the history of Latin and on Humanistic and Renaissance and lexicography (Le Cornu Copiae de Niccolò Perotti, culture et méthode d’un humaniste qui aimait les mots, 1995). She has also edited (with M. Carpo), Leon Battista Alberti. Descriptio urbis Romae (2000), and La collection Ad usum Delphini. volume ii (2005). She is now working on a book on Polydore Vergil. Paolo Gatti is Professore ordinario at the Università di Trento. He was for many years Mitarbeiter at the Thesaurus linguae Latinae in Munich and has published extensively on Latin grammatical writers and glossaries. Among his publications in book form are the Glossae Nonii Leidenses (2005), Cassiodorus’ Complexiones in epistulis Pauli apostoli (2009) and Ainardo. Glossario (2000). Dirk Uwe Hansen is Wissenschaftlicher Angestellter am Lehrstuhl für Klassische Philologie at the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald. He has published several books and articles on, inter alia, Greek lexicography (Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris, 1998), Athenaeus, the Greek novel, Theognis, Lucian. Marie-Karine Lhommé is Maître de conférences at the Université Lumière Lyon ii . She has published several articles on Festus and Verrius Flaccus. Her book Antiquaires et recherches sur la religion romaine à l’époque du Haut Empire: l’exemple du De uerborum significatione de Festus is to appear later in the year. Robert Maltby is Emeritus Professor of Latin Philology at the University of Leeds. He has published several books and articles, in particular A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (1991), and Tibullus Elegies: Text, Introduction and Commentary (2002). He is also wellknown for his work on Latin comedy and, more recently, Vulgar Latin. Paolo Pieroni is Humboldt-Stipendiat at the Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. He has published the book Marcus Verrius Flaccus’ De significatu verborum in den Auszügen von Sextus Pompeius Festus und Paulus Diaconus (2004) and several articles. He is now working on Cassiodorus’ Variae.

12

rolando ferri

Jonathan G. F. Powell is Professor of Latin at Royal Holloway, University of London. He has published widely on many topics of Latin literature and Latin linguistics. Among other things, he is the editor of Cicero’s De re publica, De legibus, De senectute and De amicitia for the «Oxford Classical Texts» (2006).

HOW DO L EXI CA F I T INTO A WOR K O F F I CT I O N Dirk Uwe Hansen ¢ÂÈÓÔϲÔÊÈϲÙ·›Ø ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ âϲÙdÓ Ô≈Ùˆϲ âÈÁÚ·ÊfiÌÂÓÔÓ…, ¬ âϲÙÈÓ âˆÊÂϤϲ.1

E

ver since the compiler of the Byzantine lexicon known to us as the Suda wrote these words about the only preserved writing of Athenaeus of Naucratis, scholars have seen the Deipnosophistae as a useful source of learned material. In this book, Athenaeus describes a number of meetings of sophists that fictionally take place in Rome sometime near the end of the ii century ad. During these meetings an incredible amount of food, drink and learning was put on display, as is reported in the Deipnosophistae. The participants in these learned dinners, some of whom bear famous names, discuss the food that is served to them mainly by citing passages from Greek literature, especially from Greek comedy, connected with all sorts of wine, bread, fish, garlands and whatever comes into their way. Since most of the works cited by them are now lost, the reader’s impression while following their discourse is that of a group of philologists reading out aloud to one another, or rather citing from memory, KasselAustin’s Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum and similar works. But the Deipnosophistae are not meant to be merely a collection of fragments or a lexicon of ancient food. They are meant to be a work of fiction, though they are, as far as I can see, only very rarely read in this way.2 Athenaeus himself opens his work, as we can see from the remains of his prologue preserved only in the epitome, in the following way:

·éÙfiϲ, t \Aı‹Ó·ÈÂ, ÌÂÙÂÈÏËÊgϲ ÙÉϲ ηÏÉϲ âΛÓËϲ ϲ˘ÓÔ˘ϲ›·ϲ ÙáÓ ÓÜÓ âÈÎÏËı¤ÓÙˆÓ ‰ÂÈÓÔϲÔÊÈϲÙáÓ, ≥ÙÈϲ àÓa ÙcÓ fiÏÈÓ ÔÏ˘ıÚ‡ÏËÙÔϲ âÁ¤ÓÂÙÔ, j ·Ú’ ôÏÏÔ˘ Ì·ıgÓ ÙÔÖϲ ëÙ·›ÚÔÈϲ ‰ÈÂÍ“ÂÈϲ; – ·éÙfiϲ, t TÈÌfiÎÚ·ÙÂϲ, ÌÂÙ·ϲ¯ÒÓ.

(Deipn. 1.1a)

This beginning of course reminds us of Plat. Symp. 172B3 as well as of the beginning of Plato’s Phaedo: ·éÙfiϲ, t º·›‰ˆÓ, ·ÚÂÁ¤ÓÔ˘ ™ˆÎÚ¿ÙÂÈ âΛӖ Ù” ì̤Ú0 Õ Ùe Ê¿ÚÌ·ÎÔÓ öÈÂÓ âÓ Ù† ‰Âϲ̈ÙËÚ›Å, j ôÏÏÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ õÎÔ˘ϲ·ϲ; – ·éÙfiϲ, t \E¯¤ÎÚ·ÙÂϲ.

(Plat. Phaed. 57A) 1 «Deipnosophistae: there is a book of this name…, which is very useful.» (Suid. ¢ 359). 2 Cf. Hansen 2000, 223-236. 3 Âå¤, ϲf ·éÙeϲ ·ÚÂÁ¤ÓÔ˘ Ù” ϲ˘ÓÔ˘ϲ›0 Ù·‡Ù– j Ôû;

14

dirk uwe hansen

Athenaeus’s claim to have produced a piece of art is strengthened further if we compare the following phrase: Ôé ÌfiÓÔÓ ÙÔÖϲ ôÏÏÔÈϲ àÏÏa ηd ÏfiÁÔÈϲ ÂîϲÙ›· (Deipn. 1.2b) with Plato’s Phaedrus 227B ‰ÉÏÔÓ ¬ÙÈ ÙáÓ ÏfiÁˆÓ ñÌÄϲ §˘ϲ›·ϲ ÂîϲÙ›·.1 Likewise, the appearance of well-known names in the Deipnosophistae hints more at the fictional nature of the characters than at any possibility of identifying them positively. Of course it is intriguing to identify a doctor named Galenus in the Deipnosophistae with a doctor named Galenos we all know, but it is as hard to believe that this great medical scholar ever shared a meal with Plutarch as it is to believe that Athenaeus might have mistaken Plutarch from Chaironea for an otherwise unknown Plutarch from Alexandria. And why, if we insist on identifying Ulpian with the famous jurist, should his opponent bear a name that is merely a nickname derived from his philosophical creed, Cynulcus (which could be translated as ‘leader of the dogs’)? Even the seemingly firm identification of Larensis as P. Livius Larensis pontifex minor, whose epitaph we still possess, has recently been put in doubt again by David Braund.2 Thus, we must take into consideration that for the author Athenaeus the narrative framework of this book was at least as important as the learned material he collected within this frame. But then again, the Deipnosophistae are not a collection of lexica interrupted by pieces of narrative, but rather a narrative interrupted by extensive catalogues and lexica.3 Athenaeus does not intend us to read the Deipnosophistae as the record of a series of conversations in the house of his patron Larensis – if this is what he is –, or as a mere listing of the results thereof, though this is the way in which his work is treated more often than not. Indeed, reading the Deipnosophistae for pleasure is made extremely difficult by the very structure of the work itself. It is not easy to follow the course of a conversation in which any of the disputants might talk on a given topic such as the history of sympotic literature without interruption for an entire book out of fifteen, as Masurius does, covering the whole of book five with his talk. It is even more difficult to follow ‘the action’ when the content of what was said by the Deipnosophists is arranged in alphabetical order, thus presenting a catalogue – or a lexicon – instead of transcribing, as it were, a learned talk, as is the case with the famous lexicon of cups in book 11 and fish in book 7 (but there are even more and yet smaller lexica to be found throughout the whole of the book). Nevertheless there still might be some who enjoy such digressions as they enjoy the cetology in Melville’s Moby Dick for example. But why, then, if Athenaeus wants us to read the Deipnosophistae as a piece of prose fiction, does he include so many word-lists, catalogues 1 If we take it for granted that the author of the epitome took this from Athenaeus himself. 2 Braund 2000, 3-22. 3 Gulick 1951, xi, and, more recently, Rodriguez-Norriega Guillén 2000, 254, who consequently accuse him of carelessness in his composition.

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction 15 and even lexica in that mega biblion of his, passages, as the reader soon enough discovers, that prove to be obstacles to reading rather than integral parts of the ‘action’? To answer this question, I propose first to investigate the mode of including catalogues and lexica in the work, and then to look at the narratological function of learned material in the Deipnosophistae, taking as examples the lexicon of cups in book 11, the lexicon of fish in book 7, the lexicon of bread in book 3, the lexicon of poultry in book 9 and finally the small number of Latin glosses we can find in this work. One way of including lexicographical material, or better, of fictionalizing lexicographical material is to fit this material into the action. There is a good example illustrating Athenaeus’s use of this technique in book 14, when the guests are discussing cakes. Democritus has come to the end of a long talk on this subject and then says to Ulpian (Deipn. 14.639b): ‘à¤¯ÂÈϲ, t ηϤ ÌÔ˘ ÏÔÁÈϲÙa OéÏÈ·Ó¤, ÙcÓ ÎÔÙ‹ÓØ wϲ ϲ˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï‡ˆ ϲÔÈ àÂϲı›ÂÈÓ.’ ηd nϲ Ôé‰bÓ ÌÂÏÏ‹ϲ·ϲ àÓÂÏfiÌÂÓÔϲ õϲıÈÂÓ. ÁÂÏ·ϲ¿ÓÙˆÓ ‰b ¿ÓÙˆÓ öÊË ï ¢ËÌfiÎÚÈÙÔϲØ ‘àÏÏ’ ÔéÎ âϲı›ÂÈÓ ϲÔÈ ÚÔϲ¤Ù·Í·, ηÏb çÓÔÌ·ÙÔı‹Ú·, àÏÏa Ìc âϲı›ÂÈÓØ Ùe ÁaÚ àÂϲı›ÂÈÓ Ô≈Ùˆϲ ÂúÚËÎÂÓ âÓ ºÈÓÂÖ ï ΈÌʼnÈÔÔÈeϲ £ÂfiÔÌÔϲ…’1

Soon afterwards he pokes even more fun at Ulpian when he cites an example of apesthiein in the sense of ‘to bite off’ from Hermippus: ÔúÌÔÈ Ù¿Ï·ϲ, ‰¿ÎÓÂÈ, ‰¿ÎÓÂÈ, àÂϲı›ÂÈ ÌÔ˘ ÙcÓ àÎÔ‹Ó.2 Wherupon Ulpian, who is bitten enough (dechtheis) by this, changes the subject to nuts. But this kind of fun with glosses is not to be found very often in the Deipnosophistae. Most of the lexicographical material is arranged in long lists of citations and words, which are either brought into the dinner party by the participants or cleared away from the party by the author Athenaeus himself. Thus in Deipn. 7.277a Athenaeus announces the catalogue of fish to his reader Timocrates in the following way: àÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ϲˆ ‰¤ ϲÔÈ L ÂÚd ëοϲÙÔ˘ öÏÂÍ·Ó Ôî ‰ÂÈÓÔϲÔÊÈϲÙ·› … ¥Ó· ‰b ÂéÌÓËÌfiÓÂ˘Ù¿ ϲÔÈ Á¤ÓËÙ·È Ùa ϯı¤ÓÙ·, ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ Ù¿Íˆ Ùa çÓfiÌ·Ù·.3 And similarly the collection of skolia is given without mentioning which of the participants recited which skolion in Deipn. 15.693 ÙáÓ ÔsÓ ‰ÂÈÓÔϲÔÊÈϲÙáÓ ï Ì¤Ó ÙÈϲ öÏÂÁ ÙáÓ ϲÎÔÏ›ˆÓ Ùfi‰Â, ï ‰¤ ÙÈϲ Ùfi‰ÂØ ¿ÓÙ· ‰’ qÓ Ùa ϯı¤ÓÙ· Ù·ÜÙ·.4 1 «There, my good logistes, you have my account of cake, and I advise you to keep from biting it». And he, without hesitation began to eat. When everybody laughed, Democritus spoke: «But I advised you to keep off from eating, my dear wordchaser, and not to eat. This is the way apesthiein is used by the comic poet Theopompos…». 2 «ouch, poor me, he is chewing, chewing off my ear…». 3 «I will give to you what the deipnosophists said on every single item … and to make it easier to remember I arrange them in alphabetical order for your convenience». 4 «One of the deipnosophists gave this, one of them that skolion; all in all what was said is the following…».

16

dirk uwe hansen In these cases, Athenaeus does not ‘forget his framework’ as Gulick has it, but deliberately models his material into lists and lexica. Even if he does not indicate the beginning of such a list to Timokrates, as is the case with the lexicon of poultry in book 9, these lexica still have a narratological function.1 Other lists and lexica are brought into the symposium by the participants themselves, either in their memories as the lexicon of cups, or written on paper. Athenaeus frequently alludes to this practise of bringing learned material on paper into the symposium, speaking either of ÏÔÁ¿ÚÈ· («notes»)2 or ϲ˘Ì‚ÔÏ·› («excerpts»).3 The book of cups is clearly marked as a separate passage, albeit not as a lexicographical section, by Athenaeus himself, who in the beginning adresses Timokrates once again (Deipn. 11.459e): òAÁ ‰‹, Ù›ϲ àÚ¯c ÙáÓ ÏfiÁˆÓ ÁÂÓ‹ϲÂÙ·È; ηÙa ÙeÓ ÎˆÌʼnÈÔÔÈeÓ KËÊÈϲfi‰ˆÚÔÓ [i 802 K], ëÙ·ÖÚ TÈÌfiÎÚ·ÙÂϲ. ϲ˘Ó·¯ı¤ÓÙˆÓ ÁaÚ ìÌáÓ Î·ı’ œÚ·Ó ÌÂÙa ϲÔ˘‰Éϲ ‰Èa Ùa âÎÒÌ·Ù·…4 still leaving it ambiguous as to whether the Deipnosophists gather eager for the drinking or for the information about cups. The drinking then has to be postponed for quite a long time because the speaker Plutarch not only offers a long discourse on drinking and drinkers, but finishes this discourse with an alphabetical listing of cups, which extends over more than a hundred pages in the Loeb-edition, the end being clearly marked by the following passage (Deipn. 11.503e): ÙÔϲ·ÜÙ· ÂågÓ ï ¶ÏÔ‡Ù·Ú¯Ôϲ ηd ñe ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÎÚÔÙ·ÏÈϲıÂdϲ ŸÙËϲ ÊÈ¿ÏËÓ, àÊ’ wϲ ϲ›ϲ·ϲ Ù·Öϲ MÔ‡ϲ·Èϲ ηd Ù” ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ MÓËÌÔϲ‡Ó– ÌËÙÚd ÚÔûÈ ÄϲÈ ÊÈÏÔÙËϲ›·Ó.5 Shortly afterwards the book is brought to an end by Athenaeus again adressing Timokrates (Deipn. 11.509e): ̤¯ÚÈ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ìÌÖÓ ÂÂÚ·ÈÒϲıˆ ηd ≥‰Â ì ϲ˘Ó·ÁˆÁ‹, Ê›Ïٷ٠TÈÌfiÎÚ·ÙÂϲ. ëÍÉϲ ‰b âÚÔÜÌÂÓ ÂÚd ÙáÓ âd ÙÚ˘Ê” ‰È·‚Ô‹ÙˆÓ ÁÂÓÔ̤ӈÓ.6 Another lexicon that is not taken out of the action and presented by the author Athenaeus, but is ‘enacted’ by the participants themselves, is the lexicon of bread in book 3. This lexicon is presented in three parts, each of which is brought into the symposion by one speaker alone (that is by Pontianus, Arrianus and Magnus) – just as the lexicon of cups was brought to the participants by Plutarchus. The aim of this lexicon is to poke fun at one of the Deipnosophists, Cynulcus, who had tried to stop Ulpian’s long speech in 3.108 by asking for bread  (Deipn. 3.108f ): öÙÈ ÙÔÜ OéÏÈ·ÓÔÜ ÙÔÈ·ÜÙ¿ ÙÈÓ· ·›˙ÔÓÙÔϲ ï K‡ÓÔ˘ÏÎÔϲ 1 See below and Hansen 2005, 79-96. 2 E.g., in Deipn. 6.270d, 8.331b. 3 E.g., in (again) Deipn. 6.270d, 7.277a. These ϲ˘Ì‚ÔÏ·› are defined in Deipn. 1.4b Ùa àe ÙáÓ ϲÙڈ̷ÙÔ‰¤ϲÌˆÓ ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù· thereby proposing a keyword for the genre of Buntschriftstellerei. 4 «Well, then, what shall the beginning of this book be (to cite Kephisodoros), my friend Timokrates? When we gathered in time on account of the drinking-cups…». 5 «After having said that much, Plutarchos, whom we all applauded, asked for a phiale, from which he poured an offering to the Muses and their mother Mnemosyne and then drank a friendly toast to us all». 6 «Thus our gathering (or compilation) shall be ended here, my best Timokrates. In the following we will talk about those who were famous for their luxury».

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction 17 àÓ¤ÎÚ·ÁÂÓØ ôÚÙÔ˘ ‰ÂÖ.1 And bread he is given, because bread at once is served, but so are the three catalogues: Pontianus throws at him a treatise on bread in comedy, Arrianus criticizes this «catalogue» (Deipn. 3.113a)2 only to bring in himself a catalogue of bread in remarkable shapes (such as flower-shaped and mushroom-shaped bread), and after Cynulcus has criticized that catalogue, Magnus in defence of Arrianus pours out his knowledge of bread until he is exhausted (Deipn. 3.115a): ·Ú·ÈÙËÙ¤ÔÓ ‰b ηٷϤÁÂÈÓ – Ôé‰b ÁaÚ Ô≈Ùˆϲ ÂéÙ˘¯áϲ ÌÓ‹ÌËϲ ö¯ˆ – L âͤıÂÙÔ fi·Ó· ηd ¤ÌÌ·Ù· \AÚÈϲÙÔ̤ÓËϲ ï \AıËÓ·ÖÔϲ.3 The comic effect of this lexicon of bread, which is preventing poor Cynulcus from eating the bread he cried for, is strengthened even further, when we imagine the bookworm knowledge of Pontianus, Arrianus and Magnus to have been thrown on the table before the deipnosophists in the form of scraps and notes on papyrus. Likewise, the effect of the lexicon of cups4 as a visualisation of the wealth of Larensis is heightened5 when we imagine the speaker Plutarchus lying on his couch in front of – and using as an aide-memoire – the real cups on the shelves of his host’s kylikeion.6 And Athenaeus does indeed point out that he wants us to connect what is to be heard with what is to be seen in the Deipnosophistae. When he speaks, for example, of ending the ϲ˘Ó·ÁˆÁ‹ in Deipn. 11.509e, he leaves it unclear whether he means the gathering of the deipnosophists7 or the compilation of cups. A comic effect and a hint of visualisation is to be found again in the lexicon of fish. The display of different and expensive sorts of fish in book 7 serves of course to show off Larensis’s wealth and taste. But again, there is a comic touch in the situation where the guests are keen to eat yet are prevented from doing so by this long catalogue which stretches out until the end of book 7. But Athenaeus fictionalizes his lexicographical material in another way as well. At the beginning of book 8 the fish catalogue, that has proved as tiresome to the participants of the meal as it was for the readers, is critizised by Democritus (Deipn. 8.335a): ηd Ù·ÜÙ· ÌbÓ Ù·‡Ù–, ôÓ‰ÚÂϲ å¯ı‡ÂϲØ ñÌÂÖϲ ÁaÚ ¿ÓÙ· ϲ˘Ó·ıÚÔ›ϲ·ÓÙÂϲ ‚ÔÚaÓ ìÌÄϲ ÙÔÖϲ å¯ı‡ϲÈ ·Ú·‚‚ϋηÙ ηd ÔéÎ âΛÓÔ˘ϲ ìÌÖÓ, 1 «While Ulpian was joking in this way, Cynulcus cried out: ‘we need bread!’». 2 ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ Ô≈Ùˆ ϯı¤ÓÙˆÓ öÊË ÙÈϲ ÙáÓ ·ÚfiÓÙˆÓ ÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈÎáÓ, \AÚÚÈ·Óeϲ ùÓÔÌ·Ø ‘Ù·ÜÙ· ϲÈÙ›· KÚÔÓÈο âϲÙÈÓ, t ëÙ·ÖÚÔÈ. ìÌÂÖϲ ÁaÚ ‘ÔûÙ’ àÏÊ›ÙÔÈϲÈ ¯·›ÚÔÌÂÓ (Ï‹ÚËϲ ÁaÚ ôÚÙˆÓ ì fiÏÈϲ)‘ ÔûÙ ن ÙáÓ ôÚÙˆÓ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ Î·Ù·ÏfiÁÅ, «After this was said (by Pontianus) one of the participants, whose name is Arrianus, spoke: ‘This bread is old, my friends, and we do not rejoice in bread (the city is full of bread), neither do we rejoice in this catalogue of bread’». 3 «I must be excused from enumerating – since I am not so fortunate as to remember – what Aristomenes says on cakes and confections». 4 Cf. Gulletta 1991, 299-310, and Wilkins 2001, 213-228. 5 And of course at the same time compared with the wealth of knowledge that Plutarchus displays here in his recited kylikeion. 6 Though I’m not trying to argue that Larensis has his cups arranged in alphabetical order… 7 Cf. ϲ˘Ó·¯ı¤ÓÙˆÓ ìÌáÓ in 11.459e.

18

dirk uwe hansen ÙÔϲ·ÜÙ· ÂåfiÓÙÂϲ.1 The picture of men transformed into fishes and victims alike is already shown earlier on in a passage by Posidonius, cited by the same Democritus (Deipn. 8.333c): âÍ·›ÊÓËϲ ÂÏ¿ÁÈÔÓ ÎÜÌ· âÍ·ÚıbÓ ÌÂÙ¤ˆÚÔÓ Âåϲ ≈„Ôϲ âÍ·›ϲÈÔÓ âÉÏıÂÓ Ù” Á” ηd ¿ÓÙ·ϲ ·éÙÔfϲ â¤ÎÏ˘ϲÂÓ ‰È¤ÊıÂÈÚ¤Ó Ù ñÔ‚Ú˘¯›Ô˘ϲ, å¯ı‡ˆÓ Ù ÔÏfÓ ϲˆÚeÓ àÓ·¯ˆÚÔÜÓ Ùe ÎÜÌ· ÌÂÙa ÙáÓ ÓÂÎÚáÓ Î·Ù¤ÏÈÂ.2 Again, Athenaeus leaves it open as to whether we should visualize the deipnosophists exhausted among the fish on the table, or just stunned, overwhelmed by the tsunami of the lexicon of fish they themselves have compiled from their notes. The lexicon of poultry then seems at a first glance to be yet another example of Athenaean carelessness. But if we look more closely, we will see that it serves the same purposes as the lexica of cups, fish and bread: a comic delaying of the food the participants long for, and again a play on distinguishing what is served and what is seen from what is said. The cook of Larensis, who is a remarkably learned man of course, not in the manner of cooks trained to recite Plato extensively, but learned in literature concerning food, has already served a plethora of dishes and knowledge, when he brings forth a stuffed goose in book 9 (Deipn. 9.383e): âÁg ‰’ ñÌÖÓ, ηÙa ÙeÓ ≥‰ÈϲÙÔÓ ¢›ÊÈÏÔÓ [ii 570 K], ·Ú·Ù›ıËÌ’ ïÏÔϲ¯ÂÚÉ / ôÚÓ· … ‰Ô‡ÚÂÈÔÓ â¿Áˆ ¯ÉÓ· Ù† Ê˘ϲ‹Ì·ÙÈ.3 And this wooden goose, as does the wooden horse in Troy, then lets fowl after fowl appear in succession on the following pages. This invasion of edibles can only be stopped in 9.398b, when Larensis himself brings forward the subject of a bird called tetrax – and in fact the tetrax itself, a bird about which none of the participants has anything to say. Instead, in the case of this rare bird, what is to be said and what is to be seen finally come together in a remarkable way (Deipn. 9.398ef ): âÂd ‰b ñÌÂÖϲ Ôé‰bÓ ö¯ÂÙ (ϲȈÄÙ Á¿Ú), âÁg ηd Ùe ùÚÓÂÔÓ ñÌÖÓ âȉ›͈. âÈÙÚÔ‡ˆÓ ÁaÚ âÓ M˘ϲ›0 ÙÔÜ Î˘Ú›Ô˘ ·éÙÔÎÚ¿ÙÔÚÔϲ ηd ÚÔÈϲÙ¿ÌÂÓÔϲ ÙáÓ ÙÉϲ â·Ú¯›·ϲ âΛÓËϲ Ú·ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÙÂı¤·Ì·È âd Ù” ¯ÒÚ0 âΛӖ ÙÔûÚÓÂÔÓ. ηd Ì·ıgÓ Ô≈Ùˆ ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ ·Úa ÙÔÖϲ M˘ϲÔÖϲ ηd ¶·›ÔϲÈÓ ñÂÌÓ‹ϲıËÓ âÎ ÙáÓ ñ’ \AÚÈϲÙÔÊ¿ÓÔ˘ϲ ÂåÚËÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÙeÓ ùÚÓÈı·. ÓÔÌ›˙ˆÓ ‰b ηd ·Úa Ù† ÔÏ˘Ì·ıÂϲÙ¿ÙÅ \AÚÈϲÙÔÙ¤ÏÂÈ ÌÓ‹ÌËϲ äÍÈáϲı·È Ùe ˙†ÔÓ âÓ Ù” ÔÏ˘Ù·Ï¿ÓÙÅ Ú·ÁÌ·Ù›0 … óϲ Ôé‰bÓ ÂyÚÔÓ ÂÚd ·éÙÔÜ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓÔÓ, ö¯·ÈÚÔÓ ö¯ˆÓ â¯ÂÁÁ˘ÒÙ·ÙÔÓ Ì¿ÚÙ˘Ú· ÙeÓ ¯·Ú›ÂÓÙ· \AÚÈϲÙÔÊ¿ÓË.’ ±Ì· ‰b Ù·ÜÙ· ϤÁÔÓÙÔϲ ·éÙÔÜ ÂåϲÉÏı¤ ÙÈϲ Ê¤ÚˆÓ âÓ Ù† Ù·Ï¿ÚÅ ÙeÓ Ù¤Ùڷη … ı·˘Ì·ϲ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÔsÓ ìÌáÓ Ùe Âé·Óıbϲ ÙÔÜ ùÚÓÈıÔϲ ÌÂÙ’ Ôé ÔÏf ηd âϲ΢·ϲ̤ÓÔϲ ·ÚËÓ¤¯ıË…4

1 «But this is enough, fish-men! With all that you have carried together you have made us food for the fishes rather than making them food for us, since you have talked so much». 2 «Suddenly a wave from the ocean lifted itself to an extraordinary height and dashed upon the shore, engulfing all the men and drowning them. And the receding wave left a huge amount of fish among the corpses». 3 «According to the wonderful Diphilos, I bring before you a whole sheep … and a stuffed and blown up ‘wooden goose’». 4 «Since you have nothing to say (for you are silent), I will show you the bird itself. When I was in Moesia as a procurator I saw the bird in that country. When I heard this name given to it by the Moesians and Paeonians, I remembered it from what was said by Aristophanes. I presumed that in the

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction

19

It seems to have been bad luck for the tetrax, since not having been mentioned by Aristotle could have saved his life, and good luck for the deipnosophists, since they would have starved even in the presence of the bird were it not for the clever Aristophanes who did mention him. Thus it seems to me that the catalogues and lexica in the Deipnosophistae are not inserted by a lazy Athenaeus who loses sight of his own narrative. They do serve a specific narratological purpose, either as a weapon for the participants to make fun of one another, or, on a higher and parodistic level, as a kind of paratext in which Athenaeus comments on his own narrative parodistically. If this is the authorial strategy for lists of words and citations, could it be, then, that this is to be discerned even on the level of micro-structure, that is, in single items of learned material and single glosses? To answer this question, I would like to take a close look at the very few Latin glosses that are sporadically to be found in the Deipnosophistae.1 Since they are scattered through the fifteen books, and for the sake of those who are more interested in facts than in fiction, I will list them first in the way of a compilator. The glosses are followed by a small apparatus of similia mainly from the Latin-Greek glossaries and lexicographers. The place of each of the glosses in the course of the Deipnosophistae is given in the notes.

work of the learned Aristotle the animal would be mentioned … when I found nothing was said about it by this author, I was happy to have the funny Aristophanes as a reliable witness. And while he was speaking, someone came and brought the tetrax in a cage… After we had admired the bird, it was prepared and served». 1 Interestingly, though the action takes place at Rome in the house of a distinguished Roman (whether he is the famous P. Livius Larensis pontifex minor or not, he still is a wealthy and important man) and at least one of the gatherings of the deipnosophists is to celebrate the festival of the Parilia (Deipn. 8,361f ), the world of the deipnosophists, that is, their world of knowledge, language and literature, seems to be entirely Greek. Indeed, the best thing they can say about the Latin language is, that it knows the letter ‘H’.

20

dirk uwe hansen ATHENAEUS’S LEXICON OF LATIN WORDS

1. druppa: ϲË›·È ‰Ú˘ÂÂÖϲ Ù’ âÏÄ·È Deipn. 2.56a EûÔÏÈϲ [i 342 K]Ø ‘ϲË›·È ‰Ú˘ÂÂÖϲ Ù’ âÏÄ·È.’ Ù·‡Ù·ϲ ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ‰Ú‡·ϲ ϤÁÔ˘ϲÈ (speaker unknown). «“squids and over-ripe olives”. The latter are called druppae by the Romans».1 Moer. ‰ 9 ‰Ú˘¤Ëϲ Ø ¤ÂÈÚÔϲ. Plin. nh 15.6 optima autem aetas ad decerpendum inter copiam brevitamque incipiente baca nigrescere, cum vocant druppas, Graeci vero drypetidas. 2. cardus: οÎÙÔϲ Deipn. 2.70e Ù›ϲ ‰b ÙÔ‡ÙÔÈϲ Ôé¯d ÂÈıfiÌÂÓÔϲ ı·ÚÚáÓ iÓ ÂúÔÈ ÙcÓ Î¿ÎÙÔÓ ÂrÓ·È Ù·‡ÙËÓ ÙcÓ ñe ^PˆÌ·›ˆÓ ÌbÓ Î·ÏÔ˘Ì¤ÓËÓ Î¿Ú‰ÔÓ, Ôé Ì·ÎÚaÓ ùÓÙˆÓ ÙÉϲ ™ÈÎÂÏ›·ϲ, ÂÚÈÊ·Óáϲ ‰’ ñe ÙáÓ ^EÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ ÎÈÓ¿Ú·Ó çÓÔÌ·˙Ô̤ÓËÓ (speaker unknown). «Now who, if he accepts this description, would not confidently say that this “cactus” is what the Romans, who live near Sicily, call “cardus”, and that it is obviously what the Greeks call kinara?». Prob. ad Verg. Georg. 3.338 carduelis a carduo. Diosc. Mat. Med. 3.12.3 ôηÓı· ÏÂ˘Î‹Ø Ôî ‰b àÁÚÈÔÎÈÓ¿Ú·Ó, Ôî ‰b ‰ÔÓ·ÎÖÙÈϲ, Ôî ‰b âÚ˘ϲ›ϲÎËÙÚÔÓ, ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ϲ›Ó· ôÏ‚·, Ôî ‰b ®‹ÁÈ·, Ôî ‰b Î¿Ú‰Ô˘ϲ ®·ÌÙ¿ÚÈ·. 3. matiana mala Deipn. 3.82c: âÁg ‰’, ôÓ‰ÚÂϲ Ê›ÏÔÈ, ¿ÓÙˆÓ Ì¿ÏÈϲÙ· ÙÂı·‡Ì·Î· Ùa ÙcÓ ^PÒÌËÓ ÈÚ·ϲÎfiÌÂÓ· ÌÉÏ· Ùa M·ÙÈ·Óa (Ì·ÙÙÈ·Óa cod.) ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓ·, ±ÂÚ ÎÔÌ›˙Âϲı·È ϤÁÂÙ·È àfi ÙÈÓÔϲ ÎÒÌËϲ î‰Ú˘Ì¤ÓËϲ âd ÙáÓ Úeϲ \A΢ÏË›0 òAÏÂˆÓ (Daphnus speaking). «As for me, dear friends, I hold in greatest esteem the apples sold in Rome and called Matian, which are said to come from a village situated in the Alps, near Aquileia». cgl , iii.185.21 melimela: metiana; cgl , iii.256.24: Ù· ÌÂÏÈÌËÏ· maciana. Plin. nh 15.49 nisi fallor, apparebit … ingenium inserendi … ergo habent (malae) originem a Matio… Macr. Sat. 2.19.2 mattiana mala. 4. citrus: ΛÙÚÈÔÓ Deipn. 3.85c ¶¿ÌÊÈÏÔϲ ‰’ âÓ Ù·Öϲ °ÏÒϲϲ·Èϲ ^PˆÌ·›Ô˘ϲ ÊËϲdÓ ·éÙe ΛÙÚÔÓ (ÎÚ›ÙÔÓ cod.) ηÏÂÖÓ. «Pamphilus, in the Dialect Dictionary, says that the Romans call it citrus.» (information either given by Athenaeus himself to Timocrates, or, as Kaibel suggested, belonging somewhere else: «haec suo loco mota»). cgl , ii.349.59: ÎÈÙÚÈÔÓØ citrium. 5. mitulus ÙÂÏϛӷ Deipn. 3.85d ÙcÓ ÙÂÏÏ›Ó·Ó ‰b ÏÂÁÔ̤ÓËÓ úϲˆϲ ‰ËÏÔÖ, mÓ ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ Ì›ÙÏÔÓ çÓÔÌ¿˙Ô˘ϲÈ. ÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ˆÓ ‰’ ·éÙÉϲ \AÚÈϲÙÔÊ¿ÓËϲ ï ÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈÎeϲ âÓ Ù† ÂÚd ÙÉϲ à¯Ó˘Ì¤ÓËϲ ϲÎ˘Ù¿ÏËϲ ϲ˘ÁÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÈ [p. 274 N] ïÌÔ›·ϲ ÊËϲdÓ ÂrÓ·È Ùaϲ ÏÂ¿‰·ϲ Ù·Öϲ ηÏÔ˘Ì¤Ó·Èϲ ÙÂÏϛӷÈϲ. 1 All translations from Athenaeus are from Gulick 1951 except when differently stated.

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction

21

«In what he says of the tellinê he probably means what the Romans call mitulus [“mussel”]. Aristophanes the grammarian, who mentions it in the tract on The Broken Scroll, says that limpets are similar to the so-called tellinae.» (information given by Athenaeus to Timocrates). cgl , iii.17.17: ÙÂÏÏÈÓÔÈØ mituli. 6. strena: âÈÓÔÌ›ϲ Deipn. 3.97cd j Ôé ϲf Âr ï ηd ÙcÓ ñe ^PˆÌ·›ˆÓ ηÏÔ˘Ì¤ÓËÓ ϲÙÚ‹Ó·Ó Î·Ù¿ ÙÈÓ· ·ÙÚ›·Ó ·Ú¿‰ÔϲÈÓ ÏÂÁÔ̤ÓËÓ Î·d ‰È‰Ô̤ÓËÓ ÙÔÖϲ Ê›ÏÔÈϲ âÈÓÔÌ›‰· ηÏáÓ; «You are the one who tells us that what the Romans call strena [‘New Year’s gift’], a name and a custom of friendly giving handed down by ancient tradition, is the epinomis.» (Cynulcus speaking to Ulpian). Hsch.  5010 âÈÓÔÌ›ϲØ âÓ Ù·Öϲ Ó·˘ÙÈÎÔÖϲ ϤÁÂÙ·È. On Plato’s Epinomis: dl 3.37; Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.1.7 7. miliarium: åÓÔϤ‚Ëϲ Deipn. 3.98c ÙÔÈÔÜÙÔ› ÙÈÓ¤ϲ ÂåϲÈÓ, t ëÙ·ÖÚÔÈ, Ôî OéÏÈ¿ÓÂÈÔÈ ϲÔÊÈϲÙ·›, Ôî ηd Ùe ÌÈÏÈ¿ÚÈÔÓ Î·ÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ ñe ^PˆÌ·›ˆÓ, Ùe Âåϲ [ÙÔÜ] ıÂÚÌÔÜ ≈‰·ÙÔϲ ηÙÂÚÁ·ϲ›·Ó ηٷϲ΢·˙fiÌÂÓÔÓ, åÓÔϤ‚ËÙ· çÓÔÌ¿˙ÔÓÙÂϲ, ÔÏÏáÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÔÈËÙ·d… «This, my friends, is the kind of men who form Ulpian’s learned coterie, men who actually give the name ‘oven-cauldron’ to what the Romans call a miliarium, a contrivance for making hot water. They are the inventors of many strange terms.» (still Cynulcus against Ulpian). cgl , iii 456.29 miliarium: ıÂÚÌËÚÔÓ; cgl , ii.129,34 miliarium: ÙÂÚÌÈÙÚÔÓ. Poll. Onom. 10.66; 6.89 lists åÓÔϤ‚Ëϲ as an utensil for cooking. ™ È 97 úÓÔϲØ ï ÊÔÜÚÓÔϲ, j οÌÈÓÔϲ, j ï Ê·Ófiϲ. 8. panis: ôÚÙÔϲ Deipn. 3.111c ·Óeϲ ôÚÙÔϲØ MÂϲϲ¿ÈÔÈ. ηd ÙcÓ ÏËϲÌÔÓcÓ ·Ó›·Ó ηd ¿ÓÈ· Ùa Ï‹ϲÌÈ·Ø BÏ·ÖϲÔϲ âÓ MÂϲÔÙÚ›‚0 ηd ¢ÂÈÓfiÏÔ¯Ôϲ âÓ TËϤÊÅ [p. 305 L] ^P›ÓıˆÓ Ù âÓ \AÌÊÈÙÚ‡ˆÓÈ. ηd ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ‰b ÄÓ· ÙeÓ ôÚÙÔÓ Î·ÏÔÜϲÈ. «Panos is ‘bread’ in Messapian. Hence abundance is called panía, and things that satisfy pánia, by Blaesus in Half-Worn, Deinolochus in Telephus, and Rhinthon in Amphitryon. The Romans, also, call bread panis.» (Pontianus in his catalogue of bread). 9. tracta: η‡ÚÈ· Deipn. 3.113d Ùa η‡ÚÈ· [η˘Ú›‰È· cod.] Ùa ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓ· ÙÚ¿ÎÙ·. «kapyria, called by the Romans tracta» (Arrianus in his catalogue of bread). cgl , ii.338.48 crustulum: η˘ÚÈÔÓ; cgl , ii.522.7 crustula: capirion; cgl , ii.199.50: tracta: Ï·Á·Ó·. Zon. Ï 1318.20 ϤÁ·ÓÔÓ Ùe η‡ÚÈÔÓ. 10. quadratum: ‚ψÌÈ·ÖÔϲ ôÚÙÔϲ Deipn. 3.114e ‚ψÌÈ·›Ô˘ϲ (‚ψÌÈÏ›Ô˘ϲ cod.) Ù ôÚÙÔ˘ϲ çÓÔÌ¿˙Âϲı·È ϤÁÂÈ ÙÔfϲ ö¯ÔÓÙ·ϲ âÓÙÔÌ¿ϲ, ÔRϲ ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ÎÔ‰Ú¿ÙÔ˘ϲ ϤÁÔ˘ϲÈ. «loaves having incisions, he says, which the Romans call ‘squares’, are named blomiaioi» (Magnus in his catalogue of bread).

22

dirk uwe hansen

cgl , iii.472.29 quadra: ‚ÚˆÌÔ˘ϲ. Philoxenus Fr. 65 ‚ψÌfiϲØ ·Úa Ùe ‚Úá, Ùe âϲı›ˆ, ‚ÚˆÌfiϲ, ηd ÌÂÙ·ı¤ϲÂÈ ÙÔÜ Ú Âåϲ Ï ‚ψÌfiϲ, óϲ ηd ·Úa Ùe ‚á ‚ˆÌfiϲ. Hes. Opera 444 ôÚÙÔÓ ‰ÂÈÓ‹ϲ·ϲ ÙÂÙÚ¿ÙÚ˘ÊÔÓ, çÎÙ¿‚ψÌÔÓ… (schol. ad loc.: ‚ψÌeϲ ÁaÚ Ùe ‰ÉÁÌ·). 11. decocta Deipn. 3.121ef âd ÙÔ‡ÙÔÈϲ ϯıÂÖϲÈÓ ï K‡ÓÔ˘ÏÎÔϲ ÈÂÖÓ ŸÙËϲ ‰ËÎfiÎÙ·Ó, ‰ÂÖÓ Ï¤ÁˆÓ êÏÌ˘ÚÔfϲ ÏfiÁÔ˘ϲ ÁÏ˘Î¤ϲÈÓ àÔÎχ˙Âϲı·È Ó¿Ì·ϲÈ. «Thereupon Cynulcus asked for a drink of decocta, saying that he needed to wash away salty words with fountains of sweetness». 12. libus: Ï·ÎÔÜϲ âÎ Á¿Ï·ÎÙÔϲ åÙÚ›ˆÓ Ù ηd ̤ÏÈÙÔϲ Deipn. 3.125f-126a ëÍÉϲ âÂÈϲËÓ¤¯ıË Ï·ÎÔÜϲ âÎ Á¿Ï·ÎÙÔϲ åÙÚ›ˆÓ Ù ηd ̤ÏÈÙÔϲ, nÓ ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ Ï›‚ÔÓ Î·ÏÔÜϲÈ. «Next there was brought in a flat pudding made of milk, meal-cakes, and honey; the Romans call it libum.» (information given by Athenaeus to Timocrates). cgl , ii.122.57 libus: Ï·ÎÔ˘ϲ. 13. structor: ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÎfiÌÔϲ Deipn. 4.170e ˙ËÙËÙ¤ÔÓ ‰b Âå ηd ï ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÎfiÌÔϲ ï ·éÙfiϲ âϲÙÈ Ù† ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÔȆ. \Ifi‚·ϲ ÁaÚ ï ‚·ϲÈÏÂfϲ âÓ Ù·Öϲ ^OÌÔÈfiÙËϲÈ ÙeÓ ·éÙeÓ ÂrÓ·› ÊËϲÈ ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÎfiÌÔÓ Î·d ÙeÓ ñe ^PˆÌ·›ˆÓ ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ ϲÙÚÔ‡ÎÙˆÚ· … âοÏÔ˘Ó ‰b ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÔÈeÓ ÙeÓ ÙÚ·Â˙áÓ âÈÌÂÏËÙcÓ Î·d ÙÉϲ ôÏÏËϲ ÂéÎÔϲÌ›·ϲ. «We may, however, ask whether the “table-server” is the same as the “table-maker”. For King Juba, in Similarities, says that “table-server” and the person called by the Romans structor are one and the same… They used to call table-maker the man who took care of the tables and the correct serving of the dinner in general.» (speaker’s name not given). cgl , ii.394.43 ·Ú·ıÂÙËϲ: structor, infertor. Phot. T 598 ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÔÈfiϲØ n ÙáÓ ÂÚd Ùa ϲ˘ÌfiϲÈ· ¿ÓÙˆÓ âÈÌÂÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔϲ ÙÚ·Â˙áÓØ ϲ΢áÓØ ϲÔÓ‰áÓØ àÎÔ˘ϲÌ¿ÙˆÓ. Ô≈Ùˆϲ M¤Ó·Ó‰ÚÔϲ. 14. obsonator: àÁÔÚ·ϲÙ‹ϲ Deipn. 4.171a âοÏÔ˘Ó ‰b ηd àÁÔÚ·ϲÙcÓ ÙeÓ Ùa ù„· èÓÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ, ÓÜÓ ‰’ 焈ӿوڷ «They used also to call the man who purchased the food “marketer” (agorastes), though to-day we call him “obsonator”» (speaker’s name not given). Poll. Onom. 3.126 ï ÁaÚ àÁÔÚ·ϲÙcϲ âd ÙÔÜ ç„ˆÓÔÜÓÙÔϲ ٤ٷÎÙ·È. Phot A 239 àÁÔÚ·ϲÙcÓ ÙeÓ Ùa ù„· èÓÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ, nÓ ‘ PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ç„ˆÓÈ¿ÙÔÚ· ηÏÔÜϲÈÓ. 15. gustator: ÚÔÁ‡ϲÙËϲ Deipn. 4.171c Ì‹ÔÙ ‰b ηd nÓ ÓÜÓ Î·ÏÔÜϲÈ ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ÚÔÁ‡ϲÙËÓ ÙfiÙ Ôî ≠EÏÏËÓÂϲ ÚÔÙ¤ÓıËÓ èÓfiÌ·˙ÔÓ. «Perhaps also the man whom Romans to-day call “foretaster” was he whom Greeks in the old days used to name protenthes.» (speaker’s name not given) cgl , ii.36.40 gustator: ÚˆÙÔÁ¢ϲÙËϲ. Ael. Her. Philetairos 128 ÚÔÙ¤ÓıËÓ Ï¤ÁÔ˘ϲÈÓ nÓ Ôî ÓÜÓ ÚÔÁ‡ϲÙËÓØ Ù¤ÓıËϲ ÁaÚ ï Ï›¯ÓÔϲ ·Ú’ \AÙÙÈÎÔÖϲ.

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction

23

16. tursio: ΢Óeϲ ηگ·Ú›·ϲ ̤ÚÔϲ Deipn. 7.310a-e ΢ˆÓ ηگ·ÚÈ·ϲ … ÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ÙÔÜ å¯ı‡Ôϲ ̤ÚÔϲ âϲÙd ηd ï ñe ^PˆÌ·›ˆÓ ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔϲ ı˘Úϲ›ˆÓ, ≥‰ÈϲÙÔϲ JÓ Î·d ÙÚ˘ÊÂÚÒÙ·ÙÔϲ «A part taken from this fish is what the Romans call tursio; it is the sweetest and most luxurious part.» (speaker’s name not given). Plin. nh 9.34 Delphinorum similitudinem habent qui vocantur thursiones. 17. rhombus: ®fiÌ‚Ôϲ Deipn. 7.330b ^PˆÌ·ÖÔÈ ‰b ηÏÔÜϲÈ ÙcÓ „ÉÙÙ·Ó ®fiÌ‚ÔÓ, η› âϲÙÈ Ùe ùÓÔÌ· ^EÏÏËÓÈÎfiÓ. «Romans call the flounder rhombus, which is a Greek word» (speaker’s name not given). cgl , ii.176.17 rhombus: „Ëϲϲ· ÂȉÔϲ ȯı˘Ôϲ. 18. ballo: ‚·ÏÏ›˙ˆ, Έ̿˙ˆ Deipn. 8.362ab η› ÙÈÓÔϲ ÂåfiÓÙÔϲ ¬ÙÈ ‚·ÏÏ›˙Ô˘ϲÈÓ Ôî ηÙa ÙcÓ fiÏÈÓ ±·ÓÙÂϲ Ù” ı†, ‘t φϲÙÂ’, ï OéÏÈ·Óeϲ ÁÂÏ¿ϲ·ϲ öÊË, ‘ηd Ù›ϲ ^EÏÏ‹ÓˆÓ ÙÔÜÙÔ ‚·ÏÏÈϲÌeÓ âοÏÂϲÂÓ, ‰¤ÔÓ ÂåÚËÎ¤Ó·È ÎˆÌ¿˙Ô˘ϲÈÓ j ¯ÔÚ‡ԢϲÈÓ õ ÙÈ ôÏÏÔ ÙáÓ ÂåÚË̤ӈÓ. ϲf ‰b ìÌÖÓ âÎ ÙÉϲ ϲ˘‚Ô‡Ú·ϲ ùÓÔÌ· ÚÈ¿ÌÂÓÔϲ àÒÏÂϲ·ϲ ÙeÓ ÔrÓÔÓ âȯ¤·ϲ ≈‰ˆÚ (Aristias p. 563 N). «Ulpian said with a laugh: ‘Now what Greek ever called dancing by the name of ballismus, when the proper verb is comazo or choreuo or some other common expression? But you have purloined a word from the slums, and have utterly spoiled the wine by pouring water on it’» (speaker anonymus, later Myrtilus against Ulpian; see notes). cgl , ii.255.43 ballo: ‚·ÏÏÈ˙ˆ. Eust. Il. 3.824 Ùe ‚·ÏÏ›˙ÂÈÓ, õÁÔ˘Ó ÎˆÌ¿˙ÂÈÓ j ¯ˆÚ‡ÂÈÓ, ηd âÍ ·éÙÔÜ ‚·ÏÏÈϲÌfiϲ… 19. isicium Deipn. 9.376d ηd ÁaÚ Î›¯Ï·ϲ âÓ ë·˘Ù† ö¯ÂÈ Î·d ôÏÏ· çÚÓ›ıÈ· ñÔÁ·ϲÙÚ›ˆÓ Ù ̤ÚË ¯ÔÈÚ›ˆÓ ηd Ì‹ÙÚ·ϲ ÙfiÌÔ˘ϲ ηd ÙáÓ «áÓ Ùa ¯Ú˘ϲÄ, öÙÈ ‰b çÚÓ›ıˆÓ ‘Á·ϲÙ¤ÚÂϲ ·éÙ·ÖϲÈ Ì‹ÙÚ·Èϲ ηd ηÏáÓ ˙ˆÌáÓ ϤÂϲ’ [com. inc. iv, 606 M] ηd Ùa âÎ ÙáÓ ϲ·ÚÎáÓ Âåϲ ÏÂÙa ηٷÎÓÈ˙fiÌÂÓ· ηd ÌÂÙa ÂÂÚ›‰ˆÓ ϲ˘ÌÏ·ÙÙfiÌÂÓ·Ø åϲ›ÎÈ· ÁaÚ ‘çÓÔÌ¿˙ÂÈÓ ·å‰ÔÜÌ·È’ [Eur. Or. 37] ÙeÓ OéÏÈ·ÓfiÓ, η›ÂÚ ·éÙeÓ Âå‰gϲ 쉤ˆϲ ·éÙÔÖϲ ¯ÚÒÌÂÓÔÓ. ÏcÓ ï âÌfiϲ Á ϲ˘ÁÁÚ·ÊÂfϲ ¶¿Í·ÌÔϲ [fhg , iv, 472] ÙáÓ åϲÈΛˆÓ ̤ÌÓËÙ·È. ηd Ôû ÌÔÈ ÊÚÔÓÙdϲ \AÙÙÈÎáÓ ¯Ú‹ϲˆÓ. «For he has thrushes inside him, as well as other small birds; portions of pork paunches, cuts from the matrix, yolks of eggs, and also bird’s ‘bellies, matrix and all, and full of lovely sauces’; also the stuffing of meats grated into fine bits and concocted with pepper; I describe it thus because ‘I am ashamed to mention’ hash before Ulpian, although I know that he likes to eat it. Yet my own authority, Paxamus, mentions hash, and I don’t bother about Attic usage.» (in the learned cook’s performance). cgl , iii.314.47 ÈϲϲÈÎÈÔÓ: isitium. Apic. 2.1 on isicia. 20. passum Deipn. 10.440e ·Úa ^PˆÌ·›ÔÈϲ ‰¤, œϲ ÊËϲÈ ¶Ôχ‚ÈÔϲ âÓ Ù” ≤ÎÙ– [c. 2, 5], à›ÚËÙ·È Á˘Ó·ÈÍd ›ÓÂÈÓ ÔrÓÔÓØ Ùe ‰b ηÏÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÓ ¿ϲϲÔÓ ›ÓÔ˘ϲÈ.

24

dirk uwe hansen

«But among the Romans, as Polybius says, in his sixth book, it was forbidden to women to drink wine at all. However, they drink what is called passum.» (Democritus speaking). 21. catillus ornatus Deipn. 14.647e οÙÈÏÏÔϲ ‰b çÚÓÄÙÔϲ ï ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓÔϲ ·Úa ^PˆÌ·›ÔÈϲ Ô≈Ùˆϲ Á›ÁÓÂÙ·ÈØ ıÚ›‰·Î·ϲ χӷϲ ͤϲÔÓ Î·d âÌ‚·ÏgÓ ÔrÓÔÓ Âåϲ ı˘›·Ó ÙÚÖ‚Â Ùaϲ ıÚ›‰·Î·ϲ, ÂrÙ· ÙeÓ ¯˘ÏeÓ âÎȤϲ·ϲ ϲÂÏ›ÁÓÈÔÓ ϲ˘ÌʇڷϲÔÓ ·éÙ† ηd ϲ˘ÌÂϲÂÖÓ â¿ϲ·ϲ ÌÂÙ’ çÏ›ÁÔÓ ÙÚÖ„ÔÓ ÂéÙfiÓˆϲ, ÚÔϲ‚·ÏgÓ çÏ›ÁÔÓ ϲÙ¤·ÙÔϲ ¯ÔÈÚ›Ԣ ηd ¤ÂÚÈ, ηd ¿ÏÈÓ ÙÚ›„·ϲ ≤Ï΢ϲÔÓ Ï¿Á·ÓÔÓ Î·d ÏÂÈ¿Ó·ϲ âÎÙÂÌgÓ Î·Ù¿ÙÂÌÓ ηd ≤„ Âåϲ öÏ·ÈÔÓ ıÂÚÌfiÙ·ÙÔÓ Âåϲ äıÌeÓ ‚·ÏgÓ Ùa ηٷÎÂÎÔÌ̤ӷ (speaker’s name not given). «The catillus ornatus, as the Romans call it, is made in the following manner: Wash and scrape some lettuce, pour wine into a mortar and mash the strips of lettuce and after squeezing off the juice knead fine wheat flour into it; let it settle for a while, then mash it vigorously, adding a little pork fat and some pepper, and mashing it again draw it out into a thin slab; smooth, trim, and cut it into pieces; then place the pieces in a strainer and boil them in very hot olive oil». cgl , ii.98.32 catillus: ÈÓ·Í. 22. perna: ̤ÚÔϲ ÂÙ·ϲáÓÔϲ Deipn. 14.657e âÂd ‰b ηd ÂÙ·ϲáÓÔϲ ̤ÚÔϲ ëοϲÙÅ ÎÂÖÙ·È, mÓ ¤ÚÓ·Ó Î·ÏÔÜϲÈ, ʤÚ ÙÈ ÂúˆÌÂÓ Î·d ÂÚd Ù·‡ÙËϲ (Ulpian speaking). «Since everyone has a portion of ham set before him, called perna, let us say something about it». Poll. Onom. 2.193 ϲÎÂÏdϲ ì ÓÜÓ Î·ÏÔ˘Ì¤ÓË ¤ÚÓ·… 22. assarius 23. candela Deipn. 15.701b ηd ï K‡ÓÔ˘ÏÎÔϲ ·å› ÔÙ ن OéÏÈ·Ó† àÓÙÈÎÔÚ˘ϲϲfiÌÂÓÔϲ öÊËØ âÌÔd ‰¤, ·Ö ‰ˆÚfi‰ÂÈÓÂ, àϲϲ·Ú›Ô˘ ηӉ‹Ï·ϲ Ú›ˆ… «Thereupon Cynulcus, who was always butting against Ulpian, said: Boy, waiter! Buy me a pennyworth of candles».

Notes on the Latin glosses in the Deipnosophistae 1. The only manuscript of Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistae is unfortunately mutilated at the beginning. For the text of book 1, 2 and the beginning of book 3 we rely on the epitome alone. Thus it is impossible to decide wether the glosses are given by one of the participants in the course of the conversation or by Athenaeus himself. Nonetheless they fit into the general theme of ‘starters’ in book 2. The word druppa, though seen as a Latin word by Pliny, is actually used by the Greek poet Phanias as early as the third century bc: Anth. Graec. 6.299.3-4 ¿ÚÎÂÈÙ·È ϲÜÎfiÓ Ù ÌÂÏ·ÓÙÚ·Ábϲ ± Ù ÊÈÏÔ˘Ïdϲ / ‰Ú‡· (fort. legendum: ± Ù’ âÊÈÏÔ˘ÏÎdϲ ‰Ú‡·) «I offer this black fig and a soft olive that does not hurt the gum».

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction 25 2. The authorities we are called to rely upon are Theophrastus and Phainos. Athenaeus tries to bolster his claim that the word is some kind of Latinized Greek word even further in the next sentence: àÏÏ·Á” ÁaÚ ‰‡Ô ÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î¿Ú‰Ôϲ ηd οÎÙÔϲ Ù·éÙeÓ iÓ ÂúË, «For by a change of only two letters cardus and cactus would be the same word». 3. The correction to Ì·ÙÈ·Ó¿ is suggested by Kaibel on account of Plin. nh 15.49. Whether these apples are called matiana from their place of origin or the inventor of a specific kind of grafting, the word is surely a Latin word and Daphnus explicitly stresses the high quality of apples «bought in Rome». 4. If this sentence is not misplaced in our manuscript, we have here one of the rare occasions of Athenaeus giving information on a Latin word directly to his reader Timocrates. Other cases, but without naming a source,1 are 5. and 12. The word citrus of course is of Greek origin. 5. Again Athenaeus gives this information directly to Timocrates, though he seems to be more interested in identifying ÙÂÏϛӷ with Ϥ·ϲ. lepas, which is not identified as a Latin word here, is used in Plaut. Cas. 493. 6. strenae, presents on New Year’s Day, were originally named after the Sabinian goddess Strenia, corresponding to the Roman Salus. 6. and 7. stem from a longer passage, in which Cynulcus makes fun of Ulpian for his notorious use of misleading words (as, e.g., ô¯ÚËϲÙÔϲ, which in common speech means ‘useless’ in the sense of ‘unused’ and so on). â›ÓÔÌÈϲ is particularly unfitting as a Greek word for a Roman habit and because it means either some sort of nautical equipment or a work of Plato (now lost). It is, as far as I can see, not used elsewhere as equivalent for strena. 7. Again Ulpian is mocked by Cynulcus for preferring to be misunderstood, rather than using a perfectly understandable word discarded only because it is Latin. 8-10. In each of the three parts of the catalogue of bread (see above) there is one Latin gloss. 8. The Latin word panis is identified here as being Greek in origin, because it was used in the southern part of Italy by the Messapians. There is an interesting remark in the Synagoge about this word: ôÚÙÔϲØ ùÓÔÌ· Ù˘Ú¿ÓÓÔ˘ MÂϲϲ·›ˆÓ…

(™b · 2173)

artos: the name of a king of the Messapians.

10. The manuscript reading was corrected by Salmasius. Magnus draws on the authority of Philemon in this passage. Unfortunately neither blomiaioi nor blomilioi is known from any other text. ‚ψ̛‰ÈÔÓ in the sense of ‘a bite’ ist known to Eust. Od. 2.142.2 1 In fact, the only other source for a Latin gloss Athenaeus names is Iuba in 13. 2 Cf. Kassel 2007, 44.

26 dirk uwe hansen 11. The cold drink decocta was not known until its invention by Nero, so there seems to be no Greek word for it. 12. Instead of a Greek word for this kind of cake, Athenaeus has to give a description or a recipe. See below 19. isicium. Consequently, Ulpian rejects this  kind of food that does not have a Greek name: ηd ï K‡ÓÔ˘ÏÎÔϲ öÊËØ ‘âÌ›Ï·ϲÔ, OéÏÈ·Ó¤, ¯ıˆÚԉϷ„Ô˘ ·ÙÚ›Ô˘, nϲ ·Ú’ Ôé‰ÂÓd ÙáÓ ·Ï·ÈáÓ Ìa ÙcÓ ¢‹ÌËÙÚ· Á¤ÁÚ·Ù·È ÏcÓ Âå Ìc ôÚ· ·Úa ÙÔÖϲ Ùa ºÔÈÓÈÎÈÎa ϲ˘ÁÁÂÁÚ·ÊfiϲÈ Ϲ·Á¯Ô˘ÓÈ¿ıˆÓÈ Î·d MÒ¯Å, ÙÔÖϲ ϲÔÖϲ ÔϛٷÈϲ.’ ηd ï OéÏÈ·Óeϲ ‘àÏÏ’ âÌÔd ̤Ó, öÊË, t Î˘Ó¿Ì˘È·, ÌÂÏÈ‹ÎÙˆÓ ±ÏÈϲ, «And Cynulcus said: ‘Stuff yourself, Ulpian, with your native chthorodlapsum, a word, as Demeter is my witness, which is not recorded in any ancient writer, unless it be the historians of Phoenicia, your compatriots Sanchuniathon and Mochos’. Ulpian answered: ‘enough of honey-cakes, you dog-fly!’». The word chthorodlapson (or -os) is of course unknown to any other author;1 «barbarum vocabulum etiam corruptum», as Kaibel puts it. 13-17. These glosses are found in catalogues (three in the list of servants and two in the catalogue of fish) drawn up by Athenaeus (see above) without giving the names of the individual speakers. 13. The reason for giving this information seems not to be the Latin word structor. Rather, Athenaeus is interested in the possibility of using this word as a kind of link between the ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÎfiÌÔϲ and the ÙÚ·Â˙ÔÔÈfiϲ. 16. The information that tursio is a part of a fish is not to be found elsewhere. Moreover, in Deipn. 1.5c we can find the following information on the same fish taken from Plato Comicus: ηگ·Ú›·Ó ‰b Ìc Ù¤ÌÓÂÈÓ … àÏÏ’¬ÏÔÓ çÙ‹ϲ·ϲ ·Ú¿ıÂϲ, «the fish … with jagged teeth must not be sliced… Rather, bake and serve them whole». 17. Again a Latin word is shown to be of Greek origin. 18. It is interesting to see how Myrtilus rejects Ulpian’s attack on the word ‚·ÏÏÈϲÌfiϲ in the following sentence: ηd ï M˘ÚÙ›ÏÔϲ öÊËØ ‘àÏÏa ÌcÓ Î·d ^EÏÏËÓÈÎÒÙÂÚÔÓ àԉ›͈ ϲÔÈ Ùe ùÓÔÌ·, t ʛϠ\EÈ̷ٛÈÂ. ¿ÓÙ·ϲ ÁaÚ âÈϲÙÔÌ›˙ÂÈÓ ÂÈÚÒÌÂÓÔϲ Ôé‰ÂÓeϲ ÌbÓ àÌ·ı›·Ó η٤ÁÓˆϲ, ‘ϲ·˘ÙeÓ ‰’ àÔÊ·›ÓÂÈϲ ÎÂÓfiÙÂÚÔÓ Ï‚ËÚ›‰Ôϲ’. \E›¯·ÚÌÔϲ, t ı·˘Ì·ϲÈÒÙ·ÙÂ, âÓ ÙÔÖϲ £Â·ÚÔÖϲ ̤ÌÓËÙ·È ÙÔÜ ‚·ÏÏÈϲÌÔÜ, ηd Ôé Ì·ÎÚ¿Ó âϲÙÈ ÙÉϲ ϲÈÎÂÏ›·ϲ ì \IÙ·Ï›·, «Then Myrtilus said: “Nevertheless, I will prove to you, Master Critic, that the word is more in accord with Greek usage. For though you try to muzzle us all, you have not convicted any of us of ignorance, whereas ‘you proclaim yourself more empty than a slough’. You surprise me indeed; for Epicharmus mentions ‘ballismus’ as the word for dancing, and Italy is not far from Sicily”». Ulpian is called «Epitimaios» as being overcritical, cf. Deipn. 6.272b. Not only is the word itself then shown to be Greek, or even ‘more genuinely

1 Cf. Maxwell-Stuart 1981, 117.

how do lexica fit into a work of fiction 27 Greek’, but Myrtilus also indicates the route through which it came into the Latin language, i.e. via Sicily, as was the case with the οÎÙÔϲ (item 2), cf. also 8. panis. 19. Again, as in 12) this is a Latin word without any Greek equivalent, only to be found in an obscure writer – although perhaps not quite as obscure as were Sanchuniatho and Mochus. The cook again has to give a recipe instead of a translation. Whether or not Ulpian resists tasting this ‘ungreeklike’ sausage we are not told but we still find him in 380d keeping the others from eating. 20. Again a Latin word has to be rendered not with a Greek one, but with a recipe. The passage is found in a catalogue of cakes, beginning in 644e, without naming the individual speakers. But then Athenaeus gives his source in 648a: Ù·ÜÙ· ηd ï ϲÔÊeϲ ÂÌÌ·ÙfiÏÔÁÔϲ XÚ‡ϲÈÔϲ, thus provoking another outburst of the Keitoukeitos Ulpian (14.648c): ϯı¤ÓÙˆÓ Î·d ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ï ϲÔÊeϲ OéÏÈ·Óeϲ öÊËØ ‘fiıÂÓ ñÌÖÓ, t ÔÏ˘Ì·ı¤ϲÙ·ÙÔÈ ÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈÎÔ›, ηd âÎ Ô›·ϲ ‚È‚ÏÈÔı‹ÎËϲ àÓÂÊ¿ÓËϲ·Ó Ôî ϲÂÌÓfiÙ·ÙÔÈ ÔyÙÔÈ ϲ˘ÁÁÚ·ÊÂÖϲ XÚ‡ϲÈÔϲ ηd ^AÚÔÎÚ·Ù›ˆÓ, ‰È·‚¿ÏÏÔÓÙÂϲ ηÏáÓ çÓfiÌ·Ù· ÊÈÏÔϲfiÊˆÓ Ù” ïÌˆÓ˘Ì›0;’, «the description ended, the wise Ulpian said: Whence, most learned grammarians, and from what collection of books, have popped up these very solemn writers Chrysippus and Harpocration, who bring calumny on the names of noble philosophers by the similarity of their own names?». 21. This seems to be the only example of Ulpian using a Latin word. 22-23. Clearly these every-day Latin expressions are used by Cynulcus to make fun of Ulpian, whose exit had been announced in 686c but who is still present here. Cynulcus marks the end of the gathering with this last shot against his archenemy and makes his own exit. We have seen that the learned material presented in lexica, catalogues and lists of words in the Deipnosophistae serves a certain narratological purpose and that Athenaeus’ authorial strategy is to make use of these passages on different levels. They serve as weapons in the battle among the constantly quarrelling deipnosophists (as for example the catalogue of bread in book 3), as means of comparing the material wealth flaunted in the house and on the table of the host Larensis with the wealth of knowledge displayed by Plutarch in the catalogue of cups in book 11 and by all of the deipnosophists in their catalogue of fish in book 7; on another level Athenaeus uses them to create his comedy of delays by inducing in the participants the desire to eat and drink, yet at the same time preventing them from eating and drinking; and finally they are part of a clever game of confusing what is served and what is said. The same or a similar authorial strategy is to be seen in Athenaeus’s usage of the Latin glosses in the Deipnosophistae. Some of them, such as druppa, cardus, citrus, panis, tursio, rhombus, ballo are used to confront the wealth of the Latin

28 dirk uwe hansen language with the (of course) even greater wealth of Greek.1 In a comparable way, mitulus and structor are used as intermediate words to define Greek words more precisely. Others are weapons in the intellectual wrangle of the deipnosophists, mainly Cynulcus’s weapons against his favorite enemy Ulpian, such as strena, miliarium, decocta, isicium, assarius and candela. They are used in different ways: strena and miliarium work on the same level as the gloss àÂϲı›ÂÈÓ mentioned above, namely to show that bookish knowledge must be useless, if it neglects the reality of everyday life. decocta, assarius and candela are means to provoke Ulpian, as of course ballo was as well. The mention of libum and of isicium by the cook then serves to prevent Ulpian from eating something he really would love to eat. For him, these dishes suffer a fate the tetrax had avoided thanks only to its being mentioned in Aristophanes’ Birds: they are present, they can be described, but are still as inedible as if they did not exist, because in Ulpian’s world there is no name for them. 1 Though not every etymologist might subscribe to all of them; and maybe the vicinity of Sicily is not really a very good argument for the priority of the Greek language.

D E L’ ENC YC LOPÉDIE AU G LO SSAI RE : FE ST U S E T S ON ADAPTATION PAR PAUL DI ACRE Marie-Karine Lhommé

L

’ouvrage que l’on désigne sous le titre de «lexique de Festus» est un ouvrage protéiforme qui porte la marque de trois auteurs d’époques différentes. Le matériau de base a été accumulé par Verrius Flaccus, grammairien de l’époque d’Auguste, précepteur des petits-enfants du princeps. Les auteurs cités comme garants de ses définitions ou étymologies appartiennent tous à la fin de la République ou au tout début de l’Empire;1 ceux qui fournissent des exemples d’utilisation ou de forme d’un mot sont essentiellement les poètes et orateurs du 3ème au 1er s. av. J.-C., souvent désignés par le terme antiqui.2 Cependant, nous n’avons pas conservé directement le texte de Verrius Flaccus, mais un résumé remanié et abrégé par un inconnu que l’on place au 2ème s. ap. J.-C., Festus. Des indices permettent de penser que Festus suit article après article le lexique de son prédécesseur, dont il ne modifie donc pas l’ordre général, mais dont il supprime des entrées ou des parties d’articles, dans une proportion impossible à définir. Le savoir présenté dans le De uerborum significatione de Festus peut donc être considéré comme un savoir remontant à l’époque augustéenne. L’état de l’unique témoin du lexique de Festus, le Farnesianus3 (Naples, Bibl. Naz., iv.A.3, 11ème s.) est tel que pour compléter le texte du 2ème s., il faut faire appel à un nouveau résumé, conservé en plusieurs exemplaires cette fois, qu’en fit Paul Diacre au 8ème s. Dans les éditions modernes de Festus, le texte de Paul Diacre existe en tant que tel, nettement séparé du texte de Festus sur une page4 ou partie de page5 à part, mais il sert aussi à compléter directement le texte de Festus lorsque ce dernier est mutilé.6 Le texte qui nous reste est composé d’articles aux tailles et aux contenus variables et n’a été unifié ni reclassé par aucun des trois auteurs successifs du lexique – seul Verrius Flaccus a proposé une ébauche de classement alphabético1 Voir Lhommé 2009, 143-147. 2 Voir North 2007. 3 Voir Loew 1911; Cavallo 1975, 362; Supino Martini 1987, 12 et 129 sq. Je renvoie, pour une description complète et récente du manuscrit, à la préface de Moscadi 2001, vi-xiv. 4 C’est le cas dans les deux éditions qui servent encore de référence: Müller 1839 et Lindsay 1913. C’est l’édition Lindsay qui est citée ici (et notée L dans les références). 5 Savagner 1846 est l’auteur de la seule traduction intégrale existant à ce jour. Il privilégie le texte de Paul Diacre en rejetant les fragments de Festus en bas de page. C’est donc Festus qui est un complément de Paul Diacre, et non l’inverse. Une traduction nouvelle est en cours par le Festus Lexicon Project (ucl London), qui rassemble F. Glinister, C. Woods, M. Crawford et J. North. 6 Voir North 2008.

30 marie-karine lhommé thématique. Les articles peuvent proposer la signification d’un mot, ou son étymologie, ou une liste, ou une remarque suscitée par l’apparition de ce mot. Il peut s’agir d’une accumulation de versions proposées par divers auteurs, ou une simple équivalence sémantique d’un mot ancien. Le matériau inclus est extrêmement riche et varié, appartenant à plusieurs thèmes à la fois. C’est cette typologie, et par là les centres d’intérêt de Verrius Flaccus, que nous essaierons tout d’abord de définir.1 Chez Paul Diacre, au contraire, on assiste à une réduction de la variété des types d’articles et à un début de transformation en glossaire. Le De uerborum significatione devient, après ce nouveau remaniement, un ouvrage sur la langue latine ‘ancienne’, où les différents âges du latin sont tous confondus et attribués aux antiqui. À travers différents corpus, celui de la section des p-, ou celui, thématique et disséminé dans l’ensemble du lexique, de la religion romaine, on tentera de montrer le mécanisme de ce changement de nature du texte. 1. Essai de typologie des articles de Festus Une partie du lemme poriciam2 (242.19 L) a très tôt été interprétée comme le programme que Festus se proposait de suivre dans son entreprise d’abrègement de Verrius. Beaucoup d’apographes ou de copies ont même adopté comme titre, pour l’ouvrage de Festus, priscorum uerborum cum exemplis, malgré la tradition manuscrite qui donnait bien De uerborum significatione, et malgré Macrobe et son De uerborum significationibus (3.8.9). Pour A. Moscadi, le présupposé selon lequel le lemme poriciam serait une préface tardive ou répétée suscite un certain nombre de contradictions entre le programme supposé de Festus et sa réalisation effective dans le De uerborum significatione.3 Cette objection avait déjà été vue par Reitzenstein,4 qui en avait conclu que l’important, dans l’article, était l’annonce d’un ouvrage dont l’idée lui était venue progressivement, au fur et à mesure que s’accumulaient les objections contre Verrius:

1 Voir Holtz 1996, part. 13: «Comme on le voit, l’ouvrage de Verrius Flaccus rassemblait des notations provenant de différentes parties de la linguistique, notations sémantiques, dérivation, synonymie, art de l’étymologie, et bien sûr un grand nombre de glossae, mais pas uniquement». 2 Le lemme était anciennement appelé profanum parce que la vedette n’était pas conservée dans le Farnesianus, et que la forme profanas apparaissait juste avant le passage où intervient Festus. On se rapportera utilement, pour les discussions sur la signification de ce lemme, aux articles de Moscadi 1979, 31-35, de Grandazzi 1991, 114-117, et à la synthèse de Pieroni 2004, 21-22. 3 Moscadi 1979, 30-35: «in una sorta di prefazione ripetuta o ritardata». Mais sa conclusion était que l’ouvrage conservé était l’ouvrage propre de Festus (qu’il appelle De uerborum significationibus), tiré de Verrius Flaccus et d’autres ouvrages. 4 Reitzenstein 1887, 7, n. 1. Avant lui, dit-il, Dirksen et Graefenhan avaient aussi soulevé ce problème.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre

31

Cuius opinionem, neque in hoc, neque in aliis compluribus refutare minime necesse est, cum propositum habeam ex tanto librorum eius numero intermortua iam et sepulta uerba atque ipso saepe confitente nullius usus aut auctoritatis praeterire, et reliqua quam breuissime redigere in libros admodum paucos. Ea autem, de quibus dissentio, et aperte et breuiter, ut sciero, scripta in his libris meis inuenientur. Inscribuntur ‘priscorum uerborum cum exemplis.’1 il n’est pas du tout opportun de réfuter son opinion, ni dans ce cas, ni dans bien d’autres, alors que j’ai le projet, à partir du si grand nombre de ses livres, de laisser de côté les mots déjà morts et enterrés et ceux qui, comme il l’avoue souvent lui-même, n’ont plus aucun usage ni témoignage, et de faire rentrer le reste, aussi brièvement que possible, dans un tout petit nombre de livres. Les articles pour lesquels je suis en désaccord se trouveront exposés clairement et brièvement, autant que me le permettra mon savoir, dans mes livres, dont je viens de parler. Le titre en est ‘Mots anciens avec exemples’.

Les interventions de Festus sont relativement peu nombreuses dans le De uerborum significatione, à peine une petite trentaine sur deux mille articles conservés dans le Farnesianus.2 Cela correspond bien au fait qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de réfuter Verrius ni dans ce cas, ni dans de très nombreux autres (neque in hoc, neque in alii compluribus refutare minime necesse est). Lorsque le nom seul de Verrius est cité, une cinquantaine de fois, c’est sans doute pour rapporter une opinion personnelle et originale du savant augustéen, opinion qui souvent est tacitement approuvée par Festus. Il se pourrait que dans l’article poriciam, Festus intervienne non pour indiquer qu’il élimine là un mot sans garant ni usage, mais pour expliquer une inflexion dans son programme, et notamment expliquer pourquoi il ne développe pas davantage ses désaccords avec Verrius. Arrivé à la moitié de son travail d’abréviation, il a peut-être réuni suffisamment de sujets de discussion pour avoir de quoi étoffer ses prisca uerba qu’il a l’intention de réunir dans des volumes annoncés par le futur inuenientur et le futur antérieur ut sciero. Dans ce qu’il a déjà résumé se trouvent en effet de très nombreux mots des antiqui qui sont susceptibles de nourrir son projet. Dès lors, l’entreprise d’abréviation de Verrius Flaccus se fait dans une relative neutralité, et toute intervention personnelle de Festus est bien mise en valeur, ce qui permet de penser qu’on a un reflet fidèle mais partiel, débarrassé d’articles pour nous inconnus et d’exemples superflus, de l’ouvrage de Verrius Flaccus. L’intérêt particulier que porte Festus aux prisca uerba semble in1 Les corrections apportées par Thewrewk de Ponor 1889 et reprises par Lindsay 1913, c’est-àdire, principalement, l’ajout du pronom relatif qui et la transformation du démonstratif his en un is qui annonce la proposition relative, sont autant de modifications réalisées en fonction de leur interprétation du lemme: les livres de mots anciens avec exemples constituent un répertoire différent du De uerborum significatione. Elles ne semblent cependant pas nécessaires à la compréhension du texte en ce sens, et n’ont pas été reproduites ici. 2 Paul Diacre ne conserve, dans ses excerpta, aucune intervention de Festus, et par conséquent aucune critique de Verrius.

32 marie-karine lhommé diquer qu’il a privilégié, dans ce qu’il préserve de Verrius Flaccus, les mots des antiqui, mais l’examen des articles de son abrégé montre qu’il a conservé aussi bien davantage. Une typologie des articles du De uerborum significatione semble difficile à établir si l’on considère qu’un bon nombre d’articles du lexique sont issus de monographies d’auteurs différents, et ont été réunis par Verrius Flaccus. On retrouve parfois, cependant, quelques constantes dans la présentation: ces constantes peuvent être dues aux normes du genre grammatical, à l’ouvrage original dans lequel il est puisé à plusieurs reprises, à Verrius Flaccus, qui remanie peut-être sa source en l’incluant dans son De uerborum significatione, ou encore à Festus qui peut uniformiser le style en résumant Verrius Flaccus. Pour esquisser cet essai de typologie, je prendrai l’exemple de la section des p-, en privilégiant le texte du Farnesianus ou des apographes,1 c’est-à-dire le texte de Festus, et non le résumé de Paul Diacre. Les articles du lexique sont classés par ordre alphabétique de l’initiale, et forment ainsi une vingtaine de sections. L’ordre des lemmes dans chaque section du lexique est pour les premières parties alphabétique (relativement strict, jusqu’à la deuxième ou troisième lettre du mot), pour les deuxièmes, thématique, ou, plus exactement, suivant la source suivie, elle-même thématique. Au tout début de la section des p- se trouve une importante série de termes empruntés à l’hymne des Saliens (16 praemissae glossae). On aura ensuite, dans la première partie alphabétique des p-, des séries de mots plus ou moins cohérentes en pi/pe: pel- pil- (13), pet/pit- (7), pen- pin- (7), pes- pis- mêlés à pid- ped- (9), perpir- (24), pu (7), po (5), pa (pal- 4, pap- 4, pan- 6, pat- 4, pag- 3, par- 7, pe ou pae- 5), prae (15), pro (25 + 33), pl- (13). Dans la seconde partie, plusieurs longs ensembles ont été proposés à l’identification par F. Bona,2 et se retrouvent dans le même ordre dans toutes les sections du lexique. Ici sont représentés des ensembles de gloses juridiques (7), relatives à Rome (tribus, 8), militaires (6), sur Caton (1ère série, 9 mots; 2ème série, 14 mots), portant sur d’anciens auteurs (Scipion l’Africain, C. Gracchus, Caton, leges sacratae, 4 mots), des gloses nuptiales (7 mots), des gloses issues du de iure pontifico d’Ateius Capito (8), tirées de Varron (3 mots), de Messala (4 mots) et un grand nombre d’articles à la source non identifiée. Dans toutes ces parties, les articles suivent à peu près la même typologie,3 dont on peut donner les exemples suivants. Des articles peuvent tomber dans plusieurs catégories à la fois. 1 Les articles praeceptat 222.21 L à peremere 236.27 L ne sont plus conservés que par des apographes du 15ème s., suite à la perte de feuillets (perte du quaternion x) du Farnesianus. Il y a une autre lacune de 6 feuillets, impossible à combler, si ce n’est par Paul Diacre, entre l’article postliminium receptum 244.09 L et prouorsum fulgur 254.01 L (perte du cœur du quaternion xi). 2 F. Bona résume les observations de ces prédécesseurs, et les complète de façon souvent convaincante dans deux ouvrages: Bona 1964 et 1982. 3 Est repris et complété ici l’article de Cekalova 1966, qui portait sur l’ensemble du lexique. Je remercie Olga Smirnova pour la traduction du texte russe.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 33 a. Des notations sémantiques techniques, appartenant à divers domaines d’érudition, sont éclaircies par des définitions précises, ou des tentatives de définition: pour la religion, la praecidanae porca, la piacularis porca, le persillum, et dans le domaine de la divination le pestiferum fulgur, les peremptalia fulgura, les praepetes aues; pour l’architecture, l’adjectif pectenatus. b. Des mots anciens, souvent tombés en désuétude, sont présentés sans étymologie. L’auteur peut proposer une simple équivalence sémantique, introduite par ‘pro’, par exemple pour le chant des saliens (de praeceptat 222.21 L à pilumnoe poploe 224.04 L). Pesestas 230.26 L se rencontre dans les prières de lustration; pour peremere 236.27 L, Cincius propose le sens de prohibere, mais une citation de Caton l’emploie comme équivalent de (pro) uitiare; l’expression pedem struit (232.03 L) se trouve dans la Loi des xii Tables. Assez souvent, donc, il s’agit d’expliquer, plutôt qu’un simple mot, une citation littéraire, ou une expression, décomposée en autant d’articles qu’elle comporte de mots difficiles. W. M. Lindsay (1928) donne un exemple qui illustre parfaitement la différence d’organisation entre un commentaire suivi et un lexique alphabétique: trois mots d’un vers de Plaute (Cist. 407), Diobolares schoenicolae miraculae, sont commentés à la suite par Varron (ll 7.64), là où le dictionnaire de Festus propose trois entrées différentes, diobolares (Paul.-Fest. 65.08 L), miracula (Paul.-Fest. 110.04 L) et schoeniculas (442.07 L). c. Des étymologies sont introduites par quod, quia, uelut. Le sens du mot ancien peut être deviné par l’étymologie et les exemples des anciens, comme praepetes aues 224.06 L. L’étymologie de peculatus 232.28 L est l’occasion de rappeler qu’avant l’usage généralisé de monnaies de bronze et d’argent, les amendes se payaient en bétail (pecus); le commentaire explicatif peut faire appel à un mot grec, comme pour pagi (Paul.-Fest. 247.06 L), où l’on trouve l’étymologie pagi a fontibus, éclaircie juste après par la mention du mot source en langue dorienne. d. Le nom propre (topographie, nom de fêtes…) ou l’expression proverbiale peuvent faire l’objet d’un récit étiologique, parfois annoncé par initio. C’est le cas pour les articles pietati (quondam) 228.28 L, ou Picum auem 228.32 L (a Pico rege Aboriginum). Les attributs des dieux peuvent être éclaircis: pellem (Paul.-Fest. 225.15 L) pour Hercule, pillea (Paul.-Fest. 225.17 L) pour Castor et Pollux. e. Le mot, et surtout sa forme, peuvent être expliqués par analogie (ut) avec une autre forme. Petissere est mis pro petere 226.19 L chez les antiqui, par analogie avec lacessere et incessere (mais Festus pense qu’il y a une différence de sens entre petissere et petere); impetum 228.25 L (placé dans la section des p-!) a la même formation que industrium, indulgentem, impune, immunis (Festus conteste); pignosa 232.21 L pour pignora s’explique de la même façon que (eo modo quo) les formes Valesii ou Auselii; parret 262.16 L, qui se trouve in formulis (textes de loi?) aurait dû (debuit scribi) s’écrire avec un seul r: paret, ut comparet, apparet.1 Le mot peut aussi avoir changé de forme entre le temps des anciens et le temps actuel: la forme an1 Voir polet 222.27 L, les anciens ne redoublaient pas les consonnes.

34 marie-karine lhommé cienne perfacul ou facul 236.16 L est devenue facile à l’époque de Verrius Flaccus (nunc), et se lit encore dans facultas; perediam et bibesiam 236.24 L sont des mots inventés par Plaute à partir des verbe edere et bibere; le sens et l’étymologie de prodigia 254.14 L (prodicunt futura) apparaissent clairement dès lors qu’on se souvient que les anciens notaient ‘g’ le ‘c’ actuel (nunc / ab antiquis). Les problèmes orthographiques peuvent de ce fait être résolus par l’étymologie: pour percunctatio 236.04 L, Verrius Flaccus et Festus ont des avis divergents. Verrius Flaccus propose de l’écrire avec un o parce que cela viendrait de la gaffe (contus) qui sert aux marins à sonder la profondeur de l’eau; Festus propose l’orthographe percunctatio (recte) en la justifiant par per cuncta (le texte de l’apographe est corrompu). f. L’usage du mot peut être commenté sous l’aspect du genre, du nombre, ou de sa nature. Caton utilise preces au singulier dans l’un de ses discours 280.24 L; l’amnis Petronia (296.24 L) tire sa forme féminine du fait que les anciens considéraient amnis comme un féminin. Pistum 232.04 L était employé plus fréquemment par les anciens qu’aujourd’hui ( frequentius usurpabant / quam nunc dicimus); ostentum peut être le nom désignant le prodige, ou être un participe: au moins trois articles portent sur ce participe passé douteux (en concurrence avec ostensus par exemple chez les grammairiens), 214.03 L (ostentum non solum pro portento poni solere sed etiam participialiter), 218.27 L (ostentum quo nunc utimur interdum prodigii uice, quin participialiter quoque dici solitum sit non dubium facit etiam C. Gracchus…), et 220.17 L (ostentas saepe ostendis … sed et participialiter id et dici debet, et dictum est femino genere). g. Quand le mot a changé de sens entre autrefois (olim, aput antiquos) et maintenant (nunc), les deux sens sont donnés, avec preuve à l’appui pour le sens ancien. C’est le cas pour picta toga 228.18 L (picta nunc / purpurea ante, puis distinction entre les sens de tunica palmata dans le passé et aujourd’hui – nunc); plorare 260.04 L (nunc flere / at apud antiquos inclamare); le sens ancien de penem (260.15 L), queue, se retrouve dans l’expression technique (religieuse) offa penita et dans peniculi. h. Quand un mot est utilisé communément (uulgo) dans un sens différent du sens technique, le sens propre est donné (proprie), preuve à l’appui. On pourra citer petilam suram 224.02 L, parens Paul.-Fest. 247.11 L (uulgo / sed iuris prudentes), petimina 228.01 L. i. Quand plusieurs savants, désignés par leur nom ou par alii ou quidam, proposent des sens différents, ces sens sont donnés et Verrius Flaccus, ou Festus peut ajouter son opinion personnelle. Pour perfugam 236.10 L, Gallus Aelius propose un sens identique à celui de transfuga (esclave ou homme libre qui passe à l’ennemi), mais d’autres (quanquam sunt qui credant) suggèrent une nuance de sens (personne qui s’enfuit par espoir de gain). j. Quand il s’agit de distinguer différents sens d’un mot, l’article se fait article de differentiae: permutatur 234.20 L (proprie) est distingué de commutatur (at commutatur cum…), mais Verrius reconnaît qu’ils sont déjà confondus dans l’usage. Un même mot peut avoir deux sens également acceptables, comme pigere 234.05

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 35 L (interdum … interdum…); pro 256.08 L (préposition ou préfixe) peut avoir plusieurs significations; la différence entre properare (268.02 L) et festinare est donnée par Caton; s.v. monstrum 122.07 L, sont distingués, grâce à leur étymologie, les sens de monstrum, prodigium, portentum et ostentum. k. Les articles peuvent fournir des listes, par exemple s.v. praefecturae 262.02 L: y sont décrits deux types de «préfectures», avec plus d’une dizaine de villes pour illustrer chacun des cas. La première série, close, est annoncée par le démonstratif haec (in haec oppida), la seconde, introduite par ut, aurait pu être étendue, comme semble l’indiquer la formule finale (aliaque conplura). S.v. publica sacra (284.19 L) sont énumérées les différentes fêtes qui se font sur fonds publics pour l’ensemble du peuple, et les priuata sacra, qui sont donnés pour des hommes ou des familles particulières, et s.v. pollucere 298.26 L, les denrées que l’on peut offrir aux dieux. Le titre de De uerborum significatione est donc à la fois réducteur, car il ne s’agit pas que d’un dictionnaire qui donnerait les sens des mots d’une langue, et suffisamment exact pour accueillir toutes sortes de notices aux présentations variées. Le même constat, ou presque, est fait par Festus lui-même, qui dans l’article pictor Zeuxis 228.10 L conteste la présence de l’anecdote sur la mort étrange du peintre dans un ouvrage censé donner la signification des mots. Plusieurs approches sont privilégiées dans les articles du De uerborum significatione: les deux principales sont l’évolution diachronique de la forme d’un mot, et l’explication du sens par l’étymologie. Grâce à ces deux types d’approches, il est possible de se faire une idée de l’histoire de la langue telle que la concevait Verrius Flaccus: traquer les mots anciens lui permet d’en retrouver les traces dans la langue présente – properus a ainsi donné propere. Les formes anciennes peuvent alors venir au secours de l’étymologie: dans la section des o- Festus semble contester l’étymologie de orcus, quod nos maxime urgeat ad mortem, parce qu’il n’y a pas d’exemple qui attesterait de l’existence de la forme uragum que Verrius attribue aux antiqui. A-t-elle été recréée artificiellement par Verrius Flaccus pour les besoins de la démonstration étymologique? Ce sont les formes anciennes, ou les sens anciens des mots, qui intéressent Verrius Flaccus, même s’il aime aussi expliquer des termes techniques, par exemple juridiques ou religieux. Dans les explications étymologiques, les étymons grecs ne sont pas particulièrement privilégiés, même s’ils sont assez nombreux.1 Praepetes 224.06 L, terme poétique pour désigner tous les oiseaux, ou technique pour désigner certains oiseaux employés dans la divination, est expliqué par trois étymologies différentes: praeteruolare (praepetere au sens d’aller devant, cf. Paul Diacre 287.10 L?), 1 Pour notre échantillon des p-, on pourra par exemple relever les articles praepetes, pilare, pelamys, picati, petauristas (Aelius Stilo), petoritum (plusieurs propositions: origine gauloise, osque, ou grecque), pennas, pescia, pegnides, porigam, pagi, pedidos, Paean, phascolia, prandium, procalare, plexa, pedulla, protelare, prorsus, potitus. Voir cependant Pieroni 2004, 115, n. 245, qui souligne une tendance grécisante de Verrius Flaccus par rapport à Varron.

36 marie-karine lhommé praepetere (au sens de désirer), ante conspectum uolent (préfixe tiré du latin, verbe tiré du grec). On ignore de qui vient la remarque disant que cette troisième étymologie est composée inepte: il nous manque en effet le nom de l’auteur de cette proposition (nous sommes dans les lacunes des apographes).1 La dette de la langue latine à l’égard du grec se lit dans plusieurs articles, comme solitaurilia 372.22 L: est proposée pour ce mot, qui désigne un suovétaurile, l’étymologie le décomposant en l’élément osque sollum et en taurus. Pour expliquer l’orthographe avec un seul l, il est rappelé que les anciens ne redoublaient pas les consonnes:2 c’est Ennius, étant grec, qui a introduit dans la langue latine l’habitude grecque de géminer certaines lettres (utpote Graecus Graeco more). Une étude thématique, comme celle des articles liés d’une façon ou d’une autre à la religion romaine3 dans le lexique de Festus, permet de mieux comprendre la nature de cet ouvrage. L’examen des notices consacrées à des temples, des fêtes du calendrier ou des prêtrises montre que sont rassemblées dans ce lexique des données sur la religion traditionnelle et non sur la religion restaurée et rénovée par Auguste.4 Le matériau collecté réflétait sans doute les domaines de recherche des érudits de la fin de la République, en particulier de ceux qui, dans l’entourage d’Auguste, comme Verrius Flaccus, allaient aider le princeps dans sa réforme des cultes traditionnels. Les innovations augustéennes ne sont pas directement mentionnées, comme elles peuvent l’être sur les Fastes de Préneste, composés par Verrius Flaccus lui-même (Suét. gram. 17); les temples étudiés ne sont pas de nouveaux temples, mais souvent ceux qu’Auguste allait relever. Le lexique de Festus n’est cependant pas exhaustif sur tous les sujets religieux, comme cherchaient à l’être les Antiquités de Varron. Les livres sibyllins sont par exemple quasiment absents, mentionnés seulement dans des anecdotes, alors qu’ils devaient être à l’origine d’un certain nombre de mots de vocabulaire technique. Ce qui est mentionné est ce qui avait fait l’objet de débats ou de recherches poussées au dernier siècle de la République: le nombre de jours des Saturnales par exemple, les interdits des flamines, la signification du chant des Saliens. Le contenu des articles de Festus n’est donc pas simplement descriptif et ne se veut pas exhaustif, mais souvent évoque de telles discussions ou de tels problèmes. Le travail reste à faire sur les articles de Verrius Flaccus portant sur la langue latine et la grammaire, mais on pourrait partir d’une hypothèse semblable: Verrius Flaccus rassemblerait, dans cet ouvrage, les mots ou expressions posant problème, discutés entre érudits au long du 1er siècle av. J.-C., et jusqu’à Tibère. Il peut s’agir de mots anciens, ceux des antiqui, dont il faut donner le sens parce 1 Dans le cas d’amnis (am dérivé de l’amphi grec + nare), l’article ne nous est conservé que par Paul.Fest. 15.24 L, et nous n’avons plus trace d’une quelconque discussion. Pour le mot qu’il considère comme étant d’origine grecque plexa 258.33 L, il est dit explicitement que nous (nos: contemporains de Verrius ou de Festus?) y ajoutons le préfixe per- dans perplexa. 2 Cf. s.v. polet 222.27 L. 3 Voir ma thèse inédite, Lhommé 2003. 4 Voir Lhommé 2009.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 37 qu’ils sont sortis de l’usage; quand les mots sont encore usités, l’article se justifie parce qu’il propose une étymologie, ou donne le ou les sens qui ne sont pas évidents (differentiae, explication des termes techniques). Malgré le filtre d’une double entreprise d’abréviation, celle de Festus et celle de Paul Diacre, et la perte de nombreux articles, on peut deviner que la visée de Verrius Flaccus n’était pas encyclopédique, parce que non systématique, mais faite au gré des lectures et des discussions. Le résultat final pouvait cependant ressembler à une quasi-encyclopédie, tant l’information accumulée paraît riche. 2. Paul Diacre et la transformation en glossaire Le résumé que fit Paul Diacre du lexique du De uerborum significatione de Festus a bénéficié d’une attention tout à fait exceptionnelle pour un texte de ce genre: il ne s’agit en effet que de la reprise en grande partie remaniée et abrégée d’un lexique antérieur, qui, en temps ordinaire, ne serait étudiée que comme témoignage de ce qui pouvait intéresser le 8ème siècle carolingien. C’est l’état désespéré du Farnesianus qui explique que l’on ait aussi bien édité le résumé de Paul Diacre. Il manque à l’unique témoin de Festus les sections correspondant aux lettres a à m et la moitié des colonnes extérieures pour les lettres m à v. Dès lors, les excerpta réalisés par Paul Diacre étaient le seul moyen d’essayer de reconstituer ce premier texte inestimable. Alors qu’il n’était pas encore formellement identifié à Paul Diacre (c’est-à-dire jusqu’à la fin du 19ème siècle et la confirmation de Karl Neff),1 le dénommé Paulus, auteur de ces excerpta, a été souvent méprisé par les éditeurs de Festus, pour la médiocrité de son résumé, mais aussi parce qu’on accusait sa compilation d’avoir mis fin à la copie et à la diffusion de Festus. Cette affirmation est sans doute erronée, puisque c’est bien au contraire Paul Diacre qui a dû faire redécouvrir la version longue de Festus par la version abrégée qu’il avait proposée: le Farnesianus, manuscrit du 11ème siècle provenant des environs de Rome, est peut-être le fruit de cette remise à l’honneur d’un texte très long et portant sur des réalités désuètes. Mais donc, si Paul Diacre a été aussi bien édité, c’est parce qu’il devait avant tout permettre de reconstituer les lacunes de Festus.2 Roberta Cervani, en 1978, a proposé une étude statistique très approfondie du résumé pour lui-même. Pour établir ses statistiques, elle a défini environ 25 catégories d’informations données par les articles de Festus et de Paul Diacre. Un même article de Festus peut fournir des renseignements appartenant à plusieurs catégories, par exemple sur la religion romaine, sur un point de topographie et sur un mythe étiologique. Elle a ainsi compté 6.954 informations livrées par le texte du Farnesianus lorsqu’il n’était pas lacunaire, contre 2.706 seulement dans le texte correspondant de Paul Diacre. Elle a ensuite étudié le pourcentage de réduction par rapport à Festus en examinant trois cas de figure: l’élimination complète d’un lemme qui portait sur tel ou tel sujet, l’abréviation partielle d’un 1 Neff 1891.

2 North 2008.

38 marie-karine lhommé lemme qui équivalait à l’élimination d’une ou plusieurs informations, et la conservation de certains articles. Paul a éliminé environ 60% des informations présentes dans Festus. Près de 400 articles ont entièrement disparu, et 700 ont subi une réduction plus ou moins importante. Elle en était arrivée à la conclusion que ce qu’éliminait Paul Diacre était ce qui touchait à la civilisation romaine antique dans ce qu’elle avait de plus typique: expressions, proverbes, religion, coutumes. Elle notait d’autre part la disparition des citations d’auteurs qui servaient à illustrer les articles, et qui remontaient à des auteurs qui n’étaient plus lus au Moyen-Âge. Si Ennius, Plaute, Caton, et même Lucilius sont conservés pour le quart de leurs occurrences, Pacuvius, Afranius, Accius, Caecilius disparaissent presque complètement, et, parmi les sources érudites, Aelius Stilo, Aelius Gallus, Cincius sont encore plus touchés. Les catégories les mieux conservées (notices à caractère étymologique, signification d’un mot, explications de mot ou de phrase) sont celles qui correspondent à ce qu’on attend d’un lexique. Éliminant la référence littéraire, se contentant assez souvent de donner des équivalences de mots, Paul Diacre transformait partiellement la quasi-encyclopédie de Verrius Flaccus et de Festus en lexique utile pour la réforme carolingienne de la langue latine. Comme Paul Diacre l’annonce lui-même dans sa préface, il va supprimer, et éclaircir des notices de Festus. Mais il va aussi les adapter à la langue de son époque, ce qui fait partie des éclaircissements annoncés. L’étude de la langue de Paul Diacre a déjà été faite par K. Neff pour prouver qu’il s’agissait bien de l’abréviateur de Festus, et a été aussi développée par R. Cervani en préambule à ses études plus poussées. L’adaptation linguistique fait ressortir quelques constantes: la confusion entre o et u, le passage des diphtongues ae et oe à e, le passage de au à o, la confusion entre u et v, un usage incertain de l’aspirée, la confusion entre x et s, la transformation de ti en ci, de d en t, la gémination de r, de n, l’hésitation entre mp et np, mais aussi des changements de genre et de nombre, de déclinaison, des confusions dans les conjugaisons. En syntaxe, on peut noter des emplois des cas un peu différents (par exemple, l’accusatif absolu), des changements dans les pronoms et adjectifs, dans les conjonctions, et les adverbes. Parmi les adaptations de Paul Diacre qui reviennent systématiquement, le changement de temps n’est pas une pure adaptation linguistique, et le passage à l’imparfait, très courant pour les notices de civilisation, permet de mettre à distance un monde depuis longtemps disparu, et de faire apparaître ce résumé comme un témoignage d’une époque païenne révolue.1 Cette mise à l’imparfait, quasi systématique pour les faits de civilisation, ne permet plus de distinguer le 1 Par exemple, l’article praeciamitatores de Festus 292.03 L – (Praeciamitatores† dicuntur, qui flaminibus Diali, Quirinali, Martiali, antecedent exclamant feriis publicis, ut homines abstineant se opere, quia his opus facientem uidere religiosum est) devient chez Paul Diacre 293.01 L – (je souligne les changements de temps), Praeciamitatores dicebantur, qui flamini Diali, id est sacerdoti Iouis, antecedebant clamantes, ut homines se ab opere abstinerent, quia his opus facientem uidere inreligiosum erat.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 39 passé déjà révolu au temps de Verrius et de Festus de leur présent. Ainsi, pour l’article Mutinus Titinus (Festus 142.20 L, Paul.-Fest. 143.10 L), le texte de Festus indique bien que le temple vient de disparaître à l’époque d’Auguste (fuit), remplacé par les bains de la maison de Domitius Calvinus, alors qu’il existait depuis la fondation de Rome (cum mansisset), et il semble être question d’un culte encore actuel (ubi et colitur, dans un fragment du Farnesianus): chez Paul Diacre, le temple a lui aussi disparu (fuit), sans qu’on puisse savoir à quelle époque, et le culte (solebant sacrificare) est lui aussi révolu. Si l’on n’avait conservé que Paul Diacre, on pourrait penser que le temple existe toujours au temps de Festus (simple passage à un temps du passé) et qu’il a disparu plus tard. Or la raison d’être de la notice du premier lexique est précisément d’indiquer qu’un lieu de culte a été détruit (s’agit-il d’une critique?), mais que son nom doit encore apparaître dans d’anciennes sources, et de rassembler ce que l’on sait sur le dieu, ou son culte, qui vient de perdre sa chapelle.1 Le présent est généralement conservé par Paul Diacre pour les notations grammaticales, et le verbe peut même disparaître entièrement derrière une simple équivalence sémantique.2 D’une manière générale, Paul Diacre élimine beaucoup les sources, qu’elles soient des extraits d’auteurs archaïques cités à l’appui d’une démonstration, ou des citations d’érudits qui cautionnent une définition. Quand il réduit des articles, il a tendance à garder intact le début, assez développé, et la toute fin, ce qui fait des raccourcis parfois fâcheux, comme pour l’article pudicitiae signum (Festus 282.18 L; Paul.-Fest. 283.08 L). Festus y évoque et localise deux statues, celle de la Pudeur, que certains identifient comme une statue de la Fortune, et celle de la Fortune des Femmes (Fortuna Muliebris). Il indique en outre que la statue de Fortuna Muliebris ne peut être touchée que par une femme mariée une seule fois, sans qu’on sache si item porte sur l’existence d’une autre statue de Fortuna ou sur 1 On pourrait citer, comme autre exemple, penem (Festus 260.15 L; Paul.-Fest. 261.03 L): le sens ancien du mot (antiqui uocabant cf. Cic. Fam. 9.22.2), queue (coda), est conservé dans une expression rituelle encore utilisée (etiam nunc uocatur), celle d’offa penita, et dans le dérivé peniculus (brosse, balai). Chez Paul Diacre, le sens ancien et l’expression rituelle sont repoussés dans le passé (uocabant – sans la mention des antiqui; offam penitam dicebant); le nom du balai est toujours expliqué par un présent: hinc et peniculos dicimus. Le mot peniculus, présent chez Plaute et donc chez les connaisseurs de Plaute, est attesté au sens de pinceau, de brosse ou d’éponge par des auteurs tardifs tels qu’Ammien Marcellin (15.5.4 et 19.8.8), Ennode de Pavie (au moins à cinq reprises, dont epist. 1.16, et 3.24), et, plus proche de Paul, Paulin d’Aquilée, contra Felicem, epist. l. 22 («cccm», 95). 2 Par exemple s.v. properus (Festus 254.07 L, Paul.-Fest. 255.03 L), Festus indique explicitement que properus est une forme ancienne (antiquos dixisse), employée au sens de celer, et il en donne pour preuve l’adverbe propere. Paul Diacre raccourcit: Properus celer, unde aduerbium propere. Il est vrai que l’adjectif properus se retrouve chez les poètes et dans la prose poétique (chez Tacite, cf. Dictionnaire d’Ernout Meillet), même si seul l’adverbe propere est employé en prose classique. Paul perd donc toute trace de ce qui posait problème chez Festus (classement du mot parmi les mots archaïques, réaffirmé s.v. properam 300.03 L), mais peut-être ne fait-il que constater que le mot est toujours en usage. Ainsi, en 301.01 L, indique-t-il: Properam celerem strenuamque significat, ajoutant de son propre chef le présent significat, là où Festus avait Properam pro celeri ac strenua dixisse antiquos testimonio est Cato.

40 marie-karine lhommé l’interdiction qui y est attachée.1 Chez Paul, c’est la statue de la Pudeur qui ne peut être touchée que par ce type de femme.2 Sur les 800 articles environ retenus pour mon étude de la religion romaine chez Festus (800 sur 3.317 articles conservés au total par Festus, les apographes et Paul Diacre), environ 400 ne provenaient que du texte de Paul Diacre, et principalement des lettres a à m. La répartition des 800 lemmes est approximativement la suivante: 50%, ne sont conservés que par Paul Diacre, 20%, uniquement par le Farnesianus, 30% sont des articles communs, par leur entrée, au résumé et au manuscrit unique. Cela signifie que Paul Diacre a conservé près de 80% des lemmes sur la religion dont nous disposons actuellement, et que, toute proportion gardée, la religion, et les rites des gentils, constituent une part importante de son epitome et méritaient donc de figurer dans la dédicace. Paul Diacre élimine certes beaucoup, mais il présente un intérêt inestimable pour l’historien des religions, à condition que ce dernier ne confonde pas Festus et Paul Diacre.3 L’existence des deux textes permet de comprendre un certain nombre des réflexes d’abréviation de Paul Diacre, sachant qu’il n’est pas non plus systématique, et ne va pas éliminer, par exemple, tous les articles se rapportant aux prodiges et aux éclairs, même s’il va le faire très souvent. Ainsi: - les auspices et notamment les différentes sortes d’oiseaux n’ont retenu l’attention de Paul Diacre que quand il y avait l’explication d’un nom commun ou lorsqu’une étymologie était proposée; - la même remarque vaut pour les éclairs, sous les articles peremptalia et pestifera (répétés deux fois): aucune des deux occurrences n’a été gardée dans l’épitomé, de même pour renouatiuum ou trisulcum. Mais fanatica avait été conservé; - les noms de victimes sacrificielles ont souvent disparu: penitam offam, rutilae canes, pulcher bos, uictimam; - la hiérarchie des prêtres n’a pas intéressé Paul Diacre: minorum pontificum, quintiliani Luperci, ordo sacerdotum; - les rites des saliens (s.v. salias uirgines), et notamment leur hymne, n’ont pas été conservés: ainsi, dans la longue liste de mots (16) du chant des Saliens du début de la section des p-, seuls ont été conservés, avec suppression du contexte, praeceptat, plisima, et petilam suram; 1 Festus 282.18 L Pudicitiae signum in foro Bouario est, ubi Aemiliana aedis est Herculis. Eam quidam Fortunae esse existimant. Item uia Latina ad milliarium iiii Fortunae Muliebris, nefas est attingi, nisi ab ea, quae semel nupsit. «Pudicitiae signum: la statue de la Pudeur se trouve sur le Forum Boarium à l’endroit où se situe le temple émilien d’Hercule. Certains pensent qu’il s’agit de la Fortune. De même, sur la Via Latina, à la quatrième borne milliaire, il est interdit à tous de toucher la statue de Fortuna Muliebris, sauf à une femme mariée une seule fois.». 2 Paul Diacre 283.08 L Pudicitiae signum Romae colebatur, quod nefas erat attingi, nisi ab ea, quae semel nupsisset. «Pudicitiae signum: on honorait à Rome la statue de la Pudeur, qu’il était interdit à tous de toucher, sauf à une femme mariée une seule fois.». 3 Dans son article (2008) John North, grand spécialiste de la religion romaine, a privilégié les exemples de lemmes portant sur ce sujet. Je le remercie de m’avoir signalé ce travail.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 41 - un certain nombre de mythes étiologiques ont disparu, s.v. Mamertini, oscillantes, potitium (même chose pour une partie du lemme putitium); - lorsque deux articles se répètent par leurs entrées, les répétitions ont généralement été supprimées, comme par exemple celle des parilia (Festus 286.26 L), ou des piscatorii ludi (Festus 274.35 L). Ainsi donc, sont supprimées entièrement des notices techniques et difficiles (les vierges saliennes posent problème encore aujourd’hui), qui ne devaient pas présenter un grand intérêt pour le moine carolingien, car ces mots ou ces sens se rencontraient peu ou jamais dans les textes latins encore en circulation, et renvoyaient à des pratiques religieuses païennes disparues depuis très longtemps. L’entrée quelquefois est conservée, mais Paul Diacre, dans son entreprise d’abréviation, en élimine la partie plus ou moins importante qui présentait un intérêt sur le plan religieux, et « laïcise » alors l’article. Il peut ne s’agir que d’un exemple, ce qui ne déséquilibre pas fondamentalement l’article. Parfois, il élimine le sens religieux du mot. Le type le plus gênant d’élimination, pour nous, est celui qui supprime la source ou le contexte d’utilisation du mot: ce n’est plus alors qu’un mot ancien au milieu d’autres. Cette démarche est la même que pour les citations d’auteurs littéraires, ce qui fait que le mot qui appartient au vocabulaire religieux n’est plus distingué du reste. Ainsi, une expression aussi obscure que napuras nectito, présente dans deux articles distincts, et prononcée par un pontife (mineur), donne lieu à un traitement extrême. Les deux mots de l’expression sont glosés tour à tour; or, si nectere est un verbe courant, même en latin classique, surtout au sens figuré, napurae n’est attesté que chez Festus.1 Mais le résultat chez Paul Diacre est le même: les deux mots sont réduits à une équivalence sémantique. Festus 160.14 L: Nectere ligare significat, et est apud plurumos auctores frequens; quin etiam in commentario sacrorum usurpatur hoc modo: «Pontifex minor ex stramentis napuras nectito», id est funiculos facito, quibus sues adnectantur. Nectere signifie lier, et ce verbe est fréquent chez de très nombreux auteurs; bien plus, il est employé de cette façon dans le commentaire des sacrifices: «Que le pontife mineur lie des cordes [napuras] faites de paille», c’est-à-dire: qu’il fasse des cordes pour en attacher les porcs. Paul Diacre 161.06 L Nectere ligare. Nectere: lier. Festus 168.26 L Napuras nectito, cum dixit pontifex, funiculi ex stramentis fiunt. Napuras nectito: quand le pontife a dit cette formule, on fait de petites cordes en paille. Paul.-Fest. 169.07 L Napurae funiculi. Napurae: petites cordes.

1 Voir le commentaire de Pieroni 2004, 62.

42

marie-karine lhommé

On perd donc, avec Paul Diacre, l’expression employée dans le commentaire des sacrifices (napuras nectito), que les deux articles servaient apparemment à expliquer, mais aussi le fait que le verbe nectere était courant. On remarquera que, dans la glose finale de l’expression napuras nectito, Festus utilise non ligare, mais adnectere, peut-être plus courant que nectere au sens propre. Les deux mots sont mis sur le même plan chez Paul Diacre, et apparaissent tels qu’en un glossaire. On pourrait citer une foule d’autres exemples qui ne permettent plus de juger du contexte exact d’utilisation du mot: pesestas 230.26 L est un mot utilisé dans les prières de lustration des champs, mais son sens exact (pestilentiam, épidémie) n’est plus connu, seulement déduit par Verrius Flaccus du reste de la formule qui est citée. Chez Paul Diacre, 231.18, on trouve: Pesestas dicebatur pestilentia. Pour rendre plus clairs certains articles de son abrégé, Paul Diacre peut aussi tenir compte de l’évolution sémantique de mots à son époque. Si les sens du mot ‘religion’ de nos jours n’ont plus grand chose à voir avec celui du terme religio de l’époque païenne, il a aussi changé de signification dans la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles, et donc chez Paul Diacre qui élimine complètement les cinq articles dont la vedette était religio ou religiosus: religiosus 348.22-350.13 L; religioni 358.01-06 L; religionis 358.30-362.02 L; religiosi 366.02-05 L, religiosum 366.19-23 L. Les différents sens du mot, et les distinctions entre sacer, sanctus et religiosus, dans leur aspect juridique notamment, y étaient développés, parfois assez longuement.1 Au Moyen Âge, les religiosi, d’après le dictionnaire Du Cange (vol. 7, col. 110112, s.v. religio), sont ceux qui se sont voués à la vie religieuse; une femme religiosa est une moniale. Un lieu religiosus est un lieu où est enterré un mort: dans le langage juridique, il peut donc s’appliquer aux sepulchra. La religio quant à elle désigne essentiellement la vie monastique. Le dictionnaire de Niermeyer donne trois sens à religiosus: qui s’est voué à la vie religieuse, qui concerne la vie ascétique, qui concerne la vie cléricale (907). Dans ce que nous avons conservé du Farnesianus et des apographes, le nom religio se trouvait dix-neuf fois, et religiosus, vingt-cinq, parfois plusieurs fois dans le même article. Dans tout le résumé de Paul Diacre, le nom religio n’apparaît en fait que sept fois, et l’adjectif religiosus, trois fois (et inreligiosus, qui correspondait chez Festus à religiosus, une fois). Le mot religio n’est conservé tel quel chez Paul Diacre que lorsqu’il signifie «religion» ou «culte» (au pluriel), comme s.v. mos, où il est associé à caerimoniae (147.03 L). Il reste employé dans la distinction entre sacré et profane, s.v. profanum (p 299.11 L), profesti (257.13 L) et resecrare (353.09 L), ou lorsque apparaît l’expression dies religiosus (s.v. mundus 145.12 L et strenam 411.06 L). Mais l’adjectif religiosus ne signifie plus, chez Paul Diacre, ‘frappé d’interdiction’, ou ‘exclu par une

1 Voir Souza 2004, 53-70, pour l’examen des sources érudites, de Festus à Isidore (Diff. 1.33).

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 43 interdiction religieuse’. On rencontre une fois chez l’érudit carolingien, dans ce sens, l’adjectif inreligiosus: Festus 292.03 L Praeciamitatores† dicuntur, qui flaminibus Diali, Quirinali, Martiali, antecedent exclamant feriis publicis, ut homines abstineant se opere, quia his opus facientem uidere religiosum est. Praeciamitatores: on appelle ainsi ceux qui précèdent le flamine de Jupiter, de Quirinus, de Mars, et réclament, aux fêtes publiques, que les hommes s’abstiennent de travailler, parce qu’un interdit religieux [religiosum est] leur défend de voir un homme à la tâche. Paul.-Fest. 293.01 L Praeciamitatores dicebantur, qui flamini Diali, id est sacerdoti Iouis, antecedebant clamantes, ut homines se ab opere abstinerent, quia his opus facientem uidere inreligiosum erat. Praeciamitatores: on appellait ainsi ceux qui précèdaient le flamine Dial, c’est-à-dire le prêtre de Jupiter, et réclamaient que les hommes s’abstiennent de travailler, parce qu’il était contraire à la religion [inreligiosum erat] qu’ils voient un homme à la tâche.

Le changement de sens du terme religio entraîne, de la part de Paul Diacre, une légère incompréhension du lemme peregrina sacra: Festus 268.27 L Peregrina sacra appellantur, quae aut euocatis dis in oppugnandis urbibus Romam sunt †conata†, aut quae ob quasdam religiones per pacem sunt petita, ut ex Phrygia Matris Magnae, ex Graecia Cereris, Epidauro Aesculapi: quae coluntur eorum more, a quibus sunt accepta. Peregrina sacra: on appelle cérémonies pérégrines celles qu’on a importées à Rome après l’évocation des dieux au siège des villes, ou alors celles qu’on est allé chercher par temps de paix suite à certains scrupules religieux, comme celles de la Grande Mère, venue de Phrygie, de Cérès, venue de Grèce, d’Esculape, venu d’Épidaure: on les célèbre suivant la coutume de ceux dont on les a reçues. Paul.-Fest. 269.08 L Peregrina sacra sunt dicta, quae ab aliis urbibus religionis gratia sunt aduecta. Peregrina sacra: on appelle cérémonies pérégrines celles qui ont été apportées d’autres villes pour une raison religieuse.

Chez Festus, il s’agit de dieux étrangers que l’on fait venir à Rome ob quasdam religiones, c’est-à-dire par scrupule, ou avertissement religieux. Chez Paul Diacre, non seulement l’evocatio des dieux lors des sièges disparaît, mais les cultes étrangers sont importés d’autres villes religionis gratia, pour satisfaire à la piété, à la ferveur religieuse (singulier). Ainsi, le nom religio et l’adjectif religiosus montrent bien que Paul Diacre a tenu compte du changement de leur sens à son époque: ils disparaissent dans la plupart des cas, et, lorsqu’ils sont conservés, sont utilisés dans leur nouvelle acception. Même si R. Cervani montre, dans ses statistiques, que près de la moitié des informations qui se rapportaient à la topographie de l’ancienne Rome a été éliminée, elle reconnaît que c’étaient les lieux les moins significatifs qui avaient dis-

44 marie-karine lhommé paru. Conformément au programme annoncé dans la lettre de dédicace, Paul Diacre donne une liste des portes, voies, collines, lieux et tribus de Rome, et ajoute presque systématiquement le locatif Romae. Les liens entre Charlemagne, patrice des Romains, et Rome étaient particulièrement forts après les troubles provoqués par les Lombards,1 et conserver les noms de lieux de la ville placée sous la protection du roi franc pouvait plaire au destinataire de l’abrégé. Ce locatif est un ajout de Paul Diacre, car Festus ne traitait presque que de lieux de Rome, ou du Latium, et il n’était donc pas besoin de préciser la ville. En général, plutôt que de dire que Paul Diacre ajoute le locatif Romae, il faudrait voir ce qu’il remplace par ce simple mot. L’article Mutini Titini sacellum (Festus 142.20 L) n’est plus très lisible dans le texte du Farnesianus, parce qu’on est au début du manuscrit conservé, et qu’il y a quelques trous au beau milieu de la colonne encore intacte. Chez Festus, il s’agit d’évoquer un temple qui vient tout juste de disparaître, alors qu’il existait depuis la fondation de la ville. C’est cette disparition peut-être scandaleuse qui est soulignée par Verrius Flaccus, dans l’une des rares mentions du principat d’Auguste dans le lexique. Verrius Flaccus avait probablement encore vu ce sanctuaire d’un dieu totalement oublié, mais qui présentait la particularité d’être très ancien. Chez Paul Diacre (143.10 L), la localisation précise du temple disparaît au profit du locatif. L’ancienneté, la disparition même du temple ne sont plus mentionnées. Seul un élément du culte, assez étonnant (des femmes en toge prétexte, habit masculin) est maintenu, mais nous ne savons hélas plus où le placer dans le texte de Festus. Si ce dieu a perdu tout intérêt au point de ne plus être mentionné que chez Verrius Flaccus et Varron, il a été sauvé par les chrétiens Tertullien, Lactance, Arnobe, Augustin, qui en ont fait une figure priapique vouée à dénoncer le caractère infâmant des dieux romains. Paul Diacre, qui ne fait que résumer Festus, n’enrichit pas son résumé de ces notices polémiques, tout simplement, sans doute, parce que l’on n’est plus dans l’urgence des premiers siècles et que la religion païenne a reculé au point d’être insignifiante. Il a choisi, néanmoins, peutêtre en raison de ces citations de Pères de l’Église, de conserver une partie de l’article de Festus. Les lieux de culte et les problèmes de topographie assez largement développés par Festus, comme ils l’étaient déjà par Varron, donnent à Paul Diacre l’occasion d’énumérer des temples pas toujours très connus ou localisables, et de peupler Rome de lieux de cultes païens, tous honorés de la même manière. Les articles évoquant les dieux subissent le même traitement. Festus ou Verrius Flaccus n’ont pas d’ambition encyclopédique, c’est-à-dire qu’ils ne cherchent pas, comme Varron, à donner une liste exhaustive des divinités majeures et mineures de Rome, mais, au gré des lectures de Verrius Flaccus, s’accumulent des noms de dieux rares et les traces de débats qui portent sur 1 Lebecq 1990, 216-219 et 239-242.

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 45 eux. L’article Pietas (228.28 L) propose chez Festus un mythe étiologique de fondation du temple de la déesse Piété; chez Paul Diacre (229.04 L), Pietas devient une déesse parmi d’autres: Pietatem ut deos ceteros colebant Romani. La même chose arrive aux nixi di, qui désignent avant tout des statues chez Festus, sans qu’il y ait vraiment identification de ces divinités.1 Minerve n’est pas, a priori, une déesse de l’accouchement, mais l’attitude et le nom de ces statues pourraient s’expliquer par le fait que les divinités (mineures?) qu’elles représentent sont à genoux comme pour aider des femmes en train d’accoucher. L’accent est mis, chez Festus, sur l’origine de ces statues, qui ne sont donc pas liées originellement à Minerve, mais viennent de Syrie ou de Corinthe. Ce sont donc sans doute des œuvres d’art exposées dans la galerie du temple du Capitole. Chez Paul Diacre, ces statues ne sont plus des objets d’art mais deviennent des dieux comme les autres et l’étymologie reprise à Festus rend cet article semblable à ceux qui décrivent effectivement des dieux mineurs, si bien que les nixi di ont été pris pour tels par un certain nombre de savants: Paul Diacre 183.10 L Nixi di appellabantur, quos putabant praesidere parientium nixibus. Nixi di: on appelait ainsi les di nixi, parce qu’on pensait qu’ils présidaient aux efforts [nixibus] des parturientes.

Quant aux dieux plus connus, ils faisaient l’objet chez Festus de plusieurs articles, généralement, pour développer du vocabulaire propre à leur culte, le type de bêtes qui leur étaient sacrifiées, leur jour de fête, la dédicace de leur temple, etc. Saturne a de plus fait l’objet d’une monographie de la part de Verrius Flaccus. Voilà pourquoi les articles qui le concernent sont particulièrement importants dans ce qui reste de Festus. Paul Diacre, quand il ne supprime pas purement et simplement l’article (mutilé) Saturno sacrificium, 462.28 L, où Festus développait des particularismes de rituels, réduit Saturno dies festus 432.09 L à une simple équivalence de formes: (433.01 L) Sateurnus Saturnus. Chez Festus, Saturnus est la forme archaïque du nom du dieu qui apparaît dans le chant des Saliens; chez Paul Diacre, c’est l’objet d’une simple glose. Paul Diacre va conserver des épiclèses et des épithètes mais de telle façon qu’on ne peut plus faire la distinction entre ce qui est littéraire et ce qui est cultuel. On sait par exemple par Macrobe (1.17) que l’épiclèse d’Apollon Paean est

1 Festus 182.23 L Nixi di appellantur tria signa in Capitolio ante cellam Mineruae genibus nixa, uelut praesidentes parientium nixibus, quae signa sunt qui memoriae prodiderint, Antiocho rege Syriae superato, M.’ Acilium subtracta a populo Romano adportasse, atque ubi sunt, posuisse: etiam qui capta Corintho aduecta huc, quae ibi subiecta fuerint mensae, «Nixi di: on appelle ainsi trois statues sur le Capitole, qui se trouvent devant la cella de Minerve, genoux fléchis (genibus nixa), comme si elles présidaient aux efforts (nixibus) des parturientes. Il y en a qui rappellent que, quand le roi de Syrie Antiochus fut vaincu, elles furent enlevées par le peuple Romain, apportées et placées par Manius Acilius là où elles se trouvent: il y en a même qui disent que c’est à la prise de Corinthe qu’elles furent apportées ici, où elles furent placées comme support de table.».

46 marie-karine lhommé cultuelle et doit se rapporter aux propriétés de guérisseur d’Apollon. Mais il y a aussi des épithètes que Verrius Flaccus glose probablement parce qu’elles se trouvent dans la poésie, notamment chez Virgile, comme Thymbreus. Dans le résumé que fait Paul Diacre, où il supprime souvent la source et donc le contexte d’emploi de ces adjectifs, il n’est plus possible de distinguer épithètes littéraires et épiclèses cultuelles. Sans doute de toute façon ces deux types de noms avaientils le même sens pour un chrétien, surnoms supplémentaires de dieux. Les excerpta de Paul Diacre, contrairement aux fragments de Verrius ou de Festus, représentent l’intégralité d’un ouvrage mené à son terme et complet. Il s’agit de ce que l’érudit au service de Charlemagne a retenu du lexique qu’il avait sous les yeux, selon les objectifs fixés dans sa lettre-programme. Si l’on ne disposait que du texte de Paul Diacre, on ne connaîtrait pas les notices problématiques des Saliae uirgines (439.18) par exemple. Beaucoup de dieux païens restent indéfinis (voir les exemples extrêmes de Pietas ou de Saturnus), tout comme ils le sont quand Augustin, les tirant des Antiquités divines de Varron, en dresse une liste rapide. Les rites sont d’autant plus étranges qu’ils n’étaient parfois que des tentatives d’étymologie, mal comprises. On garde les coutumes étranges du mariage (rapi simulatur uirgo 365.06 L, rapi solet fax 365.09 L) et on y fait ressembler, par la formulation, d’autres rites comme celui du resparsum uinum (319.01 L) dont on asperge le tombeau sans précision des circonstances. La disparition des acteurs des rites (s.v. persillum 239.02 L), des dates (s.v. piscatorii ludi 233.02 L), des lieux (s.v. Mutini Titini 143.10 L) contribue à renforcer cette atemporalité et cette étrangeté de cette religion disparue qui n’est plus qu’une suite de gestes superstitieux répétés par les Romains. Il n’y a plus d’agressivité vis-à-vis de la religion romaine païenne. Il s’agit d’une époque révolue, comme le marque le passage à l’imparfait, mais il n’y a plus d’intention polémique. Paul Diacre élimine fréquemment ce qui fait l’intérêt premier de l’article de Verrius Flaccus: il lisse, gomme, omet souvent ce qui avait attiré l’attention de Verrius Flaccus. Il présente alors une série de dieux aux contours assez vagues, alors que Verrius Flaccus s’efforçait de retrouver leur fonction ou les particularités de leurs rites. Il donne aussi une liste de temples qui sont tous à Rome, et dont certains avaient disparu déjà à l’époque de Verrius Flaccus et sûrement à celle de Charlemagne. Comme les grands lieux de culte comme le Capitole n’avaient pas suscité de débats particuliers, ils ne se trouvent pas chez Festus, pas plus que chez Paul Diacre. Paradoxalement, donc, les lieux les plus importants de Rome à l’époque de Verrius Flaccus étaient déjà absents de chez Festus. Ainsi donc, des articles de Festus très longs et complets, détaillant les aspects les plus techniques ou les plus archaïques de la religion romaine, peuvent être réduits chez Paul Diacre à des notices brèves, qui se contentent souvent de donner le sens du mot mis en vedette. Après le passage de Paul Diacre, le lexique de Festus ressemble davantage à ce que l’on attend du titre De uerborum significatione, ou d’un glossaire, puisque le résultat du travail d’abréviation est parfois la juxtaposition d’un mot implicitement considéré comme ancien ou rare et de son

festus et son adaptation par paul diacre 47 équivalent courant. Or certains mots, qui étaient utilisés dans un contexte religieux bien particulier, ne devaient pas beaucoup apparaître dans les textes classiques encore lus au Moyen Âge. La rareté de leur utilisation était soulignée dans la préface de Paul Diacre par des expressions telles que sermones abditi, ou uocabula diserta, mais sont mis sur le même plan un verbe courant comme nectere et un mot par ailleurs inconnu comme napurae. L’analyse proposée ici sur un corpus thématique qui suscitait plus particulièrement des articles aux formes variées, appartenant à tous les types d’articles relevés chez Festus, pourrait sans doute être étendue au reste de l’abrégé de Paul Diacre pour d’autres domaines de l’érudition, et notamment pour la grammaire. La perspective diachronique, qui intéressait tant Verrius Flaccus et Festus, est là aussi gommée par la simplification de Paul Diacre, et bien souvent on ne peut plus faire la part des mots archaïques ou encore en usage du temps de Verrius Flaccus, ni savoir si c’était le sens ou la forme d’un mot qui posaient problème. Il faut cependant nuancer cette conclusion: les exemples utilisés ici étaient généralement des cas extrêmes, et Paul peut aussi rester fidèle à son modèle. Le travail de réduction à la forme d’un glossaire n’est pas systématique, et Paul a conservé de quoi susciter l’intérêt d’un roi concerné par la réforme de la langue latine, mais aussi par la ville de Rome dont il est le protecteur. Cependant, dans les cas où nous n’avons conservé que Paul Diacre, la prudence s’impose: il ne faut pas confondre l’ouvrage quasi-encyclopédique de l’époque d’Auguste et le résumé au second degré de l’érudit carolingien. Si Festus semble encore maîtriser la matière de son prédécesseur, et partager ses centres d’intérêt linguistiques et érudits, Paul Diacre est, lui, très éloigné dans le temps et dans l’espace des realia et de la langue de l’époque d’Auguste.

This page intentionally left blank

NONIO M ARCE LLO E L A C O M PENDIO SA D OCTRI NA* Paolo Gatti

D

a molti anni ormai mi occupo, assieme ad altri colleghi genovesi, di Nonio Marcello. In questa sede, alla luce dell’esperienza acquisita, vorrei riassumere quello che si può dire sul personaggio e la sua opera, spiegare come sia strutturata, ribadire l’ipotesi, che avevo avanzato qualche anno fa, sul modo in cui sarebbe stata compilata. Inoltre, dal momento che il titolo di questo Convegno menziona il Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, mi soffermerò anche su quanto di noniano è presente in questa raccolta,1 cioè le Glossae Nonii. Naturalmente, per affrontare questi temi, saccheggerò, senza particolari scrupoli, lavori già da me pubblicati in precedenza.2 Pochissimi sono gli elementi a nostra disposizione che ci aiutano a fare un poco di luce sulla biografia di Nonio: nei manoscritti in cui è tràdita la sua opera, la Compendiosa doctrina, Nonius Marcellus è detto peripateticus Tuburgicensis. Questo vocabolo è da considerare grafia scorretta, o alternativa, per Thubursicensis. Alcuni decenni orsono Teresa Mantero ha dedicato uno studio3 lungo e complesso all’interpretazione dell’inscriptio dell’opera, inscriptio che contiene anche questa denominazione topografica. Nel suo studio Teresa Mantero cerca di sostenere che il vocabolo peripateticus non dovrebbe corrispondere a un vero e proprio filosofo, ma riferirsi più o meno a un grammaticus, un generico uomo di lettere, si potrebbe dire, una sorta di maestro di scuola. Se si accoglie questa interpretazione, si può affermare che Nonio, dichiarandosi peripateticus, non volle atteggiarsi a filosofo, quanto piuttosto cercò di ribadire i suoi interessi in ambito linguistico e letterario.4 L’aggettivo Thubursicensis si riferisce invece alla località di provenienza. Thubursicum, o Thubursicu, è il nome di due città dell’Africa Proconsolare:5 Thubursicum Bure – oggi Téboursouk, nella Tunisia settentrionale –, e Thubursicum Numidarum – oggi Khamissa, nell’Algeria nord-occidentale. È probabile che la patria di Nonio debba essere identificata con la seconda: Thubursicum Numidarum ebbe presumibilmente una vita culturale piuttosto sviluppata – vi si trovano i resti di un imponente teatro – e in essa è attestata anche la presenza della gens

* Si mantiene l’andamento discorsivo dell’intervento, con l’aggiunta delle note a pie’ di pagina. 1 Si vedano, più avanti, le note 3 e 4 a p. 62. 2 Mi riferisco, in particolare, a Gatti 1996, 2000, 2004 e 2005. 4 Cfr. anche Della Corte 1987, 35.

3 Mantero 1975. 5 Lepelley 1981, 206-217.

50 paolo gatti Nonia, con un Nonius Marcellus Herculius nel 326-3331 e un altro – o lo stesso? – Nonius in un’altra iscrizione frammentaria.2 Meno precisi dobbiamo essere quando cerchiamo di stabilirne la datazione: mancano elementi esterni ravvicinati e provvisti di una ragionevole consistenza. Nonio visse certamente dopo Aulo Gellio (ii secolo), autore da cui il nostro trasse numerosissimi passi senza mai menzionarlo; basta vedere, a questo proposito, l’elenco dei luoghi ‘ispirati’ da Gellio, che Lindsay riporta nell’Index auctorum posto alla fine della sua edizione noniana3 e, allo stesso tempo, considerare che l’autore delle Noctes Atticae non viene mai nominato. Nonio, anche quando cita Gellio direttamente, usa espressioni generiche del tipo: uetus auctoritatis obscurae (per Gell. 1.17.2, in Non. p. 791 L); ueteres prudentes (per Gell. 6.6.1, in p. 187 L); ueteres (per Gell. 8.3, in p. 175 L); prudentes (per Gell. 13.1.24, in p. 276 L). Il terminus post quem ci rinvia, quindi, a un periodo da collocare posteriormente al ii secolo (Gellio nacque con tutta probabilità tra il 125 e il 130). Nell’ultima edizione dell’Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur, pubblicato dal Thesaurus linguae Latinae nel 1990, Index che annota con precisione nomi, titoli e datazioni degli antichi autori latini e delle opere poste alla base del lessico, sulla base di quanto ha potuto verificare la più moderna critica, Cornelis G. van Leijenhorst, per datare Nonio, ricorre a un’espressione assai vaga: post Gellium, ante Priscianum.4 Prisciano è infatti il più antico autore che conosce sicuramente l’opera di Nonio – lo cita almeno tre volte.5 Se tenessimo pertanto solo conto dei terminus, con quello post quem (Gellio, nel ii secolo) assai alto rispetto al terminus ante quem (Prisciano, che risale alla prima metà del vi secolo), saremmo autorizzati a collocare cronologicamente Nonio in un periodo tanto ampio quanto incerto: esso può andare dalla seconda metà del ii a tutto il v secolo, se non ai primi del vi. Su questi dati cronologici si è recentemente tornati con un paio di contributi che hanno cercato di meglio definirli. La collocazione di Nonio, più o meno alta nel tempo, può essere importante per la storia della letteratura latina: non solo per Nonio e la sua opera, ma anche, e soprattutto, per l’antica fortuna degli autori citati nella Compendiosa doctrina.6 Nonio conosce di sicuro direttamente, e ne riporta passi, numerosi autori che risalgono soprattutto all’età repubblicana. Le opere di una parte di questi sono andate perdute,7 per cui le testimonianze che ci vengono proposte sono molto importanti, costituendone talora l’unica tradizione, benché indiretta. Inoltre, 1 cil , viii, 4878 = ils , 2943. 2 ila lg, i, 1287. 3 Lindsay 1903, 943-945. 4 Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur 19902, 162. 5 Bertini 1975. Echi noniani sembrano rintracciabili anche in Fulgenzio il Mitografo, anch’egli, come Prisciano, databile al vi secolo: cfr. Bertini 1972. 6 Nell’opera noniana si contano oltre 6.500 citazioni. 7 Si veda, più avanti, l’elenco delle fonti, i testi cioè che Nonio pone direttamente alla base della Compendiosa doctrina.

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 51 anche per quanto riguarda autori che ci sono pervenuti, Nonio, a seconda della sua collocazione nel tempo, dispone di edizioni che possono essere molto più antiche, o comunque differenti, di quelle alle quali si fanno risalire i testi che possediamo direttamente. Il primo dei tentativi che ho menzionato è quello di Paul T. Keyser.1 Egli, in un articolo del 1994, concentra l’attenzione soprattutto sulle citazioni che Nonio fa di autori considerati più recenti (per es., Apuleio – nato attorno al 125 –, Masurio Sabino – forse dell’età di Tiberio –, Settimio Sereno – seconda metà del ii secolo), ritenendo che potrebbe trattarsi di autori quasi contemporanei al grammatico. Costoro sarebbero anche citati, per così dire, di prima mano, in seguito a letture dirette. Keyser, quindi, basandosi però su datazioni poco sicure, avanza l’ipotesi di collocare cronologicamente Nonio nell’età dei Severi, cioè a cavallo tra il ii e il iii secolo (dal 193 al 235). Il secondo tentativo di datazione, ancora più recente, risale infatti al 2001, è quello di Marcus Deufert.2 Egli si mostra poco convinto della validità dello studio e, soprattutto, delle conclusioni a cui è giunto Keyser: invece di concentrarsi sulle citazioni degli autori, Deufert prende le mosse da alcune osservazioni sulla lingua di Nonio e sugli aspetti esteriori che dovevano caratterizzare sia le fonti utilizzate – poste, secondo lui, parte su rotoli, parte su codici – sia la stessa Compendiosa doctrina. Per la verità, alcuni caratteri della lingua erano già stati analizzati da Keyser, ma questa indagine, a parere di Deufert, sarebbe stata condotta in maniera poco precisa. Secondo il suo ragionamento Nonio potrebbe essere collocato in un periodo attorno all’anno 400. Per giungere a questa conclusione egli si concentra su espressioni che apparterrebbero, in quanto sermo hodiernus,3 al periodo in cui opera Nonio. Tali espressioni – per es. deputati, posteri dies, mafurtium, lectuaria syndo – non sembrano attestate prima del tardo iv secolo.4 Lo stesso vale anche per altre espressioni riconducibili al sermo grammaticus di Nonio – per es. manifestator, informare costruito con l’accusativo e l’infinito –, utilizzate nell’illustrare i vocaboli.5 Per quanto riguarda invece la forma esterna della Compendiosa doctrina, Deufert è convinto che essa sia stata concepita per essere trascritta su un codice e non per essere affidata a uolumina. La stessa forma esterna sarebbe stata anche quella di buona parte delle sue fonti che, per lo più, si troverebbero trascritte su codici, e solo alcune sarebbero ancora su rotoli. Una realtà di questo tipo, secondo Deufert, non contraddice le osservazioni fatte sulla lingua, e può ben essere collocata, anche questa, attorno all’anno 400, quando i codici avevano già da 1 Keyser 1994. 2 Deufert 2001. 3 L’espressione è stata introdotta dallo stesso Lindsay (1903, 992-995). 4 Deufert 2001, 147. 5 Con locuzioni del tipo: nunc dicimus, in consuetudine, e simili, Nonio aveva caratterizzato invece il cosiddetto sermo hodiernus.

52 paolo gatti tempo preso il sopravvento sui rotoli. Questi, non più sul mercato, potevano rimanere però a disposizione degli utenti delle biblioteche. L’ipotesi di Deufert, che colloca Nonio a cavallo tra il iv e il v secolo, mi pare sostenuta da indizi interessanti, in particolare le considerazioni fatte a proposito della lingua sono provviste di un certo peso. Assai meno probante per una datazione può essere invece il ragionamento basato sulla forma esterna delle fonti, poiché il passaggio da rotolo a codice viene a collocarsi in un lasso di tempo molto ampio, troppo ampio per stabilire dati cronologici sufficientemente precisi.1 Comunque sia, che Nonio possa essere stato attivo intorno all’anno 400 mi sembra un’affermazione condivisibile. Come è noto, l’opera di Nonio Marcello è intitolata Compendiosa doctrina ad filium: bene hanno fatto gli editori (a partire già dall’edizione Aldina del 1513) ad espungere il per litteras, che nell’archetipo è accostato a questo titolo, e che è stato con tutta probabilità inserito per influenza dell’ordinamento alfabetico dei lemmi rispettato in alcuni libri – il ii, il iii, il iv –, non certo in tutti. Si è anche pensato che tale ordinamento alfabetico, costruito, come accade comunemente, solo sulla prima lettera, sia conseguenza di un intervento posteriore di qualche lettore – copista o utente – dell’opera.2 La Compendiosa doctrina è un lavoro di notevole ampiezza. Già nel titolo si rivela il duplice intento: brevità e insegnamento.3 L’opera è articolata in venti libri – proprio come quella di Gellio. I libri affrontano, ognuno, differenti aspetti della lessicografia e sono disposti secondo uno schema particolare, che costituisce il piano dell’opera. Ogni citazione di autore è stata pertanto inserita da Nonio nella Compendiosa doctrina in base a una ben precisa esigenza prestabilita. Il i libro è il De proprietate sermonum: esso contiene la presentazione di vocaboli usati nel loro senso proprio, etimologico, storico, esatto. Il primo esempio è il sostantivo senium, che viene spiegato con taedium e con odium, e l’autorità che ne conferma l’uso è quella di Titinio, Novio, Accio, Pomponio, Lucilio, Turpilio, Pacuvio. Il ii libro è intitolato De honestis et noue ueterum dictis ed è strutturato in ordine alfabetico: in esso si trova quanto espresso dagli antichi in modo conveniente, qualitativamente apprezzabile (de honestis … ueterum dictis), tanto da giustificarne l’uso anche nel tempo presente (et noue). Si tratta di un libro che pone l’attenzione in buona parte su fenomeni di tipo stilistico. Il primo esempio è costituito dalla preposizione apud, spiegata con iuxta, e sostenuta in questo senso da attestazioni tratte dallo storico Cornelio Sisenna e da Cicerone (due volte). 1 Bisogna infatti collocare i primi codici almeno nel ii secolo: cfr., per es., Roberts, Skeat 1983. Deufert non è il primo studioso che si concentra sui supporti materiali dei testi per datare la Compendiosa doctrina: già Schmidt 1993, 370 e altri avevano cercato la percorribilità di questa strada, giungendo a conclusioni simili. 2 Lindsay 1930b. 3 Della Corte 1987, 28: «compendiosus indica il condensare molta materia in poco spazio…; doctrina corrisponde a ·›‰Â˘ϲÈϲ».

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 53 Il iii libro, con una disposizione dei lemmi in ordine alfabetico come il precedente, si intitola De indiscretis generibus: in esso si presentano vocaboli usati secondo differenti generi. Il primo esempio è costituito da angiportus, vocabolo di genere maschile presso molti autori (generis masculini, ut apud multos, così Nonio), attestato anche di genere neutro, come testimoniano citazioni tratte da Plauto, Cicerone, Terenzio (due volte). Il iv libro, anche questo in ordine alfabetico, si intitola De uaria significatione sermonum: si presentano vocaboli caratterizzati da più accezioni, vocaboli che cambiano significato a seconda dei contesti in cui si trovano. Si tratta del libro più ampio dell’opera: da solo ne costituisce oltre un terzo.1 Il primo esempio presentato è aduorsum che Nonio attesta con il significato di contra (Terenzio, Plauto), ma anche di apud (Titinio, Terenzio, Ennio, Afranio, Plauto, Cicerone). Il v libro, intitolato De differentia similium significationum, affronta un tema semantico ed è dedicato alle differenze che si possono riscontrare tra vocaboli in qualche maniera sinonimi. Si tratta di un libro che si avvicina a una raccolta di Differentiae uerborum (o Differentiae sermonum), un sottogenere lessicografico che godrà di una particolare diffusione nel periodo tardoantico. Ce ne è pervenuto un discreto numero di sillogi. Giorgio Brugnoli, che nel 1955 ha dedicato un importante studio alla classificazione di queste raccolte,2 sembra ignorare il v libro della Compendiosa doctrina.3 Nonio esamina per lo più coppie di sinonimi, indicando la differentia che intercorre tra essi. Egli inizia con cupido e amor e la differenza tra i due vocaboli è confortata da Plauto, Afranio, Virgilio, ancora Plauto e Nevio. Il vi libro, De impropriis, si occcupa di usi impropri e incoerenti dei vocaboli, di licenze di vario tipo. Il primo caso considerato è quello del verbo edolare, ‘sgrossare’; propriamente si tratta di un vocabolo tecnico appartenente al lessico del lavoro artigianale, che Nonio trova invece riferito ad un libellum, e quindi appartenente al campo semantico della pratica letteraria (l’auctoritas è qui costituita da Ennio, citato attraverso Varrone). Il vii libro, De contrariis generibus uerborum, tratta di forme verbali non analogiche con il paradigma. Il primo esempio è costituito da aucupaui (con Titinio, Plauto, Ennio, Pacuvio, Accio), forma attiva al posto di quella passiva, più ‘regolare’, aucupatus sum. L’viii libro, De mutata declinatione, più che esempi di eteroclisia, presenta vocaboli morfologicamente anomali rispetto alla forma più diffusa: si parte qui da apricatio al posto di apricitas, presente in Cicerone. Il ix libro, De numeris et casibus (sui casi e sui numeri attestati secondo un’utilizzazione impropria), è un tipico esempio di raccolta di fenomeni sintattici. In 1 Per la precisione questo iv libro costituisce oltre il 37% dell’intera opera; ad esso è destinato tutto il ii volume dell’edizione Lindsay, edizione che comprende la Compendiosa doctrina in tre volumi. 2 Brugnoli 1955. 3 Sottolinea però le diversità tra questo quinto libro noniano e le vere e proprie raccolte di Differentiae uerborum Stok 1997, 41.

54 paolo gatti esso, a differenza di quanto avviene negli altri libri, Nonio non prende le mosse da vocaboli isolati posti come lemmi, bensì, più opportunamente, parte dal fenomeno illustrato (per es. Accusatiuus numeri singularis positus pro genetiuo plurali – con moltissime attestazioni –, Accusatiuus positus pro datiuo – con Plauto e Terenzio –, ecc.). Nel x libro, De mutatis coniugationibus, Nonio colloca esempi di cambi di coniugazione, o di modi o di tempi. Si inizia con feruit, pro feruet (Lucilio, Accio, Titinio, Pomponio, Afranio, Varrone menippeo). Il libro xi si intitola De indiscretis aduerbiis. Esso tratta di avverbi costruiti in maniera anomala. È dunque un libro dedicato a fenomeni morfologici. Si inizia con humaniter, sicuramente utilizzato al posto della forma, secondo Nonio più regolare, humane, anche se, in questo caso, dopo il lemma non c’è alcuna interpretazione (Cicerone, due volte, è l’auctoritas). Nel xii libro, De doctorum indagine, sono collocati esempi nei quali si notano da un lato anomalie linguistiche di vario tipo, dall’altro annotazioni di carattere antiquario, in qualche maniera giustificate dall’utilizzazione che ne fanno i ueteres. Il primo vocabolo è desubito, costituito dalla poco ortodossa aggiunta di una preposizione ad un avverbio, confortato da ben tredici attestazioni (11 di poeti e 2 di prosatori: Titinio, Ennio, Afranio, Cecilio, Quadrigario, Novio, Lucrezio, Accio, Pomponio – due volte –, Lucilio, Cicerone, Nevio). Nei libri dal xiii al xx Nonio non presenta fenomeni linguistici – per lo più morfologici o polisemici –, ma elenchi di vocaboli raggruppati a seconda del loro ambito semantico: abbiamo quindi nomi di imbarcazioni (xiii libro De genere nauigiorum), di capi di abbigliamento (xiv libro De genere uestimentorum), di recipienti (xv De genere uasorum uel poculorum), di calzature (xvi De genere calciamentorum) – di questo libro, assente nell’archetipo,1 ci è pervenuto solo il titolo –, di colori degli indumenti (xvii De colore uestimentorum), di cibi e bevande (xviii De generibus ciborum uel potionum), di armi (xix De genere armorum), di rapporti di parentela (xx De propinquitatibus). Nonio presenta il materiale lessicale che ha a disposizione in questo modo: al lemma fa seguire un’interpretazione più o meno precisa, più o meno estesa. Quindi vengono riportati uno o più passi di autori che con la loro auctoritas attestano quanto si è affermato nell’interpretazione. Il lemma può comparire anche sotto differenti forme della sua declinazione e della sua coniugazione: la presenza di lemmi che non sono normalizzati al nominativo singolare o al presente indicativo o all’infinito evidenzia chiaramente che Nonio trae spunto dalla citazione. Gli autori scelti come auctoritates risalgono per lo più al periodo repubblicano, con una predilezione per le opere in versi; numerosi sono quegli autori, come già detto, di cui non ci è giunta l’opera intera e per i quali Nonio, che si

1 Non credo che se ne possa trarre la conclusione che il libro non venne mai redatto, e che quindi la Compendiosa doctrina sia opera incompiuta.

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 55 serviva di una biblioteca piuttosto ben fornita, rappresenta un’indispensabile fonte indiretta. In passato numerosi studiosi si sono occupati di come l’opera sia stata composta,1 ma solo Lindsay, l’ultimo editore della Compendiosa doctrina, ha ricostruito in maniera accurata l’elenco degli auctores, una quarantina, su cui il lessicografo basò la sua opera. Essi, come pare, sarebbero stati a sua disposizione alcuni in rotoli di papiro altri in codici. Lindsay ha individuato anche l’ordine nel quale questi furono utilizzati.2 Ecco l’elenco (la denominazione dei testi è quella proposta dallo stesso Lindsay):3 11. Gloss. i: glossario4 di poeti drammatici di età repubblicana.5 12. Plautus i: edizione di Plauto con le 21 commedie varroniane. 13. Lucretius: Lucrezio completo. 14. Naev. Lyc.: il Lycurgus di Nevio. 15. Accius i: 16 tragedie di Accio. 16. Pomponius: 7 o 9 atellane di Pomponio. 17. Novius: 15, circa, atellane di Novio. 18. Accius ii: altre 14 tragedie di Accio. 19. Lucilius i: i libri i-xx delle satire di Lucilio. 10. Ennius: almeno 2 tragedie (Hectoris Lytra e Telephus) di Ennio. 11. Turpilius: 13 commedie di Turpilio. 12. Pacuvius: 4 o 6 tragedie. 13. Cicero i: De republica. 14. Gloss. ii.6 15. Varro i: almeno 30 satire menippee.7 16. Cicero ii: De deorum natura, ii. 17. Accius iii: Myrmidones e Diomedes. 18. Sallust.: nell’ordine Iugurthae bellum, Historiae, Catilinae bellum.8 19. Afranius: 4 o 6 commedie. 20. Cicero iii: De officiis, i. 21. Naev. Dan.: la Danae di Nevio. 22. Virgil.: nell’ordine Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis. 23. Terentius: le 6 commedie. 24. Cicero iv: le lettere Ad Caesarem iuniorem, le orazioni Verrinae e Philippicae.

1 Cfr. Strzelecki 1936b, 888. 2 Lindsay 1901. 3 Ivi, 7-10. 4 Per il significato che Lindsay dà al vocabolo «glossary» in questo contesto si veda più avanti. 5 Si è pensato a un testo in qualche maniera derivato dai Priscorum uerborum cum exemplis libri di Pompeo Festo: Schmidt 1997a, 239. 6 Lo stesso Lindsay (1901, 105) esprime però dubbi sulla reale esistenza di questo ‘glossario’. 7 Quasi tutte corredate di doppio titolo (latino e greco). 8 Secondo Keyser 1996 l’ordine secondo cui Nonio cita è Catil., Iug., Hist.

56 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35a.

paolo gatti Lucilius ii: i libri xxvi-xxx delle satire.1 Gloss. iii.2 Alph. Verb.: ‘glossario’ di verbi in ordine alfabetico. Alph. Adverb.: ‘glossario’ di avverbi in ordine alfabetico. Cicero v: nell’ordine De officiis, ii-iii, Hortensius, De senectute. Plautus ii: edizione di Plauto con, nell’ordine, Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia. Varro ii: 18 satire menippee con titoli quasi esclusivamente latini. Gellius: le Noctes Atticae. Varro iii: 4 menippee. Cicero vi: De finibus. Gloss. iv: prima parte di un ‘glossario’ con, in prevalenza, epistole varroniane. 36. Sisenna: Historiae, iii-iv. 35b. Gloss. iv: seconda parte del ‘glossario’ varroniano, con i Rerum humanarum libri. 37. Cicero vii: Orator, De oratore. 38a. Gloss. v: prima parte di un ‘glossario’ alfabetico.3 39. Cicero viii: Academica, Tusculanae disputationes. 40. Varro iv: De re rustica, i. 38b. Gloss. v: seconda parte del ‘glossario’ alfabetico. 41. Varro v: De uita populi Romani, Catus. Nonio procede in maniera estremamente metodica: le fonti da cui trae gli esempi, le auctoritates, vengono utilizzate nella successione appena ricordata, una successione costante è mantenuta, poi, per ogni opera citata all’interno di ogni nucleo, e lo stesso avviene anche all’interno di ogni opera stessa. Questa scoperta di Lindsay è ormai generalmente accettata, pur con qualche puntualizzazione, dalla critica. Nei casi in cui la fonte ci è pervenuta per tradizione diretta, possiamo verificare che l’ordine secondo il quale Nonio riporta nella Compendiosa doctrina le sue citazioni coincide abbastanza bene con l’ordine della loro collocazione originaria nell’opera da cui sono tratte. L’intuizione di Lindsay, geniale, ma qualche volta di complessa verifica pratica, è nota come lex Lindsay. Questa lex è stata in seguito approfondita, attentamente esaminata, talora in parte criticata, da altri studiosi, come Strzelecki4 e, in maniera particolare, da Francesco Della Corte.5 Lindsay ha, dunque, elaborato la lex. Strzelecki aggiunse in seguito che la realizzazione di ognuno dei venti libri, in cui è strutturata la Compendiosa doctrina, 1 I passi sono citati nell’ordine inverso, partendo dalla fine del libro xxx fino all’inizio del xxvi. 2 Le opere collocate ai nn. 26-28 potrebbero essere costituite da un’unica grande raccolta a carattere grammaticale-lessicografico. 3 Si è pensato a materiale tratto da Verrio Flacco: Schmidt 1997b, 243. 4 Strzelecki 1932-1933; 1936a; 1936b, 890-894. 5 Della Corte 1973; il contributo era apparso in precedenza in Idem 1954, 321-377.

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 57 fu suggerita a Nonio da qualche opera grammaticale più antica – e da queste opere avrebbe tratto anche alcune citazioni –.1 Lo stesso studioso pensò, per es., di riconoscere nei perduti De Latinitate e De dubiis generibus di Flavio Capro una fonte per il iii libro De indiscretis generibus. Le due intuizioni dello studioso polacco si basano su opere perdute e, pertanto, sono difficilmente dimostrabili. Francesco Della Corte, nel 1954,2 prese invece in esame la collocazione nella Compendiosa doctrina delle citazioni di opere pervenuteci direttamente. Egli dimostrò, in questo modo, che la lex formulata da Lindsay può essere verificata: essa ‘tiene’ alla prova dei fatti. Della Corte, in particolare, si è occupato dei frammenti varroniani e, inoltre, ha cercato di giustificare alcune anomalie che si presentano non troppo raramente. Il volumetto di Lindsay, Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin, pubblicato a Oxford nel 1901,3 contiene una serie di tabelle, di elenchi, che riconducono a ciascuna delle fonti individuate le numerose citazioni presenti nella Compendiosa doctrina. Un altro intervento su questo tema, successivo a quello del 1954 di Della Corte, è quello dello stesso Della Corte, nel 1980;4 egli distingue, tra le fonti di Nonio, le massae e le catenae. Le prime, le massae, sono costituite dall’opera di Gellio e dalle raccolte che Lindsay chiama, impropriamente, essendo però ben consapevole di questa imprecisione di linguaggio, ‘glossari’; le seconde, le catenae, sono costituite dalle opere degli autori citate in modo diretto. Come è ovvio, non è possibile basarsi sulle citazioni che provengono dalle massae per ricostruire la successione originaria dei frammenti recuperati all’interno dell’opera da cui provengono. Sempre nel 1980, Diana Churchill White sottopone i risultati della lex Lindsay a una attenta critica,5 senza però intaccarne la validità. Churchill White non è inoltre convinta delle osservazioni di Strzelecki: secondo Churchill White, Nonio non avrebbe infatti utilizzato Capro direttamente, tutt’al più avrebbe potuto farlo in maniera indiretta. La lex Lindsay, che non è il caso di approfondire qui nei suoi dettagli, è senza dubbio di importanza fondamentale per lo studio della Compendiosa doctrina. Essa, innanzi tutto, ci aiuta a comprendere il metodo di lavoro, il procedere pratico, di Nonio. In secondo luogo è utile per ristabilire in alcuni casi la successione originaria dei frammenti citati da Nonio relativi a opere che non ci sono pervenute per tradizione diretta, opere che sono presenti nell’elenco delle fonti del nostro grammatico. Questa operazione deve, però, essere effettuata con molta cautela, e non per tutte le citazioni. Soffermiamoci, a questo punto, su quella lista di opere, o nuclei di opere, che, secondo Lindsay, Nonio aveva sul proprio tavolo da lavoro e che è stata presen1 Strzelecki 1936a. 2 Della Corte 1973. 3 Si veda sopra la n. 2 a p. 55. Esso precede quindi cronologicamente l’edizione. 4 Della Corte 1980. 5 Churchill White 1980.

58 paolo gatti tata in precedenza. La maggior parte è stata identificata molto esattamente: si tratta di nuclei contenenti uno o più autori precisi, una o più opere ben determinate. In 7 casi invece – ai nn. 1-14-26-27-28-35ab-38ab – troviamo quelli che Lindsay, come si è già osservato, chiama genericamente «glossari». Non dobbiamo, però, per queste opere, pensare a quelle raccolte lessicografiche che la tarda latinità e il Medioevo ci hanno lasciato – glossari che, tra l’altro, sono quasi sempre privi di citazioni di autori. Lindsay ha voluto invece contrassegnare in questo modo testi generici, di tipo grammaticale o erudito, non pervenutici, che dovevano presentare al loro interno un buon numero di citazioni tratte da autori più antichi o che, addirittura, in qualche caso potevano consistere in elenchi di citazioni o poco più. Per fare un esempio concreto, l’opera contraddistinta con il n. 32 – le Noctes Atticae di Gellio –, se non ci fosse pervenuta, sarebbe stata annoverata da Lindsay tra questi ‘glossari’. Ovviamente si possono avanzare considerazioni particolari su ognuna delle opere elencate o su ognuno degli autori qui presenti. Plauto, per es., compare due volte, al n. 2, Plautus i, con le 21 commedie varroniane (secondo Deufert1 si tratterebbe di un codice); al n. 30, Plautus ii, forse con tre rotoli, sempre secondo Deufert, contenenti rispettivamente Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia. Ma materiale plautino può provenire anche da altre fonti: o dai cosiddetti glossari, o da annotazioni, marginali o interlineari, presenti in altri testi che fanno parte dell’elenco. Se si accolgono le conclusioni di Deufert2 sulla collocazione della Compendiosa doctrina a cavallo tra il iv e il v secolo e la trascrizione delle fonti, su rotoli e, in buona parte, su codici, ne consegue che per alcuni autori, oggi perduti, il passaggio dal rotolo al codice non sarebbe stato un ostacolo insormontato. Si è pensato, per gli auctores di Nonio, ad Accio e a Pacuvio, a Turpilio e ad Afranio, a Pomponio e a Novio, a Lucilio e forse, almeno per molte Menippee, a Varrone. Per la loro scomparsa bisognerebbe allora chiamare in causa mutazioni di gusto – estetico o di altra natura – intervenute dopo il periodo in cui operò Nonio, oltre che, naturalmente, il caso. Fatto sta che in epoca tardoantica non si può escludere che questi autori fossero già stati affidati a codici, a supporti cioè ben più duraturi e affidabili che i rotoli di papiro. La lex Lindsay ci consente, è stato appena detto, di avanzare una proposta per illustrare il procedimento pratico che sarebbe stato seguito da Nonio nella preparazione della Compendiosa doctrina. E Nonio, nell’attenersi al suo metodo, è comunque decisamente costante. Si può pertanto per prima cosa supporre che Nonio abbia redatto uno schema della sua opera, che abbia avuto ben chiaro, cioè, quali fossero i venti libri della Compendiosa doctrina, e, quindi, quale sarebbe stato il loro contenuto, come si è già accennato in precedenza. A questo proposito Della Corte pensa, giustamente, a venti canoni di giudizio che Nonio mette in atto nella costruzio1 Deufert 2001, 148.

2 Ivi, 149.

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 59 ne dell’opera.1 Sulla base del suo progetto, Nonio avrebbe attentamente passato in rassegna i testi di tutte le opere contenute negli astucci dei rotoli e nei codici, che aveva posto alla base della sua indagine.2 Durante questa lettura, che potremmo oggi definire ‘a tappeto’, Nonio avrebbe, in qualche maniera, contrassegnato tutti i vocaboli adatti ad essere inseriti in uno, e qualche volta anche in più di uno, dei venti libri della sua opera. A questo punto, o in un momento successivo alla prima lettura completa,3 Nonio avrebbe compilato delle schede, almeno una per ogni vocabolo considerato. Le schede sarebbero state, quindi, suggerite dal testo della citazione e costituite da tre parti: la prima parte con il lemma – per lo più così come compare nel testo in cui si trova, senza essere ricondotto al nominativo singolare per un nome o per un aggettivo, o alla prima persona dell’indicativo presente o all’infinito per un verbo –; la seconda parte con l’interpretazione – redatta all’occasione da Nonio – di estensione variabile; la terza parte infine con il passo d’autore che avrebbe dato origine al lemma, introdotto come auctoritas. Per qualche vocabolo, degno di comparire in più di un libro, Nonio avrebbe redatto più di una scheda, una per ogni collocazione prevista. Nonio si sarebbe procurato venti cassette-schedario, ognuna per ogni libro, e in queste cassette avrebbe inserito, man mano che venivano preparate, una dopo l’altra, le schede, mantenendo in questo modo l’ordine secondo il quale aveva consultato i testi base, ordine corrispondente, quindi, a quello in cui le citazioni vi comparivano. Ogni volta che, nella lettura delle opere, Nonio si imbatteva in un vocabolo che aveva già trattato, ammesso che si fosse ricordato di questo, inseriva la relativa nuova scheda subito dopo quella, che può essere definita primaria, allestita in precedenza per lo stesso vocabolo. Terminate queste operazioni, avrebbe ricopiato il tutto, di seguito, scheda dopo scheda, in un’opera dall’assetto unitario e sarebbe intervenuto sul testo per rifinirlo e, soprattutto, per connettere meglio citazioni, di autori o di opere diverse, disposte sotto un unico lemma.4 Se tale ricostruzione è attendibile, il modo di procedere di Nonio sembra semplice, lineare. Bisogna però tenere conto che le attività umane sono difficilmente riconducibili a leggi provviste di validità universale e costante. Non ci si deve, quindi, meravigliare se talora qualcosa non quadri: una scheda può essere stata 1 Della Corte 1973, 264. 2 Quali siano queste opere e in quale ordine Nonio le abbia esaminate è appunto, come si è visto, l’oggetto della lex Lindsay. 3 In questo caso Nonio avrebbe segnalato con qualche annotazione i passi da utilizzare, e avrebbe potuto lasciare a qualche seruus litteratus il seguito dell’operazione di raccolta delle citazioni. Su quest’ultimo procedimento ho però qualche dubbio. 4 Churchill White 1980, 118-121 aveva pensato piuttosto a elenchi dei passi, fatto che renderebbe quasi impossibile l’inserimento delle citazioni individuate in un momento successivo alla prima, quelle cosiddette secondarie, che non danno luogo a un lemma e che sono assai numerose. La soluzione molto più pratica delle cassette-schedario, che avevo già avanzato in Gatti 2004, 17, è stata successivamente ripresa da Velaza 2007.

60 paolo gatti collocata nel posto sbagliato o può sorgere confusione al momento di raccogliere, schedandolo, il materiale o al momento di trascriverlo nel corpo dell’opera. Alcuni autori citati sono difficilmente riconducibili alla serie delle fonti proposta da Lindsay: spesso potrebbe trattarsi di annotazioni marginali o interlineari presenti in esse. Il problema si presenta, soprattutto, per autori cronologicamente più vicini, o, a seconda della datazione che si accoglie, decisamente vicini a Nonio. Da dove provengono le citazioni di Apuleio, o quelle di Settimio Sereno o di Masurio Sabino? Ma anche citazioni più antiche, come le 5 di Orazio o di Levio? Bisogna ipotizzare letture saltuarie, più o meno occasionali, di Nonio? Letture fatte al di fuori del canone ricostruito da Lindsay – magari di autori più o meno contemporanei? Una fonte intermedia non è certo ipotizzabile nel caso della curiosa autocitazione che Nonio fa nel vi libro De impropriis. Per spiegare un uso più ampio del vocabolo meridiem, dopo la citazione da Varrone menippeo, leggiamo (p. 723 L): nos in Epistulis quae inscribuntur a Doctrinis de Peregrinando: … (segue la citazione). Che cosa sono le Epistulae de peregrinando a doctrinis (‘sull’allontanarsi dalla dottrina’?) a cui allude? Della Corte1 pensava a epistulae preparatorie dell’opus maius. Personalmente suppongo che possa trattarsi di un’epistola2 dedicatoria della Compendiosa doctrina al figlio. È lecito attendersi che in essa, oltre a formulare una dedica, l’autore esponesse anche l’intento che l’avrebbe spinto a comporre la sua opera: perché non pensare a un diffuso peregrinari a doctrinis del suo tempo a cui bisognava porre rimedio? La tradizione manoscritta poi potrebbe avere eliminato, molto probabilmente, questa epistola, premessa da Nonio alla Compendiosa doctrina. I venti libri, in cui è strutturata la Compendiosa doctrina, sono di lunghezza molto variabile: dalle 336 pagine dell’edizione Lindsay del iv libro De uaria significatione sermonum per litteras, alle 4 pagine del libro xviii De colore uestimentorum, fino alla sola paginetta del xx libro De propinquitate. Libri con tale diversità di grandezza si adattano a codici più che a rotoli: oramai si è del tutto perduta l’equivalenza tra libro e rotolo. È evidente che tale difformità vada fatta risalire alla variabile consistenza del contenuto, anche a livello di programmazione: i nomi che definiscono le relazioni di parentela sono certamente meno numerosi, per fare un esempio, dei vocaboli che possono avere usi anomali. Ma ci troviamo sicuramente di fronte anche a tagli della tradizione manoscritta: in particolare i libri più brevi presentano molto spesso lemmi privi di interpretazione, cioè al lemma segue direttamente una citazione, oppure, più raramente, lemmi seguiti dall’interpretazione, ma privi della citazione di autore. In entrambi i casi l’archetipo sarebbe diventato allo stesso tempo testimone e vittima della frettolosità di qualche copista. 1 Della Corte 1987, 28. 2 Il plurale Epistulae per il singolare è frequente, cfr., per es., Wölfflin 1933, 81, e W. Bannier, in tll , i, 2, c. 680.72-74.

nonio marcello e la compendiosa doctrina 61 Non sembra invece possibile ipotizzare un’opera incompiuta, alla quale Nonio non avrebbe più posto l’ultima mano per inserire definizioni o citazioni ancora mancanti. Il modus operandi di Nonio, come è stato qui descritto, proprio perché prevede una compilazione ‘in contemporanea’ di tutti i venti libri che ha origine dalle citazioni, lo escluderebbe. I lemmi, come si è detto, sono suggeriti sempre dalla citazione, per cui, almeno teoricamente, non si dovrebbero incontrare lemmi che ne sono privi. Non avrebbe pertanto ragione di esistere il sospetto che il xvi libro De genere calciamentorum non fosse mai stato scritto. La tradizione manoscritta è costituita da una quindicina di codici di età carolingia, tutti riconducibili a un archetipo, caratterizzato da molti guasti,1 di provenienza, pare, anglosassone. Esso sembra presente a Tours verso la fine dell’viii secolo. Numerosissimi sono poi i testimoni di età umanistica.2 L’incompletezza della Compendiosa doctrina, così come ci è giunta, è comunque difficilmente confutabile. Oltre alle evidenti lacune presenti nel testo tràdito, un paio di citazioni medievali – rintracciabili in Lupo di Ferrières e in Giovanni di Salisbury – non trovano corrispondenza nel testo tramandato, e diversi passi di autori arcaici, che sono presenti solo nel Cornu copiae dell’umanista Niccolò Perotti, potrebbero essere stati mediati da Nonio. Si tratta di un problema che merita particolare attenzione, a cui in questa sede non è possibile accennare.3 Un aiuto per intravvedere qualcosa al di sopra dell’archetipo potrebbe invece venirci dalle cosiddette Glossae Nonii. La Compendiosa doctrina è un’opera nata per la consultazione. Con lo scopo di facilitare questa attività, rendendola più spedita, vi fu chi, ancora anticamente, ricopiò, sui margini di un manoscritto che la conteneva, una sorta di indice, riscrivendo il lemma seguito da qualche parola di spiegazione. Per questa operazione fu utilizzato il testo stesso di Nonio, che venne in tale maniera compendiato nell’interpretazione per segnalare immediatamente quanto era presente nel corpo dell’opera. Il risultato consiste in una serie di glosse marginali, che sono tradizionalmente chiamate Glossae Nonii. Trattandosi di materiale trascritto sulla base delle definizioni che lo stesso Nonio ha inserito nella sua opera, non sembra azzardato affermare che il testo di queste glosse può rivestire una notevole importanza sia per recuperi di tipo contenutistico, sia per contributi più puntuali. Esse vennero, appunto, raccolte quando il testo di Nonio doveva essere meno lacunoso di come ci è giunto. La tradizione di questo materiale è avvenuta in più modi: 1. tramite numerosi marginalia superstiti in alcuni manoscritti; 2. tramite due serie in glossari autonomi. È certo anche l’inserimento di glosse noniane in altri glossari. In nessuno 1 Caratteristica comune a tutta la tradizione, oltre alla scomparsa del xvi libro, è lo spostamento di un foglio dell’archetipo dal iv libro all’inizio dell’opera. 2 Milanese 2005 elenca complessivamente 144 manoscritti superstiti. 3 Cfr. Oliver 1947. Alla ‘provocazione’ di Oliver ha reagito Ferruccio Bertini con una nutrita serie di interventi: Bertini 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986.

62 paolo gatti di questi casi è possibile avere la totalità delle glosse originali, ma ci si deve accontentare di testimoni molto incompleti. 1. I marginalia. Le glosse trascritte sui margini dell’antico manoscritto noniano, come è stato illustrato poco sopra, sono state ricopiate assieme al testo della Compendiosa doctrina. Esse sono certamente presenti sui margini dell’archetipo, e da qui sono poi passate sui margini di almeno quattro codici. Un’edizione parziale di questi marginalia è stata fatta da Lindsay, che ha utilizzato trascrizioni allestite precedentemente da Onions.1 2. Le due serie di glosse. Il manoscritto Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, B.P.L. 67 F, che è stato datato da Elias A. Lowe alla fine dell’viii-inizio del ix secolo,2 è il più antico di tutti i manoscritti noniani conosciuti. Esso tramanda numerosi glossari, tra cui due serie di Glossae Nonii. La prima, con il titolo Incipiunt glosas Agelli et Marcelli, si riferisce al libro ii (De honestis et noue ueterum dictis) della Compendiosa doctrina, la seconda, con il titolo Item alias, al i libro (De proprietate sermonum) della stessa. Le due serie sono state pubblicate, in maniera diplomatica, nel v volume del Corpus glossariorum Latinorum da Georg Goetz, nel 1894,3 e poi riprese, emendate, nel Thesaurus glossarum emendatarum.4 Si può constatare, laddove è possibile la verifica, una pressoché totale coincidenza del contenuto dei due glossari con i marginalia dei manoscritti che ne sono provvisti. È certo, pertanto, che le glosse abbiano avuto la stessa origine. Un lettore di Nonio avrebbe dunque trascritto i marginalia che trovava sui margini dei libri i e ii, con il risultato di ottenere due glossari autonomi. Dal momento che le glosse sarebbero state trascritte quando il testo di Nonio era plenior, e furono raccolte e ricopiate, pare, senza grossi mutamenti, anche in seguito, è possibile che esse conservino tracce di quanto altrimenti è andato perduto. Uno studio particolare sulla prima serie e su tutte le glosse al ii libro della Compendiosa doctrina è stato pubblicato dal sottoscritto alcuni anni orsono, nel 2005.5 In alcuni casi il recupero, almeno a livello contenutistico, ha dato risultati soddisfacenti, più difficili si sono rivelati i ripristini testuali. Sarà comunque compito dei futuri editori di Nonio tenerne conto.

1 Onions, Lindsay 1898. 3 Goetz 1894. 4 Idem 1899-1901.

2 Lowe 1963, 40. 5 Gatti 2005.

SERVIU S ON S TYL IS TI C RE G I ST E R I N HIS VIRGIL C OMME NTARI E S Robert Maltby

T

he aim of this study is to analyse in detail comments on stylistic register, particularly as relates to lexical items, in Servius’ Virgil commentary. Special attention will be given to his comments on the appropriate stylistic level (in rhetorical terms the aptum) for each of Virgil’s three compositions, the Eclogues, the Georgics and the Aeneid, and on the appropriate lexical categories for each stylistic level. I leave out of consideration Servius’ comments on the vulgar or popular language of his time, which is a subject I have written on elsewhere.1 Servius was born in Rome between 360-370 ad, and began work there as a teacher of language and literature from about 390. He is presented as one of the participants in Macrobius’ dialogue, the Saturnalia, whose dramatic date is 383/384 ad. Servius had good connections with the Roman senatorial aristocracy and shared with them an admiration for the cultural greatness of pagan Rome, which was perceived as under threat from christianity. Literary and grammatical education, based on the great classics of Roman literature, especially Virgil, was seen by this group as an important weapon in the fight to preserve Rome’s cultural heritage. It is in this context that his comments on the appropriateness of Virgil’s style are to be read.2 We possess Servius’ commentary in two forms, the more extended of which, known as Servius-Auctus or Servius Danielis (after Pierre Daniel who publish this extended commentary in 1600) contains comments added possibly in the vii century in Ireland by a scholar augmenting his Servius commentary, perhaps with material from the now lost commentary by Aelius Donatus.3 I follow the conventions of the Thilo - Hagen edition by printing these comments in italics. Another problem to be born in mind with commentaries of this type is the fact that they contain material from earlier writers in the same tradition. We know that Servius based his commentary loosely on that of Donatus, but Donatus’ commentary was also based on the work of earlier grammarians and commentators such as Valerius Probus, from the i century ad, so that we cannot take any statement about linguistic matters as automatically reflecting the position in Servius’ own day. 1 Maltby 2003. 2 For a detailed discussion of Servius in his cultural context see Kaster 1988, 169-197. 3 On the relationship between Servius’ commentary and the expanded version associated with Daniel see Goold 1970 and Maltby 2005.

64

robert maltby I begin my discussion with Servius’ definition of stylistic levels and their attribution to each of Virgil’s compositions. So in the preface to the Aeneid he tells us there are three stylistic levels grandiloquus, medius and humilis: est autem stilus grandiloquus, qui constat alto sermone magnisque sententiis. scimus enim tria esse genera dicendi, humile, medium, grandiloquum. (Aen. praef. p. 4.8)

The Aeneid, as we would expect, is assigned to the grandiloquus level and we are told some of the characteristics of this style: high style language, alto sermone, and an elevated content magnis sententiis. In the Eclogues introduction we have the same three stylistic levels: qualitas autem haec est, scilicet humilis character. tres enim sunt characteres: humilis, medius, grandiloquus: quos omnes in hoc inuenimus poeta. nam in Aeneide grandiloquum habet, in georgicis medium, in bucolicis humilem: nam personae hic rusticae sunt, simplicitate gaudentes, a quibus nihil altum debet requiri. (Ecl. praef. p. 1.16-18)

In this case we are told that Virgil uses all three of them, the humilis in the Eclogues, the medius in the Georgics and the grandiloquus in the Aeneid. We are also told the reason why the Eclogues are in the humilis style: because they involve peasants who love simplicity and from whom nothing elevated, altum, should be demanded. This tripartite division of styles had a long history before Servius and can be traced back in Roman rhetorical theory at least as far as Cicero, who himself would be echoing earlier Roman and Greek traditions: tria sunt omnino genera dicendi … nam et grandiloqui, ut ita dicam, fuerunt cum ampla et sententiarum grauitate et maiestate uerborum … et contra tenues acuti, omnia docentes et dilucidiora non ampliora facientes, subtili quadam et pressa oratione et limata…est autem quidam interiectus inter hos medius et quasi temperatus. (Cicero, Orator 20-21) quot officia oratoris, tot sunt genera dicendi: subtile in probando, modicum in delectando, uehemens in flectendo. (Cicero, Orator 69)

Aristotle Poetics 1458a, for example, compares the clear and simple style with the dignified style: §¤Íˆϲ ‰b àÚÂÙc ϲ·ÊÉ Î·d Ìc Ù·ÂÈÓcÓ ÂrÓ·È. ϲ·ÊÂϲÙ¿ÙË ÌbÓ ÔsÓ âϲÙÈÓ ì âÎ ÙáÓ Î˘Ú›ˆÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ, àÏÏa Ù·ÂÈÓ‹ … ϲÂÌÓc ‰b ηd âÍ·ÏÏ¿ÙÙÔ˘ϲ· Ùe å‰ÈˆÙÈÎeÓ ì ÙÔÖϲ ÍÂÓÈÎÔÖϲ ίÚË̤ÓËØ ÍÂÓÈÎeÓ ‰b ϤÁˆ ÁÏáÙÙ·Ó Î·d ÌÂÙ·ÊÔÚaÓ Î·d â¤ÎÙ·ϲÈÓ Î·d ÄÓ Ùe ·Úa Ùe ·ÚÈÔÓ

(Arist. Poet. 1458a.18-23)

The merit of diction is to be clear and not commonplace. The clearest diction is that made up of ordinary words, but it is commonplace… That which employs unfamiliar

servius on stylistic register in his virgil commentaries

65

words is dignified and outside common usage. By unfamiliar I mean a rare word, a metaphor, a lengthening and anything beyond ordinary use.

At Orator 69 Cicero relates the three genera dicendi to the three officia of the orator. The wording in Orator 21, however, is much closer to that of Servius. Here Cicero attributes one of the genera to the grandiloqui (a rare word outside this context), the middle style is again called medius, and the humble style is attributed to the tenues. Servius’ description of the high style as a combination of alto sermone and magnis sententiis has its exact equivalent here in Cicero’s sententiarum grauitate et maiestate uerborum. The term tenuis applied to the humble style in Orator 21 is interpreted by Servius on Eclogues 1.2 tenvi avena as stili genus humilis, and in Eclogues 10.71 Servius uses the term himself with reference to Virgil’s composition of the Eclogues in a tenuissimo stilo. Unfortunately we do not have any comments on the Eclogues which illustrate a word or phrase characteristic of this humble style. When we come to the Georgics commentary, however, we do have a very interesting comment on what writing in the medius stilus involves and how it differs from the heroic style of the Aeneid. At Georgics 1.391 on the weather signs, where Virgil is describing how at night the girls at their spinning notice the oil splutter in the blazing lamp, he uses the phrase testa ardente for the blazing earthenware lamp. Servius’ comment is interesting: testa cvm ardente propter uilitatem lucernam noluit dicere, nec iterum lychnum, sicut in heroo carmine, ut [Aen. 1.726] “dependent lychni”: medius enim in his libris est stilus, sicut diximus supra [Ecl. praef. ll. 16-18]. (Georg. 1.391)

Virgil here did not want to say lucerna ‘lamp’ propter uilitatem because of its lowly nature. In fact lucerna is not attested in Virgil, but is used by the elegists Propertius and Tibullus and by Horace in his Satires and Odes, suggesting it would perhaps have been appropriate for the humble style of the Eclogues. Testa ardente, however, is seen as appropriate for the medium style, medius stilus, of the Georgics. But he cannot use the Greek equivalent lychnus, as this is more approriate for heroic epic, and he gives the example of dependent lychni in Aeneid 1.726. His comment on that line: lychni Graeco sermone usus est, ne uile aliquid introferret. (Aen. 1.726)

shows that in epic it is appropriate to use the high-sounding Greek term (occurring only here in Virgil and not in the elegists or Horace), in order to avoid the lowly subject matter ne uile aliquid introferret. It is clear then that it is not the lowly subject matter itself that is to be avoided in the high and middle styles, provided that an appropriate form of expression can be found, and that different lexical registers are appropriate for the different styles. A similar example of expressing lowly subject matter in appropriately high sounding periphrasis is commented upon at Aeneid 1.177:

66

robert maltby

cerialiaqve arma fugiens uilia ad generalitatem transiit propter carminis dignitatem et rem uilem auxit honestate sermonis, ut alibi, ne lucernam diceret, ait [Georg. 1.391] “testa cum ardente uiderent scintillare oleum”. (Aen. 1.177)

Here the phrase Cerialia arma is seen as an appropriately high style circumlocution for a quern to grind corn. Servius here explains how Virgil is able to preserve the dignity of his epic and to raise the tone of the trivial subject matter rem uilem auxit by the grandeur of his expression honestate sermonis. Another feature of the grandiloquent style appropriate to the Aeneid is commented on by Servius on Aen. 2.14 where the longer form ductores for duces is said to be appropriate to epic. This epic use of lengthened forms by the insertion of a new component in the middle of the word is mentioned in Greek grammarians as â¤ÓıÂϲÈϲ and can be seen elsewhere in Latin as, for example, in the Ennian use of induperator for imperator at Ann. 83, Virgil’s regnator mentioned in Servius’ same note at Aeneid 2.557 or the mock-heoic lengthening in Catullus 7 of basium to basiatio. The term epenthesis is applied to this feature in relation to the Virgilian use of nauita and Mauors at auct. Aen. 1.164. As mentioned above, there are no comments on examples of appropriate low-style wording for the Eclogues and we have only this one example of an appropriate middle style expression from the Georgics, but when we come to the Aeneid commentary, which was written before that of the Eclogues or Georgics, we can see a number of comments both in Servius and in Servius auctus which are directed to this question of how to preserve an appropriate tone and to avoid lowly expressions. A technical term, used frequently by Servius in this context, but extremely rare elsewhere is Ù·›ӈϲÈϲ. It is used in Greek by Plutarch (2.7 A) of a lowness of style from Ù·ÂÈÓfiϲ (an adjective appearing frequently in the Greek scholia tradition and seen above in Aristotle Poetics 1458a 18). Tapinosis occurs with a useful definition as a stylistic term in Quintilian as humilitatis uitium the mistake of low tone, and he gives as an example the use of uerruca in relation to a mountain peak in an unknown tragic source: deformitati proximum est humilitatis uitium, Ù·›ӈϲÈÓ uocant, qua rei magnitudo uel dignitas minuitur: ut saxea est uerruca in summo montis uertice. (Quint. Inst. 8.48)

A number of comments in Servius and Servius auctus are directed towards what they see as examples of this feature, or its avoidance, in the Aeneid. However, there is a clear difference in technical terms between the two traditions, with Servius preferring tapinosis and Servius auctus using humilis and its derivatives. So on Aeneid 1.118 Servius shows how Virgil avoids tapinosis in his mention of a lowly whirlpool gurgite by adding the epithet uasto (and the same comment on the same phrase is repeated on Aeneid 3.197):

servius on stylistic register in his virgil commentaries

67

in gvrgite vasto tapinosis est, id est rei magnae humilis expositio. prudenter tamen Vergilius humilitatem sermonis epitheto subleuat, ut hoc loco ‘uasto’ addidit. item cum de equo loqueretur ait [Aen. 2.19] “cauernas ingentes”. (Aen. 1.118)

Cf. Aeneid 3.197 gvrgite vasto epitheto auxit tapinosin.

This mention of avoiding tapinosis by the addition of an epithet has a number of parallels in the Homeric scholia, as the following examples show: ıÚÑϲΈϲÈÓ Î‡·ÌÔÈ ÌÂÏ·Ófi¯ÚÔÂϲ: Ù† ‰b âÈı¤ÙÅ ÎÂÎ¿Ï˘Ù·È Ùe Ù·ÂÈÓeÓ ÙÉϲ Ϥ͈ϲ. bT

(Scholia in Iliadem 13.589.1-4 13.589.2) : Through the epithet he has hidden the commonplace nature of the word. Ôî ‰b ÏÔÂÙÚÔ¯fiÔÓ ÙÚ›Ô‰\ ¥ϲÙ·ϲ·Ó âÓ ˘Úd ÎËϤÅ: Âåϲ Ù·ÂÈÓáÓ Ú·ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ à·ÁÁÂÏ›·Ó âÌÂϲgÓ âÎ¿Ï˘„ ٔ ϲ˘Óı¤ϲÂÈ ÙáÓ âÈı¤ÙˆÓ. bT

(Scholia in Iliadem 18.346a.1-4) : when he fell into talking about commonplace matters he hid it by adding epithets.

It is unlikely that Servius himself had direct knowledge of the Homeric scholia, but his sources (probably in the i century ad) must have used them as a model for their Virgil commentaries. Similarly at Aeneid 2.20 Virgil is said to use the epithet ingentes with the low word cauernas describing the inside of the Trojan Horse: ingentes ut diximus, epitheto leuauit tapinosin.

(Aen. 2.20)

Cauernae are mentioned again as a source of tapinosis later in the commentary: cauernas autem speluncae per tapinosin dixit.

(Aen. 8.242)

The same epithet ingentem is referred to again at Aeneid 2.482 as being used to avoid tapinosis when mentioning the lowly window: ingentem fenestram epitheto, ut solet, auxit tapinosin. (Aen. 2.482)

Again at Aeneid 10.763 the epithet maxima is used to avoid, or as Servius puts it, to raise the level, eleuauit, of the tapinosis: per maxima autem nerei stagna epitheto eleuauit tapinosin more suo. (Aen. 10.763)

This concept of raising the level is used frequently in this type of comment so subleuat in 1.118, leuauit in 2.20, auxit in 2.482 and eleuauit here. There are of

68 robert maltby course cases where it is suggested that Virgil does not succeed in avoiding humility of style, so umectat is seen as too low: largoqve vmectat flvmine vvltvm tapinosis est quia dixit “umectat”. (Aen. 1.465)

Similarly with mention of lignum: adfectauit tapinosin dicens “ligno”. (auct. Aen. 2.46; cf. auct. Aen. 9.411 below)

and cauernae at Aen. 8. 242 (above). Even the lowly style of the Eclogues is not immune to this fault, according to the commentator, where the use of uexasse is picked out for censure: “uexasse rates” autem per tapinosin dictum est; nam non uexauit, sed euertit. (Ecl. 6.76)

There remains one further example of tapinosis at Aeneid 3.624. This is one of a number of cases where a stylistic criterion is used in order to decide the correct reading of the text (cf. auct. Aen. 8.731, auct. Aen. 12.605 discussed below): exspersa haec fuit uera lectio, id est madefacta: nam si “aspersa” dixeris, id est inrorata, tapinosis et hyperbole iunguntur. (Aen. 3. 624)

So here an appeal is made to tapinosis as a means of rejecting the lowly word aspersa in favour of the reading exspersa. Another method the commentary employs to mark out lowly lexical elements in the epic is to refer to them with the term humilis and its related noun humilitas and adverb humiliter. It is significant that 12 of the 13 examples of this term come from Servius auctus, whereas 9 of the 10 examples of tapinosis occur in Servius as opposed to Servius auctus. A clear stylistic distinction between the two sections of the commentary is visible here. So in three short examples from Servius auctus the terms auunculus, ea uerba locutus, and deicit respectively are said to be thought by some to be humiliter dictum: avvncvlvs quidam “auunculus” humiliter in heroico carmine dictum accipiunt. (auct. Aen. 3.343) ea verba locvtvs quidam humiliter dictum accipiunt. (auct. Aen. 8.404) deicit quibusdam uidetur humiliter dictum. (auct. Aen. 8.428)

At Servius auctus 8.456 uolucrum is said to be used to avoid sermonis humilitatem by mentioning specific bird names such as hirundines or galli: volvcrvm svb cvlmine potest et generaliter accipi uolucrum quarumuis, quae matutinae sonant; potest et specialiter, ut hirundinum; potest et gallorum: quae omnia propter sermonis humilitatem uitauit. (auct. Aen. 8. 456)

servius on stylistic register in his virgil commentaries

69

And a similar note on Aen. 4.254 shows how the birds’ names mergum and ciconia are avoided by periphrasis, as being inappropriate for mention in epic: avi similis incongruum heroo credidit carmine, si mergum diceret, uel, ut quidam uolunt, fulicam, ut alibi [Georg. 2.320] ciconiam per periphrasin posuit “candida uenit auis longis inuisa colubris”. (Aen. 4.254)

Servius auctus on Aen. 8.731 seems to be a general comment on the humble content rather than the style of the line. The verse is referred to as magis neotericus. I will come back to what Servius means by this term at the end: attollens vmero famamqve et facta nepotvm si “fata” legeris, hoc est, quae nepotes fataliter fecerunt. hunc uersum notant critici quasi superfluo et humiliter additum nec conuenientem grauitati eius: namque est magis neotericus. (auct. Aen. 8.731)

On 9.324 a periphrasis is used again (cf. 4.254 above) to avoid the humble stertere: toto proflabat pectore somnvm periphrasis est, ne uerbo humili stertentem diceret. (auct. Aen. 9.324)

For this use of a poetic periphrasis we may compare: arcemque attollere tectis poetica periphrasis, id est domos aedificare: nam arx est in ciuitate munitus locus. (Serv. Aen 3.134)

The technique goes back to Homer: cf. Scholia in Iliadem 8.1b.1-4: ÎÚÔÎfiÂÏÔϲ: ¬Ù·Ó ÔÏf ϲÎfiÙÔ˘ϲ ö¯–, çÏ›ÁÔÓ ‰b ʈÙfiϲ. Ùe ‰b “®Ô‰Ô‰¿ÎÙ˘ÏÔϲ” [A 477 al.] âÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ. ÔÈËÙÈÎc ‰¤ âϲÙÈ ÂÚ›ÊÚ·ϲÈϲ, óϲÂd ÂrÂÓ “ì̤ڷ ÌbÓ Á¤ÁÔÓÂÓ”. AbT

: used when there is much darkness and not much light. By contrast “rosy-fingered” is the opposite. This is a poetic periphrasis, as if he said “day broke”.

At 9.411 lignum is marked out as inappropriate, as it had been earlier under tapinosis (cf. auct. Aen. 2.46 above). ligno quidam humiliter dictum accipiunt.

(auct. Aen. 9.411)

In the next two examples pellis and tinguat are criticised: cvm pellis quidam “pellis” humiliter dictum accipiunt. (auct. Aen. 10.483)

tingvat eqvos quidam “tinguat” humiliter dictum accipiunt. (auct. Aen. 11. 914)

Notable again in all these examples from auctus is the formula humiliter dictum accipiunt.

70

robert maltby At 12.170 humble style is said to be avoided by Virgil’s use of sus instead of the humble porcus: saetigeri fetvm svis non nulli autem porcum non porcam in foederibus adserunt solere mactari, sed poetam periphrasi usum propter nominis humilitatem. (auct. Aen. 12.170)

The comment is interesting because it seems to suggest that by the time of Servius’ source for this comment sus was used only of a female pig. The comment on 1.701 is the only one of the humilis examples to come from Servius rather than auctus: dant manibvs famvli lymphas humilis character, qui åϲ¯Ófiϲ dicitur; vilia enim describuntur. (Aen. 1.701)

It is interesting for its addition of another Greek technical term åϲ¯ÓfiÓ, to refer to the humble style. The word can again be paralleled in the Homeric scholia and is explained as genus subtile by Quintilian and genus tenue by Servius’ near contemporary Marius Victorinus: genus subtile, quod åϲ¯ÓfiÓ vocant.

(Quint. Inst. 12.10.58)

genus tenue, quod Graeci åϲ¯ÓfiÓ dicunt (Vict. 22. p. 438, 8)

As in 8.731 it seems to be directed at the content of the line rather than any particular expression. I omit from this discussion Servius’ comments on archaism, technical language and foreign loan-words, for although these, on occasion, as with lychnus above, could be a source of poetic alienation, of raising the tone of an epic beyond the level of everyday language, Servius does not (with the exception of lychnus) mention these from the stylistic point of view, but simply to explain any unfamiliar words to his student audience. I conclude with a short discussion of Servius’ use of the term neotericus, mentioned above in relation to auct. Aen. 8.731, as a stylistic criterion. The phrase Ôî ÓÂÒÙÂÚÔÈ is used in the Homeric scholia, notably by Aristarchus and his succesors, to refer to any writers after the time of Homer, normally to reject what the scholiasts consider to be post-Homeric diction. It is usually a depreciatory term, referring to diction which falls short of Homeric dignity.1 In some cases the designation is used in deciding the correct Homeric form in a choice of manuscript readings: Cf., e.g., Scholia in Iliadem 2.380a1 Ôé‰\ ä‚·ÈfiÓ: Ôî ÌbÓ Ùe ÏÉÚ¤ϲ Ê·ϲÈ ‚·ÈfiÓ, Ôî ‰b ä‚·ÈfiÓ. öϲÙÈ ‰b ÂåÂÖÓ ¬ÙÈ ·Úa ÌbÓ Ù† ÔÈËÙ” àe ÙÔÜ Ë ÔÈÂÖ ÙcÓ àÚ¯cÓ à›, “âÏıfiÓÙÂϲ ‰\ ä‚·ÈfiÓ” [È 462], ·Úa ̤ÓÙÔÈ ÙÔÖϲ 1 See Lyne 1978, 168; Cameron 1980, 136; Jocelyn 1989, 17-18.

servius on stylistic register in his virgil commentaries 71 Óˆ٤ÚÔÈϲ ‰Èϲϲc ì ¯ÚÉϲÈϲØ “‚·ÈeÓ ñbÚ ¶ÔÙ·ÌÔÖÔ” [Arat. Ph. 358], ηd K·Ïϛ̷¯Ôϲ ‰b [fr. 625]Ø “ä‚·ÈcÓ ÔûÙÈ Î·Ùa ÚfiÊ·ϲÈÓ”. A : most say ‚·ÈfiÓ, others say ä‚·ÈfiÓ. One can say that in the poet [Homer] the word always begins with Ë as, for example at Od. 9.462, but amongst the later poets both are used: ‚·ÈfiÓ in Aratus [Phaen. 358] “a little beyond the river” and ä‚·È‹Ó in Callimachus “not even for an insignificant reason” [fr. 625].

In Rome Cicero in 50 bc had referred to Catullus and his contemporaries as Ôî ÓÂÒÙÂÚÔÈ (in Greek, in a letter to Atticus)1 and the term neoteric has become associated in modern scholarship with this group of writers and their stylistic aspirations. In fact neotericus and its cognates are not attested in Latin (with the exception of an example in Probus discussed below) until the late iv century and in writers other than Servius, usually working in the christian tradition,2 it means simply contemporary writers. The problem is that here in Servius the term refers neither to Catullus and his circle, nor to later writers contemporary with Servius himself, but rather to writers of the Neronian and Flavian periods, Persius: si aduerbium rogantis et optantis est per se plenum, sicut et “o”, quamquam neoterici haec iungant et pro uno ponant: Persius [1.9-10] “o si / ebulliat patruus, praeclarum funus! o si /”… (Aen. 6. 187)

Lucan: vada livida nigra. et “liuidum” inuidum non nisi apud neotericos inuenimus: Lucanus [1.288] “liuor edax tibi cuncta negat, gentesque subactas”. (Aen. 6. 320)

and Juvenal: vane ligus aut fallax, aut inaniter iactans: nam “uanos” stultos posteriores dicere coeperunt. inde tractum est etiam in neotericis: Iuuenalis [3.159] “sic libitum uano, qui nos distinxit, Othoni”. quid autem hoc loco “uane” significet, sequentia demonstrant “frustraque animis elate superbis”. [cf. Aen. 2.80 sane “uanus” stultus apud idoneos non inuenitur, ut ait Iuuenalis “sic … Othoni”]. (Aen. 11.715)

Here a distinction is made between posteriores, the writers immediately following Virgil, and neoterici, ‘new’ or ‘contemporary’ writers in some sense. What can be the explanation for this? The entry of Servius auctus at 12.605 may give us a clue: flavos lavinia crines … Probus sic adnotauit: neotericum erat “flauos”, ergo bene “floros”. (auct. Aen. 12.605)

Here, as in the case of Schol. in Iliad. 2.380a above, the term neotericus is used to decide a correct reading, in this instance the ‘neoteric’ reading flauos being re1 Cic. Att. 7.2.1.

2 E.g., Jerome, in Gal. 3.5.19-21 (pl , 26.417)

72 robert maltby jected in favour of the Ennian floros. In fact flauus is used by Virgil and by other poets of his period like Ovid and Tibullus.1 The use of term neotericus applied to the adjective flauos is attibuted here to the grammarian Probus. This is Valerius Probus of Beirut, writing in just the right Flavian period to be a near contemporary of the writers Persius, Lucan and Juvenal, referred to elsewhwere in Servius as neoterici. We know Probus worked on the Republican writers Plautus, Terence and Sallust and some fragments of his commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues and Georgics may survive (although the attribution of these comments, printed at the end of the Thilo - Hagen Servius is far from certain).2 Furthermore Probus clearly had a detailed knowledge of Alexandrian scholarship on Homer and was known as the Roman Aristarchus.3 So all these references to neotericum, meaning new or recent, and possibly to a group of neoterici, although this usage of a group of writers may have originated with Servius himself (see below), could go back to Probus or to some grammarian working in his period. If the attribution of this phrase to Probus in the note on Aeneid 12. 605 is correct, then this would be the first recorded use of this term as a synonym for nouus or recens in Latin.4 The use of the term in Servius and auctus is mainly to castigate phrases which are thought of as post-Vergilian, and falling short of correct Vergilian usage. So the neoterici are contrasted with Virgil and the suitable writers, idonei, in their faulty declension of cucumis: cresceret in ventrem cvcvmis … sane “hic cucumis” “huius cucumis” declinatur, sicut “agilis”, secundum idoneos: nam neoterici “huius cucumeris” dixerunt, sicut “puluis pulueris”. (Georg. 4.122)

It must be noted, however, that again there is a distinction in terminology between Servius and Servius auctus, with the plural neoterici, applied to a specific group of writers (including Persius, Lucan and Juvenal), occuring only in Servius (Aen. 6.187, 6.320, 11.715 and Georg. 4.122) and auctus using only the singular neotericus to refer to a particular verse (auct. Aen. 8.731) or phrase (auct. Aen. 11.590, 12.605) and the adverb neoterice (auct. Aen. 10.192). There may, then, be some force in Jocelyn’s argument5 that Servius himself could have instigated the plural use of a set or school of authors recently admitted to the syllabus. On some occasions a phrase in the Virgilian text itself is characterised as neotericum: canentem senectam pro albo colore neoterice dictum putant. (auct. Aen. 10.192) 1 For a detailed discussion of Serv. auct. Aen. 12.605 see Jocelyn 1989, 13-25; cf. Cairns 1989, 164, n. 45. 2 For discussions of Probus and his work see Scivoletto 1963, 155-221; Courtney 1981, 13-29; Zetzel 1981, 25-53; Jocelyn 1984-1985; Timpanaro 1986, 77-127 and Delvigo 1987. 3 Keil, gl ,vii.533-536. 4 So Jocelyn 1989, 19. 5 Ibidem, 20.

servius on stylistic register in his virgil commentaries

73

haec cape generaliter dixit arcum, pharetram, ut sequentia indicant: nam dicit “et ultricem pharetra deprome sagittam”. et neotericum putatur ipsum “sagittam ultricem”. (auct. Aen. 11.590)

In these instances it is unclear whether the term has negative connotations. In both cases, they occur in auctus rather than in Servius, and it is possible that the original from which auctus is quoting may have contained some discussion of alternative readings for the phrases designated as neoteric, along the lines of auct. Aen. 12.605. In fact, as Kaster has shown,1 the ‘recent’ authors can sometimes be cited to illustrate correct usage in contrast to usage of the ancient authorities. So at Aeneid 11.373: etiam tv: apud maiores ‘etiam’ consentientis fuerat, quod tamen in his recentibus idoneis non inuenitur. (Aen. 11.373)

Here recentes idonei must refer to acceptable post-classical authors. Affirmative etiam in the sense of ‘yes’ occurs in Plautus and Cicero but would not be known to Servius in writers of a later period. It seems, however, to have been alive in colloquial Latin in Servius’ day, as its use in the Itala to translate Ó·› suggests. Servius here then is anxious for his pupils to avoid this colloquialism, attested in the maiores, and to follow the usage of the suitable recent authors. It is significant that the term recentes is used here, rather than neoterici, which may always have had negative connotations. These two different attitudes to recent authors may reflect, as Kaster puts it,2 the growing pains of a grammatical system coming to terms with the assimilation of new paradigms of best linguistic usage. In this paper I hope to have demonstrated that Servius and his sources had a keen sense of what was appropriate linguistically for different poetic genres and would often apply this knowledge, with more or less justification, to questions of textual authenticity. In two cases, the use of the term tapinosis and the use of the plural neoterici a clear stylistic distinction was discovered between the usage of Servius and that of Servius auctus. How much Greek Servius himself will have known is a question of debate, but it is clear from this discussion that the methodology applied to these questions in his Virgil commentaries has roots going back directly to the methodology and technical terminology of the Alexandrian Homeric scholia. A key intermediary in the transfer of this methodology to the Latin tradition of commentary may have been the grammarian Probus. Probus was possibly the first to transfer such terms as neotericus from the Greek Alexandrian commentary tradition to Latin. These were taken up and developed further by Servius in his attempts to teach good Latinity in an age where the canon of acceptable writers was expanding. 1 Kaster 1978.

2 Ibidem, 207.

This page intentionally left blank

THE APPENDIX P ROB I A S L I N G UIS TIC EVIDENC E: A RE ASSE SSME NT * Jonathan G. F. Powell 1. Update on the text

I

t is perhaps a characteristic irony of scholarship that while during the past hundred years there has been no edition of the Appendix Probi (hereafter ap ) based explicitly on autopsy of the manuscript, two should appear independently in the same year: one by the author of this article (Powell 2007) which also set out some preliminary arguments and conclusions as to the nature and purposes of ap , and another by S. Asperti (Asperti 2007), published in a volume of ‘new researches’ on ap and its companion texts (Lo Monaco and Molinelli 2007).1 There is a large measure of agreement between Asperti’s version and mine. Both he and I aim at an accurate transcription of what is actually in the manuscript, without admitting editorial conjectures, although I am more explicit in noting in the text where readings are unclear, and there are some minor differences in the treatment of manuscript corrections and annotations. A.’s collation was however made more recently and with the benefit of digital imaging techniques, and his collations of the more difficult items can be checked against the photographic reproductions in the volume. Thus he has been able to introduce new readings for the following items:

432 carcare: I had read carcar with hesitation as to the last three letters, but the final e is now quite clear. The phonological issue concerning er/ar is unaffected by the new reading (see below, p. 116); the condemned form now appears to have an inflectional ending, either an ablative or an accusative with loss of final -m (see below, p. 96).

* This is the article promised at Powell 2007, 688, n. 6. I am most grateful to Rolando Ferri for his invitation to the Pisa conference, for his encouragement, and for enabling me to consult his working text of the Hermeneumata Celtis in advance of publication. I am equally grateful to Frank Barnett for letting me see a draft of the fuller version of his work on ap , of which an abbreviated version was published as Barnett 2007, and for correspondence on ap matters extending over a number of years. To both these scholars I am also most grateful for their comments on a draft of this chapter. The ideas in this paper have been long in gestation, and I express my gratitude also to Jim Adams, Carlotta Dionisotti, Tony Lodge, Marina Passalacqua, Roger Wright, and members of audiences in Cambridge, Tel Aviv, and Pisa, who commented on them at different stages of preparation. 1 The recent edition by Quirk 2006 does not offer a new text, but follows that of Baehrens. However, it is still very useful, because of its scrupulous and comprehensive reporting of scholarly opinions.

76

jonathan g. f. powell

1152 gleris: I had previously been able to read only […]ris. The root gler- is of interest from a Romance point of view (French loir ‘dormouse’). tll quotes this spelling only from a manuscript of Gregory of Tours (Franc. 8.33: tll , 6.2045.62-3). 1452 bessica, as against the traditional editorial reading pessica: I had already observed the initial b but no more. This change does not seriously affect our view of the etymology of It. pesca, Fr. pêche, Eng. peach, since pessica is well attested elsewhere; but an explanation is needed for the initial b- (see below, pp. 82, 90). For the recommended form A. prints persica in square brackets, suggesting that it was still illegible, but how are we to know that the recommended form was not pessica? 1502 bisentericus: indecipherable to the naked eye; traditional disintericus, but the b is now quite clear. On this item, see below, p. 88. Again the recommended form is partly bracketed in A.’s text. 156 ipsum non ipsud: I could read only ips[e]…, but the new reading is both clear and linguistically plausible.

A.’s reading in 102 sepes non sepis seems both palaeographically and linguistically likely, as against traditional reses, which I had retained with some doubt. In some other cases A. introduces readings which appear to me not absolutely secure: 452 parcompus. Here the evidence of the photograph now seems incompatible with the traditional parcarpus which I had retained, but -com- is not above doubt: could it be parcampus or parcanpus? 50 catula non catella, instead of the traditional catulus non catellus which duplicated item 51. 862 A. reads clauoca, but acknowledges that it is difficult to decipher. 892 facs, where I read faces with hesitation; either seems palaeographically possible. 100 deces non decis. Here I am not quite convinced that the traditional deses non desis is wrong; the middle letters seem to be damaged at the base, and the top of a c is hardly distinguishable from the top of an s in this script. A. offers no comment on which Latin word deces might represent – perhaps decens? 1451 turima rather than turma. This is not clearly visible on A.’s photograph. 158 ampora non amfora. If this is correct, it solves a long-standing problem: editors since Endlicher had given a nonsense-word ametra for the error in this item, while nobody before A. had claimed to be able to read the correction. The new reading duplicates item 227; this does not present a problem as there are other pairs of duplicated (59 and 145; 129 and 164) or near-duplicated (4 and 33; 26 and 204; 50 and 51; 60 and 184) items. 1621 tonitro for traditional tonitru: cf. below, p. 96. 1652 herundo. Here both positive and negative photographs are reproduced, but there is still unclarity. The coincidence of the new reading with Baehrens’ conjecture, which was made for linguistic rather than palaeographical reasons, seems to invite caution rather than confidence. 1662 ossetrix. The new reading, implying a striking phonetic simplification of the word obstetrix, is quite possible, but does not seem certain. 196 ziziba non zizipa. Here the final a now seems clear, but the first item of the pair is still difficult to read as it seems to have been overwritten.

In one or two places A. is more conservative in following the editorial consensus

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 77 than I was. In item 542 he retains fricda where I read either frigda or fricida, and in 792 he retains dicitus where I had read, with some uncertainty, digitus (making this another item in which the right-hand and left-hand forms are the same, alongside 28, 137 and 202). It is difficult to tell the difference in this script between one form of G and a CI ligature. More often A. confirms a traditional reading where, relying on naked-eye examination, I registered uncertainty (items 15, 23, 87, 91, 95, 117, 147, 151, 174, 175, and also 152, where he opts for mensa). Thus there remains a significant residue of doubt only in about a dozen of the 227 items in ap , and the text can now be said to have been placed on as secure a basis as it ever will be. 2. The nature and purposes of ap : the state of the question It is obvious to inspection that the ap is a word-list – hence its relevance to the theme of this volume – and that it sets out to correct error; but there is a need for further precision in connection with both these characteristics. In modern times, the standard type of word list, lexicon or dictionary is likely to display two features above all: first, some degree of comprehensiveness, and secondly, systematic arrangement, usually alphabetical. If these features are absent, we can suspect that the list is for study rather than reference, and hence must have some definite didactic purpose, which will also usually be apparent from its contents and arrangement. Thus, besides dictionaries and vocabularies of the usual type, we are also familiar, for example, with lists of selected words for elementary language learners, arranged according to form or meaning; with lists of technical, literary, or dialect terms and their explanations; with running vocabularies keyed to a source text rather than arranged alphabetically. Most of the word-lists which survive from Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages resemble one or other of these more specialised types. Comprehensiveness and systematic alphabetisation are not by any means universal, and other principles of organisation are often apparent, such as arrangement by grammatical topic, as in the non-alphabetical parts of Nonius;1 or arrangement by semantic affinity, as in some of the Graeco-Latin glossaries – e.g., the Hermeneumata Einsidlensia (cgl , iii.221-279), Hermeneumata Montepessulana (cgl , iii.283-343), Hermeneumata Stephani (cgl , iii.347-390), and Hermeneumata Celtis (alias Vindobonensia) for which see below, sect. 10. There are also lists arranged according to the occurrence of words in a source text, as in one of the lists known as the Reichenau Glosses, which provides modernised late-antique or early medieval – let us not beg any questions by saying ‘vulgar’ – equivalents of selected words from the Vulgate of Genesis, precisely in the order in which they occur in the Biblical text. Modern students of languages are familiar with lists of common errors and their corrections, and with lists of items which are regarded as in some way diffi1 Cf. P. Gatti in this volume.

78 jonathan g. f. powell cult either for natives or for non-natives. It is of course this category to which ap has most often been taken to belong. Once ap had been categorised as such by a hasty inspection of its form, it required only a short step to arrive at further assumptions about its nature and purposes. It was long ago surmised that the purpose of ap was narrowly didactic, in fact that it was a schoolmaster’s attempt to assert norms of classical Latin against the vagaries of the living language (M. Mancini1 calls this «la teoria del buon maestro»). Not surprisingly, this view caught the imagination of scholars. It suggested that ap , perhaps more clearly than any other late Latin grammatical or lexicographical text, provided a window on the history of the transformation of Latin into Romance; hence its prominence in introductory manuals. But this view depends on two assumptions which, as it will turn out, are entirely unwarranted. First, it presupposes that the condemned forms on the right-hand side of ap are in all or most cases a faithful representation of the state of popular speech at the time of compilation.2 Secondly, the view of ap as a didactic text has often seemed to be based on, or to exist in conjunction with, the notion that the list includes a number of items alluding to the personal circumstances of the compiler, from which, therefore, information about the origin of the text can be extracted. Because of the mention in item 134 of the street in Rome called uicus capitis Africae, Gaston Paris thought that he had discovered the compiler of the ap in a paedagogus a caput [sic] Africae commemorated there in an inscription (cil , vi.8983-4).3 There is now a more general, if not yet universal, recognition that neither of these assumptions can be taken for granted, if indeed they can be maintained at all. As to the former, a lexicographer’s list of errors may, in theory, contain mistakes of a number of kinds and with different origins, not all of which have much to do with spoken language. Examples of such a list can be found today in the standard list of ‘autocorrect options’ on a personal computer. The first three items in mine are as follows: abbout: about abotu: about abouta: about a

Do these items show anything about spoken English c. 2010? The issue with the first item is whether a consonant should be doubled in writing. But experience of spoken English shows that the written doubling of a consonant does not necessarily, or even usually, indicate its gemination in speech;4 the mistake can arise precisely because the change in spelling makes no difference to the sound and the correct choice is purely a matter of convention. The issue with the second item is the transposition of two graphemes – in this case, of course, a charac1 2 3 4

Mancini 2007a, 67 and references. This view stated most clearly by Baehrens 1922. Paris 1887; cf. Ullmann 1892, Baehrens 1922, Jarecki 1927. It does indicate phonetic gemination at morpheme boundary, as in words like tailless or thinness.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 79 teristic typing error, but as an illustration it will serve just as well as the typical manuscript errors customarily classified by textual critics.1 It has no bearing on the spoken language; nobody has ever said ‘abotu’ for ‘about’ (indeed, it would not be clear how ‘abotu’ was to be rendered in speech). The third example is an error of word-division: again with no relevance to any conceivable development in the spoken language. There is no reason of principle that guarantees, before we start, that some of the items in ap are not of this kind, rather than representations of spoken ‘vulgarisms’; I shall argue in due course that some of them are, in fact, purely graphic errors. As to the second assumption, there is no clear reason why anyone should suppose that the items in a list such as ap necessarily have any personal relevance to the compiler of the list. The biographical fallacy is patent and should need no refutation. Mention of a particular Roman street, for instance, need not in the least imply that the compiler came from there; the item could be an example not derived from personal experience, but extracted from an earlier text. The fact that its exact source does not happen to have survived is immaterial; it is enough that similar texts are extant (see further below, p. 98). A temporary change of direction in ap studies was effected by Ch. A. Robson (1963), who proposed an alternative theory that a) our manuscript of ap actually represented an original seventh- or eighth-century compilation made at Bobbio, and that b) its entries were culled from texts and not directly from the spoken language. The first of these propositions has not found general acceptance, and its apparent implausibility has, one may suspect, diverted attention from the merits of the second.2 Reaction against Robson led to reassertion of older views, and in particular to a revival of notions about the schoolmaster from the Caput Africae, whose ghost has proved peculiarly difficult to lay.3 But if Robson was anywhere near the truth in his supposition that the entries in the ap have a textual source or sources, then it immediately becomes impossible (at least, impossible without heavy qualification) to sustain the twin assumptions about ap ’s origin in living speech and about its reflections of the compiler’s personal history. The question of textual sources for ap errors will be considered further below, sects. 4 and 9. One of the merits of P. Flobert’s 1987 article was to draw renewed attention to the connection between ap and the other grammatical texts transmitted along with it. This has also been a central theme in recent Italian research. M. Passalacqua and S. Asperti (2006) have reasserted, quite correctly, that ap should not be considered on its own as an independent text, but forms part of a grammatical corpus transmitted in the Bobbio manuscript Neap. lat. 1, including the Pseudo-Probus text (Instituta Artium) as well as the other appendices. These 1 For examples of these see, e.g., Willis 1972, 57-120. 2 To which Barnett 2007, 707-709 has also drawn attention; see further below, pp. 98-103. 3 Flobert 1987; cf. Powell 2007, 692, n. 23. He is still there in Loporcaro 2007, 115.

80 jonathan g. f. powell comprise lists of words and phrases illustrating morphological and syntactic points,1 as well as the list of differentiae (ap 4) partly shared with other manuscript sources (in one of which it is called Differentiae Valerii Probi), which was published over a decade ago by F. Stok (1997). Passalacqua and Asperti compare the layout and appearance of Neap. lat. 1 with the companion manuscript Neap. lat. 2, also from Bobbio, and containing a comparable assemblage of grammatical material, but dating from the v century.2 On this basis they suggest that the former is an accurate copy of a late-antique compilation, perhaps also from the v century. If these scholars are right, ap has been reclaimed more firmly than before for the world of late-antique Latin grammar, the world to which it was already seen by Ullmann (1892), Heraeus (1900), and Barwick (1919) to belong. Within that world, ap should be attributed to one particular, well-recognised sub-genre. Although it contains some items apparently arranged on grammatical (i.e., phonological or morphological) principles, it is not set out according to any systematic principles of grammar (contrast the relatively systematic layout of the Instituta Artium, which deals with many orthographical matters cognate with those seen in the ap ); and at the same time, although it contains some groups of words linked by semantic affinity, it is not, as it stands, a classified glossary. The only feature common to all the items3 is orthographical correction, in the broad sense current in the ancient world, whereby any correction to the way a word was written would count as ‘orthographical’, whether the error thus corrected was one of orthography in the narrower modern sense, or (e.g.) one of accidence or morphology, such as the assignment of a noun to the wrong declension, or a mistake in derivation or compounding, or the mistaken writing of one word for another. There is now an increasing measure of agreement that ap belongs precisely to the genre of treatise usually entitled de orthographia.4 As an orthographical text, ap stands out (as has long been observed) on account of its brevity, since all its items are of the abbreviated form A non B in contrast to the discursive entries more usually found in the other extant orthographic treatises. But its kinship with them is unmistakable, and is enough to show that the topic of ap , like that of the other treatises, is the correction of scribal error. Pronunciation is an issue only in so far as it helps to provide a historical explanation of some of the non-classical spellings. Items of the general form A non B are to be found scattered among the orthographical treatises of Pseudo-Caper (date uncertain),5 Agroecius (c. 470), and 1 On the second appendix see Barnett 2006, Mancini 2007b. 2 There also exists a fifth-century copy of the Instituta Artium, but unfortunately without the appendices, in Vat. Urb. lat. 1154. 3 Disregarding the few items where the recommended form and the condemned form are identical; these must be assumed to be casualties of the copying process, cf. Powell 2007, 689-690. 4 See further Collart 1972; Powell 2007, 691; Mancini 2007a, 74-75; Barnett 2007, 711. 5 The text of Pseudo-Caper apparently includes two items shared with ap : ipsum non ipsud (gl , 7.95.2) and pauper uir et mulier dicendum, non paupera mulier (7.95.3). But these items occur only in an in-

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 81 the Venerable Bede (672-735).1 Similar, and in some cases identical, items occur also in the systematic grammars, including Charisius (late fourth cent.) as well as the Instituta Artium to which ap is appended (iv or v century).2 To leave aside Bede, who clearly depends on the others, there is little reliable evidence to determine priority as between ap and the other texts mentioned. There has of course been much scholarly conjecture about the date of ap and its relationship to the other texts, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that in the current state of our knowledge, any solution to these problems can only be speculative. In default of greater certainty than is at present available to us, the only rational procedure is to treat all these texts, including ap , roughly on a par with each other. Even if we did have a precise date for the compilation of ap in the form in which we know it, this could serve only as a terminus ante quem for the items contained in it. The orthographical texts we have are just the late-antique exponents of a grammatical tradition which went back considerably further and may in some cases reflect grammatical controversies that were already going on in the first centuries bc and ad.3 The entries in ap may well, at least in some cases, come from that tradition, rather than from observation of the current speech of the time at which they were made up into a list.4 Just one example: ap 104 fames non famis is generally taken as a standard example reflecting a late Latin soundchange; but in fact the form famis was used by Varro (rr , 2.5.15, cf. gl , i.55 Keil). Orthographical texts of this kind, in general, are prima facie useful to the historical linguist, because they provide evidence for outlawed usages (or usages that somebody was trying to outlaw). It is a reasonable assumption that any error corrected in such a work must actually have been perpetrated by someone at least once. But as just suggested, the recording of an error in a text such as ap provides no evidence that the error dates from the time of compilation and does not come from a previously existing text. Nor does it provide evidence as to how frequent the error was at any relevant time. As for the question of its relation to the spoken language of any particular period or place, only internal linguistic considerations in each individual case, combined with comparison across the whole range of evidence, can have any hope of deciding the issue. Changes in speech can affect spelling in more than one way. Spelling errors occur within an terpolated branch of the manuscript tradition of Pseudo-Caper. Both are also found elsewhere in the grammatical tradition; the caution against paupera occurs as far back as Varro, ll 8.77, while ipsud is outlawed by Charisius, Diomedes, and Dositheus. See on this de Paolis 1995, 284-286. 1 On Bede in particular, see Dionisotti 1982. 2 Barwick 1919, 421 already pointed out that the Instituta Artium cites a pre-existing orthographical treatise (at 119.16 Keil) and speculated that ap may be a remnant of this. 3 For a general account of the grammatical tradition see Kaster 1988. 4 Mancini 2007a, 90, after demonstrating that around two-thirds of the items in ap are shared with other grammatical or orthographical texts, then suggests that the remaining third is due to the compiler and may reflect observation of contemporary usage. But this does not necessarily follow: it could just be that the sources of the remaining third do not happen to survive.

82 jonathan g. f. powell existing framework of sound-spelling relationships: in English, for example, the word , pronounced /nait/, may be misspelled by a native speaker as but never as ; the misspelling is seen by native speakers as a phonetic spelling of /nait/ because of the peculiar sound-spelling relationship of English. An error may, within the conventional sound-spelling framework, be a closer reflection of the sound than the conventionally correct spelling; or it may be less close, because of hypercorrection, morphological confusion, or a simple graphic slip. To find out which of these is the case with any given ap entry, we need to look well beyond ap itself. Furthermore, as Robson (1963) correctly saw, we are more likely to find out about the compiler’s own Latin from oddities in the recommended forms in the left-hand column, rather than from any feature of the condemned forms, although here too one must be careful in drawing conclusions. 3. Romance and regionalisms At this point, before further considering the question of the ap ’s nature and origins, a few words are necessary about the use of Romance evidence in this connection. When explaining the history of modern Romance forms, AP has always appeared to provide a convenient repertoire of forms apparently intermediate between Classical Latin and modern Romance. Certainly, it is useful to cite 3 speclum, 4 masclus, 5 ueclus to explain Italian specchio, maschio, vecchio, 20 colomna to explain Italian colonna, 53 calda and 54 frigda (read as fricda both traditionally and by Asperti) to explain Italian calda and fredda, 83 oricla and 111 oclus to explain orecchia (or -o) and occhio, 112 acqua to explain the identical form in Italian; 141 fassiolus1 is easily imagined as the original of fagiolo; 144 bessica (which used to be read as pessica) of pesca, 154 autor of autore, 176 paor of paura, 179 sifilus of French siffle, 201 uirdis of verde and vert, 208 febrarius of febbraio and février. All this is familiar to every student of Romance philology.2 However, one should beware of basing assessments of the nature of the whole document on an extrapolation from these spectacularly Romance-looking items. In fact, they comprise a relatively small minority of the entries in ap , and not necessarily a typical one. When one turns to the text of ap itself as the explanandum, one immediately finds considerable numbers of items that resist ready explanation in terms of forms ancestral to Romance;3 and the common 1 Classically spelled phaseolus, diminutive of phaselus; note that Greek has (presumably) reborrowed the Latin or Romance diminutive as Ê·ϲfiÏÈ. 2 Typical treatment in Elcock 1960, 28-34. It is to be noted that though Elcock follows Baehrens on the origin of ap and regards it as «more valuable … than all the gleanings from known grammarians», he has a broadly correct view of the orthographical character of its errors and corrections (p. 29) and even admits that «in most respects the conclusions to be drawn from the Appendix Probi merely confirm the evidence provided 200 years earlier by the Pompeian graffiti». 3 Hence my initial interest in the problem. More than a decade ago at the University of Newcastle, I had followed scholarly convention in including ap in an undergraduate course on Late Latin and the

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 83 scholarly procedure of working backwards from Romance in order to explain or emend the transmitted text of ap has often produced confusion rather than enlightenment.1 The problems arise, perhaps, more from the landscape of modern scholarship than from the nature of the evidence itself. On the one hand, there are Latin scholars, who have internalised a norm of Classical Latin spelling based broadly on the written usage of the i century ad.2 On the other hand, there are Romance scholars, to whom some of the written forms in ap look immediately like a tolerable phonetic representation of reconstructed proto-Romance; and so that is what they take them to be. It takes a special effort of imagination to put oneself in the position of fourth- or fifth-century Latin speakers, whose natural spoken variety of Latin was customarily represented in writing by the written norms of three to four hundred years earlier, and whose conception of sound-spelling relationship was based precisely on the relationship between their own pronunciation and those written norms.3 The deviant spellings of ap are to be seen, not as a bold and innovative attempt to write the spoken language phonetically,4 but rather as a bungling attempt at correct traditional spelling, influenced by any or all of the factors that are normally in play in cases of orthographical error. Explaining any particular instance of error in ap is therefore, at Romance languages. The examination for the course was to contain passages for comment; but it turned out surprisingly hard to find continuous sections of ap which both exemplified a sufficient number of Latin-Romance changes to test the students’ knowledge in that area, and which at the same time did not present problems too difficult for that purpose. It was this that led me to a radical re-examination of the issues surrounding this text. 1 Cf. Powell 2007, 690-691. 2 Not earlier; what we know to have been the spelling conventions of the Ciceronian period appear ‘archaic’ from a modern Latinist’s point of view. 3 For this essential insight I am much indebted to the work of Roger Wright: see Wright 1982 and Wright 1991. True, Wright deals largely with a later period; but the principles to be applied are the same. Evidently, spoken Latin had not diverged as far from the written norm in the iv and v centuries as it had in the vii or viii. If Wright’s contention (that written Latin was the written form of the spoken language of the Romans, just as written English today is the written form of spoken English), is true of the period immediately preceding the Carolingian reforms, it must apply a fortiori to the iv and v centuries. Of the fact that spoken Latin had already changed considerably by then there can be no reasonable doubt; many of the changes are already visible in much earlier documents, as will be seen more clearly below in section 14. 4 It is true that ancient grammarians do occasionally invent their own spellings to convey the sound of deviant spoken forms; for example, Consentius gl , v.392.14-17 quotes three forms allegedly belonging to the fashionable Roman street talk of his day, bobis for uobis, peres for pedes, and stetim for statim. We happen to know Consentius’ intentions here, because he explicitly states (v.391.25-33) that he will take his examples of ‘barbarisms’ not from written texts as others do, but from everyday speech; see Adams 2007, 205. There is no evidence to show that any of the ap spellings are of this type, and the kinship of ap with the orthographical treatises tends to suggest the reverse; when Consentius refers to scriptores qui exempla huiusmodi vitiorum de auctoritate lectionum dare voluerunt, he may well be referring to orthographical treatises of the traditional kind.

84 jonathan g. f. powell the very least, a more complex business than has traditionally been assumed in Romance-based accounts. In the instances listed above, it is no doubt correct to assume that the spoken form underlying the ap spelling is identical with the spoken form reconstructed as the ancestor of the modern Romance forms: e.g., the spelling ueclus does appear to represent a pronunciation like the /veklus/ which we reconstruct as the ancestor of vecchio or viejo or vielz > vieux. Even in such a clear case, however, there are unanswered questions. What was the quality of the vowel of the final syllable? Was it still pronounced u, or had it changed to close o (but was still represented in writing by u)? The French form presupposes that the final s was still pronounced, the Italian form not. Did the author of ap pronounce the final s or view it as a silent letter? We cannot know without more evidence. The Spanish and French forms show fracturing of the tonic vowel e > ie, the Italian form not (a well-known regional divergence in Romance). This feature does not show up in the ap spelling, but then there is no reason to expect it to: any late Latin speakers who pronounced ie for e (as some may have done) would habitually have represented both sounds in spelling by e. So the ap form is not evidence for the absence of the innovation. Nor, as we shall see later, does the ap spelling give us any help whatever with the question of the distribution, social or regional, of the spoken form which (in rough terms) it represents. At most, we can tell from ueclus in ap that a pronunciation like /veklus/ was in existence. There is a temptation to suppose that the ‘wrong’ spelling represents a ‘wrong’ pronunciation: that the compiler of ap was trying to reassert the classical pronunciation /wetulus/. But in reality it need not have occurred to anyone at the time to do that, any more than it occurs to modern English speakers to pronounce a word like (e.g.) creature, which in contemporary standard pronunciation rhymes with ‘teacher’, with the international phonetic values of the letters (as though it were the plural of Italian creatura), or with the pronunciation ‘creat-your’ which was held to be correct until the mid-twentieth century. It may just be that everyone in the v century pronounced /veklus/ or something like it; certainly that would conveniently explain the wide distribution of Romance forms derived from it. But if this pronunciation was confined to some registers, regions or social classes, ap will not tell us what these were. More examples of this kind will be considered in section 12 below. There is a special need for caution in relation to the matter of ap ’s place of origin. It was at one time fashionable to try to use linguistic evidence (including the evidence of the derived languages) to identify a particular dialect of spoken Latin that lay behind the non-standard forms in the ap entries (see esp. Ull mann 1892); this enterprise generally went hand-in-hand with the use of the semantic content of particular entries to provide biographical information. But the recent work of J. N. Adams (2007) has made very clear the difficulties that surround any attempt to establish regional variation in Latin, either on the basis of contemporary literary or inscriptional evidence or by working back from the

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 85 evidence of modern isoglosses. As far as ap itself goes, a few examples are enough to make the point. The form acqua, for example (ap 112), belongs to modern standard Italian, and the gemination is not found in other Romance languages, nor in all Italian dialects. On the basis of this, therefore, we might be tempted to localise ap in Central or Southern Italy. On the other hand, 179 sifilus has a French reflex, siffle, but not an Italian one: should we then take that item as evidence that ap was compiled in Gaul? Item 58 imbilicus has descendants in Sardinian (Logudorese), Portuguese and Provençal;1 should we then localise ap to one of those areas? Regarding item 16, most of the modern Romance languages show a reflex of the Classical form cultellus,2 but the Breton for ‘knife’ is kontell, which may be compared with the condemned form cuntellum.3 Should ap therefore be localised to Armorica? The fact is that arguments of this kind cannot be secure unless supported by a significant amount of other evidence. As Adams (2007, 31) has pointed out, the regional distribution of a modern form is not in itself reliable evidence for the distribution of its ancient ancestor. In cases like this, the most that we can say is that in at least some regions (including those where the non-standard form survives today, but not only those) there were competing forms in the spoken language; the originally standard form prevailed in some areas, the non-standard form in others. The occurrence of a non-standard form in a borrowed word in another language, such as the Celtic of Brittany, could have various explanations (e.g., the area could have been settled by Latin speakers from elsewhere who used that form). In any case, any such evidence could only point to the locality where the deviation from standard usage first attracted attention by its appearance in a written text; it can tell us nothing about a regional origin for the ap itself. If ap is a compilation from various sources (as will appear likely from further arguments below) it could incorporate linguistic features from a number of different regions. It should be remembered also that scribes are individuals and may travel far from their places of origin, taking their linguistic habits (and errors) with them. 4. Items shared with the grammatical/orthographical tradition Any grammatical or lexicographical enterprise must ultimately rely on actual examples of usage. Even in our own day, this generally means written usage taken from texts. For example, the customary procedure of a grammarian like Nonius is entirely familiar to us: he cites a particular linguistic usage, and then proves that it is genuine by means of one or more quotations, which can be of 1 Mancini 2007b, 448. 2 As also does Welsh: cyllell. 3 Noted already by Heraeus 1900.

86 jonathan g. f. powell anything from a short phrase to several lines from a classical author. Here we see the grammarian in the role of collector and preserver of classical usage, representing what has been characterised as ‘open grammar’,1 i.e., that type of grammar that lays stress on the variety of what is permitted. But the grammarian’s task may also appear in another guise, that of ‘narrow grammar’, in which the emphasis is rather on the exclusion of what does not accord with the principles of correct usage: what to avoid if one wants to speak or write correctly. The grammarian of this type needs therefore not only a source or sources of correct usage, but also a source of errors to correct. One of the most difficult issues in connection with ap has been precisely this: what is the source, or what are the sources, of the errors it sets out to correct? The question has not, indeed, always been explicitly posed, but answers of one sort or another have tended to be taken for granted without full examination. As already pointed out, a good number of the items in the ap are in all probability tralatician, i.e., they occur elsewhere in the grammatical or orthographical tradition and could well have reached ap from earlier works in that tradition. Mancini (2007a), 78-83 assembles thirty-seven items that are shared with the grammarians, including eleven from the Instituta Artium with which ap is transmitted, and five from Charisius. The clutch of items shared with the pseudoProbus text at ap 29-33 has long been recognised. Over a hundred further items are shown by Mancini to belong to standard types of error recognised by the grammarians, though illustrated by them with different examples. All who deal with ap are aware of the two major series of apparently phonologically based items, the list of nine syncopated forms in 3-11, and the twenty-one (88-93 and 95-109) which recommend forms ending in -es, mostly in preference to -is (see further below, p. 97). Other, smaller groupings on the basis of grammatical affinity are also evident (e.g., 220-221 nouiscum and uobiscum, to give just one familiar example). The important point to note is that while some of these items do seem to bear a straightforward relation to presumed phonological or morphological changes, in others it appears almost certain that the issue is just one of correct spelling (orthography in the narrow modern sense). The points they exemplify are in some cases familiar orthographical conundrums, discussion of which is well attested in the ancient grammatical tradition. We may instance those items that deal with the choice between i and y in crista, uir, uirgo, uirga;2 between bs and ps; and between qu or quu and cu. In some cases, even modern scholarship has failed to decide the issue: editors of texts still differ on whether to write coquus or cocus, equus or ecus. In others, modern scholarly usage does not follow consistent principles: contemporary editors write urbs from the root urb-, using an et1 For the notions of ‘open’ and ‘narrow’ (the names chosen to begin with the same letters as ‘old’ and ‘new’) grammar see Stuurman 1990. 2 On these see Powell 2007, 692, n. 20; Fischer 2003, 241-242.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 87 ymological spelling, but prefer to follow phonetics in lapsus, not (as recommended by ap and the Instituta Artium) labsus, from the root lab-. That the issue in these items is orthographical is not only plausible on general grounds, but is also indicated by the phrasing of the parallel items that occur in the Instituta Artium of Pseudo-Probus. The usual formula used by PseudoProbus when distinguishing correct from incorrect forms is ‘quaeritur qua de causa A non B dicatur’. But in the instances under consideration, the verb used is not dicatur but scribatur: this applies to equs/ecus (ap 37 = ia 108.21 ff.: esp. 3637), coqus/cocus (ap 38 = ia 126.29-35), plebs/pleps (ap 181 = ia 126.1-5), labsus/lapsus (ap 205 = ia 126.6-11). Another item shared with pseudo-Probus is miles/milex (ap 30 = ia 126.36127.2).1 Here again the Pseudo-Probus text makes it clear that this issue is one of spelling: quaeritur qua de causa miles per s, non per x scribatur. This could hardly be more explicit, and the natural (if not, perhaps, the only conceivable) deduction is that the distinction between final s and final x had by this time been effaced in pronunciation, both being pronounced as s; so that in any particular case the question of whether to write x or s had to be resolved on morphological or etymological rather than phonetic grounds (exactly as in the case of bs/ps in urbs and lapsus).2 A similar explanation holds for ap 185-186 poplex and locuplex, the mistake being clearly encouraged by confusion with the suffix -plex in e.g. duplex. In a modestly presented but important article, I. Fischer has discussed the above points3 and come to the same conclusion on purely linguistic grounds: in each of these cases the issue is purely one of spelling. Further items, including others discussed by Fischer, will appear in section 12 below.4 5. One-off graphic errors So far we have been dealing either with items that have an obvious reflex in Romance (and hence can be presumed to reflect phonetic developments that had taken place in the spoken language),5 or with those that are closely paralleled in the texts of the ancient grammarians. But there are other items in ap which do not necessarily come into either of those categories, and it is to these that we must now turn. 1 The spelling milex occurs from time to time in inscriptions, e.g. cil , viii.2894, and even in Greek transcription (as ÌÈÏÈÍ) in the Strategikon of the emperor Mauricius (vi century); there is no difficulty in supposing that the Greek spelling followed the late Latin spelling rather than the pronunciation. 2 Further support for this diagnosis is to be found in the spelling gres for grex, a ms reading in the Second Appendix (gl , 4.197.18 K.) recently brought to light by Passalacqua: see Mancini 2007b, 433. 3 Fischer 2003, 238-239, 241-242. 4 Some of Fischer’s observations need to be amended in the light of the work of Asperti and myself on the text; F. himself used the text of Väänänen 1967. 5 It might seem unnecessary to point out that it provides nothing beyond a terminus ante quem for the dating of any such changes. Linguistic changes reflected in ap spellings could have happened several centuries before: in any given case the standard spelling may reflect a pronunciation long obsolete.

88

jonathan g. f. powell One general point must first be clarified: the distinction between a word-type (i.e., a lexical item or lexeme, abstracted from context) and a word-token (a single occurrence of such an item in context). The orthographical questions we have noticed so far have been about the spelling of specified word-types. An issue was identified, for example, about the spelling of the word equus. This referred to the relevant word-type: the question is whether, in general, whenever one has cause to use the word, it should be written with qu or with c; it was not about any particular occurrence (token) of equus in a Latin text. But questions of correct writing or spelling can arise not only in connection with word-types, but also in connection with word-tokens. For example, in the Vatican palimpsest of Cicero, De Republica 1.1, the word-token uoluptatis is written by the first hand as toluptatis. This is undeniably an incorrect spelling, in need of correction (which it duly receives from the second hand). But it does not exemplify any common or recurrent mistake in the writing of the word-type uoluptas. The likelihood is that this particular mistake was made only here: it comes into the category of oneoff graphic errors or slips of the pen. In modern terms we would classify such a thing as a textual error rather than an orthographical one: it does not raise any question of principle in spelling which would qualify it for the latter category. Now, an unprejudiced examination of the ap suggests that a number of its items are precisely of this kind: corrections of one-off errors in the writing of word-tokens, belonging not so much to the province of prescriptive grammar (which could not be expected to legislate for all possible errors that might at some time be made) as to that of textual correction. This diagnosis is suggested in particular by three items: 35 iuuencus non iunenclus, 215 necne non necnec, and 218 numquit non mimquit, where what is at issue is respectively (35) the replacement of u by n, (215) a perseveration error or dittography, and (218) the replacement of nu by mi. These are all characteristic graphic or scribal errors. They do not plausibly correspond to any known feature of the spoken language. They belong to classes of error which a textual critic readily recognises, but they do not raise points of principle about the spelling of the word-types in question. There is no reason to suppose that people constantly wrote necnec for necne, iunenclus for iuuencus, or mimquit for numquit. The most likely explanation of these items (if one is not prejudiced as to the nature and purposes of ap ) is that the errors had occurred once each in copying a text. One of Asperti’s new readings provides anopther example: 150 [dysente]ricus non bisintericus. The simplest explanation of the initial b- of the condemned form is that it is a straightforward scribal error by someone unfamiliar with the Greek word (whether or not it is possible to specify more clearly the cause of the confusion).1 Phonetic explanations can hardly be appropriate: there is no evidence for substitution of initial /b/ for /d/ in Latin or Romance. 1 One might speculate, for example, that the Greek prefix dys- was confused with dis ‘twice’ and thence turned into bis in Latin; but there is no necessity to postulate such an explanation when simple graphic error is in question.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 89 It could be argued that a mere three or four items are not in themselves very significant; for even granted that these are mere scribal errors as they appear to be, they could theoretically have arisen at a late stage of the transmission of the text and may not, therefore, reflect the original compilation. It is conceivable that, as Foerster (1892) and others supposed, the original form of item 35 was simply iuuencus non iuuenclus: the item would then come into the category of ‘rejected diminutives’ (see below, sect. 13). Yet there is no such simple emendation available for items 150, 215 or 218; emendation in these cases does not solve any problems but creates new ones. As they stand in the manuscripts, the items make perfect sense, provided one assumes that they were intended to correct textual errors. In other words, the simplest deduction from the presence of these items is that what underlies ap , at least in part, is a list of corrections to a specific text. The errors so corrected may or may not exemplify common types: we are not licensed to conclude either way without further evidence, nor can we immediately generalise about the types of error to which they belong (purely graphic, phonetically influenced, or whatever). 6. Greek transcriptions A substantial number of ap items are concerned with the orthography of words borrowed or transcribed from Greek. The general point at issue is how these borrowings should be accommodated into Latin spelling – a problem for Roman grammarians from the earliest period – but within that, it is difficult to see any common orthographical principles shared between different items. The whole topic of Greek borrowings in Latin has been treated by Biville (1990, 1995). Biville does not express a general view on the quality of the ap evidence; but an inspection of the individual items she cites from ap at different points does not suggest that this text necessarily exemplifies common trends in the rendering of Greek words into Latin spelling. Rather, the items are in several cases problematic.1 Furthermore, some of the words belong to specialised areas of vocabulary and would be unlikely to occur with any great frequency, except in specialised texts or word-lists; the first item of all in ap is of this kind (‘porphyritic marble’) like several other ap items it belongs to the semantic field of buildings and monuments. A list of ‘common errors’ of speech or writing would hardly be likely to begin here. Again, to an unprejudiced view it seems much more likely, both because of the variety of the errors corrected and because of the specialised character of some of the word-types in question, that we are dealing with corrections to word-tokens from a text or texts, not corrections to common usage. 1 Note esp. 46 izofilus, which Biville (following Endlicher and Ullmann) tries to explain as a metathesised form for *ziofilus, supposed to be a vulgar pronunciation of Theophilus (cf. It. zio for originally Greek theios ‘uncle’).

90

jonathan g. f. powell In two instances there is clearly a phonetic point concerning the pronunciation of the letter g (deriving from Greek Á): these are 12 calcostegis non calcosteis, showing the palatal pronunciation of Greek Á before a front vowel as in later Greek, and the famous item 85 pegma non peuma in which the original Á is represented by .1 Greek upsilon causes problems which are dealt with in different ways in different items. In 17 marsias non marsuas and 114 clamis non clamus, the spelling with u is rejected, that with i recommended, and that with y not mentioned, while in 195 myrta non murta the spelling with y is recommended instead of u. In 140 amycdala non amiddola the spelling with i is rejected, and y is substituted.2 In 127 botruus a doubled u is used in the recommended form to represent upsilon, a move which does not invite easy explanation (Robson 1963 made much of this spelling as evidence of lateness). The inconsistency suggests that no firm principle is involved. Trouble is experienced, as in earlier Latin (cf. Cic. Orat. 160, etc.), in distinguishing between the voiced and voiceless plosives in Greek-derived words, especially when initial: 78 calatus (corr. to calatis) non galatus (which we would recognise more easily as calathus, a basket), 1452 now revealed as bessica, 188 plasta non blasta, 209 glatri non cracli (correct form: clatri, a lattice).3 Again, the corrections are not consistent, sometimes substituting the letter corresponding to the correct voiceless phoneme for the voiced (78 and 188); in one instance the incorrect voiced is substituted for the voiceless (209); in 145 we cannot tell what the correction was.

1 It is famous because it parallels the sound-change long since postulated for another Greek borrowing sagma > sauma, ‘pack-saddle’ (e.g., Elcock 1960, 34); cf. also Barnett 2007, 718-719 and note 27. It is not clear whether the spelling with is just a Roman attempt to represent a foreign Greek sound, presumably the voiced velar fricative found in modern Greek (which can sound like /w/ to the uninitiated), or a representation of a development within Latin whereby the sound /g/ actually underwent (perhaps through an intermediate fricative stage) a change to /w/ before /m/. The change would be parallel to that of modern (Copenhagen) Danish -ag- before a consonant, as in bagvendt /bawvent/ ‘backwards’. According to Mancini 2007a, 92 this change is unattested in Latin spellings before the v century ad. But he quotes a spelling fraumenta from a seventh-century manuscript of the Acta Petri cum Simone, suggesting that the change could happen in native Latin words as well as Greek borrowings. Mancini also mentions a hybrid spelling in a Greek word, fleugmatis, in a fifth-century medical work. 2 Here there is also an issue of assimilation (gd versus dd) and of vocalisation (-ala vs -ola); the latter change suggests a shift of stress accent from the Greek penultimate to the antepenultimate. The condemned form is evidently Latinised, but there is no sign of the medieval and Romance change to *amandula or similar. 3 It is not clear that this has any connection with the isolated voicing of initial ca- to ga- in Italian words like gabbia < cauea, gatto < cattus, gabinetto vs Fr. cabinet, and so on: these are not words of Greek origin, and ap 63 has cauia with no sign of voicing. Again the Romance evidence needs to be used with caution. Biville 1990 quotes several examples of such voicing in words derived from Greek.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 91 A similar inconsistency affects the treatment of aspirates. Absent aspirates are inserted in items 1, 23, and 66, but left uncorrected in 67, 119 and 191: the inconsistency between 661 cochlea and 671 cocleare is especially striking. Influence from Latin etymology on the condemned form is relevant in item 1 porphireticum marmur non purpureticum marmur. In 206 it is the recommended form that shows the same kind of interference, rejecting the reasonably good spelling orologium in favour of a Latinised orilegium. Conversely, Greek interference in a Latin word is seen in 178 adipes non alipes, with influence from the Greek aleiph- root (found also in cgl , ii.436.58, iii.395.13). A singular example is 190 ermeneumata non erminomata. Here there are two points: the use of i or e to transcribe the Greek eta and, more puzzling, the replacement of Greek eu by the Latin monophthong o; the latter may not be explicable in terms of pronunciation, but may rather be the result of confusion with other Greek words ending in -omata. The reading of 452 (451 pancarpus) is too uncertain for further comment to be useful. Evidently, lexical items of foreign origin almost inevitably present special problems of pronunciation or spelling or both: one has only to think of the distortions often suffered by French words when they become part of the English vocabulary. But the upshot of the preceding discussion can only be that the selection of such items presented by ap displays neither any consistent tendencies in the errors selected, nor any consistent grammatical doctrine in the methods adopted to correct them. On the assumption that the writer of ap had some intention to help readers with their spelling, in this area more than any other it is a case of the blind leading the blind. The most rational explanation for this state of affairs is that the errors originate from a variety of textual sources, were subjected to piecemeal attempts at correction, and were then put together into a list with little or no regard for consistency. 7. Lexical substitution entries Perhaps the most crucial evidence on the question of orthographical vs textual corrections concerns those items in which what seem to be at issue are not different spellings of the same word, but apparently different lexical items. Here it is necessary to expand a little on what I said on this issue in my 2007 article. First, the general issue: what does the presence of items of this kind, assuming their presence is securely established, indicate about the list in which they occur? There are (at least) two different ways in which, in actual linguistic behaviour, one word may be substituted for another. One is simple miswriting: a writer, whose mind has perhaps wandered from the original context, may by visual or phonetic or semantic association slip from the required word to one resembling it. This happens frequently when copying a text; there are some excellent exam-

92 jonathan g. f. powell ples in Willis 1972, 55-56, e.g. (from a book printed in Canada in 1965): «no sensuality either of a theatrical or of a practical kind», where «theatrical» has been printed instead of ‘theoretical’. Often it is the more familiar word that is substituted for the less familiar; but sometimes both are equally familiar and just easy to confuse, like English causal and casual or Latin uoluptas and uoluntas.1 Such examples of word substitution do not necessarily show anything at all about the writer’s linguistic usage; even those whose spoken and written usage is consistently correct can catch themselves in such lapses of concentration. (I just found and corrected ‘contest’ for ‘context’ in my own hasty typing, but I would not confuse the two words in speech or, indeed, in careful writing.) The other form of word substitution is what is called malapropism, in which the two words are confused in actual usage (spoken or written or both). Adams 2007, 221, discussing malapropism in Latin, cites as an example from English the popular confusion between «testimony» and «testament». This is largely a oneway confusion; people often say ‘testament’ when ‘testimony’ would be correct, but seldom vice-versa. In correcting a malapropism of this kind, one might well say ‘testimony, not testament’; one might never have cause to make the opposite correction. Nevertheless, one would still need to know the context before one could make the correction. In some contexts, ‘testament’ would be wrong and would need to be corrected to ‘testimony’; but in other contexts ‘testament’ would be right, and would not stand in need of correction. To continue for a moment with the same example, it is remotely possible that a half-educated pedant might run away with the idea that ‘testament’ was simply wrong – not a word at all – and should be replaced by ‘testimony’ wherever it occurred, so that we would then find references to a person’s last will and testimony; this would be a hypercorrection against the malapropism (and itself, of course, an error of the same kind). But apart from that special kind of case, a correction involving lexical substitution must have, or originally have had, a context from which one could tell that the rejected word was inappropriate, and the recommended one appropriate. For example, an English correction of the form ‘swallow, not sparrow’ would be nonsensical in itself. Nobody could reasonably claim that the word ‘sparrow’ is in some unqualified sense ‘wrong’. It is wrong only in a particular context. To make a correction of that kind must imply that one has a context in which ‘sparrow’ does not fit, and ‘swallow’ does, like this: The sparrow is a black migratory bird with a forked tail. Wrong: sparrows are not black, they do not have forked tails, and they do not migrate. The swallow must be meant: swallow, not sparrow. The presence in ap of a number of items apparently of this kind has, of course, been noticed, and, inevitably perhaps, it has been taken by many schol1 Rolando Ferri suggests to me that the frequent confusion between uoluntas and uoluptas in textual transmission may be an indication of malapropism in actual linguistic usage, rather than pure scribal error; if so, it was a bad example, but the general point may stand.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 93 ars as evidence of textual corruption. In some cases, the apparent problem has been dealt with by positing conflation of two originally separate items. But this approach is valid only on particular assumptions about the purposes of ap . Once it is admitted that at least some of the ap entries may have started their lives as corrections to a text of some kind, the problem recedes. The items that may come into this category are as follows: 26 musiuum non museum and 204 musium uel musiuum non museum: mosaic/museum. The shorthand gloss locus est musarum may be intended to gloss museum and thus accentuate the distinction. 31 sobrius non suber: sober/cork. The pseudo-Probus Inst. Art. has sober as an incorrect form for sobrius, but the allegedly erroneous form here is suber, a different Latin word. 46 theofilus non izofilus. The prefix izo- probably reflects Greek idio-, as shown by Barnett 2007, 720. Whatever the resulting idiophilus is meant to be, it seems implausible to regard it as merely a misspelling of theophilus, though some commentators have tried to devise a way of deriving the one form from the other phonetically (cf. p. 89, note 1). 47 homfagium non monofagium. Homfagium is perhaps more likely to conceal Greek omphakion, verjuice, than omophagion meat eaten raw: in either case monofagium must surely be a different word. 55 uinea non uinia: vine/siege-shed: distinguished by Cornutus ap. Cassiodor. gl , vii.150. 18, implausibly as regards classical usage, but the point is that they could be distinguished. 67 cocleare non cocliarium: ap 4, the list of differentiae which immediately follow ap in the manuscript, makes the distinction between cocleare «spoon» and coclearium «qui cocleas vendit», i.e. accusative of coclearius; in classical Latin (Varro) there is also a neuter word coclearium which means an enclosure for keeping (edible) snails. In classical Latin this would have been a genuine distinction, and clearly still was for the author of ap 4, even though in the long run it was clearly not maintained, as shown e.g., by It. cucchiaio ‘spoon’. 71 glouus non glomus (glouus = globus): globe/mass. Both words are classical and identifiably different. Certainly the spelling of globus as glouus shows a degree of ignorance of classical orthography, but one need not assume that the compiler was also ignorant of the existence of the word glomus; it may just be that the context demanded the substitution of globus. Contrary to the impression given by some ap scholars who quote it, Priscian gl , 2.170.2 is not evidence for confusion of globus and glomus: the issue is the gender of globus and Priscian explains that it is sometimes treated as neuter on the analogy of glomus. 74 orbis non uurbs: world/city. This is the reading of the first hand; uurbs is corrected to urbs, which is further corrected to orbs; the latter correction is printed in the text by Asperti, but may be due to a corrector who thought the only point at issue was the termination of orbis. Were it not for the doubt as to the reading, this would be a clinching example for the hypothesis that the ap ’s corrections are textual; for nobody could reasonably claim that urbs was not a Latin word different from orbis or that the ap compiler may not have known that it was. 118 exter non extraneus. These two words, derivatives of the same root, have similar meaning (foreign, extraneous) but they are clearly lexically different, and in classical

94

jonathan g. f. powell

Latin they differ to some small extent in idiomatic usage (see old , s.vv.). Because reflexes of words with the suffix -aneus are common in Romance, there may be a temptation to regard extraneus as a ‘vulgar’ substitution for the more ‘classical’ exter.1 But in a Latin context it is difficult to see any good reason to condemn extraneus, except in a text where exter was the original reading and extraneus had been mistakenly substituted for it. 153 raucus non draucus: hoarse/athlete: here again, ap apparently condemns as an error what is a perfectly good classical word; but this time it is a rare one with which the grammarian may well not have been familiar. (See below, pp. 89-99 for more on this item). 165 hirundo non harundo: swallow/reed. If Asperti’s herundo is read, this item is no longer significant as it becomes a simple case of misspelling (inspired possibly by false etymology: hirundo/*herundo was derived from haerere by Agroecius 7.122.18). But as noted above, the reading is still not certain. 173 tundeo non detundo: shave/bruise. I assume that tundeo represents tondeo. This example can be explained particularly easily in terms of textual criticism: first, a copyist will have written tundo for tondeo; then a corrector will have written de above the line to signify that it should be changed to tondeo; this will in turn have been miscopied as detundo, entirely the wrong verb for the context. 203 sirena non serena: siren/serene. 211 rabidus non rabiosus: rabid/prone to rage. 212 tintinnaculum non tintinnabulum: jingling sound/bell. The former is attested as a Plautine word, and is much less common in Latin generally than the latter. For a further point concerning this entry see below, p. 104.

A special case of lexical substitution is comprised by those examples where a diminutive form is rejected in favour of the corresponding non-diminutive; these call for special explanation (see below, p. 110) and neither help nor hinder the argument here. I have postponed until the end two doubtful items. First, the notorious 18 cannelam non canianus. It is not clear what either cannelam or canianus means or was meant to mean; neither form is exactly paralleled in Latin as far as we know. It is possible (cf. Barnett 2007, 734) that the former is a diminutive of canna, either in the original meaning ‘reed (pipe)’ or as the name of the spice ‘canel’ (= cinnamon: Fr. cannelle, It. cannella, etc.). But there is no plausible interpretation for canianus as it stands, and no obvious emendation. Textual corruption is universally assumed. But there is no ground for assuming that the corruption necessarily happened at a late stage and that we can therefore reconstruct the original condemned form by emendation: canianus may itself have been condemned precisely because it was already corrupt.2 1 Extraneus is of course the ancestor of e.g., Fr. étrange; but there appears also to be a direct Romance descendant of exter in Rhaeto-Romance (Engadine) eister ‘strange’, ‘foreign’: Meyer - Lübke, rew , 3086. It. estero first appears, it seems, in the xv century and is classified by Italian lexicographers as «voce dotta», i.e., a borrowing from Latin, Italianised in phonology (Battisti, Alessio 1950, 1548). 2 On this item see also Santini 1988, 113-114.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 95 For 207 ostiae non hostiae, where classical Latin offers a choice between ostia neut. pl. ‘doors’, Ostiae gen. or loc. sing. ‘of/at Ostia’, and hostiae feminine nom. pl. or gen. sing. ‘sacrificial victim(s)’. Clearly, the ending -ae is the same in both left-hand and right-hand forms, hence one is tempted to draw the conclusion that the only issue was the presence or absence of h. But by removing the h from hostiae the corrector has created a problematic form: if it is not a form of the proper name Ostia it must be incorrect according to classical norms. Thus, without some indication of context, we simply cannot tell which case of which word was intended; therefore we cannot tell precisely where the mistake being corrected lay, and there are grave limits to the linguistic information such an item can provide. The evidence discussed in this section seems to indicate that in some ap items the issue is lexical substitution. Obviously, some of these instances are more doubtful than others. But the cumulative evidence of a number of reasonably probable examples may be taken as adding up to an overall probability. In order to maintain the traditional view of ap as nothing but a list of common linguistic errors, one would have to explain away all these examples, showing that none of them plausibly represents the substitution of one lexical item for another. This, of course, is exactly what editors have traditionally tried to do by emendation. But if by altering one’s hypothesis as to the nature of ap one can comfortably accommodate all the transmitted items without emendation, I venture to suggest that it may be more scientific to do so. One might wonder what purpose such a gathering of lexical corrections would serve, once detached from the text or texts that it was intended to correct. This is perhaps the strongest objection to the hypothesis for which I am here arguing. However, it is not too difficult to suppose that the list of corrections may have become detached from the original text by accident, and may then have been preserved for a different purpose from its original one, as a list of ‘orthographical’ items. Most of the corrections (those concerned with current questions of orthography or morphology) would still be of use even without the original context. Those concerned with lexical substitution might certainly appear senseless in such a setting. That is, indeed, precisely how they have appeared in their transmitted form in ap . Even so, a grammarian might still have a use for them: the recording and transmitting of such an item would be a way of signalling that there were two words which had once been confused, and putting readers on guard against similar substitutions. A modern manual of textual criticism (Willis 1972) devotes a chapter to this form of corruption and states roundly (p. 74): «The most common cause of corruption is the substitution for the right word of another resembling it in general shape». The ancient grammarians may have been more like modern textual critics, and less like historical linguists, than is often supposed.1 1 Another suggestive point is this: the ancient grammarians classified errors into those arising from addition of letters (adiectio), omission (detractio), or change (immutatio); Mancini 2007a, 78-83 points

96

jonathan g. f. powell 8. Morphological substitution?

The last two items discussed in the previous section raise another issue. Whatever one makes of cannelam, it must be accusative, and whatever one makes of canianus, it seems almost certain to be nominative; while whatever one makes of ostiae non hostiae, it is clear that there is a problem as to the interpretation of the case-ending. As far as I know, nobody has ever suspected that some ap items might involve the substitution of one case-form for another. But the possibility is raised by Asperti’s new reading of 43 carcer non carcare. If this is indeed the correct reading, the condemned form is either an ablative or an accusative with loss of final -m, whereas the recommended form is nominative. Someone approaching this item from the Romance end might be tempted to think that here we have a precursor of Italiam carcere. But such a form could arise only at a time when the effacement of the morphological distinction between nominative and accusative (at any rate in the third declension) was already well under way; if that were the case for ap and its companion texts, we would expect to see a greater concentration of evidence. However, no such chronological constraint would prevent us from adopting an alternative explanation, viz. that carcare was a textual corruption involving the substitution of one case for another of the same noun. There is a tacit assumption (probably broadly correct, but the better for being made explicit) that the majority of the entries in ap are in the nominative just because the nominative is the ‘lexicographical’ case used for items in a word-list. Even where lexicographical entries were originally taken from texts, they are generally put in what modern English speakers call the ‘dictionary form’ before being listed. In general terms, this is likely to be true of ap . In two instances, where items appear in cases other than the nominative, we can certainly suspect that the motive is enhanced illustration of a grammatical principle (unless both case-forms occurred in the source-text): 15 uacui non uaqui after 14 uacua non uaqua; 39 coquens non cocens, 40 coqui non coci after 38 coqus non cocus. Then there is 162, now read by Asperti as tonitro non tonotru, where one incorrect ablative form is apparently substituted for another (the traditional reading tonitru non tonotru reflects the natural assumption that the left-hand form ought to be good out that a large number of ap items fit these categories. Such a classification of errors might seem hopelessly script-centred to a trained philologist or linguist in modern times. Yet in the same work of Willis 1972, 47 we read: «A corruption in a manuscript is the writing of something other than that which was written in the exemplar from which the copy is being made; it may consist in changing something, in leaving something out, or in adding something». I doubt whether Willis was consciously following the ancient grammarians: rather, it shows that the ancient grammarians thought in the same categories as modern textual critics. This is not surprising, since to some extent they shared the same task, i.e. correcting scribal errors in manuscripts of Latin authors, or explaining why the transmitted reading is not an error; cf. esp. the chapter on Servius in Kaster 1988.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 97 Latin, but Asperti’s reading casts further doubt on this principle); and there are the four street-names that begin with the ablative uico at 134-137.1 But in none of these items is there a substitution of one case for another. Another suggestive item is 78 calatus (corrected to calatis) non galatus. Not only has the incorrect spelling with g- been corrected; the ending has also been changed (by a subsequent corrector) from -us to -is (I cautiously reported only ‘vertical stroke over u’). The word is always calathus in classical Latin. Was the correction intended as a change of declension (to unattested *calathis), or a change of case, to dat.-abl. plural? In this instance, again, this suggests that the source was a text in which the word appeared in that case-form. Before leaving this topic we should pause for a moment with the sequence of items ending in -es non -is, i.e., items 90-109 less 94 and 99, together with 115 glis non gleris and 128 grus non gruis. A similar case is 21 pecten non pectinis. All the condemned forms in these items are taken by scholars to be mistaken forms intended for the nominative singular; and this may well, in fact, be true. But before reaching this conclusion we should at least register the fact that in all but one of these twenty-one items, the condemned form is, in fact, a perfectly correct classical Latin form – provided, of course, that it is taken as genitive singular instead of nominative. If we were to find an isolated item of this kind, say 21 pecten non pectinis or 128 grus non gruis, we would be in no position to tell whether it was a morphological correction of a mistaken nominative, pectinis or gruis, or rather a textual correction of a genitive that had been written mistakenly for a nominative.2 It is largely because of the long list of parallel items that we interpret these corrections as concerned with the correct way to write the nominative, rather than with the choice between nominative and genitive. If there were more instances where the condemned form could not be a genitive, that would be a strong argument too; as it is, the only one of this kind is deses non desis (classical gen. of course desidis), but in that item the reading is so uncertain that one cannot rely on it. It should also be noted that there is one further item that does not fit the pattern precisely: 95 apes non apis. Here, the correct classical form in -is is apparently rejected in favour of a form in -es. Or is it? It is alternatively possible that the singular form appeared mistakenly in a text where the plural apes was needed, and the correction made accordingly. In this and nine other members of this series of items, yet another alternative is

1 We should beware of concluding from the attractively Romance appearance of uico that these items have anything to do with the effacement of case-distinctions. We have, in fact, no external evidence at all as to what case-form uico capitis Africae, etc. were meant to be; the most economical hypothesis, given the lack of corroborative evidence for any other view, is to interpret the form by classical rules as ablative. 2 The item pecten occurs also in Instituta Artium, gl , iv.125.17-23, but the issue is different (it is whether the genitive should be written pectinis or pectenis); there is no awareness that pectinis was current as a mistaken nominative form.

98 jonathan g. f. powell available, viz. that the grammarian was trying to lay down the law about the spelling of the accusative plural1 (this explanation would not do for the rest, which are either singularia tantum or else nouns in which the acc. pl. ending in -is would be impossible). In sum, what may have happened here is that a group of originally disparate though superficially similar corrections have been amalgamated into a single list with the addition of further examples, so that it now looks like a long list of exemplifications of the same principle. But the apparent uniformity may be an illusion. 9. Martial, Varro, and the glossaries; Barnett ’ s hypothesis In my earlier article I deliberately refrained from speculating further about the nature of the texts from which the ap errors may originally have come. That one of them may have been a Roman itinerary was suggested by Robson 1963:2 the only difference on this point between Robson’s position and mine is that he did not explicitly suggest that the ap items are textual corrections to such an itinerary. At two points in the ap text (there may be more, but if so I am not aware of them), there are collocations of words which also apparently occur together in an extant classical text. It seems to have been Robson who first pointed out that the items 151 opobalsamum and 1532 draucus occur juxtaposed in the text of Martial 11.8.1. A glance back at the preceding poem reveals another ap word, 192 stropha, and it could be added that botryo, possibly the original of 1272 butro, occurs in Martial, 11.27.4. Perhaps, then, Martial was among the ultimate source texts for the vocabulary of ap . Unfortunately, however, the striking juxtaposition of opobalsamum and draucus in 11.8.1 is problematic. The line reads in the paradosis as follows: Lassa quod hesterni spirant opobalsama drauci and this was the text followed by Robson. But as Housman pointed out,3 this reading cannot be right. The poem consists largely of a series of similes, romantic in style, designed to convey the evanescent sweetness of a favourite boy’s kisses. Other classical passages make it clear that the word draucus means (in the words of Housman) «one who performs feats of strength in public». The «balsam of yesterday’s strong-man» is pure nonsense; and attempts by interpreters to take draucus as a sexual athlete do not in any way mend matters, as they are again entirely out of tune with the style of the rest of the poem. Some Renaissance manuscripts offer a different text, presumably conjectural: Lapsa quod externis spirant opobalsama truncis, referring to the botanical 1 A question on which the real Valerius Probus was believed to have views (Gellius, na 13.21); cf. below, p. 107. 2 A number of such itineraries survive, though unfortunately it is impossible to identify one particular extant itinerary as the source of these ap items. On the Roman landmarks in ap cf. also Santini 1988, 115-116. 3 Diggle, Goodyear 1972 iii, 1166-1167.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 99 fact that the perfume called opobalsamum is an exudation from the trunk of a tree native to various Eastern countries. But while it makes a kind of sense to say of this perfume that it is «fallen from foreign treetrunks», it is clumsy and unromantic sense, again quite out of tune with the sensitive phrasing of the rest of the epigram. Housman’s suggestion for emendation was to change drauci to dracti, a Greek word for a scent-bottle: thus lassa quod hesterni spirant opobalsama dracti = «the scent of faint balsam from a bottle emptied yesterday». This is ingenious in Housman’s best manner, though one should be cautious before claiming certainty for it, as does Kay 1985. The upshot of this discussion is that whatever may be the true reading in that line of Martial, it is highly likely that the word drauci there is corrupt. On the other hand, it is clearly in the manuscript tradition. Whatever grammarian was responsible for introducing the word into ap could very possibly have found it in a contemporary copy of Martial. Now, the ap item (as is now certain) reads raucus non draucus. Scholars have had particular difficulty in making sense of this item in linguistic terms, and emendation has been freely resorted to (see Quirk 2006, s.v.). Taken at face value it is clearly a case of lexical substitution (cf. sect. 7 above): the word raucus ‘hoarse’ has been substituted for draucus. This substitution is in fact found in part of the manuscript tradition of, for example, Martial, 14.48, where clearly a copyist unfamiliar with the word draucus has substituted what seemed to be the nearest available Latin word. It even gives sense of a sort in that passage, though inferior sense. It may, in fact, be that the ap item reflects such an attempt at emendation. But if this is true, the link with opobalsamum via Martial, 11.8.1 must probably be abandoned, since an emendation to raucus would be impossible there even for the most inexpert of textual critics. Note, however, that opobalsama occur also in Martial, 14.59 (eleven epigrams away from draucus/raucus at 14.48). This line of enquiry cannot be said to have yielded certain results: the most that can be said at this stage of the discussion is that a) there may be some connection between these ap items and the textual tradition of Martial, and b) this connection appears to provide modest reinforcement for the notion that a number of ap items belong to the world of textual criticism. What is perhaps a more promising line of investigation has been adumbrated by Barnett 2007, 729, who pointed to a passage of Varro’s Res rusticae (3.5.3) which contains three ap items (61 ostium, 66 coclia and 63 cauea) in close succession. This observation prompted me to look further in the text of the Res rusticae, with results which are perhaps surprising. A fairly cursory examination of the text revealed no fewer than thirty more ap words: uitulus and iuuencus at rr 2.5.6 (ap 6 and 35), equus at 2.7.1 (ap 37), formosus at 2.7.4 and 2.9.3 (ap 75), catulus and uetulus at 2.9.3 (ap 50 and 5), articulus at 2.9.4 (ap 8), digitus at 2.9.14 (ap 79), tondeo 2.11.5 (ap 173 tundeo), grues, anseres, glires and apri all at 3.2.14 (ap 128, 129 and 164, 115, 139), apes, cochleae and glires at 3.3.3 (ap 95, 66 and 115), museum at 3.5.9 (=ap 26 and 204), much discussion of columnae at 3.5.12-13 (ap 20), aqua calida et frigida at 3.5.16 (ap 112 and 53-54), camara at 3.7.3 (ap 84), fasioli (phaseoli) at 3.7.8

100 jonathan g. f. powell (ap 141), crista at 3.9.4 (ap 24), palumbus at 3.9.21 (ap 99), cocliaria, dolia and glires (again) all at 3.12.2 (ap 67, 52, and 115), cithara 3.13.3 (ap 23), riuus and cocus 3.14.3 (ap 174, 38), figuli 3.15.2 (ap 32). As long as only two or three words are in question, coincidence cannot be ruled out. But when one has found as many as this, one begins to wonder. Certainly, if these words occurred in ap in the same order as they occur in Varro, the matter would be as good as proved. In fact they do not, but that does not necessarily disprove a connection. The selection of words from the Varronian text, if such it is, seems fairly random; one possible explanation is simply that these happened to be the words that were spelt wrongly in the particular text of Varro on which the compiler depended. Another possibility is that they were deliberately selected to illustrate particular grammatical points (syncope, and so on). A third possibility is indirect transmission. The text being corrected may not have been Varro but one which incorporated words or sentences derived, among other sources, from Varro: in fact a word list or glossary based on that text. We should note that although the text of the Res rusticae contains many uncommon and technical words, such as might require explanation in a list of glossae Varronianae, it is not these that figure in ap . The words concerned are all quite ordinary. Perhaps the only plausible reason for such words to occur in a glossary would be that it was a bilingual one made for the benefit of language learners, and containing a series of common words arranged along broadly semantic principles; a work like the Res rusticae would be an obvious source for the compiler of such a word-list. However that may be, the relationship with Varro must remain to some extent a matter for speculation, unless further information comes to light. More enlightenment can, perhaps, be gained from following up the topic of word-lists and glossaries.1 The existence of many parallels for ap spellings in the glossaries was already noticed by Heraeus (1900). Robson (1963) hinted that classified glossaries might lie behind some of the items in ap , and that this may account for the presence of certain series of words which are apparently linked semantically rather than grammatically. The presence of these series had long since been noticed; e.g., Ullmann 1892 drew attention to a series of natural phenomena (items 159-162) and a series of female family relations (166, 168-171). Robson focussed on the presence of a number of bird names (e.g., 163-165) leading him to emend 176 pauor non paor to pauo non pao.2 But the importance of glossarial material has recently been highlighted to a much greater extent by Barnett, who has pointed out inter alia the existence of a series corresponding to the 1 Mancini 2007a, 76 is dismissive of the link with the glossaries; but he wrote before the publication of Barnett’s work, discussed below. 2 Linguistically this would be unexceptionable, but there is no reason at all to suppose that this item is more likely to have been meant as the word for ‘peacock’ rather than that for ‘fear’. Pauor would not be the only abstract noun in the list, cf. 123 occasio.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 101 sections of extant glossaries headed de ciuitate and/or de negotiis – e.g., 32 figulus, 34 lanius, 38 coqu(u)s.1 Barnett adds a new angle to the glossary hypothesis, by arguing that many groups of items in the ap , though at first sight unconnected, are in fact semantically linked, by virtue of their being alternative translations of the same Greek word. By this method he proposes explanations for about half of the total number of items. This insight, if correct, is of major importance for the understanding of ap . Full and detailed discussion of Barnett’s views is unnecessary here: I refer interested readers to his article in the 2007 «Classical Quarterly». Here only two general points of method need be made. The first concerns a difference between Barnett’s approach and mine. While Barnett is no more favourable than I am to arbitrary editorial emendation of the text as printed, he resorts much more freely than I do to hypothetical reconstruction of the word-lists which, in his view, provided the source of many of the items in ap . To take just one example, items 32-34 of ap as they stand read as follows: 32 figulus non figel, 33 masculus non mascel, 34 lanius non laneo. With this series, he compares (Barnett 2007, 709) some parallel sections of the glossaries, especially the Montepessulana (cgl , iii.308.7, 10-11) which has the series figulus, macellarius, lanius; lanius (-o) and macellum are also associated in cgl , iii.267.60-61 and iii.306.23-24. It is clearly natural enough that a glossary containing ‘butcher’ should also contain the word for ‘meat-market’. On this basis, Barnett suggests that the item masculus non mascel in our text of ap has at some stage, presumably by an error of transmission, replaced macellum, which he supposes to have been in the ‘parent’ word-list from which this section of ap derives. Hence he postulates that an item which was originally related semantically to the surrounding items (i.e., in a glossary) has been replaced by an item which, instead, is related grammatically to the preceding item, mascel for masculus exemplifying the same morphological error as figel for figulus.2 This change he attributes to the intervention of a grammarian who did not appreciate the purpose of the original list. Barnett proposes numerous other hypothetical reconstructions of this kind. It certainly appears plausible that some sections of the parent word-lists may have survived more or less intact in the extant text of ap , in the shape of short runs of semantically-related items in close juxtaposition to one another. It is only natural to wonder, as Barnett did, whether the text as we have it might conceal more such series or more items from existing series. It is equally obvious, however, that many of the items in ap are sorted grammatically rather than semantically. Barnett explains this state of affairs by postulating two stages: an earlier stage in which items were arranged semantically, and a later stage in which a grammatical arrangement was imposed on the existing material – but only par1 Barnett 2007, 708-709. 2 Mascel and figel are both noticed also in the Pseudo-Probus Instituta Artium (gl , iv.102.12-17 and 130.11-15), but not in juxtaposition.

102 jonathan g. f. powell tially. During this imperfect transition, Barnett supposes, a substantial number of the items themselves were changed by accident or design, but the order in which they appeared was left relatively intact: his hypothesis depends quite heavily on this assumption. My second point concerns the possibility of reconciling Barnett’s theory with my own view that (part of ) what underlies ap is a series of textual corrections divorced from its original context. At first sight the two theories seem significantly different, yet in fact they are not incompatible. Barnett’s view of the process of transition from glossary item to ap entry emerges from his discussion on p. 714: «… if there had not been what he [the grammarian] regarded as mistakes in any of the three words, it would probably not have appeared in a grammarian’s list». Thus the hypothesis is that some of the Latin items in the parent glossary contained mistakes, which a grammarian then picked out and corrected;1 the errors and corrections then found their way, along with related grammatical material, into the ap list. Although, when I formulated my own theory of a list of textual corrections, I initially thought of them as being corrections to a text in continuous prose (bearing the same relation to parts of ap as, for example, the Vulgate of Genesis bears to the Reichenau Glosses), nevertheless there is in fact nothing to exclude the possibility that the underlying text was itself a word list or a series of word lists. This would account equally well for the semantic affinities among groups of items, and could also account for the presence of occasional items apparently derived from other texts (Martial, Varro, and so on): one would need to assume only that these texts had been drawn on for items by the writer of the glossary, or quoted there as examples. Regarding Barnett’s other central point, that some of the Latin words in ap are linked by the fact that they are alternative translations of the same Greek word, it may be possible to find some modest corroborative evidence as to the existence of such lists in what may be broadly termed the grammatical tradition. One of the lists entitled Synonyma Ciceronis, edited by Gatti (1994, 28), contains an item which (though corrupt in the form in which we have it) appears to 1 Barnett also believes, as Robson also appears to have done, that some of the ap errors were ‘concocted’, i.e., that the words in the source text were written correctly, and that the errors were then introduced by the grammarian for the sake of example. I am not sure that it is necessary to assume this. The standard of spelling in manuscripts of glossaries is sometimes very poor, quite poor enough to yield sufficient errors for a compilation such as ap . An equally good harvest of ‘vulgarisms’ could be gathered from almost any late-antique manuscript, including (a matter often overlooked in a ‘Vulgar Latin’ context) manuscripts of classical texts: I mention the fifth-century Vatican palimpsest of Cicero, De re publica as the instance with which I happen to be most familiar. While most extant manuscripts of glossaries are medieval, they may well reproduce errors form their late-antique exemplars; such utilitarian texts have often not undergone the classicising influences of Carolingian scholarship. Furthermore, the hypothesis of glossarial origin need not imply an unusually high frequency of error in the source text. An ancient glossary could easily contain two thousand words, out of which (for the sake of argument) a five per cent error rate would yield a hundred ap -style items.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 103 be concerned with two meanings of bubo (swelling/owl), the former meaning of course a Greek one. Bede’s De orthographia, a late representative of the genre, contains a few items that deal with different Latin meanings of the same Greek word.1 These are, however, isolated examples: the text underlying the ap would on Barnett’s view have been a more systematic collection of multivocal Greek words with their various Latin equivalents, of a kind which, as far as can at present be seen, is not fully represented in the surviving evidence; but there is no reason at all why such lists should not have existed in some form. 10. New light from the Hermeneumata Celtis More evidence for the properties of ancient bilingual glossaries may emerge from the study of the Hermeneumata Celtis (hereafter hc ), discussed by Ferri elsewhere in this volume.2 This provides a further example (besides those considered by Barnett) of a bilingual Graeco-Latin glossary classified by subject. A preliminary examination of this text has been quite revealing. It contains around fifty items in common with ap , more than any of the previously published glossaries. The number may not be a matter for particular surprise given the length of hc ; the interesting points concern the arrangement of the entries. There are several clutches of words in hc that are also found in ap (though not necessarily together), and these in some cases may perhaps be taken to cast light on the original contexts of the ap words, if it is granted that one of the sources of ap was a glossary of similar type. First, one may note the semantic groups, already noted in other glossaries, regarding meteorology and family relationships. There are six shared items in the meteorological group (hc 3.46-47, 49, 93, 98, 100, and 112, corresponding to ap 124, 159, 161-162, 203, and also 125 if Barnett is right that the n in the margin was meant as a correction of terebra to tenebra [sic]). The ‘family’ group (hc 13) produces no fewer than eleven: auus, neptis, nouerca, nurus, uirgo, socrus, uir, uernaculus, celebs, meretrix, anus (= ap 7, 29, 60, 120-121, 147, 168-172). hc 8 concerns pagan festivals; it yields only the single shared item parentalia (8.9 = ap 183). But hc 9 produces a series of words connected with the games: 9.22 sibilus (ap 179) 9.75 carceres (cf. ap 43) 9.110 pegma (ap 85)3 9.110 cauea (ap 63) 9.117 aper (ap 139)

1 For example Bede, Orth. 59-60 accuso sacrilegum et insimulo ex uno graeco venit, ηÙËÁÔÚá. animadverto in te et vindico in te ex uno graeco, ÎÔÏ¿˙ˆ; 794-795 ordior hanc rem et ingredior et incipio ex uno graeco venit, quod ôÚ¯ÔÌ·È. See Dionisotti 1982, 111, 114. 2 See n. * at p. 75. 3 If this is the correct context for pegma it provides a much simpler alternative to Barnett’s explanation of this item (2007, 718-719).

104

jonathan g. f. powell

hc 10 contains a number of ap words relating to the human body: 10.56 flauus (ap 62) 10.64 facies (ap 89) 10.71 oculi (cf. ap 111) 10.87-8 auris, auriculae (cf. ap 83) 10.218 iecur (ap 82) 10.227 adips (cf. ap 178) 10.263 poblites (sic; cf. ap 185)

Oddly at first sight, this part of the list also includes 10.233 tintinnabulum (ap 212) which is glossed not only as ÎÒ‰ˆÓ ‘bell’ but also as ÂÍÂÚÂϲÈϲ i.e., âÍ·›ÚÂϲÈϲ, ‘offal’ or ‘intestines’. In fact, the word tintinnabulum is also glossed as ex(a)eresis in three other glossarial passages: cgl , ii.198.42, iii.311.34 and iii.518.21. One of these occurs in an alphabetical list, but the other two are in lists of body parts comparable with that in hc . It seems that for the compilers of these glossaries, tintinnabulum did have an alternative meaning «intestines»,1 even though no such use is known in Classical Latin. Was this meaning known to the compiler of ap ? It does not seem unlikely. If so, this ap entry may reflect an attempt to distinguish what were imagined to be two different words, reserving the form in -culum for the musical meaning and that in -bulum for the anatomical. Application of Barnett’s hypothesis to this item might invite one to divine, somewhere in the background, the presence of the Greek word ¯ÔÚ‰‹, meaning both ‘intestines’ and (via ‘string of a musical instrument’) ‘musical note’; but this must remain speculative. hc 12 is a long list of adjectives, from which one may single out 248 tristis (ap 56), 289 sobrius (ap 31), 953 formosus (ap 75), 1284 delirus (ap 116), 1290 effeminatus (ap 126). Note that hc 10.969 has pusinnus, which is exactly the same as the uncorrected reading of ap 1461 (where the corrector of the ms. has changed it to pusillus). hc 14, on tradespeople, produces only obstitrix (hc 14.10 = ap 166) which, one could also conceive, might also have occurred in a list of words to do with the family; there is no sign of ap tradesmen such as the butcher or the cook. hc 19, on buildings, yields 19.136 and 241 columna (= ap 20), 19.151 horologium (cf. ap 206), 19.157 carcer and 170 cauea (already noted under ‘games’), 19.220 and 366 cloaca (cf. ap 86). hc 22 (furniture) adds 22.1 supellex (ap 94) and 22.27 mensa (ap 152). It is possible that this level of shared material could be due to coincidence. More striking are three places where an inspection of hc appears to yield a simpler and better explanation for some of the ap items and juxtapositions than has been available hitherto. a) hc 2.114-115 gives the word occasio in the meaning of ‘occasion’ or ‘chance’ (cf. ap 123); and it is followed closely at the beginning of the next section at 3.41 Noted by Funck 1893, 394.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 105 5 by caligo «darkness» (ap 124). The link as regards hc is clearly that both chance and meteorology are controlled by the gods. There is no need, then, to assume for occasio an erroneous meaning = occasus, as Barnett suggests. b) The title of hc 6 is de septidionio, clearly meaning «the seven planets». ap 13 corrected has septizonium non septidonium. The ap item may therefore after all refer not to the Roman monument of Septimius Severus, but simply to a heading in its parent glossary. c) Among the ‘family’ words in hc are included 13.42 ipse (in the sense of «the master»), 13.215 auctor (meaning «guarantor»: the Greek is ‚‚·ÈˆÙ‹ϲ), and 13.216 auctoritas (suggested by the preceding entry: same juxtaposition as in ap ). This seems to cast light on the origin of ap items 154-156 (auctor, auctoritas, ipsum).1 The above considerations are clearly not enough to establish a particular relationship between hc (or a precursor of it) and ap , especially when one considers that hc contains many hundreds if not thousands of words. For one thing, the relevant items in hc are spelt largely correctly, and where there are non-classical spellings or forms, they are different from the ones in ap (e.g., poblites for poplites). On the other hand, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that we have here something at any rate more closely related to the hypothetical ancestor of ap than has hitherto been available: the explanations it appears to provide for ap 123-124 and 154-156 seem particularly suggestive. What is still not clear is how, when the source of the ap appears to have contained groups of words that were related semantically, the members of those groups became so widely scattered in ap itself. There is one further point to be made concerning hc . This is that a number of the words that are shared with ap also recur more than once in hc , either contiguously or at a distance, with different Greek equivalents. Examples of these (apart from 10.226, already mentioned) are as follows: hc 3.4-5 caligo à¯Ï‡ϲ, caligo àÌ·˘Ú›·; 98 caligo †ÔÚÔϲÈ·,2 à¯Ï‡ϲ (ap 124) 3.46-47 serenus ·åıÚ›·: Â鉛·: ÓËÓÂÌ›Ë, serenum ·åıÚÈÓfiÓ, Âû‰ÈÔÓ (cf. ap 203) 3.112 coruscacio ·úÁÏË ϲ¤Ï·ϲ (cf. ap 161) 13.78 nurus Ù¤ÎÓÔÓ; 97 nurus Ó˘fiϲ (ap 169) 13.122 celebs ôÁ·ÌÔϲ, àÁ‡Ó·ÈÔϲ; 202 celebs ¯ÉÚÔϲ (ap 60 and 184) 13.126 meretrix fiÚÓË; 187 meretrix ëÙ·ÖÚ· (ap 147) 15.6 senatus ϲ‡ÁÎÏËÙÔϲ; 57 senatus ‚Ô˘Ï‹ (ap 64).

From this one may be tempted to conjecture that the compiler of the text(s) underlying ap was interested not only in Greek words that had more than one equivalent in Latin, but also in Latin words that had (or were thought to have) more than one equivalent in Greek.

1 The point is, however, weakened by Asperti’s reading ipsum non ipsud. 2 Probably for àÌ·‡ÚˆϲÈϲ.

106

jonathan g. f. powell

11. Summary so far If it is now taken as accepted that the corrections in the ap are orthographical (in the broad ancient sense of that word) and at least in some cases are based on corrections of specific errors in specific texts, there are important implications. It follows that neither the nature of the items themselves nor the kind of errors made in them can now be taken as unmediated evidence for the author’s milieu or for the kind of Latin that was spoken in it, and quantities of scholarly argument on these points can be dispensed with as a result. For instance, the fact that the ap mentions the uicus capitis Africae need no longer be taken to imply that its author lived there: rather, this is a correction to a text which mentioned it, or a word-list with a section on Roman streets. Nor are any African connections implied by the presence of the words Byzacenus or Capsensis: all that need be assumed is that those words occurred in one of the texts or word-lists that this grammarian was correcting. The presence of parentalia (183) no longer need imply that the grammarian was a pagan, only that he (or she) read a text that mentioned or listed pagan ceremonies. And the same principle goes for all the rest. If, then, we lay aside all arguments of this sort, we are left with the following simple conclusions: the single manuscript version of the ap that we have is a copy of a late-antique grammarian’s word-list, which gathers together (very unmethodically) and attempts to correct a number of orthographic and textual errors. The source of a proportion of these errors may well have been the Latin column of a bilingual glossary arranged primarily on semantic principles, in which particular attention was paid both to Greek words with more than one Latin equivalent, and Latin words with more than one Greek equivalent. The bilingual glossary will have contained, among other things, sections on buildings, festivals and games, the family, the weather, birds and plants. Another source text, or another section of the same glossary, will have dealt with the topography of the city of Rome; another, perhaps, with the geography of North Africa; while still another may have contained a selection of words – thirty or so of them – derived ultimately from Varro’s Res rusticae. It will be seen that a glossary provides a plausible context for textual correction of the kind postulated here: where one word in the Latin has been erroneously substituted for another, one has only to look across at the Greek to get a reasonable idea of what the correct reading should be. The Greek column could enable one without difficulty to distinguish between swallows and reeds, or between Sirens and calm weather. The loss of the Greek, then, has obscured not only the semantic affinities of some sequences of words (as indicated by Barnett) but also the originally intended point of some of the corrections (especially the lexical-substitution entries discussed above), leaving subsequent transmitters of the text to make the best sense they could of these items by guesswork. The vast majority of ap items, however, belong to easily recognisable grammatical categories, and these would have given the list its continuing usefulness

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 107 from the point of view of the late-antique grammatical user. At the same time, it is the ones that do not fit that are most revealing of their origins. One more speculation suggests itself (and it must be stressed that this is only a speculation). Why, one may ask, was such a word-list transmitted along with materials attributed to ‘Probus’? It should be noted that the Instituta Artium is not the only part of the Naples manuscript to carry a Proban attribution:1 there is also the short section headed Excerpta Valeri Probi de nomine; and the Fourth Appendix appears elsewhere as Differentiae Valeri Probi.2 Granted, the attribution of ia to ‘Probus grammaticus’, if this means Marcus Valerius Probus, the firstcentury grammarian of Beirut, is proved by internal evidence to be false; and ap itself is not explicitly attributed to Probus in the manuscript. But let us linger for a moment in the company of the real Valerius Probus, about whom Suetonius has this to say: Legerat enim in provincia quosdam veteres libellos apud grammatistam, durante adhuc ibi antiquorum memoria necdum omnino abolita sicut Romae: hos cum diligentius repetere atque alios deinceps cognoscere cuperet, quamvis omnes contemni magisque opprobrio legentibus quam gloriae et fructui esse animadverteret, nihilo minus in proposito mansit multaque exemplaria contracta emendare ac distinguere et adnotare curavit, soli huic nec ulli praeterea grammaticae parti deditus. (Suet. Gramm. 24.2)

Probus, then, was known pre-eminently as a textual critic – a collector and emender of manuscripts. What, then, could be more natural than that the name of Probus should become attached to an assemblage of corrections to manuscript texts? Furthermore, we happen to know from Aulus Gellius (13.21) that the name of Probus was recalled in the context of a controversy over the endings -es and -is. It is some way from the liberal views of Probus quoted there (his advice was to choose whatever sounded right) to the mechanical list of corrections in ap 88-109, discussed above;3 but again this gives us some reason to believe, after all, that the kind of material that ended up in ap may have been seen as belonging to a ‘Proban’ tradition; just as the names of Bentley or Housman may be invoked nowadays by the most mechanical of textual critics. I am careful here not to suggest that any of the material of the ap can be traced back to Valerius Probus himself; yet this possibility cannot, perhaps, be theoretically ruled out. It would, doubtless, stretch the imagination in the case of some of ap ’s misspellings to suppose that they could have occurred in texts of the i century ad, of a kind that Probus could himself have corrected. Yet as we shall see in the

1 The attribution is absent from Nap. lat. 1 but is found in the two Paris manuscripts of the ia . 2 In the manuscript Montpellier H 306: see Stok 1997, 16. 3 That ap presents a drastic simplification, or ‘dumbing-down’, of originally more complex grammatical material, is plausibly argued by Barnett 2007, 711-712, n. 23 in relation to this section of ap ; cf. Barnett 2006 on the same characteristic in the Second Appendix.

108 jonathan g. f. powell next section, many of the phonetic changes underlying the errors recorded in ap are, in fact, of at least comparable antiquity. 12. ap and the relationship of speech and writing The way is now clear for the re-evaluation of the errors and corrections of the ap as evidence for the history of Latin. None of what I have said so far, of course, alters the basic general fact that many of the errors recorded in the ap are common misspellings and are ultimately phonetic in origin: this remains true even if they can no longer be seen, as they were by Baehrens and others, as direct phonetic transcriptions of current speech (in the manner of Consentius), and even if some ap items have turned out to belong to other categories. But it is necessary to make a number of further qualifications and distinctions, and in particular to raise questions about the relationship of speech and writing and about the different varieties of speech that may, or may not, be represented in the misspellings of ap . Faced with ap items like 76 ansa non asa or 80 solea non solia, one is constantly tempted to assume an exact mapping of spelling and pronunciation, so that the classical spellings ansa and solea would reflect the classical pronunciations and the misspellings asa and solia would reflect ‘vulgar’ pronunciations. One might then assume that these two kinds of pronunciation co-existed in two distinct sociolects at the time when the ap was compiled: the grammarian would have no difficulty in spelling ansa and solea because that is how he would have pronounced the words, whereas ‘vulgar’ speakers who pronounced the words differently would have to be taught to spell them according to the classical norm. This is no doubt one possible scenario. But it is a good deal more plausible to suppose that by the time of ap , if not indeed long before, all Latin speakers pronounced /asa/ and /solia/: good spellers would continue to write and as their forefathers had done, while poor spellers would write the words as they (and everyone else) pronounced them. The phonetic spellings in that case would then simply reflect a divergence of standard pronunciation from standard spelling, of a kind which is familiar in modern languages such as English or French. The spellings themselves provide no logical ground on which to choose between these two explanations. And although scholars have constantly been tempted by the former, it is the latter that seems more plausible in the light of what we know in general of the historical development of languages: a language whose spelling was standardised four hundred years before (as that of Latin was) is likely to have undergone at least some sound-changes which do not show up in the written language,1 even if the case of Latin in the iv or v century ad. was not as extreme as, say, that of modern English. 1 Loporcaro 2007 attempts to reconstruct some aspects of the pronunciation of Latin at the time of the compilation of ap ; the actual spellings of ap items play a strikingly limited role in the reconstruction.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 109 Take as a further example the question of final m. We know that many nonstandard Latin texts already in the first and ii centuries ad show a caprice in the use of final m that can be accounted for only on the assumption that the sound (which in classical Latin was that of a nasalisation of the preceding vowel) was altogether absent from the relevant varieties of the spoken language. The picture is confirmed by the evidence of the Romance languages, which generally show no reflex of final m, apart from a few traces in French (mostly in monosyllables: mon ton son and rien < rem). Now the author of ap is at pains to correct spellings such as ide and numqua. This suggests that for the scribes whose errors are being corrected, final m was also silent, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that by Late Antiquity this pronunciation was widespread in the speech of all sections of the Latin-speaking population. We cannot of course be completely sure that the grammarian was not trying to impose a pedantic spelling-pronunciation along with the correct classical spelling; but the ap in itself can provide no evidence whatever to support that hypothesis. There is a need, furthermore, to be aware of the possibility of hypercorrection both in spelling and in pronunciation.1 An erroneous spelling like formunsus or herculens does not necessarily show that anyone pronounced these words with a nasal; what it shows is that, because the nasal was absent from normal speech, writers were uncertain when to put it in and when not to, so that sometimes they inserted it where it was not wanted (as well as omitting it when it was). Of course, it could conceivably be that the tendency to hypercorrection extended also into speech and that something like /formonsus/ was actually used as a spelling-pronunciation; but the text of ap in itself can provide no firm evidence on the point one way or the other and it could not be confidently asserted without further argument.2 One item 126 effiminatus non imfimenatus is especially interesting for soundspelling relationship. The long e of the second syllable appears as i in both the recommended and the condemned form, presumably representing the close e sound. Conversely, the i of the third syllable appears in the condemned form as e (same sound). The prefix shows confusion of the two prefixes eff- and inf-, rendered easy by the disappearance of the nasal (although in correct Latin the vowel of inf- was supposed to be long, because of compensatory lengthening after the reduction of n to a nasalisation of the vowel). In sum, the sound reflected by the sequence of letters imfimenatus would be negligibly different from that denoted by the correct spelling effeminatus. It is unfortunate that the occurrence of this notably sub-standard spelling in ap tells us nothing about the place or

1 For a discussion of the hypercorrect forms in both columns of ap see Orioles 1998. 2 See further Fischer 2003, 240-241, pointing out that in this particular lexical item the spelling with -n- is unusually persistent, and that the apparent change of vocalism from o to u may reflect the presence of a nasal in pronunciation.

110 jonathan g. f. powell date at which it was originally perpetrated, except that it predates the compilation of the list. First and foremost, then, it is necessary to stress the limitations of ap as evidence for the development of the relationship between speech and writing in Latin. This is so for at least three reasons: first, the general difficulty of making deductions about the spoken language from errors (or supposed errors) in written texts; secondly, the fact that, as we have seen, some of the errors collected in ap are probably purely scribal and textual, involving either graphic slips with no phonetic correlate, or else substitution of one current lexical item for another; and thirdly, the failure of ap to provide precise evidence for the date of any linguistic change, partly because we do not have a firm dating for ap itself, and partly because without direct access to its sources we cannot know the date at which the errors it corrects were made, except that (obviously) they must have been made before the date at which the ap itself was compiled. 13. Rejected diminutives A special category of ap items concerns the use of diminutives. This point has always been a standard component of traditional accounts. It is true that, over a long lapse of time, certain nouns were replaced in popular speech by their diminutives and that it was the latter which survived in Romance; auris gave way to orecchio/oreille, and so on. The problem is to relate the evidence of ap to a particular stage in that process. It has usually been assumed that the nondiminutive forms were ‘classical’ and the diminutives were ‘vulgar’, and that the ap corrector was recommending the substitution of the classical for the vulgar form. This relies on an over-schematic distinction between forms of the language, and leaves much unexplained: for example, in what context(s) was this substitution being recommended? In ap , a diminutive is rejected in favour of the non-diminutive form in just six items, 50 catulus non catellus, 83 auris non oricla, 133 fax non facla, 171 neptis non nepticla, 172 anus non anucla, 194 mergus non mergulus. What is not made clear in the traditional accounts is that if one ignores the syncopated spelling, five out of these six diminutives are highly respectable classical words. Oricula, spelt with the o-, is found as a colloquial form as far back as the Rhetorica ad Herennium (i century bc), at least if we can trust our manuscripts and editions;1 catellus, facula and nepticula are well attested in classical authors; anucula differs only by one letter from the accepted classical form anicula (hesitation between i and u, especially where a fourth-declension root noun is concerned, should cause no surprise).2 The exception is mergulus, which does not 1 There is sometimes also a semantic distinction: auris meant the ear as instrument of hearing, auricula or oricula the (outer) ear as a physical feature. 2 The form anucella is found in the third/fourth century papyrus P. Amh. 26, col. 1.1 (Adams 2003, 726, 733). The forms with u may have developed, as Adams suggests, to avoid phonetic clash with forms of anni-culus ‘one year old’.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 111 apparently occur elsewhere in classical Latin, but it is used in the Vulgate and is well documented in the sections of cgl that deal with bird names. The difference between the diminutives and non-diminutives is one of stylistic register throughout, but the nature of the difference would, of course, have changed over time. In the earlier period, both sets of forms were current in speech and writing, but the non-diminutive forms would be more formal, the diminutives less. Over time, the non-diminutives became largely confined to writing, so that in the Reichenau Glosses, for example, they have to be glossed by the more current diminutives. The interesting question is how far this process had gone by the time of ap . Unfortunately, ap itself does not provide a clear answer. All it can tell us is that a corrector has thought fit to substitute a higherregister non-diminutive for a lower-register diminutive; the condemned forms are in all cases perfectly correct, but one has to assume that in the original context (whatever it was) the more literary forms were regarded as more desirable. It may be hard to guess what this context was; stylistic register is generally more a rhetorician’s concern than an orthographer’s, and the substitution of diminutives for non-diminutives is not a common type of textual error (though undoubtedly glosses can be interpolated and can displace their lemmata). But in the context of a set of corrections to a bilingual glossary, this procedure might make good sense. The message would then be: ‘the Latin equivalents given here are too informal; the proper equivalents of the Greek words are as follows …’. 14. ap and Latin phonology Robson 1963, 38 castigated Baehrens for his narrowly historical-linguistic approach to ap : «il groupe les formes rejetées par l’Appendix sous rubriques empruntées à la phonétique historique … sans aborder les problèmes posées par la latinité insolite du soi-disant “grammairien”». But since recent research has cleared away many of the misapprehensions under which Baehrens and others laboured, it is now possible to go back with a fresh eye to the questions of historical linguistics which are, after all, the main reason why the ap is usually studied. As suggested above, in the past ap was often approached backwards from the future; recent work on the manuscript has replaced it, to some extent, in the context of its own time, i.e., the iv or v century ad. This is, however, a period in regard to which we are not particularly well informed as to the exact nature of spoken Latin and its relation to the standard written language, because the conservatism of the written medium obscures changes that had already taken place, or were in progress, in the spoken language. Progress on this question can only come from taking a closer look at the whole range of evidence for the history of spoken Latin, not only at and after the time when ap was compiled, but also before that time. While scholars still believed in Baehrens’ third-century dating, ap could be relied upon to figure largely in any account of the spoken Latin of the Imperial period; but Robson’s revision of the dating (which as we

112 jonathan g. f. powell have seen is probably incorrect) has had the effect that ap has largely slipped out of the purview of those historical linguists who deal with the non-standard Latin of the Roman Empire.1 However, research into the Latin of this period has in recent years made considerable advances through the discovery and evaluation of new documents, such as the Claudius Terentianus letters or the Novius Eunus tablets from Pompeii; we now have much better evidence for the development of the Latin language during the first three centuries ad than was available when ap first came to light, or indeed for a long time thereafter. The question then remains: what can be learned about non-standard Latin from ap that cannot be obtained from earlier and better sources? By means of a brief survey of the phonological changes that can be reconstructed for Latin between the i and iii centuries ad, it can be demonstrated that in many instances the ap simply demonstrates the continuance of a linguistic trend which was already well established. Occasionally, however, it provides useful supplementary evidence (I omit discussion of gm > um, which occurs in the solitary item 85 and has been mentioned above, p. 90, in the context of Greek loanwords). 14. 1. AE > E Monophthongisation of ae to e does not seem to be an important issue for the writer of the Appendix. In one instance, 60 celebs non celeps, simple e appears in the recommended form as well as the condemned one; in another, 106 aedes non aedis, ae occurs in both; similarly also in the endings of 27 exequae non execiae and 134 uico capitis Africae. There appears to be an issue involving ae in the middle of compounds, where in both cases (22 aquaeductus and 159 terraemotus) the correct genitive form of the first element replaces a form compounded with a linking vowel i. This is a morphological problem concerning the formation of compounds, not a phonological one. 14. 2. AU > O Almost equally little attention is paid to the monophthongisation of au to o. There is only one relevant example in ap , and there more is in question than the mere choice between diphthong and simple vowel; the item is 82 auris non oricla, which has already been discussed (p. 110). The au/o alternation receives attention also in ap 4, whose first item distinguishes between austrum and ostrum (presumably, therefore, homophonous at the time of compilation). 14. 3. H > zero Hesitation over the writing of h is to be expected: there are two examples in ap (225 adhuc non aduc, 207 ostiae non hostiae). In item 190 the compiler shows no 1 Adams 2007, for example, cites it only twice in passing.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 113 concern about h, while in 179 both the commended and the rejected word are written correctly with initial h. 14. 4. Disappearance of nasalisation As suggested above, nasalisation of vowels (represented in final position by m, and medially by n before certain consonants) had disappeared from much of spoken Latin even in the i and ii centuries ad. Thus it is not surprising to find in ap such items as 19 hercules non herculens (hypercorrect form rejected), but on the other hand 76 ansa non asa (correct n replaced). In 49, which should be Capsensis, the ap entry fails to make the necessary correction, merely replacing capsessis with capsesis – further evidence that the n was entirely silent both for the author of the error and for the corrector. For final m, 143 triclinium non triclinu, 216 passim non passi, 219 numquam non numqua, 223 pridem non pride, 224 olim non oli, 226 idem non ide. It is to be noted that four of the last five examples of loss of final m are in adverbs. Presumably a general rule could be given for the writing of m in the accusative of nouns or the first person singular of verbs, but adverbs (and the nominative pronoun idem) would need individual treatment.1 14. 5. B/V confusion The compiler of ap was not securely aware of classical usage on this point. He rightly condemns uaclus for baculus (9), albeus for alueus (70), tauis for tabes (93), baplo for uapulo (215), but lets slip 70 glouus, 91 pleues, 198 tolerauilis. The four errors condemned in this category comprise one example each of initial u for correct b, initial b for correct u, medial b for u, and medial u for b; the medial examples differ in that the b for u is postconsonantal, the u for b intervocalic. The errors in the commended forms are all substitutions of medial u for b immediately after the word-accent, so there is at least some consistency in the corrector’s own usage. Now b/u confusion develops very early, but if Gratwick (1982)2 is right on this point, it does so in a geographically restricted area, excluding Northern Italy, Gaul and Spain. Late-antique manuscripts exhibit it quite frequently: for instance, the Vatican palimpsest of Cicero De re publica has uelba for belua in 2.66.3 The errors documented in ap , in other words, would not cause 1 So also Fischer 2003, 238. 2 This article, directed in the first place to the question whether British Latin was archaic, contains a full analysis of b/u confusion in Latin inscriptions of the Empire; see also Adams 2007, 626-628. Gratwick follows Robson on the date and provenance of ap . 3 And later mss. often show traces of having been through a stage at which b and u/u were not systematically distinguished. An example is the famous line of Lucretius, 3.907, where editors persist in printing defleuimus with the primary mss., though the context (insatiabiliter, and the future demet in the next line) makes it perfectly plain that the future deflebimus is needed: see Willis 1972, 58: «… have the speakers finished weeping? Then their weeping was not insatiable. Are they still weeping? Then with what right do they use the perfect tense?».

114 jonathan g. f. powell any surprise if one found them in, say, a fifth-century manuscript of a classical text; but they add no substantive information to what we already know. It should be unnecessary to add that ap itself provides too small a sample to yield any statistical comparison of data. On this complex issue and that of e/i confusion (see below) see now the extensive discussion of Adams 2007, 626-666. 14. 6. Loss of interuocalic V A related phenomenon is the dropping of intervocalic consonant-u (five examples). Changes of this type had occurred from an early period in Latin, as shown by the alternation diuus/deus and such verbal forms as audierunt for audiuerunt; and they continued later, as shown by Italian comprai from comparaui, French paon and Welsh paun from pauonem (cf. the form pao in cgl , iii.89.57), Welsh priod from priuatus. In verb conjugations, many forms without u were accepted as standard. Otherwise, ap is in line with the Instituta Artium which also condemns aus for auus (107.22) and oum for ouum (113.21), and with Consentius who records a ‘barbarism’ uam for uuam (v.393.1 Keil); and a spelling Ô˘· for uua is found in the Greek glossary edited by Kramer 1983, 83-84. Aus for auus is found at cil , viii.1977 and 8637. This whole topic needs further documentation. 14. 7. E/I confusion A considerable amount of attention is given in ap to alternations between e and i. The position on this, well known to Romance linguists, is that long e and short i converged in pronunciation, both turning out in most of the Romance languages as a close e sound (as opposed to the open e sound that issued from Latin short e or from the diphthong ae). Some peripheral areas seem to have been exempt from this change (Britain, Sardinia, Dacia, and perhaps North Africa; in Sicily the resulting sound further merged with long i). The process appears to have started, perhaps naturally enough, in unaccented syllables or in words with no accent of their own, and the texts of the early Empire already show this happening. Further evidence is available from Greek transcriptions (e.g., Kramer 1983, 84). Many of the ap instances (esp. items 87-109) concern confusion of the the endings -es and -is (see above, sect. 8) and the issue may not be wholly phonetic. There had been morphological hesitation between these endings in i-stem nouns at a time long before the merger of short i and long e: as already mentioned, Varro uses the form famis for fames. The alternation between e and i in writing also occurs in a different context: in a number of items the point at issue concerns the endings -ia, -ius, -ium versus -ea, -eus, -eum. These endings (and others like them) had been the subject of confusion since an early date, on account of the tendency of e to close before a back vowel and eventually to approximate to ‘yod’ or consonantal i, which in Romance generally comes out as a palatalisation of the preceding consonant (balneum > bagno, etc.). Confusion worked the other way as well owing to hy-

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 115 percorrection (cf. 113 alium non aleum, etc.).1 But again, ap tells us nothing that we could not have known from texts of early imperial date: e.g., Puteoli is already Putioli in the Novius Eunus tablets from Pompeii, dated precisely to ad 37. A number of instances of e/i confusion cannot be brought straightforwardly under the above rules. Item 48 byzacenus non byzacinus: the issue here is simply which suffix is correct for the ethnic adjective, i.e. an issue of derivational morphology, not of phonology. Item 64 senatus non sina shows a substitution of i for short, i.e. open e; but the same error is attested in the Lex Ursonensis (131.3 sinator), a text composed in 44 bc whose extant copy is not later than the i century ad; this seems to point to a closing of the vowel in pretonic position (see Adams 2007, 453). In item 115 glis non gleris there is both a phonological point (i vs. e in the root) and a morphological one (inherited vs backformed nominative), unless gleris is meant as a genitive (see above, p. 97). Item 116 delirus non delerus: both forms were current in classical Latin, the latter encouraged by a mistaken and ancient etymology connecting it with Greek leros ‘nonsense’. Item 144 dimidius non demidius merely exemplifies the common confusion of the prefixes de- and di(s)-. Item 189 bipennis non bipinnis reflects attempts to distinguish semantically between penna and pinna, originally phonological variants of the same word: penna being supposed to mean ‘feather’ and pinna ‘wing’. If anything, the two-headed axe ought to be a two-winged object rather than a twofeathered one, which perhaps accounts for the mistake. Again it has little or nothing to do with the merger of i and e. Item 203 sirena non serena, as suggested above, sect. 7, seems to be a case of lexical substitution. 14. 8. U/O confusion It is well established that in spoken Latin there was at some stage a merger of long (close) /o/ and short /u/, leading to confusion of o and u. There are fewer instances of this in ap , but they are quite striking ones, e.g., 20 columna non colomna, which immediately puts us in mind of Italian colonna. The reverse confusion may be seen in 252 furmica and 127 butro (which represents, perhaps, classical botryo). Already at the beginning of the ii century ad, Claudius Terentianus had spelt the word supra as sopera.2 Although this spelling confusion is less common than the e/i alternation, there is some epigraphic evidence for it from the first three centuries of the Empire.3 Recent scholars (Gratwick, Adams) have voiced caution: there is not enough evidence to license conclusions about the geographical or chronological distribution of the change. Romance evidence shows that in the end it extended to most parts of the Empire, but the task of mapping the process whereby it did so is not straightforward, and ap can contribute nothing new on this question.

1 See Orioles 1998.

2 Adams 1977, 10-11.

3 Cf. Idem 2007, 669-670.

116

jonathan g. f. powell 14. 9. E > A next to R

Short e can develop into a both before and after r (which has a cross-linguistic tendency to open vowels in proximity to it).1 The change, whose long-term effects are well recognised in Romance and in Welsh borrowings (carchar ‘prison’, tafarn ‘tavern’, etc.), is attested from the ii century ad: Claudius Terentianus has an isolated example of this, itarum for iterum.2 There are noteworthy examples in a fourth-century papyrus (P. Lond. ii.481) containing a bilingual Graeco-Latin glossary written entirely in Greek script: it includes the items ·Óϲ·ÚÂϲ and ·ϲ·ÚÂϲ.3 Such forms also occur regularly in the glossaries (e.g., cgl , iii.17.36, iii.89.55) Here, continuing the trend, we have 43 carcare, 129 ansar, 163 passar; 183 parantalia; in all of these the change is assisted by the progressive assimilation of vowels in successive syllables. In 84 camm’ra the abbreviation (not noticed by Asperti) obscures the point at issue, while 23 citera shows the reverse change, perhaps by hypercorrection. 14. 10. Loss of the labial element of qu and of postconsonantal u Qu is reduced to c in 272 execiae, 392 cocens; cf. Cassiodorus, Gramm. Lat. 7.158.15 Keil reliciae. Otherwise, a single example, 208 februarius non febrarius, illustrates the change whereby u between a consonant and a vowel tends to drop out; this can be seen long before in the Novius Eunus tablets: quator for quattuor, muta for mutua, etc.; also in the Pompeian graffito (cil , iv.1216) which begins futebatur inquam futuebatur… Both these changes are familiar foreshadowings of Romance developments. 14. 11. Syncope

ap provides many examples of this otherwise well attested phenomenon. Many of the examples involve words ending in -culus/a/um or -tulus/a/um. In the latter suffix, dissimilation takes place between the t and the l that are brought up against each other, turning the t into a c. So we have 5 ueclus, 6 uiclus, 167 capiclum; and as already noted, this provides us with direct evidence for the intermediate stage between Latin uetulus and Italian vecchio. There is no lack of parallel evidence: for example, cgl , v.248.14 notes that «fistula vulgo fiscla dicitur» and further examples are cited in Adams 1977, 33-34.4 It is clear, then, that the soundchange from -tl- to -cl- is well attested in late Latin, but how far back did it go? Adams (ibidem) points out that ‘as a rule the cluster /tl/ was not tolerated in Lat-

1 One need only recall the British pronunciation of clerk and Derby. 2 Adams 1977, 13-14. 3 Idem 2003, 42; Kramer 1983, 83, nr. 13. 4 Cf. Mancini 2007a, 92-93. Parallels in the glossaries were already noticed by Heraeus 1900, 67 and 303.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 117 in of any period’ and refers to the early Latin changes, poc(u)lum from *potlom and anclare from Greek àÓÙÏÂÖÓ. On the other hand, he notes that one word particularly frequent at Pompeii is often spelt mentla, showing that syncope had taken place at first without the consequential change to mencla (a form attested in the glossaries and with Romance descendants). It seems, then, that the tl > cl change happened twice: once in early Latin, thus eliminating the combination tl temporarily from the language; and then a second time, some centuries later, after new examples of the tl combination had been brought into being by syncope. ap figures prominently among the evidence for this second change; but it is not by any means alone. The conclusion of this section must be that ap has done little for us in this area except confirm what we know from earlier evidence about a number of attested sound changes. Some of these are long-established, while in a few cases ap is among the first surviving written sources for a given development (such as the tl > cl change just mentioned). In no case, however, does ap provide substantively new evidence that we could not have got from elsewhere. 15. Declensional morphology The correct assignation of nouns and adjectives to their appropriate declensional categories was a matter of concern for Latin grammarians from the very beginning. The standard grammars give a rather misleading impression of Latin declensional morphology as largely a neat and tidy affair, with only a few irregularities around the edges of the major categories. But anyone who has to deal with lexicography or the editing of texts, especially earlier Republican or later Imperial texts, will soon realise how common it is for Latin nouns and adjectives to drift between declensions, between genders, and between different suffixal formations.1 ap yields a reasonably good selection of such items, but just as in the area of phonology, there are few if any cases in which it could be held to provide evidence of any substantially new development. Some of these errors are, in fact, basically phonological: we have already noted the numerous confusions of the endings -es and -is. Others are to be explained by some form of analogy. Mascel and barbar are analogical nominatives (mascel: masclum :: magister: magistrum, and barbar: barbarum :: puer: puerum) noticed also in Pseudo-Probus, 102.11 and 16; but mascel is attested already in curse tablets from Roman Britain.2 Hesitation between declensions is seen in 56 tristis non tristus, 69 primipilaris non primipilarius, 99 palumbes non palumbus, 138 and 139 teter non tetrus and aper non aprus, 169 and 170 nurus non nura and socrus non socra. Tetrus and aprus can 1 For failure of Latin grammarians to distinguish between these three different types of variation see Rosén 1999, 71-72. 2 See Wright 1958, 150, and Turner 1963, 123.

118 jonathan g. f. powell be  easily explained as back-formations from the declined forms (the former noted at Pseudo-Probus, ia 60.8). The wavering between declensions in palumbes/-us is familiar in classical texts; tristis does not behave like that in classical Latin, but its semantic opposite hilaris/hilarus does, and the behaviour of the latter word may have affected the former.1 Primipilarius shows confusion between the adjectival endings -aris and -arius, which is found already (though the other way round) in the Vindolanda tablets. It is unsurprising to find regularisation of those fourth-declension oddities nurus and socrus; nura occurs already in cil , viii.4293. Item 34 lanius non laneo shows two equally genuine classical forms, the former more literary. As for 42 pauper(a) mulier, the O/A-stem form paupera is found already in Plautus (Vidularia, fr. 3) and is noted by Varro, ll 8.77. 15. Conclusion It is time to conclude, as well as to voice an apology for having tried the reader’s patience for so long. In sum, ap is not the precious document of so-called ‘Vulgar Latin’ which it was once thought to be. It is not a transcription of popular speech but a collection of real or alleged scribal errors and attempted corrections of them. Many items recur or are paralleled in other grammatical or orthographical texts; others may derive from corrections to a specific text or texts, which may have included a bilingual glossary classified by subject, related or ancestral to the Hermeneumata Celtis. A possible ultimate source for some of the items may have been identified in Varro’s De re rustica. A good number of the errors are phonetic in origin (like spelling mistakes in other languages, particularly languages like English where sound change has run far ahead of spelling change). Most of the linguistic features concerned are already documented much earlier: only in a small minority of cases is ap among the earliest witnesses to a particular phenomenon. The persistence of the Appendix at the centre of Romance studies is due partly to its form, which provides a pedagogically convenient collection of what are misleadingly called ‘vulgarisms’, and partly to the misapprehensions as to its character which have been current among scholars and the exaggerated value placed on it as a supposed revelation of ordinary speech. As a document for the history of Latin it is of some value, but it is misleading to accord it any privileged position: it is merely one voice in the chorus of late-antique grammatical and orthographical texts, and it is only by looking afresh at the whole range of relevant evidence that we shall reach a better understanding of the development of the language. Finally, how much more is there to be done on ap itself ? On the text, as I suggested at the beginning, probably very little. On the other hand, the lines of in1 Rolando Ferri points out to me that tristo exists in Italian with the meaning ‘grim’ (in appearance), as contrasted with triste ‘sad’: an interesting example of the semantic specialisation of alternative forms. Cf. Meyer - Lübke, rew 8918.

the appendix probi as linguistic evidence 119 vestigation suggested in the present paper have not been exhausted, and we await fuller publication of Barnett’s researches (as promised in his 2007 article). Quirk 2006 has provided a commentary in which he assembles a panorama of scholarly work to date, but research has already moved on. Any future commentary will need to take into account the most recent work on the text and, especially, to incorporate more of what is now known of the history of sub-standard Latin in the classical period. In the meantime, pending that outcome, I hope that the present discussion will have served to introduce a clearer perspective on ap issues as a whole than has hitherto been available.

This page intentionally left blank

«QVAE NVS QVAM NISI I N DI VE RSI S C OT T I DIANIS GLOS S EMAT I BVS RE P P E RI » ( G L , VII.167.8-9). GLOS ES E T G LO SSAI RE S BIL INGU ES C HEZ MART YRI US Frédérique Biville 1. Les grammairiens, des ‘ passeurs ’ de gloses n connaît les liens qui unissent les grammairiens latins et les lexicographes, les sources communes auxquelles ils puisent, et les emprunts qu’ils se font mutuellement.1 Les grammairiens illustrent leurs analyses de la langue latine par de fréquentes listes d’exemples qui constituent de véritables répertoires lexicographiques relevant de paramètres divers: outre leur apparition par ordre alphabétique, les mots peuvent être classés et étudiés selon la nature phonétique de leur finale, selon leur type de déclinaison ou de conjugaison, selon leur genre, leur formation, et surtout, en fonction des parties du discours auxquelles ils appartiennent. Les grammairiens, par ailleurs, recourent fréquemment aux gloses monolingues (latin) ou bilingues (latin-grec), qui émaillent leurs propos de formules métalinguistiques autonymiques telles que id est, quod est, ‘c’est-àdire’, quod appellatur, ‘ce que l’on nomme’, quod Graeci dicunt, ‘ce que les Grecs appellent’ et autres, destinées à expliciter la terminologie grammaticale qu’ils utilisent, ou la forme et le sens des mots qu’ils citent en exemples. La question est alors de pouvoir faire la distinction entre celles qui sont authentiques, souhaitées par l’auteur dans un souci de clarification, et celles qui sont apocryphes, issues d’interpolations successives liées à la transmission manuscrite. Dans le corpus de grammairiens latins constitué par H. Keil dans la seconde moitié du xixe siècle,2 il est une catégorie de textes, réunis au tome vii des Grammatici Latini, qui présentent un grand intérêt pour leur forte dimension lexicographique et glossographique: ce sont les traités orthographiques, De orthographia.3 Ces traités s’échelonnent du iie au viiie siècles. Ils sont hétérogènes dans leur conception comme dans leur formulation. Ils témoignent de l’évolution de la langue latine et des difficultés croissantes rencontrées dans la maîtrise du latin écrit, difficultés qui sont liées à l’évolution du contexte historique et sociolin-

O

1 Holtz 1996. 2 Grammatici Latini, éd. H. Keil, 1855-1880. 3 Ces traités De orthographia ont été pour la première fois traduits, en langue française, dans le cadre d’une thèse de Doctorat préparée sous la direction de F. Biville et soutenue le 6 octobre 2008 à l’Université Lumière Lyon 2: L. Chambon, Les traités orthographiques latins (ii ème-viii ème siècles p.-C.). Historique, traduction, commentaire, 698 pages.

122 frédérique biville guistique. Issus des Artes grammaticae, ces traités orthographiques se présentent au départ sous la forme de traités méthodiques, structurés, qui examinent la nature des différentes lettres et tous les accidents (adjonction, suppression, substitution, permutation) qui peuvent leur arriver. Ils se transforment peu à peu en répertoires lexicaux hétéroclites, pris à des sources diverses, et classés ou non par ordre alphabétique.1 L’un de ces traités retient particulièrement l’attention par son caractère original et atypique. Il s’agit du De B muta et V uocali de Martyrius, un traité de proportions modestes, qui occupe trente-cinq demi-pages du Corpus de Keil (gl , vii.165-199). Son originalité réside tout d’abord en ce qu’il est thématique: il traite d’un problème spécifique, phonétique et graphique, de l’évolution de la langue latine, la confusion entre B et V consonne, connue sous le nom de ‘bêtacisme’, qui a été la source de nombreuses incertitudes graphiques et de nombreuses variantes dans les manuscrits. On sait en effet, qu’à partir de l’époque impériale, l’occlusive (‘muta’) bilabiale [b] et la fricative labio-vélaire [w], distinctes en latin classique, se sont fondues, à des rythmes divers, en un phonème unique, la fricative bilabiale [‚], qui a évolué en fricative labio-dentale [v], ce qui a entraîné la confusion des lettres b et u consonne (‘digammon’), et donne toute sa portée aux fameux adage uiuere est bibere (ou bibere est uiuere). Le traité de Martyrius répond donc à une réelle difficulté et à une attente: quand doit-on écrire avec un b, quand doit-on écrire avec un u consonne? Dans sa Préface, Martyrius s’étonne de ce que le sujet n’ait jamais été traité par un grammairien, qu’il n’ait encore jamais fait l’objet d’un traité spécifique,2 ce qui est assurément la meilleure façon de justifier son ouvrage et d’assurer sa propre publicité, mais révèle aussi à quel point le problème était devenu crucial. Il s’agit donc de passer en revue l’ensemble du lexique pour savoir quand il faut écrire avec la ‘muette’ (muta) b et quand il faut écrire avec le digammon, u consonne: quomodo cunctis dictionibus inseri debeant (gl , vii.165.8). Outre le caractère inédit et spécialisé du sujet traité, ce qui retient encore l’attention est l’usage que fait Martyrius des gloses et des glossaires. Non seulement les gloses sont fréquentes (62 mots sont glosés), mais elles sont majoritairement en grec: 46 gloses en grec, 12 gloses en latin, et 4 mixtes. De plus, à cinq reprises Martyrius dit explicitement n’avoir trouvé cer1 Traités méthodiques: Térentius Scaurus, Vélius Longus (iie siècle). Traités alphabétiques: Caper, Agrœcius (ve siècle), Bède et Alcuin (viiie siècle), à quoi s’ajoutent les ouvrages, atypiques, de Martyrius et de Cassiodore. 2 gl , vii.165.6-11 ‘b’ autem litteram, quam ipsi ‘mutam’ nominare maluerunt, et ‘u’ uocalem, quam poni saepe pro eius potestate cognoscimus, non diligentius exercitatas dedere quo modo cunctis dictionibus inseri debeant, nescio qua de causa; aut enim huiusce operis auctores latuit, aut eas contempsere quasi leues, aut ut certas ipsis neglexere nimium, «mais la lettre b, qu’ils [= les artigraphes] ont préféré appeler ‘muette’, et le u voyelle, dont nous savons qu’il est souvent employé à sa place, ils ne se sont pas souciés d’exposer clairement de quelle manière on devait les insérer dans l’ensemble du lexique, j’ignore pourquoi; soit ce type de questions leur a échappé, soit ils les ont dédaignées parce que trop mesquines, soit ils les ont négligées parce que pour eux elles étaient évidentes».

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius 123 taines formes que dans des glossaires: quae nusquam nisi in diuersis cottidianis glossematibus repperi ou quod in glossematibus inueni.1 Avant d’examiner ces gloses, il convient de s’interroger sur l’auteur, Martyrius, et sur son traité. 2. Martyrius, De B muta et V vocali 2. 1. Une double transmission textuelle Le texte de ce traité présente la particularité de nous avoir été transmis par une double tradition, directe et indirecte. Pour l’édition du De B muta et V uocali de Martyrius dans les Grammatici Latini,2 la seule édition moderne du texte, H. Keil a utilisé deux copies de manuscrits anciens: N = Neapolitanus (qu’il utilise majoritairement), trouvé en 1493, copié sur un codex Bobiensis qui comporte d’autres textes de grammairiens latins (dont Vélius Longus), et P = Politianus (1491), copié par Ange Politien sur un antiquissimus codex (Monacensis 766), qui porte différents commentaires cités dans l’apparat de Keil. Le texte nous a par ailleurs été transmis par le De orthographia de Cassiodore, une compilation de douze extraits (excerpta) d’orthographistes latins, du ier au vie siècle p.C. (d’Annaeus Cornutus, sous Néron, jusqu’à Priscien), écrite à l’intention des moines de son monastère de Vivarium.3 Cassiodore suit assez fidèlement Martyrius, mais supprime en général les gloses en grec, ce qui montre bien que le grec n’était plus compris. Le traité de Martyrius s’y présente en quatre parties, qui correspondent aux extraits v à viii du De orthographia de Cassiodore: v Ex Adamantio Martyrio de B et V (167-178), «Extrait du De B et V d’Adamantius Martyrius» (sur les syllabes initiales); vi De mediis syllabis eiusdem Adamantii Martyrii (178-185), «Sur les syllabes intérieures, du même Adamantius Martyrius»; vii Item eiusdem Martyrii de ultimis syllabis (185-193), «Encore du même Martyrius, sur les syllabes finales»; viii Eiusdem Adamantii Martyrii de B littera trifariam in nomine [sic = uerbo] posita (193-199), «Du même Adamantius Martyrius sur la lettre B dans les trois positions du nom [en fait, du verbe]».4 Pour établir 1 gl , vii.167.7-13. 174.9-11. 175.4-5. 176.14-15. 177.9-10. F. Bücheler a, dès 1880, attiré l’attention sur l’intérêt que présentent ces gloses et sur leur connexion avec le glossaire de Philoxène: Bücheler 1880, 69-72. 2 Martyrius, gl , vii.165-199, éd. H. Keil. Cf. l’introduction d’H. Keil au traité de Cassiodore, gl , 7.136-138. 3 Cassiodore, Ex Adamantio Martyrio, de B et V, De orthographia, gl , vii.167-199. Praef. (gl , vii.143.9-11) Et ideo duodecim auctorum opuscula deducimus in medium, quae ab illis breuiter et copiose dicta sunt, ut et nos ea compendiosius dicamus. Les deux textes, de Martyrius et de Cassiodore, figurent en parallèle dans l’édition de Keil, celui de Cassiodore dans la partie supérieure de la page, celui de Martyrius, dans la partie inférieure. 4 L’aperçu synoptique donné à la fin de la préface (gl , vii.147.8-11) fournit des intitulés légèrement différents: v Ex Adamantio Martyrio de b et u; vi Ex Martyrio de mediis syllabis; vii Ex eodem de ultimis syllabis; viii Ex eodem de b littera trifariam in nomine posita. Dans les deux cas il y a eu, pour l’extrait viii, erreur sur l’intitulé, qui reprend le début de l’exposé (193.8), alors qu’il s’agit maintenant de traiter du verbe.

124 frédérique biville le texte d’Adamantius Martyrius transmis par Cassiodore, H. Keil a utilisé prioritairement trois codices, qu’il date du xe siècle: B (Bernensis 330), A (Bruxellensis 9581), C (Coloniensis 83), et deux éditions du xvie siècle: une édition parisienne de 1579, et l’édition de Carrio (Anvers, 1579). Les divergences entre la tradition directe (Martyrius) et la tradition indirecte (Cassiodore) sont particulièrement sensibles au niveau des gloses.1 2. 2. L’auteur: Adamantii siue Martyrii, Sardiani grammatici Il y a ambiguïté sur le nom de l’auteur, et les seules hypothèses que l’on peut formuler sur sa nationalité et sur la date à laquelle il a vécu, sont essentiellement tirées du texte lui-même.2 Les incipits des manuscrits de Martyrius mentionnent deux noms grecs, Adamantius et Martyrius, et dans sa Préface (165.1314) Martyrius se présente comme le fils d’Adamantius, à l’instigation de qui (ou à la suite de qui), acceptis seminibus, il aurait écrit son traité, sans que l’on puisse dire s’il s’agit d’une filiation naturelle, intellectuelle, ou spirituelle: placet hoc commentario nostro, acceptis seminibus ab Adamantio meo patre, qui sanctissimo grauissimoque iudicio auctor doctorque elocutionis latinae uisus est non futilis. Il est possible de penser que le début de l’œuvre a pu être écrit par Adamantius et la suite par Martyrius. La première partie du traité, sur la syllabe initiale, est en effet la plus fouillée, et celle qui comporte le plus de gloses grecques, dont les références aux cottidiana glossemata, «glossaires usuels». On peut envisager une chronologie relative qui place Adamantius à la fin du ve siècle ou au début du vie siècle, et Martyrius au vie siècle, en tout cas avant 580 p.C., date de la rédaction du De Orthographia de Cassiodore. Le traité pourrait donc être contemporain de Priscien. Un explicit des manuscrits comporte par ailleurs, à propos de l’auteur, la mention Sardiani grammatici (178.14), «un grammairien de Sardes», ce qui, avec la double consonance grecque des anthroponymes Adamantius et Martyrius, nous oriente vers un milieu grec, ou tout au moins hellénophone, ce que confirme encore l’allusion à un certain Memnonius: audiui Memnonium […] reprehensum a Romano quodam disertissimo (175.10-11), «j’ai entendu Memnonius se faire contester par un Romain féru d’éloquence». Martyrius n’était pas nécessairement grec, mais il connaissait suffisamment le grec, en tout cas suffisamment pour pouvoir exploiter des glossaires bilingues.

1 Cf. Stoppacci 2010 et à paraître. Nous remercions notre collègue italienne pour la relecture de cet article et pour ses suggestions avisées sur le texte de Cassiodore, que l’on trouvera en notes. 2 Voir Bücheler 1882a, 330-331, et l’utile mise au point de Kaster 1988, 238, n. 2 (Adamantius) et 310-311, n. 95 (Martyrius). Certains ont vu dans ce doublet onomastique une erreur de transmission.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius

125

2. 3. Un traité méthodique, mais déséquilibré Le traité De B muta et V uocali de Martyrius n’a pas, comme le dit l’auteur dans sa préface, de vocation ambitieuse. Il s’agit de rendre service (prodesse), modestement (licet parua), à tous ceux qui ne maîtrisent plus le latin écrit et qui, dans la lecture et la graphie, se heurtent à une multitude de problèmes: prodesse, licet parua, legentibus atque scribentibus (166.2-3). Le plan, diuisio (166.11-16), est conçu en deux parties: l’étude du nom, puis celle du verbe, et chaque partie se décline en trois cas de figure (trifariam), selon la position initiale, intérieure ou finale occupée par la consonne dans le mot et, pour chacune de ces positions, en envisageant successivement les syllabes ouvertes puis les syllabes fermées. Mais le plan est déséquilibré: la première partie, sur le nom, est seule traitée de manière systématique; la seconde, sur le verbe, est ‘expédiée’ en soixante-dix-huit lignes,1 comme si l’auteur avait manqué de temps: elle se contente de renvoyer aux règles énoncées pour le nom, et se termine par un catalogue de verbes qui énumère les parfaits en -ui pour en trouver les présents correspondants, puis ceux en -bui, -si et -psi. L’ensemble de l’ouvrage se présente donc dans la pratique en quatre chapitres, et c’est bien ainsi qu’il a été transmis par Cassiodore: Préface (165.1-166.18) Première partie: les noms (167.1-193.13) (1) - à l’initiale (167.1-178.13) Syllabes ouvertes: ua- / ba-, ue- / be-… Syllabes fermées: uac- / bac-, uoc- …, ual-/bal-, uel- / bel- … (2) - à l’intérieur (178.14-185.8) Syllabes ouvertes: -ua-/-ba-, -ue-/-be- … Syllabes fermées: -bal-, -bam-, -bar- …, -ber-/-uer, -uir- …, -ues-/-bes-, -uis-/-bis- … (3) - en finale (185.9-193.5): -ua/-ua, -ue, -bi …; -bal, -bar, -ber, -uir …; -ues/-bes, -bos, -bus -uus … (4) Deuxième partie: les verbes (193.8-199.4) - syllabes initiales et intérieures (194.11-195.8) - syllabes finales (195.9-199.4) - b(e)o, -u(e)o, -u(i)o - parfaits en -ui (et présents correspondants) - parfaits en -bui, -si, -psi.

Au-delà d’une réelle recherche de rationalisation, l’impression que laisse l’ouvrage est avant tout celle d’un corpus lexicographique régi par des règles mécaniques et complexes, difficiles à suivre et à appliquer, et qui laissent une large place aux exceptions. Les graphies préconisées vont parfois même à l’encontre de la tradition reçue, ainsi de uerna, ‘esclave’, dont la graphie recommandée est berna (175.13). Le souci d’établir des distinguos sémantiques d’ordre pratique l’emporte en effet sur la vraisemblance et sur le poids de la tradition. À cela 1 193.6-199.4.

126 frédérique biville s’ajoutent les incertitudes liées à la transmission manuscrite, ainsi de balbus (‘bègue’), édité par Keil sous la forme baluus (173.4-190.12), mais qui se présente dans les manuscrits sous les formes balbus, N (173.4) et ualuus, P (190.12).1 Il se dégage de l’ensemble comme un effet de catalogue, agrémenté de quelques gloses qui n’en constituent pas le moindre intérêt. Les compétences linguistiques de Martyrius devaient être limitées, mais il a consciencieusement (diligenter) consulté ses sources et ‘épluché’ les glossaires qu’il avait à sa disposition pour y trouver les garants dont il avait besoin. Dans cette enquête relative à un problème orthographique de la latinité tardive, quel est le rôle joué par les gloses? 3. La fonction des gloses chez Martyrius Toutes les gloses appelées par le problème orthographique de la confusion entre les signes graphiques B et V ne sont pas à mettre sur le même plan. Quelquesunes sont fautives et résultent d’accidents dans la transmission manuscrite. La plupart ont une fonction sémantique et visent à distinguer (discretionis causa) des homonymes. 3. 1. Accidents de transmission: collusions et interpolations La logique interne de l’exposé et la confrontation des variantes manuscrites révèlent divers types d’erreurs dans la transmission du texte, et montrent la préférence accordée par Keil aux leçons du manuscrit N. Le mécanisme de l’erreur et de la glose se laisse facilement cerner. 169.7 ut uenator, uelum, [ueretrum Ùe ÌfiÚÈÔÓ], ueratrum, uenabulum, comme uenator [‘chasseur’], uelum [‘voile’], [ueretrum = grec to morion (‘organe sexuel’)], ueratrum [‘ellébore’], uenabulum [‘épieu’].

La leçon de N intègre, dans la série des mots commençant par la syllabe ue- avec e long, le mot ueretrum, alors que sa syllabe initiale comporte un e bref. Le manuscrit P ainsi que le texte de Cassiodore (169.8-9) présentent la version correcte: ut uenator, uelum, ueum,2 uenabulum. L’interpolation de ueretrum Ùe ÌfiÚÈÔÓ dans N (en fait ueratrum corrigé en ueretrum, avec ajout de ueratrum dans la marge) est due au souci d’attirer a posteriori l’attention sur une possible confusion entre les paronymes ueratrum (avec ue- long), ‘ellébore’, et ueretrum (avec uebref ), ‘organe sexuel’, glosé par son synonyme grec ÌfiÚÈÔÓ pour mieux affirmer la distinction.

1 Une situation similaire se constate dans la tradition manuscrite de Cassiodore, qui conserve dans le texte les trois variantes balbus, ualuus et ualbus, toutes attestées dans le codex archetypus: Stoppacci à paraître. 2 Les manuscrits de Cassiodore présentent en fait la leçon uerum (ou ueru), sans glose en grec; il peut s’agir d’une erreur, ou d’une banalisation du compilateur.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius

127

173.14-174.1 si per ‘u’ digammon scribatur uellus, genere neutro ac declinatione tertia nuncupetur, ut ‘uillum’ significet: ‘hoc uellus’ enim, ‘huius uelleris’ dicitur; si autem per ‘b’ mutam notetur, genere masculino ac declinatione secunda declinabitur, ut ‘scitum’ denuntiet: ‘hic’ enim ‘bellus, huius belli’ scitus uel iocosus, per casus declinatur, si uellus s’écrit avec un u digammon, qu’il est du genre neutre et qu’il se décline sur la troisième déclinaison, il a donc le même sens que uillus [‘toison’]: on dit en effet uellus [nom.], uelleris [gén.]; mais s’il est noté par la muette b, il sera de genre masculin et se déclinera sur la seconde déclinaison, et il signifie donc scitus [‘spirituel’]: bellus [nom.], belli [gén.] = scitus ou iocosus [‘spirituel’] se décline en effet en cas.

Il s’agit de distinguer le substantif neutre uellus (-eris), ‘toison’, glosé par son synonyme et paronyme masculin uillus (-i), ‘pelage’, du substantif masculin bellus (-i), au sens classique de ‘spirituel’, glosé quant à lui par son synonyme scitus. Dans un second temps, la glose synonymique par scitus est elle-même glosée par un autre synonyme, iocosus: il s’agit vraisemblablement d’une interpolation.1 180.8-9 diminutiua nomina uel deriuatiua […] prototypa sua sequentur, ut liber, libertus libellus les noms diminutifs ou dérivés suivront la règle de leurs prototypes, ainsi liber [‘libre/livre’], libertus [‘affranchi’], libellus [‘livret’].

Cette évocation de la règle selon laquelle les diminutifs suivent la règle du mot de base dont ils sont dérivés, donne lieu à une collision homonymique entre liber (-beri), ‘libre’, dérivé libertus, ‘affranchi’, et liber (-bri), ‘livre’, diminutif ‘libellus’, ‘livret’, sans que l’on puisse dire si cette collision est le fait de Martyrius luimême, ou si elle résulte de la déperdition d’un mot dans la tradition manuscrite: liber libertus, libellus. 193.2 ‘uax, uex, uix’: unum tantummodo nomen per unam quamque syllabam repperi terminatum, ut ‘uiuax, uibex ï ÌÒψ„, uerbex Ùe Úfi‚·ÙÔÓ, ceruix’2 uax, uex, uix: je n’ai trouvé qu’un seul exemple de nom terminé par chacune de ces syllabes: uiuax [‘vivace’], uibex = grec ï ÌÒψ„ [‘marque de coup’], uerbex = grec Ùe Úfi‚·ÙÔÓ [‘mouton’], ceruix [‘nuque’].

Évoquant les mots terminés en -uax, -uex, -uix, Martyrius affirme qu’il n’a trouvé qu’un seul exemple pour chacune de ces trois finales.3 Or la finale -uex est illustrée de deux exemples, uibex, ‘moustique’, et uerbex, ‘mouton’, chacun

1 Scitus uel iocosus est la leçon de P et de Cassiodore; N présente scitus an locus. Cassiodore (174.3-4) choisit de gloser uellus par lana (‘laine’), manifestement plus accessible (ut ‘lanam’ significet, hoc uellus), que reprendra Alcuin, qui glosera quant à lui bellus, non plus par scitus, mais par pulcher, ‘beau’, témoignant ainsi de l’évolution sémantique de l’adjectif bellus dans la latinité tardive: uellus, si ‘lanam’ significat, per ‘u’; si bellus, id est ‘pulcher’, per ‘b’ scribitur (Alb., gl vii.312.1-2). 2 Cassiodore (193.2) présente les quatre termes sans les deux gloses en grec. 3 On aurait très bien pu voir introduite une distinction entre uiuax, ‘viveur’ et bibax, ‘buveur’.

128 frédérique biville des deux termes étant glosé par son équivalent grec.1 Ce ‘surnombre’ révèle probablement l’interpolation de uibex, dont l’usage classique était limité au pluriel uibices.2 3. 2. Discretionis causa Mis à part ces quelques aléas de transmission, la majorité des gloses répond à un souci de distinction sémantique, discretionis causa (ou propter discretionem),3 de désambiguïsation par synonymie intra- ou inter-linguistique. Qu’il s’agisse de gloses explicites ou implicites, latines ou gréco-latines, traditionnelles ou originales, elles ont toujours pour fonction, en recourant au sens et/ou à l’étymologie, de proposer, dans le cas d’homonymes ou de paronymes, une répartition des graphies en B ou V.4 Les gloses explicites fournissent la double clé, formelle et sémantique, de l’interprétation: 170.14-171.1 ‘bilem’ etiam discretionis causa: nam si ‘fellem’ significet, per ‘b’ mutam scribetur; si ‘breue aliquod’, per ‘u’ digammon scribetur ‘bilem’ aussi, pour éviter les confusions: s’il a le sens de fel, ‘bile’ [bilis, -is, f.], il s’écrira avec la muette b; s’il désigne quelque chose de vil [uilis,-is, -e], on l’écrira avec un u digammon.5 174.1-3 ‘uil’ syllaba si fuerit antecedens, ‘u’ uocalem habebit pro consonante, ut uillus ï Ì·ÏÏfiϲ, uilla ï àÁÚfiϲ

si la syllabe uil se trouve à l’initiale, elle présentera la voyelle u en fonction de consonne: uillus = grec ï Ì·ÏÏfiϲ [‘pelisse’], uilla = grec ï àÁÚfiϲ [‘domaine’].

Aux gloses grecques Cassiodore (174.5)6 substitue des gloses latines: uillus ‘uestimenti’, uilla ‘possessio’, «uillus, ‘de vêtement’, uilla, ‘propriété’». 175.13-176.4 si enim berna, ‘domi genitum’ significat, id est ï ÔåÎÔÁÂÓ‹ϲ, commune est duum generum secundum ueteres, trium uero secundum meam sententiam, et per ‘b’ mutam scribitur; si uero ‘temporale quoddam’ denuntiet, erit mobile: a ‘uere’ namque ‘uernus, uerna, uernum’ fit, ut siquis dicat ‘uernus sol’, ‘uerna hirundo’, ‘uernum tempus’, et ‘u’ digammon sicut ÚÒÙÔÙ˘ÔÓ eius in scriptura tenebit,

1 Bède, dans gl , vii.294.5) glosera uerbex par le latin ouis: ‘uerbex’, id est ‘ouis’, ab u littera incipiendum. 2 Vibices: Plaut. Fug., ap. Varr. Ling. 7.63. Cat. ap. Non. 187.23-7. Paul.-Fest. 507.26-27. Le singulier uibex (Perse, 4.49) est secondaire et analogique. On trouve aussi chez Priscien la forme uibix (gl , ii.167.5). 3 Martyrius n’utilise pas le terme differentia. Cf. A. Garcea, Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum en ligne (http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL/bgl.jsp). 4 Sont ainsi glosés: ueratrum ~ ueretrum, uesica, uespa, beta, bis ~ uis, bilis ~ uilis, bufo ~ bubo, bellus ~ bellum, bellus ~ uellus, uillus ~ uilla, berna ~ uerna, uos ~ bos, rubeta, auena ~ habena, balba ~ ualua, albus ~ aluus, eneruo, aceruo ~ acerbo. 5 Les manuscrits de Cassiodore offrent la leçon bile au lieu de bilem. Cassiodore, de plus, ignore l’expression ‘breue aliquid’ et choisit ‘abiectum aliquid ac parui pretii’, qui apparaît comme plus conforme au sens de l’adjectif uilis uile. Alcuin (Albin. vii.298.3-4) remplace la glose breue par abiectum. 6 Suivi par Alcuin (Albin. vii.312.22).

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius

129

si berna [= uerna, -ae, m./f.] signifie ‘né à la maison’, c’est-à-dire [le grec] ï ÔåÎÔÁÂÓ‹ϲ,1 la forme est, selon les Anciens, commune aux deux genres, mais aux trois genres selon moi, et il s’écrit avec la muette b; mais s’il fait référence au temps, il sera variable: à partir de uer [‘printemps’] on obtient en effet uernus, uerna, uernum [‘printanier’], comme lorsqu’on dit uernus sol [‘un soleil printanier’], uerna hirundo [‘l’hirondelle du printemps’], uernum tempus [‘un temps printanier’], et comme son prototype, il conservera dans la graphie un u digammon.

La glose est non seulement bilingue, mais elle est aussi à deux niveaux, puisque le latin domi genitum, qui glose sémantiquement berna et le désambiguïse, sert à introduire en ‘éclaireur’ le grec ÔåÎÔÁÂÓ‹ϲ dont il est en fait le calque morphosémantique (ÔåÎÔ-//domi-, -ÁÂÓ‹ϲ//genitum). La double glose a manifestement pour fonction d’expliciter le terme latin pour des hellénophones. Les gloses implicites ne donnent, quant à elles, que l’un des deux éléments, laissant au lecteur, utilisateur du traité, le soin de retrouver le second: 169.9 per ‘b’ mutam scribentur: besica ì ÊÜϲ·, belua, bestia s’écriront avec la muette b: besica dans le sens du grec ì ÊÜϲ· [‘vésicule’], belua [‘fauve’], bestia [‘bête’].

La glose par le grec, qui n’a pas été retenue par Cassiodore (169.10) a pour fonction de sélectionner, dans la polysémie du latin uesica, le sens médical de ‘vésicule, ampoule’ au détriment du sens anatomique de ‘vessie’ ou d’‘organe sexuel’ (= grec ʇϲÈϲ). 169.10-11 mutabunt scripturam, ut uena, uespa àÓıˉÒÓ, et similia ne s’écriront pas de la même manière: uena [‘veine’], uespa = grec àÓıˉÒÓ [‘guêpe’] et assimilés.

La glose grecque (on notera l’absence d’article), qui ne figure pas chez Cassiodore (169.12), a pour fonction de lever l’ambiguité homonymique entre le terme classique et usuel uespa (f.), ‘guêpe’ et le mot tardif et populaire uespa (m.), forme tronquée de uespillo, ‘croque-mort’. Paul Diacre, chez qui le terme figure également, explique que uespillo et ses variantes uespa et uespula proviennent de uesper, ‘le soir’, parce que l’enterrement des plus démunis se faisait à la nuit tombée.2 169.11-13 his quoque opponitur beta quae3 graece ϲÂÜÙÏÔÓ, m ηÙa \AÙÙÈÎÔfϲ ÙÂÜÙÏÔÓ uocatur, quoniam in graeco idem genus obseruare non potuit le cas est différent pour beta, qui se dit en grec seutlon, ou teutlon en attique [‘bette’], puisqu’en grec on n’a pas pu trouver le même genre.

1 En 176.5-6 qui in bonis hereditariis natus est, «celui qui est né dans le domaine héréditaire». 2 Paul. Fest. 506.16-19 ‘Vespae’ et ‘uespillones’ dicuntur qui funerandis corporibus officium gerunt, non a minutis illis uolucribus, sed quia uespertino tempore eos efferunt qui funebri pompa duci propter inopiam nequeunt. Hi etiam ‘uespulae’ dicuntur. 3 Quod N; quam Cass. 169.12.

130

frédérique biville

La glose, probablement issue d’un glossaire grec, apporte des informations superflues sur les variantes dialectales grecques,1 sans donner explicitement la clé de l’ambiguité honomymique entre le latin beta, -ae, féminin (= grec ϲÂÜÙÏÔÓ, ÙÂÜÙÏÔÓ, neutre), ‘bette’, et le nom de la lettre grecque beta (Ùe ‚ÉÙ·), ambiguité déjà exploitée dans le jeu de loterie mis en scène par Pétrone dans le Satiricon.2 173.12-14 ‘uel’ … si uero caput fuerit nominis, ‘b’ mutam habebit in scriptura, ut ‘bellum’, ‘bellissimum’3 et ‘bellaria Ùa ÙÚ·Á‹Ì·Ù·, praeter ‘uellus’, discretionis causa si la syllabe uel se trouve en tête de nom, elle aura la muette b dans sa graphie: bellus [‘beau’], bellissimus [‘très beau’], bellaria = grec Ùa ÙÚ·Á‹Ì·Ù· [‘friandises’], à l’exception de uellus [‘toison’], pour faire la distinction.

La glose par le grec ne présente pas explicitement de fonction de désambiguïsation, à la différence de la mention discretionis causa utilisée pour faire la distinction entre l’adjectif bellus et le substantif uellus (cf. supra, 173.14-174.1). Et pourtant, on ne peut s’empêcher de penser que la glose grecque (qui ne figure pas dans la version de Cassiodore) vise à éviter une confusion avec le dérivé homonyme de bellum (‘relatif aux combats’) que mentionne Paul Diacre (Paul.-Fest. 32.4): ‘bellarium’ et ‘bellaria’ res bellis aptas appellabant. 180.12-181.1 ‘be’ producta per ‘b’ mutam omnifariam scribetur, ut ‘uerbena’, ‘rubeta’ ï ÊÚÜÓÔϲ, ‘ambesum’, ‘habena’. Excipitur ‘auena’ quae significat ‘tibiam’ uel ‘stipulam’, discretionis causa [la syllabe] be longue s’écrira avec la muette b dans toutes les positions: uerbena [‘verveine’], rubeta = grec ï ÊÚÜÓÔϲ [‘grenouille’], ambesum [‘rongé’], habena [‘bride’]. Fait exception auena, au sens de tibia ou stipula [‘chaume’], pour lever l’ambiguïté.

Rubeta (-ae, f.), ‘grenouille’, est glosé par le grec ï ÊÚÜÓÔϲ (que ne retient pas Cassiodore, 181.1) pour être implicitement différencié de rubeta, neutre pluriel de rubetum, ‘buisson’. Habena, ‘bride’, est distingué de auena, ‘flûte’ par la double glose synonymique latine tibia = stipula. Le manuscrit P précise: ut separatur ab habena quam ‘lorum’ interpretantur, «pour le distinguer de habena que l’on traduit par lorum ‘bride’». 194.11-195.2 omnis prima syllaba uerborum, in communibus autem et deponentibus, media quoque per ‘u’ uocalem loco positam consonantis scribitur, excepto ‘baiulo’, ‘bullio’ àÓ·ˉá etiam […] ‘bibo’ quoque propter discretionem,

1 Le manuscrit P fait l’économie de ηÙa \AÙÙÈÎÔ‡ϲ, et Cassiodore (170.1) se contente de quam Graeci ϲÂÜÙÏÔÓ appellant. 2 Petron, 56.9 ‘Muraena et littera’: murem cum rana alligatum fascemque betae, «‘Murène et lettre!’ On apporta un rat lié à une grenouille, et une botte de bettes.». 3 On notera cette forme vulgaire de superlatif analogique, qui devait être fréquente dans la langue parlée.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius

131

toutes les syllabes initiales des verbes, qu’ils soient communs ou déponents, ainsi que les syllabes intérieures, s’écrivent avec la voyelle u employée en fonction de consonne, à l’exception de baiulo [‘porter’], ainsi que de bullio = grec àÓ·ˉá [‘bouillir’] […] et aussi bibo [‘boire’], pour les distinguer.

Cassiodore (195.2)1 explicite le texte de Martyrius en précisant: propter discretionem, a uita per ‘u’, a potu per ‘b’ scribendum est, «pour faire la distinction entre uiuo, de ‘vivre’, avec u, et bibo, de ‘boire’, avec b». La différence de quantité entre uiuo, avec i long, ‘vivre’, et bibo, avec i bref, ‘boire’, n’est pas prise en compte, pas plus que le dédoublement d’ambiguïté qu’entraînent les formes nominales uiuo, ablatif de uiuus (-a, -um), ‘vivant’, et bibo (-onis, m.), ‘buveur’. 189.15-190.1-2 ‘-bus’ siquidem masculini generis tantum nomina fuerint, per ‘b’ mutam scribetur ut ‘cibus, naebus, morbus, rubus, globus, nimbus, lembus, lumbus’, ‘neruo’ notato solummodo, quia, si ‘e’ longa fuerit praeposita, faciet uerbum: ‘eneruo’ enim âÎÓ¢ڛ˙ˆ positio uerbi dicitur -bus, uniquement dans le cas de noms de genre masculin, s’écrira avec un b: cibus [‘nourriture’], naebus [‘tache’], morbus [‘maladie’], rubus [‘ronce’], globus [‘globe’], nimbus [‘nuage’], lembus [‘canot’], lumbus [‘reins’], avec mention spéciale pour neruo [‘tendon’] parce que, s’il était précédé d’un e long, ce serait un verbe: eneruo en effet = grec âÎÓ¢ڛ˙ˆ [‘couper les tendons’], est donné comme la forme de base du verbe.2

Il n’y a pas d’ambiguïté sur la forme neruo, ablatif de neruus, ‘tendon’, qui est exclusivement nominale; par contre eneruo peut être compris comme l’ablatif de l’adjectif eneruus (-a, -um, doublet de eneruis, -e) ou comme la première personne du verbe eneruo (-are). 196.10-12 ‘nauigo’ enim et ‘aceruo’ âd ÙÔÜ ϲˆÚ‡ˆ ac talia in nomine datis subseruiunt regulis nauigo [‘naviguer’] et aceruo, du grec ϲˆÚ‡ˆ [‘entasser’] et autres du même type, sont assujettis aux règles données pour le nom.

Il y a confusion possible, non seulement entre l’ablatif du substantif aceruus et la première personne du verbe aceruo, mais aussi (ce que ne mentionne pas Martyrius) entre les verbes aceruo (-are), ‘entasser’, dérivé de aceruus (-i, m.), ‘tas’, et acerbo (-are), ‘rendre amer’, dérivé de acerbus (-a, -um), ‘amer’. 3. 3. Étymologies justificatives par le grec La seconde fonction que remplissent les gloses chez Martyrius consiste à recourir au grec pour justifier l’étymologie d’un mot employé en latin, et par là, sa graphie avec b ou u:

1 Voir de même Alcuin (Albin. vii.298.16-8) ‘bibo’ a potu, per duo ‘b’ […], ‘uiuo’ a uita. 2 Cassiodore (190.4) conserve cette glose grecque.

132

frédérique biville

172.14-173.3 ‘ual’ prima syllaba, siquidem ‘l’ fuerit littera subsecuta, per ‘u’ scribetur, ut [Valentinianus], ‘uallis’ et ‘vallum’; nam ‘ballaenam’ et ‘ballistram’ a graeco sermone dici mea putauit sententia, hanc ·Úa Ùe ‚¿ÏÏÂÈÓ ë·˘ÙcÓ Î·d ®›ÙÂÈÓ, illam ·Úa Ùe ‚¿ÏÏÂÈÓ Î·d ϲÙÚˆÓÓ‡Ó·È, ÙÔ˘Ù¤ϲÙÈÓ àÓ·ÈÚÂÖÓ1 ual en syllabe initiale s’écrira avec u si la lettre l vient après: uallis [‘vallée’] et uallum [‘palissade’]; en effet il a dû penser, à mon avis, que ballaena et ballistra [échappaient à la règle parce qu’ils] venaient du grec, le premier de para to ballein heauten kai riptein, [‘s’élancer et se projeter’], le second, de para to ballein kai stronnunai, toutestin anairein, [‘jeter à terre et renverser, c’est-à-dire détruire’].

L’exception que constitue la graphie ball- au lieu de uall- que laisse attendre la règle, est justifiée par une origine grecque des deux termes, tous deux issus du grec ‚¿ÏÏÂÈÓ, ‘lancer’.2 L’importance de la place accordée ici au grec montre que l’ensemble doit être issu d’un glossaire grec. La glose est à trois niveaux, scandée par les outils métalinguistiques grecs ·Úa Ùe (= latin a), ηd (= latin et) et ÙÔ˘Ù¤ϲÙÈÓ (= latin id est). Cassiodore (173.2), suivi par Alcuin (vii.311.33) se contente de dire: nam ‘ballaena’ et ‘ballistra’ per ‘b’ scribenda sunt. 173.4-6 si uero haec non sequetur littera, per ‘b’ mutam signabitur, ut baluus ï „ÂÏÏfiϲ, balteus, et balbae ı‡Ú·È, nisi a ‘uestibulo’ et ‘albo’ nomen hoc arbitremur compositum mais si cette lettre [= ‘l’] ne la suit pas, [la syllabe initiale bal-] sera notée par la muette b: baluus [‘bègue’], balteus [‘baudrier’], balbae [‘battants de porte’], à moins que nous estimions que le mot est composé des noms uestibulum et albus.

Il s’agit d’une glose particulièrement récurrente chez les orthographistes latins, qui vise à distinguer, pour des formes féminines ambiguës telles de balbae/ualuae, l’adjectif balbus (-a, -um), ‘bègue’, du substantif ualuae (f. pl.), ‘battants de porte’. Martyrius recourt à la traduction par les synonymes grecs „ÂÏÏfiϲ et ı‡Ú·È. Cassiodore, quant à lui (173.4), remplace la glose grecque ı‡Ú·È par le latin id est ianuae, plus ‘parlant’ pour des latinophones. La seconde étymologie proposée par Martyrius, l’hypothèse d’un composé de uestibulum et de album, véritable énigme, ne manque pas de surprendre et de susciter la curiosité intellectuelle. On pourrait songer à une manipulation formelle: ualuae < u(estibulo) albo, mais la clé interprétative est fournie par Martyrius lui-même en 186.4-6, où balbas, ‘portes’, est donné comme un équivalent du grec ı‡Ú·ϲ, lui-même suivi de ce qui doit être une citation, õÁÔ˘Ó ı˘ÚáÓ· Ï·ÌÚfiÓ, «emmener dans le clair vestibule». La réponse à l’énigme, sémantique et glossographique, est à chercher dans des opérations d’équation et de transfert bilingues: ı‡Ú·ϲ = ˘ÏáÓ· Ï·ÌÚfiÓ > uestibulum album = ualuae. £‡Ú·ϲ, ‘porte’, ‘entrée’ a le sens de ˘ÏáÓ· Ï·ÌÚfiÓ, ‘vestibule éclatant’, qui se traduit en latin par uestibulum album, qui

1 La troisième personne putauit pose un problème. Quel en est le sujet? Adamantius? 2 Biville 1999.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius 133 prend donc le sens de ualuae. Ainsi se trouvent intégrées dans une relation d’équivalence les formes grecques et latines. 181.8-12 Virbius etiam abstractus a regula, quoniam ‘uirum bis factum’ esse memorant, quem numerum per ‘b’ mutam scribi ante lata declarant; quidam ‘uirum bonum’, alii ‘herobium’, tamquam sit ≥Úˆϲ àÓ·‚‚ȈÎÒϲ; alii deum esse qui Viribus praeest interpretantur, Virbius aussi échappe à la règle, parce qu’on pense que c’est uirum bis factum [‘deux fois fait homme’], nombre qui, comme il a été dit plus haut, s’écrit avec la muette b; pour certains c’est uirum bonum [‘un homme bon’], pour d’autres herobium, à savoir ≥Úˆϲ àÓ·‚‚ȈÎÒϲ [‘un héros revenu à la vie’]; d’autres l’interprètent comme étant le dieu qui préside aux Forces vitales [uiribus].

Pour expliquer l’étymologie de Virbius, nom d’Hippolyte ressuscité et admis au rang des divinités inférieures,1 Martyrius ne propose pas moins de quatre hypothèses, trois latines: *uir bi(s) (factum),2 *uir b(onus), *uiribus, et une grecque, herobium, forme manifestement forgée, artificielle, calquée sur le grec ≥Úˆϲ àÓ·‚‚ȈÎÒϲ, ‘héros revenu à la vie’, qui semble en être la glose, alors qu’elle sert à l’introduire et à l’expliquer. L’ensemble s’éclaire par la scholie à Perse 6.56 quod ‘bis in uita’ prolatus sit, «amené deux fois à la vie»,3 et prend sens dans un jeu d’équivalences bilingues qui peut être formalisé de la manière suivante: uir + uita > ≥Úˆϲ + ‚›Ôϲ = *hero-bios (herobium) = ≥Úˆϲ àÓ·‚‚ȈÎÒϲ. La diversité des hypothèses avancées révèle la diversité des ouvrages qu’a pu consulter Martyrius, et nous fait prendre conscience de ce qui ne nous a pas été transmis.4 197.3-4 libo a graeco translatum esse confidimus, ut est âd ‰\ ·úıÔ· ÔrÓÔÓ ÏÂÖ‚Â, nous avons la certitude que libo [‘verser’] est emprunté au grec; on a [en grec] âd ‰\ ·úıÔ· ÔrÓÔÓ ÏÂÖ‚Â [Homère, Il. 1.462], ‘verse dessus du vin flamboyant’.

L’indication de l’origine grecque du verbe est cautionnée par une citation d’Homère, la seule, semble-t-il, que comporte le traité de Martyrius (à quoi s’ajoute peut-être la mention õÁÔ˘Ó ˘ÏáÓ· Ï·ÌÚfiÓ vue supra en 186.4). La citation vise à établir une distinction entre le verbe libo (-are), donné comme un emprunt au grec Ï›‚ˆ, et le substantif libum, ‘galette de sacrifice’, glosé quant à lui par son équivalent sémantique grec fi·ÓÔÓ: excepto ‘libo’ Ô¿Óˆ (192.13).5 1 Cf. Ov. Met. 15.144; Fasti 6.76. 2 Serv. ad Aen. 7.761: Diana Hippolytum, reuocatum ab inferis […] eum ‘Virbium’, quasi ‘bis uirum’, iussit uocari. 3 Maltby 1991, 647. 4 Les manuscrits de Martyrius proposent en fait deux leçons différentes: uiridibus (P) et uiribus (N), et les manuscrits de Cassiodore présentent la même situation: la famille alpha conserve la leçon uiridibus (comme P, qui appartient en effet à la famille de l’exemplar utilisé par Cassiodore comme source), tandis que la famille beta propose la leçon uiribus (banalisation de uiridibus). La leçon originale peut être uiridibus, parce que Virbius est nommé dans les sources anciennes comme rex nemorensis, c’est-àdire le roi des uirides (note de Patrizia Stoppacci). 5 Les deux gloses figurent également dans le texte de Cassiodore (vii.197.4-5 et 192.13).

134

frédérique biville 3. 4. Traductions grecques

Quelques gloses, directement issues de lexiques bilingues, et sans doute destinées à des hellénophones, ne semblent pas motivées par un souci de désambiguïsation, et paraissent être de simples traductions grecques destinées à éclairer le sens de mots latins obscurs, rares ou désuets. Peut-être sont-elles apocryphes, surtout quand elles apparaissent de manière insolite et exceptionnelle à l’intérieur d’une série de mots latins non glosés: 171.8 ut buxus, bufo Ê˘ϲ›ÁÓ·ıÔϲ [‘crapaud’], bustum, bucina, bucula et huiuscemodi omnia

Le mot est rare en littérature, mais bien attesté dans les langues romanes. Il apparaît chez Virgile (Georg. 1.184), et il est glosé par Servius (ad loc.): ‘bufo’ rana terrestris nimiae magnitudinis. Il est à noter toutefois qu’un souci de distinction sémantique n’est pas exclu, étant donné qu’il existe une tradition glossographique qui, à la suite d’une interprétation erronée du texte de Virgile, donne à bufo le sens de ‘mulot’, en le glosant par le grec àÁÚÔÈÎÈÎeϲ ÌÜϲ.1 174.14-175,1 ut uappa ñ‰·Úcϲ ÔrÓÔϲ2 [‘piquette, vin coupé d’eau’] 175.7-8 ut uertex, uergiliae ÏÂÈ¿‰Âϲ [‘constellation des Pléiades’], uerbum, uir, uirga, uirgo, uirtus, Virbius 179.3-4 ut blandus, gibbus ΢ÚÙfiϲ [‘bossu’], bratteum, latebrae, tenebrae atque omnia talia 181.3-5 ut ‘Fauius, auidus, Flauius, fauilla, prouincia, exuuiae, obliuium, diluuium, sauium, liuidum, simpuuium Âr‰Ôϲ ϲ·Ԣϲ îÂÚ·ÙÈÎÔÜ espèce de louche à usage liturgique’, praeter obitum nomen et subito atque obiter ηÙa Ù·éÙfiÓ [‘simultanément’] aduerbia, quia, ob et sub utpote praepositiones antiquos puto in scriptura seruasse3 186.9-10 ut herba, tuba, turba, iuba, larba ‰·ÈÌfiÓÈÔÓ, barba, obba ÔÙ‹ÚÈÔÓ, glaeba, pronuba

Dans cette série de mots en -ba, il est remarquable que seuls deux d’entre eux, larba (en fait larua, ‘fantôme’) et obba (‘coupe’) soient glosés par des équivalents grecs.4 178.5-8 ‘bat-’ in uno tantum repperi nomine genere neutro pluraliter enuntiato, id est battualia, quod ‘b’ mutam habere cognouimus. Exercitationes autem militum uel gladiatorum significat. Inde etiam battuatores ÙÔfϲ ‚·ϲ·ÓÈϲÙ¿ϲ dici puto

1 cgl , ii.245.15; 374.21, etc. Cf. Gaide 1988, 173 et 255. Le texte de Cassiodore ne présente pas la glose grecque. 2 Le texte de Cassiodore (174.8-9) omet ÔrÓÔϲ. 3 Le texte de Cassiodore présente la glose grecque de simpuuium, mais non celle de obiter. 4 Le texte de Cassiodore omet la glose par le grec ‰·ÈÌfiÓÈÔÓ, mais conserve celle par ÔÙ‹ÚÈÔÓ.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius

135

je n’ai trouvé la syllabe bat- que dans un seul nom de genre neutre, employé au pluriel, à savoir battualia, que nous savons avoir un b. Il désigne des exercices de soldats ou de gladiateurs. C’est de là, à mon avis, que vient battuatores [= grec ÙÔfϲ ‚·ϲ·ÓÈϲÙ¿ϲ, ‘bourreaux’].

Le terme battualia (‘escrime’) n’est pas attesté avant le ive siècle p.C. (Charisius, gl , i.33.25). Battuatores n’apparaît qu’avec Martyrius. Cassiodore suit, à quelques variantes minimes près, le texte de Martyrius, y compris la référence au grec, mais ajoute en glose une variante vulgaire du mot, que Keil édite sous la forme attendue battalia:1 quae uulgo battalia dicuntur (178.4), mais pour laquelle les manuscrits présentent unanimement la leçon battulia.2 195.1-2 excepto baiulo, bullio àÓ·ˉá, [‘bouillir’]3 …bibo quoque

Il est à noter que la plupart de ces gloses bilingues non argumentatées, à simple valeur lexicale, se retrouvent dans la version du texte transmise par Cassiodore. 4. In glossematibvs repperi À la différence de ce que l’on peut trouver chez les autres grammairiens et orthographistes, Martyrius ne se contente pas de gloser les formes qu’il cite pour les justifier. À cinq reprises il fait expressément référence aux glossaires (glossemata) dans lesquels il a puisé ses gloses, témoignant ainsi de l’authenticité des gloses qu’offre son texte. 167.7-13 Praeterea excipi cognouimus haec quae subiecta sua cum interpretatione reddemus, quae nusquam nisi in diuersis cottidianis glossematibus repperi: batiola ÔÙ‹ÚÈÔÓ, basus Ê·ÏÏfiϲ, Ùe ·å‰ÔÖÔÓ ÙáÓ ‚ÈÔÏfiÁˆÓ [in marg. ÌÈÌÔÏfiÁˆÓ, Ì˘ıÔÏfiÁˆÓ], batulus ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ. Haec nos, quoniam lecta non inuenimus, inscrutata relinquimus. Illa quoque nomina, quorum secunda syllaba in ‘a’ litteram desinet, per ‘b’ mutam scribentur, ut [bambalo „ÂÏÏÈϲÙ‹ϲ], baca ÎfiÎÎÔϲ, balatro ôϲˆÙÔϲ, balatus ‚Ï˯ËıÌfiϲ, barathrum , ac talia, Font en outre exception, à notre connaissance, les termes que nous citons ci-après avec leur traduction, et que je n’ai trouvés que dans divers glossaires d’usage courant: batiola = grec ÔÙ‹ÚÈÔÓ [‘coupe’], basus = grec Ê·ÏÏfiϲ, Ùe ·å‰ÔÖÔÓ ÙáÓ ‚ÈÔÏfiÁˆÓ [‘phallus, organes sexuels des acteurs’], batulus = grec ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ [‘bafouilleur’]. Comme nous ne les avons pas trouvés attestés dans les textes, nous ne les avons pas pris en considération. Font également exception les noms dont la seconde syllabe se termine par a et qui s’écrivent avec la muette b, comme bambalo = grec „ÂÏÏÈϲÙ‹ϲ [‘bègue’], baca = grec ÎfiÎÎÔϲ [‘baie’], balatro = grec ôϲˆÙÔϲ [‘noceur’], balatus = grec ‚Ï˯ËıÌfiϲ [‘bêlement’], barathrum < grec ‚¿Ú·ıÚÔÓ > [‘gouffre’], et autres.

1 C’est la forme que présupposent les langues romanes: fr. bataille, it. battáglia, etc. 2 C’est aussi la forme donnée par le Thesaurus linguae Latinae. 3 La glose grecque ne figure ni dans le manuscrit P ni chez Cassiodore.

136

frédérique biville

Le manuscrit P omet à juste titre l’exemple bambalo „ÂÏÏÈϲÙ‹ϲ qui, avec sa syllabe initiale fermée bam-, est plus à sa place dans la liste où il figure à nouveau en 174.10-1 (cf. infra) que dans cette série en syllabe ouverte ba-. Il doit donc être considéré comme une interpolation, appelée sans doute par le synonyme batulus ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ cité peu avant.1 Le mot batiola, ‘coupe’, figurait dans le Colax de Plaute, mais n’a été transmis que par le lexicographe Nonius et les recueils de gloses.2 Basus, ‘phallus’, évoqué ici comme accessoire des acteurs de comédie, d’atellane et de mime, est un doublet vulgaire et métaphorique de uas, attesté chez Pétrone et dans les gloses, et documenté au sens d’organes sexuels masculins dès Plaute, sous la forme du neutre pluriel uasa.3 Batulus, ‘bafouilleur’, forme apophonique du grec ‚¿Ù·ÏÔϲ, ne figure que dans les glossaires, où il est glosé en grec par ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ, et en germanique par stam,4 mais il était manifestement d’usage courant en latin. Dans la deuxième série de mots cités par Martyrius (Illa quoque…), baca, ‘baie’, ‘pépin’, est un terme usuel, largement attesté, et la glose par ÎfiÎÎÔϲ se retrouve dans les glossaires.5 Balatro (var. bara-), ‘noceur’, mot essentiellement horatien, est attesté dans les textes comme appellatif (Varr., Hor.) et comme cognomen (Hor.), et il fait l’objet de gloses chez les commentateurs et les lexicographes.6 Dans les scholies à Horace, l’origine du mot est rapportée soit à barathrum, ‘gouffre’: baratrones, qui bona sua […] in barathrum mittunt (les noceurs dilapident leur patrimoine), ce qui constitue une étymologie vraisemblable,7 soit à balatus, ‘bêlement’: leurs propos sont futiles et ne veulent rien dire,8 ce qui pose davan1 La version de Cassiodore (167.6-8) supprime toute la première partie (de Praeterea à relinquimus) et réduit la seconde liste de Martyrius à: ut balatro ôϲˆÙÔϲ, balatus, barathrum ac talia. 2 Plaut. ap. Non. 545.16-17 batiolam auream octo pondo habebat; accipere noluit. cgl , ii.496.31, 521.47, 414.44 (ua-): batiola ÔÙ‹ÚÈÔÓ ÊÈ·ÏÔ(Â)ȉ‹ϲ (ÊÈÏ·Ô-); 569.19: battiola calix latus, non angustus. Le mot est probablement d’origine grecque, mais sa formation exacte (représentant apophonique d’un grec *‚·ÙÈ¿ÏË non attesté? cf. ÊÈ¿ÏË > fiola) reste discutée (Biville 1995, 202). 3 Petron. 57.8 uasus fictilis, immo lorus in aqua; cgl , ii.469.52 habus [= babus = basus, Heraeus] Ê·ÏÏfiϲ. Neutre pluriel uasa: Plaut. Pœn. 847 et 863; Priap. 68,24. Caper, gl , vii.94.11-12; 112.3; cgl , ii.204.46: uasa àÁÁÂÖ·, ϲ·Ë. On trouve aussi en ce sens le diminutif uasculo (Petron. 24.7) et l’adjectif dérivé uasatus (Lampr. Hel.). Cf. Heraeus 1899, 42 (= 1937, 136). Adams 2002, 41-42; Biville 2008, 389. 4 cgl , ii.372.34 ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ uitulus [= uatulus = batulus]. ii.68.22: habutus [sic] ÌÔÁ›Ï·ÏÔϲ 569.28 battulus stam saxonice. On sait que le surnom de B¿Ù·ÏÔϲ avait été donné à Démosthène parce qu’il éprouvait des difficultés à articuler distinctement les Ï et les Ú (Biville 1995, 117-118, et 1998, 78). 5 cgl , ii.40.5. 552.30 haec baca ï ÎfiÎÎÔϲ; 351.66: ÎfiÎÎÔϲ baca, hoc granum. 6 Balatrones (Varr. Rust. 2.5.1; bara-, Hor. Sat. 1.2.2,). P. Seruilius Balatro: Seruilio Balatrone (Hor. Sat. 2.8.21). Schol. ad Hor. Serm. 2.3.166 fuit autem tantus deuorator ut simili uitio laborantes ‘balatrones’ dicti sunt; Paul. Fest. 31.1-2 balatrones et blateas; cgl , ii.249.30 balitro ôϲˆÙÔϲ. v.631.64: ualetro glutto. Cf. Gaide 1988, 82.174.299. 7 Schol ad Hor. Serm. 1.2.2. Cf. Plaut. Curc. 121 Age, effunde hoc cito in barathrum, propere prolue cloacam. Il s’agit sans doute d’un dérivé à suffixe familier -on-: *barat(h)r-on-, avec dissimilation de liquides: r-r > l-r. 8 Schol ad Hor. Serm. 1.2.2 ‘balatrones’ a balatu ouium; ‘balathrones’ a balatu et uaniloquentia dicuntur.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius 137 tage de problèmes, même si on ne peut pas exclure l’hypothèse d’une base impressive *bal-. Il est intéressant de constater que ces deux mots usuels qui entrent en relation étymologique avec balatro forment précisément la fin de la liste donnée par Martyrius. Cette liste regroupe donc des termes d’usage courant et des termes effectivement issus de diuersa cottidiana glossemata, de ‘divers glossaires usuels’, qui proposent aussi bien des termes familiers tels que le vulgarisme uasus ou les impressifs sonores batulus et bambalo, que des termes rares attestés dans les textes archaïques (batiola) ou classiques (baratro). 174.9-11 ‘Bam-’ et uocalibus aliis interuenientibus, in prima syllaba nullius nominis enuntiari cognoui, nisi in glossematibus: bamma ç͇Á·ÚÔÓ atque bambalo ï „ÂÏÏÈϲÙ‹ϲ, quae per ‘b’ mutam scribuntur bam-, ainsi qu’avec les autres voyelles intérieures, n’est, à ma connaissance, attestée à l’initiale d’aucun mot en dehors des glossaires: bamma = grec oxygaron [‘sauce au vinaigre’] et bambalo = grec psellistes [‘bafouilleur’], qui s’écrivent avec un b.1

Pour le premier terme, les leçons des manuscrits hésitent entre bamma et bammum donné par le manuscrit P, qui précise: ‘bammum’ enim àe ÙÔÜ âÌ‚Ï‹Ì·ÙÔϲ [= âÌ‚¿ÌÌ·ÙÔϲ?] dictum esse arbitror, «je pense que bammum vient du grec emblema [‘emblème’]». Faut-il corriger le grec öÌ‚ÏËÌ· en öÌ‚·ÌÌ·, ou mieux, en öÌ‚ÂÌÌ·? Il semble qu’il y ait eu confusion entre deux paronymes, le grec ‚¿ÌÌ·, ‘teinture en pourpre’, attesté dans les gloses (cgl , ii.255.47: infectio ‚¿ÌÌ·), et la sauce appelée bammum, un mélange de garum et de vinaigre, équivalent de l’oxygarum grec.2 On trouve en effet le préfixé embemma (‘marinade’), utilisé en cuisine et en médecine.3 Si bamma ne résulte pas d’une confusion, il pourrait refléter un doublet tardif de bammum, au sens de ‘sauce’, non documenté par ailleurs. Bambalo, ‘bafouilleur’,4 est également un terme de glossaire. Il n’apparaît en littérature qu’indirectement, chez Cicéron, sous la forme dérivée de l’anthroponyme Bambalio, nom du beau-père d’Antoine, mais il devait appartenir au langage courant.5 175.3-5 ‘Bar-’ cum incipit syllaba, ‘b’ mutam habuerit positam ut barrus âϤʷϲ, bardus àÓ·›ϲıËÙÔϲ, bargus àÊ˘‹ϲ, barba, et quod in glossematibus inueni, bargina ì ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈϲ ‚·Ú‚·ÚÈ΋

1 L’ensemble de cette notice relative à la syllabe initiale bam- n’a pas été retenu par Cassiodore. 2 cgl , ii.569.23 bammum: acetum garo mixtum. 384.48 bammum: ç͇Á·ÚÔÓ. 3 Col. 12.34.57; Apic. 109.345, etc. 4 Le mot est explicitement et correctement référé au grec ‚·Ì‚¿ÏÂÈÓ et ‚·Ì‚·Ï‡˙ÂÈ par Martyrius en 174.10-11 (P): bambalo uero nominatus est àe ÙÔÜ ‚·Ì‚·Ï‡˙ÂÈÓ quod illi ®¤ÂÈÓ [= ÙÚ¤ÌÂÈÓ, Bücheler] interpretantur. 5 Cic. Phil. 2.90, 3.16 (M. Fulvius) Bambalio. cgl , ii.480.15 bambalo „ÂÏÏÈϲÙ‹ϲ; 569.31 ‚·Ì‚·ÏÔ balbutie(n)s. Hésychius: ‚·Ì‚¿ÏÂÈÓØ ÙÚ¤ÌÂÈÓ, „ÔÊÂÖÓ ÙÔÖϲ ¯Â›ÏÂϲÈ. B·Ì‚¿Ï˘˙ÂÈØ ÙÚ¤ÌÂÈ, ÙÔfϲ ç‰fiÓÙ·ϲ ϲ˘ÁÎÚÔ‡ÂÈ… Cf. Gaide 1988, 174; Biville 1998, 78.

138

frédérique biville

quand la syllabe bar- est à l’initiale, elle présentera la muette b: barrus = grec âϤʷϲ [‘éléphant’], bardus = grec àÓ·›ϲıËÙÔϲ [‘stupide’], bargus = grec àÊ˘‹ϲ [‘incapable’], barba [‘barbe’], et ce que je n’ai trouvé que dans des glossaires, bargina = grec ì ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈϲ ‚·Ú‚·ÚÈ΋ [‘mot barbare’].1

Le mot bargina, synonyme tardif de barbarus, s’applique à ce qui est étranger, ‘barbare’, en particulier en matière d’élocution latine.2 Les flottements observés dans la finale (-ina, -inus, -inna, -ena),3 parlent en faveur d’un emprunt, vraisemblement au germanique.4 Il est intéressant de constater que le terme dépréciatif bargina vient après bardus et bargus, eux aussi uniquement documentés par les gloses, et qui relèvent du même champ sémantique.5 Celui qui ne maîtrise pas la langue est considéré comme intellectuellement inférieur: àÊ˘‹ϲ ‘bargus’, sine ingenio (cgl , ii.254.6), ‘dépourvu d’intelligence’; ‘bargus’ tardus, sine lingua (iv.210.39), «qui ne sait pas s’exprimer». 176.14-15 bassus etiam, id est grassus, in glossematibus repperi et per ‘b’ mutam [sicut et proprio nomine P] scribi cognoui bassus aussi, c’est-à-dire grassus [‘gras’], je l’ai trouvé dans les glossaires, et j’ai su qu’il s’écrivait avec la muette b.

Si le mot bassus figure dans la littérature latine classique en tant que cognomen, il n’est attesté comme adjectif qu’à l’époque tardive, chez le grammairien Probus et dans les gloses, où il est donné comme synonyme de pinguis, obesus, crassus, grassus et grossus, et du grec ·¯‡ϲ, appliqués en particulier au petit bétail. Il est à l’origine du diminutif bassulus, également attesté comme cognomen, et du substantif abstrait bassilitas.6 Les gloses témoignent d’une évolution sémantique vers le sens de ‘bas’: bassum non altum (cgl , iv.210.17), «bas, qui n’est pas haut». Ce sens s’est développé dans les langues romanes: *bassiare > français baisser. Même si l’adjectif est peu documenté dans la littérature latine, il est 1 La leçon de P diffère dans sa formulation, mais non dans son contenu: et ‘bargina’ quod significat ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈÓ ‚·Ú‚·ÚÈ΋Ó, ut in glossematibus reperi. Le texte de Cassiodore ne présente pas bargina et sa glose grecque. 2 cgl , ii.423.37 bargina ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈϲ ‚·Ú‚·ÚÈ΋; v.652.41 bargina barbara; iv.210.25 barginae peregrinae; v.492.34 barginus peregrinus; ii.28.23 barginna ÓÂÎÚÔÊfiÚÔϲ, ‚¿Ú‚·ÚÔϲ, ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈϲ ‚·Ú‚¿ÚÔ˘. 3 Voir le Pseudo-Caper (gl , vii.103.8): ‘Bargena, non bargina, genus cui barbaricum sit’. Il s’agit d’un hexamètre: bargena présente un e bref, et bargina un i long. Les manuscrits B et C précisent: ‘bargina’ non ‘barginna’, id est homo uitiosae gentis quia barbarus interpretatur uitiosus unde et barbarismus dicitur uitium, non bargina genus cui barbaricum sit. 4 Niemeyer, 85, barginus: cf. germ. wargengus (waregand, Edict. Rothari). 1129 alienigenae id est warganei. 5 Voir encore baro (Lucil., Cic.), ainsi que barcala (Petron. 67.7) qui pourrait être compris comme un diminutif de barus, ‘lourdaud’. 6 Probus, gl , iv.115.28-34 (193.15, 203.8): Bassus, bassus (-a, -um), bassus (-us, m.). cgl , ii.591.60 bassus crassus; 569.27 bassus, grossus, pinguis; v.173.6 bassus pinguis obesus; 400.11-13 bassus ·¯‡ϲ, bassulus ·¯fϲ ñÔÎÔÚÈϲÙÈÎáϲ, bassilitas ·¯‡ÙËϲ; 492.39 bassas, pingues oues.

gloses et glossaires bilingues chez martyrius 139 manifeste que l’on est en présence d’un terme vivant et familier, ainsi que le prouvent, outre sa formation populaire (dissyllabe à vocalisme initial a comme crassus et grassus, et à géminée, comme grossus), son usage dans la langue rurale, son emploi comme cognomen, son aptitude à générer des dérivés, en particulier un diminutif, son évolution sémantique, et sa postérité romane. 177.9-10 bissum etiam, quod ‘integrum’ significat, àΤڷÈÔÓ, per ‘b’ mutam in glossematibus repperi bissus aussi, qui signifie integer = grec àΤڷÈÔÓ [‘entier’], je l’ai trouvé dans les glossaires avec la muette b.

Le manuscrit N ne porte pas la glose latine quod ‘integrum’ significat, ce qui pourrait la désigner comme interpolée. La triple équivalence entre bissus, integer et àΤڷÈÔϲ est bien documentée par les glossaires médiévaux qui, en dehors de Martyrius, sont les seuls à attester le terme qui a, par ailleurs, connu une postérité romane: bissum àΤڷÈÔÓ (cgl , ii.30.33), àη›ÚÂÔϲ [sic] integer (2.221 et passim), et par la formule juridique in integrum restituere = Âåϲ àΤڷÈÔÓ àÔηıÈϲÙ¿Ó·È (83.12), ‘rétablir dans l’intégralité’. Ainsi que le montre la glose: bis dic [= ‰›ϲ] bissum (cgl , ii.30.33), bissus est à considérer comme un dérivé adjectival de bis,1 qui est donné par Martyrius comme un équivalent sémantique de secundus: a numero ‘bis’ id est secundo (170.6). Or secundus qualifie déjà chez Horace (Epist. 2.1.123) un pain de qualité inférieure, de seconde catégorie: pane secundo, un pain complet, entier (integer, àΤڷÈÔϲ), bis, qui s’oppose au pain blanc (panis bissus ~ albus), débarrassé du son.2 Le terme était sans doute trop populaire pour qu’Isidore le fasse figurer dans la liste des différentes catégories de pains qu’il dresse au livre xx de ses Étymologies (20.2.15). 5. Qvae nisi apvd Martyrivm repperi … Quelles conclusions peut-on tirer de l’examen de cet ensemble de gloses chez Martyrius, et en particulier de celles qui sont extraites des diuersis et cottidianis glossematibus qu’il a consultés? On est tout d’abord frappé par la place importante accordée au grec. Martyrius connaissait manifestement le grec et il a utilisé des glossaires bilingues, sans doute tout autant latino-grecs que gréco-latins. On peut se demander si son traité ne s’adressait pas avant tout à un public hellénophone désireux de maîtriser la langue latine. On note par ailleurs que les mots glosés couvrent l’ensemble de la latinité et qu’ils peuvent se répartir en deux catégories diastratiques et diaphasiques. Un premier ensemble relève de la latinité classique et se trouve attesté, directement ou indirectement, dans les

1 Sur bis a également été dérivé le substantif *besso, -onis, qui est à l’origine du français besson. 2 L’étymologie de bissus est contestée, et compliquée par l’homonymie avec bissus = byssus, ‘lin’, emprunté au grec ‚‡ϲϲÔϲ. L’étymologie de bissus par bis est retenue par Niermeyer 1984, 99 (ss.uu. bisus, bissus, bisius), et par P. Guiraud ap. Rey 1992 (s.u. bis, bise).

140 frédérique biville textes littéraires: batioca figure chez Plaute cité par Nonius; bambalo est indirectement attesté dans le cognomen dérivé Bambalio évoqué par Cicéron; barat(h)ro est utilisé par Horace; bassus est attesté en anthroponymie dès les débuts de la latinité; enfin batulus ne figure que dans les gloses, mais sa voyelle apophonique montre qu’il est ancien. Un second ensemble de mots glosés par Martyrius est constitué de formes tardives et familières telles que bamma, bargina, batt(u)alia, bissus, uasus, uespa (= uespillo). Il y a donc diversité linguistique, mais aussi diversité diachronique. Il s’agit tout autant d’expliquer les mots rares, érudits, sortis de l’usage, et qui nécessitent par conséquent une ‘traduction’ en langue courante, que les mots contemporains, relevant de la langue de tous les jours, et que l’on ne peut pas trouver dans l’enseignement philologique classique. On constate par ailleurs que ces formes sont bien issues de cottidianis glossematibus utilisés dans l’enseignement de la langue latine et dans l’explication des textes latins. Elles font référence à des réalités de la vie courante, des particularités physiques, telles que le langage (bambalo, batulus), l’apparence (bassus), le comportement (baratro).1 Leurs formations sont, elles aussi, familières: base onomatopéique ba-, dissyllabes à géminée intérieure (bassus, bissus), dérivés en -(i)o, -onis, utilisation comme cognomina. Martyrius nous a transmis plusieurs formes inédites. Sa contribution à la lexicographie et à la glossographie latines est importante: il fait le lien, dans cette période de transition linguistique et culturelle, entre la tradition classique issue des auteurs latins et la latinité médiévale, et il témoigne de la réalité vivante du sermo cottidianus. Sa tradition n’est pas tout à fait celle de Festus et de Nonius, et encore moins d’Isidore. Sa postérité est à chercher dans les glossaires médiévaux. Ses gloses et son texte méritent en tout cas d’être étudiés avec la plus grande attention. Liste des mots glosés étudiés aceruo, aceruus, auena, bacca, balatro, balatus, balbus, ballaena, ballistra, bambalo, bamma, bargina, basus (= uas(us)), bassus, batulus, batiola, battualia, battuatores, bellus, berna (= uerna), beta1, beta2, bibo, bilis, bissus, bullio, crassus, eneruo, eneruus, gibbus, habena, herobium, larba (= larua), libellus, liber, libertus, libo, libum, neruus, obba, rubeta, scitus, simpuuium, ualuae, uappa, uellus, ueratrum, ueretrum, uerna, uerbex, uesica, uespa1, uespa2, uibex, uilis, uilla, uillus, Virbius, uiuo.

1 On sait qu’il existait des glossaires De moribus: voir Kramer 1983, 2001a, 2004.

HE RM ENEUM ATA C ELTI S. T HE MAKI NG O F A L ATE-ANTIQU E BIL ING UAL G LO SSARY* Rolando Ferri 1. The Manuscript of hc and its History

V

ienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Supplementum Graecum 43, the ms transmitting the bilingual language handbook now known as Hermeneumata Celtis (henceforward: hc ), has not previously been published, except for the colloquium, famously edited in «Journal of Roman Studies» by Anna Carlotta Dionisotti (1982), and some specific glossary sections (tituli or capitula).1 The present paper is a survey concerning some aspects of the history of the text handed down to us in this Humanist copy, its place in the history of ancient bilingual lexicography and its value as linguistic evidence for Latin and Greek. My present considerations stem from the project of an edition with commentary of Celtis’ autograph leaves in the ms (12r-45v), which I hope to complete soon. Supplementum Graecum 43 was put together from two codicologically distinct entities, bound together by the Humanist Conrad Celtis (Wipfeld, 1459-Vienna, 1508) in the year 1500 when he decided to suggest publication of the ms’ contents to Aldus Manutius. The first part of the ms (1v-11v), written by Celtis’ own amanuensis Johannes Rosenberger, is a Greek grammar taken from contemporary printed sources (mainly Lascaris’ Erotemata), and of no particular interest;2 the second half of the ms, on leaves 12r-45v was Celtis’ own transcript from what he described, in a prefatory letter, as a manuscript found in the library of the Benedictine monastery of Sponheim in the German Palatinate (established c. 1145). Celtis’ colophon states that the transcription was completed on 7 October 1495.3 * I received invaluable help and advice on various points from Rachel Barritt Costa, Eleanor Dickey, Christopher Francese, Francesca Lechi, and Ernesto Stagni.

1 Supplementum Graecum 43. Codicological descriptions in Bick 1920, 53-54; Wuttke 1970, 289-303; Hunger, Hannick 1994, 35; Colloquium: Dionisotti 1982, 83-125. Partial editions of the glossary in Kramer 2001b, 249-265; Idem 2004b, 43-62 (tituli 1-5 and 15, ff. 18v-20r; ff. 30r-31v); Gatti 2006, 105-121 (titulus 39, ff. 39v-40r). In quoting hc and extracts from cgl I have normalized the orthography throughout, and I dispense with information about ms readings except when relevant to the point at issue. References to entries in hc refer to titulus and individual lemma in the order of the ms (e.g., ‘12.1’ corresponds to the first lemma of chapter twelve, de moribus humanis). 2 1v ÂÚˆÙÈÌ·Ù· ÌÈÎÚ· ÔÊÂÏÈÌÔٷٷ ÙÔ˘ ÎÔÓÚ·‰Ô˘ ÎÂÏÙÔ˘ ÁÂÚÌ·ÓÔ˘ (Ù. Î. Î. Á. del.)/que de Lascaraios Constantini e [sic] maiori uolumine contracta sunt [-xit del. Celtis, qui addidit sua manu et aliorum doctorum uirorum]. Another witness of the grammar is extant in Vienna, önb 3748, 237v247r, where the title is given as institutio grammatice grece a chunrado protucio celte, Vienne tradita. 3 45v (later crossed out, either because the final titulus had been omitted or because Celtis realized that the quality of the Greek was not adequate): ηd Ô˘Ùˆϲ ÙÂÏÔϲ ϲ˘Ó ıˆ ϲÙÔȯÈÔ˘ ΢ÎÂÚÔÓÂÔϲ

142 rolando ferri Five years later,1 Celtis sent the ms to Aldus Manutius in Venice, suggesting that it would make a handsome and useful schoolbook for «the youth of Europe wishing to learn Greek», as we read in the accompanying letter on the first folium (1r). In it, Celtis listed the ms’ contents as a grammatica, a colloquium and a dictionarium. Manutius’ rejection letter, written in September 1504,2 is extant in the corpus of Celtis’ correspondence. Politely pointing out that several competing study tools were already available, Manutius returned the ms to its owner. Manutius had in fact published a re-edition of the Crastonus, the Greek-Latin dictionary, in 1497, as well as Lascaris’ Erotemata (1495),3 and perhaps the desire to protect market prospects for other items in his own catalogue weighed with him. However, Manutius must also have been aware of the difficulties of seeing to press such rough material as that handed in by Celtis, without accents,4 full of odd spellings, and often corrupt beyond restoration, at least with the means of the time. Celtis is not known to have spoken of this ms elsewhere, and all information about its provenance comes from the initial epistle to Aldus in f. 1r and from the colophon on f. 45v. Celtis describes the hand of the ms as «very old», indeed the book was, in his view, «an autograph of Cicero».5 This appears to defy credibility. Yet Dionisotti 1984-1985, 307 pointed out that a reference to Ciceronian authorship emerges in another ms containing Hermeneumata, Leidensis Vossianus Latinus F. 26 (= cgl , iii.401.18 ciceronis cupientes conscripsi, a corrupt passage, but hinting at a title similar to that in hc , 12r ÂΠηٷϲÙȯÈÔ˘ ÙÔ˘ ÎÈÎÂÚÔÓeϲ = âÎ ÙÔÜ Î·Ùa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ ÙÔÜ KÈΤڈÓÔϲ).6 More generally, the ascription of lexicographical material of various nature to Cicero and other rhetoricians and grammarians was a widespread classroom practice, and we find in numerous manuscripts Synonyma Ciceronis, and also differentiae Palaemonis and differentiae Frontonis.7 MoreÁÂÁÚ·ÌÌÂÓÔ˘ ‰È ÂÌ ÎÔÓÚ·‰ÔÓ ÎËÏÙËϲ ÔËÙËϲ ÂÓ Ùˆ ÌÔÓ·ÈϲÙÂÈÚȈ ϲ·Ó·ÈÌ ÂÓ ·ÈÙË Î˘ÚÈÔ˘ ¯ÂÈÏË Î·d ÙÂÙÚ·ÎÔÓÙË Î·d ÂÓÓ·ÎÔÓÙË ÂÓÙ· ËÌÂÚ· ¯ÚÔÓÔ˘ Ë ËÓ Â‚‰ÔÌË ÌÂÓËϲ ÔÁ‰ˆ‚ÚÈÔ˘ ˘Ô ·‚‚·ÙÔϲ ÈÔ·ÓÓÔ˘ ÙÚÈÙÂÌÈÔ˘ ·ÈÓÂÈÔϲ Ùˆ ıˆ ÂÓ Ô˘Ú·Óˆ ‰ÔÍÔÙ·ÙˆÈ (by which he meant to write: «and thus we have the end in god of the dictionary of Cicero, written by me, Conrad Celtis, the poet, in the monastery of Sponheim, in the year of Our Lord 1495, on the seventh day of the month of October, in the office of Abbot Iohannes Trithemius. Praised be the Lord in his Glory in Heavens.»).

1 The only terminus post quem is the subscriptio on f. 11v ÁÂÁÚ·ÌÌÂÓÔÓ ‰È· ÌÔ˘ [ÙÔ˘ del.] Iˆ·ÓÓÔÈϲ ÚÔϲÂÓÂÚÁÂÚ ·ÈÙË 1500 seculari. There is no date on the prefatory letter on 1r. 2 The letter is dated to «3 September 1501», but the editor of the letters, Rupprich, believes that that date is a scribal error for ‘1504’: cf. Rupprich 1934, 568-569. In theory, Celtis may have sent a copy of his own transcription, but I prefer to think he sent his own autograph: the transcription of the Greek words was too delicate a task to entrust an amanuensis, and Celtis must have aimed at absolute accuracy. 3 On Aldus’ Greek editions cf. Barker 1992, Dionisotti 1995. 4 1r accentus addantur, quia in exemplari uel aliis grecis codicibus quoscumque in germania et in gallia repperi appositos non uidi sed nudas dictiones. 5 12r, left lower margin quos credo propter antiquitatem a Cicerone conscriptos sua manu. Cf. also 45v ϲÙÔȯÈÔ˘ ΢ÎÂÚÔÓÂÔϲ. 6 There are several other Humanist Greek-Latin dictionaries in ms form: an exhaustive study is Thiermann 1996, 663. 7 See Goetz 1923, 75-93.

hermeneumata celtis 143 over, Bick 1920, 52 had already drawn attention to the catalogue of Greek books (both printed and manuscript) found in the library of Johannes Trithemius, Celtis’ host at Sponheim, where entry no. 18 lists a Graecum uocabularium cum Latino supposito M. Tullii Ciceronis ad filium suum,1 and both the description of the contents and the presence of Cicero as the ‘author’ are strong clues in favour of the identification with Celtis’ exemplar. Johannes Kramer (2001b, 252 and 2004b, 44-45) has argued, in two recent contributions, that the model of Celtis was a sixth-century ms in uncial, reconstructed on the basis of two surviving fragments in Cologne and Göttingen (see infra). Kramer rightly observes that the Greek of hc is conspicuous for the great number of errors typically associated with a rounded majuscule script also called ‘biblical uncial’ (for example A/¢/§; E/£/O/Ϲ; K/IϹ; Z/•; ¶/TI; °/T; M/AI).2 Indeed these errors are commonplace in the Greek half of the ms. The Greek exhibits also numerous wrong word-divisions (another pointer to a majuscule stage of the tradition), while significant minuscule errors also are not evident. Kramer compares the hypothetical script of the exemplar with that of two surviving fragments of a vi century bilingual alphabetical glossary in Cologne and in Göttingen (Köln, Historisches Archiv W* 352, Greek-Latin, and Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Diplomatischer Apparat 8 C, D, Latin-Greek). The two fragments are parts of what was once an extensive bilingual codex, on papyrus, allegedly written in Constantinople. The script used in the two fragments is the so-called br-uncial, for the Latin half, and a rounded, ‘biblical’ majuscule for the Greek.3 Kramer goes on to assert that Celtis’ antigraph must be identified with the lost bilingual codex, although obviously Celtis was using or knew only the nonalphabetical sections of that ms. Apart from the common genre and the Greek script type, the only other link between the Cologne and Göttingen fragments and hc consists of a few common glosses, of which the only significant one is in my view 7.128 signa marmorea àÁ¿ÏÌ·Ù· ¶¿ÚÈÓ· = cgl , ii.562.50 (in Goetz’ transcription of the Cologne fragment) ¶¿ÚÈÓ· marmorea.4 1 Cf. Busaeus 1605, 787-788. Dionisotti 1982, 84 also pointed out the inclusion, in the same catalogue, of another ms possibly belonging to the Hermeneumata tradition, note 24, Codex mediocris formae scriptus in pergameno non satis erudito charactere, qui continet Grammaticam Dosithei brevem liber unus. varium quoque vocabularium liber unus. Though the identification of Celtis’ antigraph with note 18 rests on plausible grounds, the Greek-Latin sequence adumbrated in the words Graecum … cum Latino supposito is possibly against it, and note 24 is also a possible candidate, because the association of Dositheus’s bilingual grammar with Hermeneumata is constant in the ms tradition: Dositheus is extant in only 3 mss, London, British Library Harley 5642, Sankt-Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 902 and München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 601, all containing bilingual dictionaries, organized by topics. 2 These errors are indeed very numerous: for example, in place of the correct ϲ‹Ï·ÈÔÓ (41.130) Celtis wrote first Âˉ·ÈÔÓ, later corrected to ÂËÏ·ÈÔÓ; instead of âÎÎÏËϲ›· (15.74), the ms reads ÂÈϲÈϲÏÈϲË·. 3 For a recent paleographical analysis of this ms in the context of bilingual codices see also Radiciotti 1997, 119. The ms is also described and dated in cla , viii, 1171, and in Seider 1978, 144-146 and pl. xxxiii. 4 Cf. esp. Kramer 2001b, 252, note 21.

144 rolando ferri To Kramer’s observations, I would like to add that an uncial stage is also suggested for the Latin half by the significant number of cases in which a Latin word is written in Greek script: for example ϲ˘ϲÌÈÈ (for 27.64 cycni, ·ÎÓÔÈ, probably a type of ‘handle’, or ‘kitchen hook’), ϲ˘Ì·Â (37.16 cymae, ùÚÌÂÓ·, ‘sprouts’), Ì·Ù·¯·ÙÔÚÔÈ (30.48 mataxa, lori, ìÓ›·, ‘reins’), ÔÏη (41.283 olca, ö·˘ÏÈϲ, ‘farm’, ‘plot of arable land’ – see also infra, 167), an indication that at some stage the two scripts were similar in appearance and thus scribes, faced with unknown, unfamiliar or less predictable words, could be deceived. Kramer, however, omitted to discuss errors in the Latin half, which, though not numerous, are nevertheless helpful in shedding light on the transmission history of hc . The Latin errors prove that the antigraph was written in minuscule script, and therefore that it was a medieval, not a late-antique, codex, or at least that it certainly was not the vi century papyrus codex surviving in the Cologne and Göttingen fragments. Some caution is in order here, because a number of Latin errors I will discuss are compatible with both minuscule and cursive hands, and therefore do not exclude a possible ancient informal (cursive) hand. For example, confusion c/r, although typically minuscule, may occur in transcription from a late-antique cursive document.1 We know that glossaries, in the ancient world, were sometimes low-value documents, written on loose leaves or re-used sheets, and that informal, documentary scripts were sometimes used. Yet Celtis’ antigraph was clearly an ambitious collection, a book in codex form, and this consideration makes it unlikely that the script was cursive. One may also wonder if Celtis would have been able to decipher, not to mention ascribe to Cicero, a late-antique cursive. It is in theory possible that a given mistake, for example c/r, occurred in the putative cursive phase (when copying from a cursive document) and was not corrected when that particular document merged into the larger, more formal, book in codex format in uncial. While this remains a (less economical) possibility, the cases in which Celtis corrected himself (7. and 9.) clearly point to a minuscule antigraph. Considering the comparative evidence for bilingual medieval mss, it is far more likely that the antigraph used by Celtis was a medieval bilingual no different from the other redactions of Hermeneumata, in which a majuscule Greek hand coexists with a minuscule Latin script. What follows, then, is a list of errors revealing misunderstanding of minuscule script. 1. Coll. 73 (a)eraminis ÙÔÜ ¯·ÏÎÔÜ: e caminis cod.2 The ms reading e caminis makes no sense with the Greek ÙÔÜ ¯·ÏÎÔÜ (ëηÙfiÓÙ·Ú¯ÔÈ ÙÔÜ ¯·ÏÎÔÜ ÚÔϲÙ›ÌÔÓ/centuriones e caminis pretium, «The centurions [come round to 1 An important example of late-antique cursive hand (new style) used in a bilingual glossary (in fact an ancient witness of Colloquium Harleianum) is the Prague papyrus identified by Kramer himself and published as P. Prag. 2.118. A full catalogue, from a palaeographical perspective, of all Latin glossaries and their hands is offered in Ammirati 2010, a Ph.D. (Dottorato di Ricerca) thesis which I hope will soon be published. 2 Cf. Ferri 2010, 241.

hermeneumata celtis

145

raise] the tribute on copper», scil. exigunt.). Confusion c/r is compatible with a late-antique hand, for example half-uncial, or documentary script, as well as with medieval minuscule script. 2. 41.108 modioli ¯ÔÈÓ›ÎȉÂϲ: modidi cod. The correct form, modiolus, means ‘nave of a wheel’. As a technical lexical element, it was unfamiliar to Celtis, or to some earlier scribe. The ms’ modidi may result from confusion of minuscule or early cursive script. 3. 18.49 condiarium â›‰ÔϲÈϲ: conchiarium cod. condiarium is a variant of the more common congiarium (or -arius, ‘largess’, ‘distribution’, of food or money, among the soldiers). conchiarium is not an existing form, and again the confusion ch/di points to a minuscule script. 4. 26.24 clipeolus àϲȉ›ϲÎÔϲ: clipeator cod. Cf. clipeolum, àϲȉ›ϲÎÈÔÓ in cgl , ii.248.16, for a type of ring. clipeator can only be the ‘shield-maker’ (though the word is not in tll ). The confusion -olus > -ator is more likely to have originated in minuscule (or ancient cursive) than in capital/uncial. 5. 1.76 suada ÂÈıÒ: suado cod. suado does not exist in Latin, whereas suada is a by-form of suadela, both common names of the goddess in Latin. The confusion could more easily have occurred in minuscule, not uncial or capital, script. 6. 12.174 cogitator ‰È·ÓÔËÙ‹ϲ: cogitatus cod. The meaning ‘reflexive’ of the Greek word requires the correction. I would suggest the error originated from a confusion between abbreviations for -or and -us, which points to a minuscule medieval script. Even if -or/-us were written out in full, the confusion is still more easily explained in minuscule or cursive script. 7. 12.1143 inlaesus à‹Ì·ÓÙÔϲ: indef corr. Celtis wrote first indef, then deleted it with a stroke and replaced the Latin with inlesus. Both confusions d/l and f/s point to minuscule or cursive, not uncial/majuscule. 8. 18.190 maceria ıÚÈÁÎfiϲ: materia cod. maceria is a wall or fence built of brick or stone. The error materia points to misreading of minuscule script (confusion of t/c), but the occurrence of the correct materia in the following entry weakens the possibilty of a purely palaeographical error. 9. 18.359 pertica ο̷Í, ÎÔÓÙfiϲ: peruca cod., minio correxit. Another revealing self-correction, and made at a later stage of revision, as suggested by the red in which the correction is introduced. Confusion of u/ti again points to minuscule rather than uncial/majuscule. 10. 41.213 tisana ÙÈϲ¿ÓË: tigana cod. Confusion s/g in tigana points to an error from minuscule or ancient cursive, not majuscule or uncial.

Finally, I present two slightly more dubious cases, in which corruption is almost certain, but its nature cannot be defined with great certainty: 11. 22.11 †sugitarium ·éÏÔı‹ÎË sugitarium is not an attested word, but the Greek word is some guidance as it is a known word meaning ‘flute-case’. In my view, therefore, the likeliest restoration is fist(ul)arium (an existent word, but indicating the player of the fistula: cf. however cala-

146

rolando ferri

marium, which is the inkpot). This correction, if accepted, would suggest confusion of initial f/s- and middle -s-/-g-, both characteristic misreadings from ancient (‘new style’) cursive and medieval minuscule scripts. 12. 22.18 †colaria ÓfiÌÔÈ colaria is not a known Latin word. Unless this is a transliteration of the Greek ΈϿÚÈÔÓ ‘short phrase’, ‘hemistich’, colaria might be a corruption from odaria, another loan-word (from «‰¿ÚÈÔÓ, ‘little ode’), but this time on record: cf. Petr. 53.11 puerumque iussit per gradus et in summa parte odaria saltare. If this is so, the corruption, in palaeographic terms, is c/o and, more pertinent in terms of definition of the age of the model, ol/d. 1

Another possible sign that the antigraph of Celtis was a medieval copy at one or further removes from whatever late-antique models can be seen at the other end is the commonplace spelling -acio for -atio, -cium for -tium (cf. nauigacio, solucio). Such spellings are of course found at the end of antiquity, but again, not in the Cologne and Göttingen fragments. Turning to the Greek, the hypothesis of direct copy from the vi century codex does not hold partly also on account of the strongly itacistic character of the Greek in Supplementum Graecum 43, a long way from the moderate itacism of the Cologne and Göttingen fragments, where, for example, extensive confusion of È/˘/ÔÈ is absent. For these reasons, Celtis’ exemplar must have been a Carolingian ms no different from other Hermeneumata mss, e.g., Montepessulanus H 306 and Harleianus 5642, though one in which a native speaker or someone acquainted with the current pronunciation of Greek left a trace through dictation or transcription. The statement about the very ancient appearance of the ms in Abbot Trithemius’ possession may therefore be treated with a degree of scepticism: many Humanist scholars were prone to exaggerating the antiquity and authority of their mss, sometimes in good faith, owing to defective palaeographical and historical expertise.2 2. The Ur- Hermeneumata hypothesis At least four redactions of medieval Hermeneumata contain a preface (before the first book) in which a division of the work into three books is mentioned, and Kramer 2001a, 17-18, 28-29 reconstructs a three book Hermeneumata version (roughly corresponding to alphabetical glossary, conversation and thematic glossary, not always in this order) circulating in Antiquity.3 Unfortunately the 1 ÓfiÌÔÈ are mentioned here with the technical musical meaning of «compositions including both words and melody» (lsj ), found from the Hellenistic period onwards. This generic meaning occurs also in Latin: cf. Suet. Nero 20.2 ne concusso quidem repente motu terrae theatro ante cantare destitit, quam incohatum absolueret nomon. 2 Rizzo 1964, 164-167 gives both examples of accurate and inaccurate or insincere assessments of a ms’ antiquity. 3 Mention of the three books is more widespread than we gather from references in Kramer, and not limited to the two versions Montepessulana (Mp) and Monacensia (M). Cf. Mp (cgl , iii.283.15-16, iii.515.49) and M (119.24-26, 220.9), E (Einsidlensia, cgl , iii.223.16-17), V (Vaticana, cgl , iii.421.33-35). The three book structure is also adumbrated in L (Leidensia, cgl , iii.30.21-22 ante hoc enim duobus libris conscripsi omnia uerba quae potui), where another incipit alludes to twelve books (cgl , iii.69.40).

hermeneumata celtis 147 fragments of ancient bilingual glossaries collected in Kramer 1983 and 2001a, sometimes verbally close to medieval Hermeneumata, contain neither paratextual information nor incipit/explicit subscriptions between the books.1 Thus we are rarely in the position to state with much certainty that the fragments of alphabetical or thematic glossaries found in papyri come from books, rather than loose or re-used leaves which were never parts of extensive compilations. This is not to say that a three book Ur-Hermeneumata version did not exist, but so far only the uncial fragments in Cologne and Göttingen afford a glimpse into an extensive compilation of bilingual teaching materials of the Hermeneumata family in codex format.2 There is therefore no proof in bilingual papyri that the ‘three books’ preface stems from the hand of an ancient, rather than Byzantine, or Carolingian, or Ottonian, ‘editor’.3 The surviving medieval redactions may have then gone their separate ways only thereafter, incorporating other, in theory both older and later, materials along the way. A possible conjunctive error between the preface to the second book of M, Mp, and hc shows that the three mss share, at least for that preface, a common ancestor, but even this does not say much about the age when the three redactions represented by each ms split. ÂéÙ˘¯áϲ âÓ Ù† ÚÒÙÅ ‚ȂϛŠëÎÂÖÓ· Ùa çÓfiÌ·Ù· ÙáÓ ëÚÌËÓÂ˘Ì¿ÙˆÓ ϲ˘Ó¤ÁÚ·„· L âËÁÁÂÈÏ¿ÌËÓ *** ÙáÓ ®ËÌ¿ÙˆÓ4 ÔéÎ âÊÂÈϲ¿ÌËÓ ÙÔÜ ÙÔÜÙÔ ÔÈÉϲ·È. öϲÔÓÙ·È ÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ ÂÚd ÏÔÈáÓ Ú·ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ àÏÏa Î·È Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· ÙáÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·d ÚÔϲËÁÔÚÈáÓ ëÓeϲ ëοϲÙÔ˘. Ù·ÜÙ· öϲÙ·È L Á¤ÁÚ·Ù·È. 3 ÙÔÜ Ìc ÙÔÜÙÔ] ÙÔ˘ÙÔ cod.

4 àÏÏa] ·Ó· cod.

1 With the single partial exception of the section heading de piscibus in Kramer 1983, nr. 6, fr. 2, l. 12. 2 At least P. Sorb. 2069 was certainly a book, but a roll, rather than a codex. See Dickey, Ferri 2011. 3 In fact, the presence of a similar introduction in bl Harley 5642, f. 1r (under the title incipit de oratore), immediately preceding what is universally recognized as a Carolingian Greek grammar (cf. Dionisotti 1988, 21-24, with bibliographical references), might suggest that this itinerant preface is the work of a later scholar putting together the pieces of sparse Hermeneumata compilations: ̤ÌÓËÌ·È âÌ·˘ÙeÓ Î·› ÔÙ ÙÚ›· ‚È‚Ï›· ÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘ ÚfiÙÂÚ· ηÏÏ›ϲÙˆϲ ηd âÈÌÂÏáϲ ìÚÌÂÓ¢ÎfiÙ·, àÏÏ\ âÂȉc ïÚá âÓ›Ô˘ϲ â·ÈÓÔ‡ÓÙ·ϲ ηd âÈı˘ÌÔ‡ÓÙ·ϲ Ùa ®‹Ì·Ù· Ùa àÓÂÎÙa Âåϲ Ù¤¯ÓËÓ ÁÚ·ÌÌ·ÙÈ΋Ó, âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÅ Ù† ‚ȂϛŠÚÔϲ¤ıËη àe ÙÔÜ ÚÒÙÔ˘ ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔϲ ̤¯ÚÈ ÙÔÜ ˆ/memini me ipsum et aliquando tres libros hoc priores optime et diligenter interpretasse, sed quoniam uideo quosdam laudantes et cupientes uerba quae pertinent ad artem grammaticam, in hoc libro adieci a prima littera usque ad omega. 4 There is probably a lacuna of a few words, and the original version must have read here: in spite of the size and difficulty of the vocabulary, I did not shrink from…and must have been taken from, or contaminated with, the preface to the first book, extant in Montepessulana, cgl , iii.283.10-18, Monacensia (and in Einsidlensia), cgl , iii.119.15-28 Ì‹Ù Âé¯ÂÚáϲ ‰‡Ó·ϲı·È ‰Èa ÙcÓ ‰‡ϲ¯ÂÚÂÈ·Ó Î·d ÔÏ˘Ï‹ıÂÈ·Ó ÙáÓ ®ËÌ¿ÙˆÓ, Ù” âÌ” ηÎÔ·ı›0 ηd ÊÈÏÔÔÓ›0 ÔéÎ âÊÂÈϲ¿ÌËÓ ÙÔÜ Ìc ÔÈÉϲ·È ¬ˆϲ âÓ ÙÚÈϲdÓ ‚È‚Ï›ÔÈϲ ëÚÌËÓÂ˘Ì·ÙÈÎÔÖϲ ¿ÓÙ· Ùa ®‹Ì·Ù· ϲ˘ÁÁÚ¿„·È (ϲ˘ÁÁÚ¿„ˆÌ·È Mp). A close parallel also in the Vaticana, in Brugnoli, Buonocore 2002, 5.27-31 ÔéÎ âÊÂÈϲ¿ÌËÓ Ù† â̆ η̿ÙÅ ÙÔÜ Ìc ϲÔ˘‰·›ˆϲ ·éÙe ÙÔÜÙÔ ÔÈÂÖÓ.

148

rolando ferri

feliciter in primo libro ea uocabula interpretationum conscripsi quae promiseram *** uerborum non peperci hoc facere. erunt scripta de reliquis rebus simul et capitula nominum et uocabulorum uniuscuiusque. haec erunt quae scripta sunt.1 3 capitula] -ulinum cod.

(Montepess. cgl , iii.289.21-35) âÂȉc âÓ Ù† ÚÒÙÅ ‚ȂϛŠÙáÓ ëÚÌËÓÂ˘Ì¿ÙˆÓ âËÁÁÂÈÏ¿ÌËÓ ϲ˘ÁÁÚ¿„·È ®ËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÔÏ˘ÏËı›·Ó, ÙÔÜÙÔ Ùe ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ öϲÙ·È ÙÉϲ ìÌÂÙ¤Ú·ϲ ëÚÌËÓ›·ϲ. âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÅ Ù† ‚ȂϛŠöϲÔÓÙ·È ÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ ÂÚd ¿ÓÙˆÓ Ú·ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·d Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· ·éÙáÓ Î·d ÚÔϲËÁÔÚÈáÓ ëÓeϲ ëοϲÙÔ˘. ÓÜÓ ÔsÓ ôÚ¯ÔÌ·È ÁÚ¿ÊÂÈÓ.

in primo libro interpretamentorum promiseram conscribere uerborum multitudinem. hic liber secundus erit nostrae interpretationis. in hoc libro erunt scripta de omnibus rebus et capitula eorum et uocabula eorum uniuscuiusque. nunc ego incipiam scribere deorum nomina.2 (Monacensia cgl , iii.166.10-29) ÂéÙ˘¯áϲ ôÚ¯ÂÙ·È ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ. âÓ Ù† ÚÒÙÅ ‚ȂϛŠëÚÌËÓÂ˘Ì¿ÙˆÓ ϲ˘Ó¤ÁÚ·„· mÓ âËÁÁÂÈÏ¿ÌËÓ ®ËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÔÏ˘ÏËı›·Ó. ÙÔÜÙÔ Ùe ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ öϲÙ·È ÙÉϲ ìÌÂÙ¤Ú·ϲ ëÚÌËÓ›·ϲ. âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÅ Ù† ‚ȂϛŠöϲÔÓÙ·È ÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ ÂÚd ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓ àÏÏa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· ÙáÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·d ÚÔϲËÁÔÚÈáÓ ëÓeϲ ëοϲÙÔ˘. Ù·ÜÙ· öϲÔÓÙ·È L ñÔÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ Âåϲ›Ó. õ‰Ë ÔsÓ ôÚ¯ÔÌ·È Ï¤ÁÂÈÓ. 6 L ñÔ-] Ù·˘Ô- cod.

7 ϤÁÂÈÓ] ÓÂÈÓ cod.

in primo libro interpretamentorum conscripsi quam promisi uerborum copiam. hic liber secundus erit nostrae interpretationis. in hoc libro erunt scripta sunt de cunctis rerum negotiis sed capita nominum et uocabulorum.3 (hc , 18r)

I would argue that the original version of these shorts texts, instead of †·Ó· ηd Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· (Mp)/ηd Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· (M)/àÏÏa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· (hc ), read àÏÏa ηÙa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·, a phrase meant to introduce the new, distinctive, element of this section after the alphabetical list, hinted at in hc , 18r by ηٷ ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ. I offer the text of 18r in a tentative normalized version: Ù¤ÏÔϲ [·Ú¯Ë Celtis s.l.] ÙÔÜ Î·Ùa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ ÂúÎÔϲÈ Î·d ÙÂϲϲ¿ÚˆÓ ÁÚ·ÌÌ¿ÙˆÓØ ÂåϲdÓ çÓfiÌ·Ù·

xi cccix 1 «In the first book of my Translations I collected the glosses I had promised *** words – I did not shrink from doing this task. (Below) will be written about all other things, and together the chapter of nouns and denominations of all things». 2 «In the first book of Translations I had promised to transcribe a great number of words. This will be the second book of our translation. In this book we will write of all things and the chapters of these, and the denominations of each». 3 Close also this preface in Leidensia cgl , iii.30.14-31.1 = Flammini 2004, 1724-1725 õ‰Ë ÔsÓ àÚÍÒÌÂı· ëÚÌËÓ‡ÂÈÓ Î·ıgϲ ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂı· ‰È‰¿ϲÎÂÈÓ Î¿ÏÏÈϲÙ· àÏÏa Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· ÙáÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·d ÚÔϲËÁÔÚÈáÓ ëÓeϲ ëοϲÙÔ˘. iam ergo incipiamus interpretari, sicut possumus docere optima sed capitula nominum et uerborum uniuscuiusque.

149

hermeneumata celtis

that is “this is the end of the alphabetical [dictionary, following the order of the] 24 letters. It includes 11309 nouns.”1

Celtis appears later (in the subscription in f. 45v) to have understood ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ as one word (ηٷϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ) for uocabularium. In fact ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ means «alphabetical», and it occurs without the word for ‘book’ in several explicit and incipit notes: Ù¤ÏÔϲ ÙáÓ Î·Ùa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ âÈÌÂÚÈϲÌáÓ. àÚ¯c ϲfÓ ı† ëÙ¤ÚˆÓ Î·Ùa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ âÈÌÂÚÈϲÌáÓ

(Herod. Epimerism. 156.4Ù) end of the Parsings, in alphabetical order. beginning, with god’s blessing, of the second Parsings in alphabetical order âÓ Ù† ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ “\AÙÙÈÎÈϲÙ””

(Socr. Scolast. he 3.7.53) in the alphabetical Atticizer. œϲÂÚ iÓ Âú ÙÈϲ ÙeÓ çÊ›ÏÔÓÙ· ÊÈÏÔϲÔÊÂÖÓ … ϲ˘ÏÏ·‚aϲ öÙÈ Î·d Ùe ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ àÓ·ÁÈÓÒϲÎÂÈÓ ÔÈÔÖ

(Iohannes Chrysostomus, In acta apost. 60.91.13)

as if someone made philosophy students to read the syllables and the dictionary àÚ¯c ÙÉϲ ηÙa ϲÙÔȯ›ˆÓ [sic: corrigendum in -ÂÖÔÓ] ϲ˘Óٿ͈ϲ.

(Lexicon Syntacticum 587 post 29t Sturz) beginning of the alphabetical Syntaxis.

Of the other two Hermeneumata redactions under consideration here, the original alphabetical section is still extant only in the Monacensia, where the preface reads (cgl , iii.120.9-16): âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÅ Ù† ‚ȂϛŠ¿ÓÙ· Ùa ®‹Ì·Ù· ϲ˘Ó¤ÁÚ·„· ηÙa Ù¿ÍÈÓ ϲÙÔȯ›ˆÓ àe ÙÔÜ ÚÒÙÔ˘ ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔϲ ̤¯ÚÈ ÙÔÜ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù·›Ô˘ ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔϲ

in hoc libro omnia uerba conscripsi per ordinem litterarum a prima littera usque ad nouissimam litteram In this book I collected all the words according to the order of the alphabet, from the first to the last letter.

The lost preface to the first book of hc in the antigraph before loss of the relevant leaves must have been similar. 1 The supralineate correction of the ms ÙÂÏÔϲ to ·Ú¯Ë must be ascribed to Celtis, who did not realize it was an explicit note, and that the alphabetical part was already lost in his antigraph. Cf. Dionisotti 1982, 92. Here the use of Roman ciphers in xi cccix, as opposed to the expected Greek È ·Ùıã ã need not be a decisive clue for the identification of the origins of the scribe of this note, Westernãrather than Eastern, because the Greek numerals might have been ousted by a supralineate translation.

150 rolando ferri The phrase ηÙa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· occurs in the ‘Table of contents’ of some Greek works (though the more usual formula is Ù¿‰Â öÓÂϲÙÈÓ âÓ Ù”‰Â Ù” ‚›‚ÏÅ). Below I have highlighted parallels from two technical early Byzantine works,1 which however are not close enough to support a late-antique and Eastern, rather than Carolingian and Western, chronology for the writers of the Hermeneumata preface to the second book. Ù¿‰Â öÓÂϲÙÈÓ âÓ Ù”‰Â Ù” ‚›‚ÏÅ, ‰Â˘Ù¤Ú0 ÌbÓ Ôûϲ– ÙáÓ ÂÚd ÁˆÚÁ›·ϲ âÎÏÔÁáÓ, ÂÚȯԇϲ– ‰¤ ïfiϲ· ÙÔÖϲ àÁÚÔÖϲ ϲ˘Ì‚¿ÏÏÂÙ·È Î·d ÂÚd ‰È·ÊfiÚˆÓ ÁÂÓËÌ¿ÙˆÓ, ϲ›ÙÔ˘ ÊËÌd ηd ÎÚÈıáÓ Î·d ÙáÓ ÏÔÈáÓ ÊÚ˘Á·Óˆ‰áÓ ÏÂÁÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·ÚáÓ, ηÙa Ùa ñÔÙÂÙ·Á̤ӷ ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·.

(Geoponica, 2.1) These are the contents of this book, which is the second of our Eclogues on Farming, and deals with the cultivation of the soil and with the nature of the different plants (by which I mean wheat and corn and the remaining so-called branch-like fruits, subdivided by the following chapters.” àÚÍÒÌÂı· ÔsÓ õ‰Ë ÙÔÜ ÚÒÙÔ˘ ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·ÙÔϲ. ¶ÚáÙÔÓ ÙÉϲ ¬ÏËϲ Ú·ÁÌ·Ù›·ϲ ñ¿Ú¯ÂÈ Ùe ·ÚeÓ ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ, âÓ > Äϲ·Ó ÙcÓ ñÁÈÂÈÓcÓ ‰È‹ÏıÔÌÂÓ ñÔÙ‡ˆϲÈÓ, óϲ õ‰Ë Ù ϤÏÂÎÙ·È Î·Ùa Ùe ÚÔÔ›ÌÈÔÓ Î·d ·sıÈϲ ®Ëı‹ϲÂÙ·È Î·Ùa Ùa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·.

(Paul. Epitome medica, pr.1.1.77) Let us then begin with the first tract. The first book of the entire treatise is the present, in which we discuss the healthy disposition, as we have already said in the proem and as again it will be repeated in the following chapters.

Compare in particular the phrases: ÙÔÜÙÔ Ùe ‚È‚Ï›ÔÓ ‰Â‡ÙÂÚÔÓ öϲÙ·È ÙÉϲ ìÌÂÙ¤Ú·ϲ ëÚÌËÓ›·ϲ

and

(m /hc )

âÓ Ù”‰Â Ù” ‚›‚ÏÅ, ‰Â˘Ù¤Ú0 ÌbÓ Ôûϲ– ÙáÓ ÂÚd ÁˆÚÁ›·ϲ âÎÏÔÁáÓ

(Geoponica)

as well as âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÅ Ù† ‚ȂϛŠöϲÔÓÙ·È ÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ2 ÂÚd ¿ÓÙˆÓ Ú·ÁÌ¿ÙˆÓ àÏÏa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È· ·éÙáÓ

(m /hc )

and ÂÚȯԇϲ– ‰¤ ïfiϲ· ÙÔÖϲ àÁÚÔÖϲ ϲ˘Ì‚¿ÏÏÂÙ·È … ηÙa Ùa ñÔÙÂÙ·Á̤ӷ ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·

(Geoponica) 1 The Geoponica are a compilation of texts of different origins, sometimes ascribed to Cassianus Bassus (sixth century), possibly slightly later, whereas Paulus of Aegina, to whom the Epitome medica is ascribed, lived in the seventh century. 2 For this periphrastic future form and the absence of schema Atticum cf., e.g., P.Oxy. 38.2857 (a will dated ad 134) ¿ÓÙ· ¬ϲ· âÓ Ù·‡Ù– Ù” ‰È·ı‹Î– âÓÁÂÁÚ·Ì̤ӷ öϲÔÓÙ·È ¯ˆÚdϲ ‰fiÏÔ˘ ÔÓËÚÔÜ. The last clause, translating sine dolo malo, suggests there may be Latin interference at work (the Greek is followed by a fragmentary Latin translation).

hermeneumata celtis

151

The parallels show that the Greek of the preface is not an extempore concoction in beginner’s Greek, in spite of mishaps occurring in transmission, by some Western editor living in the seventh or eighth century. At the same time, reproducing a formula found in an earlier Greek ms was not perhaps beyond the capability of a gifted Western scholar struggling to put together various Hermeneumata pieces, and therefore no certain conclusions can be reached as to the date of this editorial link. If we compare the glosses present in the capitula of hc with the similar sections of all other nine redactions of Hermeneumata books in which word-lists by subject are extant (Leidensia, Amploniana, Bruxellensia,1 Stephanus, Montepessulana, Monacensia, Einsidlensia, Celtis, Vaticana)2 we observe that hc has in almost all cases much fuller lists. hc is among the few Hermeneumata in which the sequence is Latin-Greek, together with the so-called Hermeneumata Stephani, and the Vaticana. The ending formula (explicit) of the lost alphabetical section preserved in f. 18r of hc , where the liber secundus begins, shows that hc was probably about twice as long as any of the other extant collections, for example Hermeneumata Monacensia (= cgl , iii.118-220). The capitula section of hc , numbering to over 5,000 entries, is the longest known among extant Hermeneumata thematic glossaries. This length must result from contamination of different sources: chapters including fairly mundane and high-frequency words, such as 12, de moribus humanis include identical words three times over, as if scribes had conflated different sources making no attempts to rationalize the sequence. Even with such repeats, the amount of original material is very high, as shown by a comparison with the invaluable cgl indices (the Thesaurus glossarum emendatarum in vols. vivii), with several new words both on the Latin and on the Greek side. All subject chapters in the Hermeneumata corpus overlap to a significant extent. Although some of this overlap is entirely coincidental, or determined by the topic (any chapter on drink has to begin from the most basics expressions, such as potio, bibere, poculum, and so on), some of the overlap almost certainly points to a common element, a common ancestor. Attempting a rough estimate, the recurrent material extends to about half of each chapter. In the following columns, I have transcribed in normalized script a specific chapter’s contents (de diebus festis) in three redactions of Hermeneumata, to illustrate the point that a relatively great overlap exists among the extant medieval versions. In this particular case the Munich version exhibits the fullest version and the most original entries, but in general hc is the richest. Underlined entries are shared by at least two redactions, although most are common to all three.

1 Not included in cgl and thus not yet available in an edition or transcription. 2 Cf. Dionisotti 1988, 27-28, correcting the similar list included in Eadem 1982, 87.

Titulus octavus ÂÚd ëÔÚÙáÓ 11 dies festus ëÔÚÙ‹ 12 conuentus ϲ‡ÓÔ‰Ôϲ 13 mercatus ·Ó‹Á˘ÚÈϲ 14 nundinae àÁÔÚ·ÖÔÈ 15 supplicatio îÎÂϲ›·È 16 obsecratio ÚÔϲ¢¯‹ 17 Terminalia ïÚÔıÂϲ›· 18 ieiunium ÓËϲÙ›· 19 Parentalia N·ϲÈ· 10 Liberalia ¢ÈÔÓ‡ϲÈ·, \EÏ¢ı¤ÚÈ· 11 Quinquatria ¶·Ó·ı‹Ó·È· 12 Saturnalia KÚfiÓÈ· 13 pompa ÔÌ‹ 14 Megalesia ¢ÈÓ‰‡ÌÈ· 15 Mercurialia ≠EÚÌ·È· 16 Cerealia ¢ËÌ‹ÙÚÈ· 17 Floralia \AÓıÂϲÊfiÚÈ· 18 Vulcanalia ^HÊ·›ϲÙÂÈ· 19 Neptunalia ¶ÔϲÂȉÒÓÈ· 20 Apollinaria ¶‡ıÈ· 21 Veneria \AÊÚÔ‰›ϲÈ· 22 Martia \EÓ˘¿ÏÈ· 23 Herculia N¤ÌÂÈ· 24 Iouia K·ÈÙˆÏÖÓ·

Hermeneumata Celtis

ÂÚd ëÔÚÙáÓ de diebus festis 11 ëÔÚÙ‹ dies festus 12 àÚÁ›·È feriae 13 ÓÂÔÌËÓ›· nouilunium 14 ÙÚÔc ¯ÂÈÌÂÚÈÓ‹ bruma 15 ëÙ·ÏfiÊÈÔÓ Septimontium 16 KÚfiÓÈ· Saturnalia 17 Ó¤ÔÓ öÙÔϲ nouus annus 18 ÂéϲÙÔÎÈϲÌfiϲ (?) sternua 19 âÓÈ·‡ϲÈÔÓ annuale 10 ¶·Ó·ı‹Ó·È· Quinquatria 11 ¢ÈÔÓ‡ϲÈ· Liberalia 12 §‡ÎÂÈ· Lupercalia 13 £ÂϲÌÔÊfiÚÈ· Cerealia 14 ^OÚÔı¤ϲÈ· Terminalia 15 N·ϲÈ· Parentalia 16 ¶ÔϲÂȉÒÓÈ· Neptunalia 17 \AÔÏÏÒÓÈ· Apollinaria 18 ™ÂÚ¿ÂÈ· Serapia 19 òIϲÈ· Isia 20 †Iԯȷ Parilia (i.e. Pal-) 21 MÂÁ·Ï‹ϲÈ· Dindymia 22 ™Î·ÊËÊfiÚÈ· Aluearia 23 \AÊÚÔ‰›ϲÈ· Veneralia 24 ¶·Ú·ϲ΢‹ Cena pura

Hermeneumata Monacensia (München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 13002) = cgl , iii.171.35-172.4 ÂÚd ëÔÚÙáÓ de diebus festis 11 ëÔÚÙ‹ dies festus 12 Â鯋 uotum 13 àÚÁ›·È feriae 14 KÚfiÓÈ· Saturnalia 15 ¢ÈÔÓ‡ϲÈ· Liberalia 16 ¶·Ó·ı‹Ó·È· Quinquatria 17 ¶ÔϲÂȉÒÓÈ· Neptunalia 18 ^HÊ·›ϲÙÂÈ· Vulcanalia 19 ÙÈÌc ϲ˘ÁÁÂÓÈ΋ cara cognatio 10 ^OÚÔı¤ϲÈ· Terminalia 11 NËϲÙ›· ieiunium 12 N·ϲÈ· Parentalia 13 £¤ÙȉÔϲ Vestialia 14 ¶·Ú·ϲ΢‹ Cena pura 15 ÁÂÓ¤ıÏÈÔÓ Natale 16 ˆÁˆÓÔÎÔ˘Ú›· Barbatoria 17 Á¿ÌÔÈ nuptiae 18 ·Ó‹Á˘ÚÈϲ nundinae 19 ·Ó‹Á˘ÚÈϲ mercatus 20 £ÂϲÌÔÊfiÚÈ· Cerealia 21 \AÊÚÔ‰›ϲÈ· Veneralia 22 êÁÓ›· castitas 23 àfiÏÔ˘ϲÈϲ lauatio 24 ·Ó‰fiÎÂÈ· (?) Ludi florales

Hermeneumata Montepessulana (Montpellier, Bibl. Fac. Méd. H 306) = cgl , iii.294.53-295.9

152 rolando ferri

Hermeneumata Celtis

TÈÌc ϲ˘ÁÁÂÓÂÈáÓ Cara cognatio Ù‚ÂÓÓÔÊfiÚÈÔÓ togipurium ·Ó‹Á˘ÚÈϲ mercatus ·ÁÔÚ·ÖÔÈ nundinae †ϲ·ÌÈ Neptune† ÁÂÓ¤ıÏÈÔϲ Natalis ˆÁˆÓÔÎÔ˘Ú›· barbatoria Â鈯›· epulatio ÙÚ˘Á‹ϲÈÌÔÈ uindemiales ϲ˘ÌfiϲÈÔÓ conuiuium ‰ÂÖÓÔÓ ‰ËÌfiϲÈÔÓ cena publica

20 fortasse pro Â鈯›·

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Hermeneumata Monacensia (München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 13002) = cgl , iii.171.35-172.4

dies festi et castitatis feriae (?)

K·Ù·fiϲÈ· Ludi florales êÁ›·È ìÌ¤Ú·È sancti dies ëÔÚÙ¿ϲÈÌ·È ìÌ¤Ú·È festi dies Ùa ÙÔÖϲ ηÙÔȯÔ̤ÓÔÈϲ âÈÊÂÚfiÌÂÓ·

28 fortasse leg. caritatis

25 26 27 28

Hermeneumata Montepessulana (Montpellier, Bibl. Fac. Méd. H 306) = cgl , iii.294.53-295.9

hermeneumata celtis 153

154

rolando ferri 3. The Atticist source

The word Hermeneumata occurs rarely in the Latin evidence. Of the 3 occurrences outside cgl , the most revealing is in Seneca the Elder, Contr., 9.3.14, where we learn that in the first century the ‘teacher of hermeneumata’ was a profession, and a low-prestige, badly paid one at that.1 In the Senecan quote, the analogy is used to convey sarcasm, and we learn nothing on how ‘teachers of hermeneumata’ (qui hermeneumata docerent) went about doing their job. One thing we do know is that pupils, both in first and in second language instruction, were made to memorize lists of nouns,2 and this explains the presence of non-alphabetical glossaries in all Hermeneumata redactions. Of the 75 entries in the Mertens-Pack3 database for glossaries and word-lists,3 the majority of the non-alphabetical texts are bilingual.4 Many of the documents in Kramer (1983), and (2001a) contain everyday, basic vocabulary, which may have come from oral experience of the spoken language. When more ambitious and extensive collections of bilingual teaching materials were assembled to encounter the needs of advanced learners, ‘teachers of hermeneumata’ must have looked for ways to include vocabulary from more specialized and technical areas, and we do indeed find a great deal of technical, fairly sophisticated vocabulary in surviving medieval Hermeneumata redactions. In the following pages, I will try to uncover different strata in the making of hc , trying to prove that hc derives, at least in part, from a monolingual Greek lexicon, probably an Onomasticon similar to Pollux’, translated ad hoc into Latin which is sometimes colourless or inadequate. In the final chapters, by contrast, I will address the issue of the sources of hc from the opposite angle, looking at cases in which the Latin is more idiomatic and context-specific, and finding an ‘authentic’ translation into Greek, for the original compilers, was more difficult.5 A peculiar feature of hc is the presence of passages in which an explanation is offered, in Greek only, and this comment can be used as a clue. The first significant item is 43.37, in the section on farming: ustrina ÂyϲÙÚ·. öϲÙÈ ‰b ‚fiıÚÔϲ âÓ > Ôî ¯ÔÖÚÔÈ àʇÔÓÙ·È

(43.37)

this is a hole in the ground used for roasting swine.

The ms corrupt reading ıÔ˘ϲÙÚ· ÂϲÙÈ ‰Â ‚ÔıÚÔϲ ÂÓÈ ˆ ÔÈ¯Ô ÈÚϲÈ·ÊÂÚÔÓÙ·È (-Ê¢ÔÓÙ·È p.c. - Fig. 1), must have stood in this form, or very nearly in this form, 1 dixit Haterius quibusdam querentibus pusillas mercedes eum (sc. Clodium Sabinum uno die et Graece et Latine declamantem) accepisse, cum duas res doceret: numquam magnas mercedes accepisse eos, qui hermeneumata docerent. 2 These memorization exercises are also present in the school scenes of extant Hermeneumata: cf. cgl , iii.121.44-5 âÎÌ·Óı¿Óˆ ëÚÌËÓ‡̷ٷ, iii.122.11.13. 3 http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal/indexcombineegenre.asp. 4 Cf. Naoumides 1961. 5 For a presentation of this tradition see Wendel 1939.

hermeneumata celtis 155 in the antigraph: the faulty word-division, though easy to correct today, was beyond Celtis’ limited Greek, especially because the phrase included some unfamiliar vocabulary: both Â≈ϲÙÚ· and àʇÔÓÙ·È are rare words, and limited to Attic literature of the fifth century. ÂyϲÙÚ· in particular is a word only found in Aristophanes, Equites 1236 âÓ Ù·ÖϲÈÓ Â≈ϲÙÚ·Èϲ ÎÔÓ‰‡ÏÔÈϲ ìÚÌÔÙÙfiÌËÓ («It was in the kitchens, where I was taught with cuffs and blows»), and in a series of lexicographical loci almost certainly deriving from that passage or from Aristophanic scholia (e.g., Eust. Comm. Od., 1.98.35). In fact, the explanatory gloss is a very revealing comment, because it appears to be repeated almost verbatim from Pollux, Onom. 6.91.8 ÂyϲÙÚ·È ‰\ Ôî ‚fiıÚÔÈ âηÏÔÜÓÙÔ âÓ Ôxϲ Â≈ÂÙ·È Ùa ¯ÔÈÚ›‰È·. Although similar comments occur also in several later lexicographical compilations of the Byzantine period (cf. Hesychius, Â.7216 Â≈ϲÙÚ·Ø ‚fiıÚÔϲ âÓ > ÙÔfϲ yϲ Â≈Ô˘ϲÈ; em 398.31 Â≈ϲÙÚ·Ø ‚fiıÚÔϲ âÓ > ÙÔfϲ ϲÜϲ Â≈Ô˘ϲÈ), Pollux yields the closest parallel. The lemma at 43.37 is therefore very significant evidence suggesting that some sections of hc , in Late Antiquity, derive from an Atticist monolingual lexicon to which Latin translations were appended ad hoc.1 Pollux seems to have come West only in the Renaissance. It is of course possible that manuscripts of Pollux were present in Italy or other Western European provinces in antiquity, but the presence of Pollux in the middle ages would be surprising: the Pollux mss reached the West only in the 1430s, with Aurispa. If influence from Pollux is accepted, the likeliest inference is that such notes go back to a very early formative stage of hc , and not to the medieval period of transmission. A case similar to that of ustrina ÂyϲÙÚ· is the entry at 31.65 (in the section ÂÚd îÌ·Ù›ˆÓ η› Ù·Ï·ϲÈÔ˘ÚÁ›·ϲ, On dress and woolmaking), paragauda: öÁ΢ÎÏÔÓ, ÂÚ›ÓËϲÔÓ (faragauda ÂÓ΢ÎÏÔϲ ÂÚÈÓÔÓ cod.). Paragauda, a word of Eastern (Persian) origin according to tll , is a «garment trimmed with gold», as well as the trimming itself. The two Greek glosses in hc are recherché purist terms, adopted in preference to the translitterated ·Ú·ÁÒ‰Ëϲ/·Ú·Á·‡‰Ëϲ, which is relatively frequent in Greek non literary sources.2 öÁ΢ÎÏÔÓ, woman’s upper garment, occurs in Aristophanes (Arist. Th. 261; Lys. 113), and in Atticist writers (cf. Paus. \AÙÙÈÎáÓ çÓÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ ϲ˘Ó·ÁˆÁ‹, Â.6.3, öÁ΢ÎÏÔÓ, ÂÚÈfiÚÊ˘ÚÔÓ îÌ¿ÙÈÔÓ Î·d ¯ÈÙgÓ 1 The Latin word ustrina, in fact, is registered in available Latin lexica only with the meaning ‘place for burning corpses’, not ‘oven for roasting pork meat’. However, the gloss ubi porci ustulantur («where pigs are roasted») occurs in cgl , iv.426.47 and v.519.48 (excerpta ex codice Vaticano 1468, saec. x , lexical collections not related to the great bilingual dictionaries). This suggests that the matching found in hc is not purely autoschediastic or a pseudoetymological ad hoc connection (ustrina/Â≈ˆ). Another explanation may be that ustrina was in origin glossed η‡ϲÙÚ·, rare, but effectively meaning «place for burning corpses» (this translation is found in fact in Glossarium Philoxeni, cgl , ii.212.8 ustrina η‡ϲÙÚ· ÓÂÎÚáÓ). 2 Cf. Ed. Diocl. 19.40A1 ·Ú·Á·Ü‰ÈÓ; P.Lond. 2.191, P. Mich. 15.752, l. 42, P. Cair. Mas. 1.v.84 ϲÙȯ¿ÚÈ· ·Ú·Î·‡‰ˆÙ·.

156

rolando ferri Á˘Ó·ÈÎÂÖÔϲ). ÂÚ›ÓËϲÔÓ (if my correction is right) also is an Attic word, occurring mostly in comedy (cf. lsj : ÂÚ›ÓËÛÔÓ (sc. îÌ¿ÙÈÔÓ), robe with a purple border). Other clear examples of influence from an Atticist-slanted lexicographic source are in the chapter ÂÚd Ó·˘ÙÈÏ›·ϲ, On seafaring (47). At 47.119 magistri nautarum Ó·˘ÙÔ‰›Î·È, the Latin gloss is without clear parallels, and is probably an extempore translation of the Greek. The Ó·˘ÙÔ‰›Î·È (singular not on record) were Athenian judges sentencing on maritime trade disputes. They are mentioned in Lysias and Aristophanes, then in Harpocration, Pollux, and later lexica. At 43.44 nauis custos Ó·˘Ê‡Ï·Í provides yet another example of ad hoc translation, in which the Greek again is an Attic term: cf. Pollux, Onom. 7.139 ‰›ÔÔϲ ï âfiÙËϲ ÙÉϲ ÓÂÒϲØ \AÚÈϲÙÔÊ¿ÓËϲ ‰b âÓ §ËÌÓ›·Èϲ ÂúÚËΠηd Ó·˘Ê‡Ï·Í

(«diopos is the ship’s commander, but Aristophanes in the Lemnians also calls him nauphylax»). Another such comment appears at 13.162 (in the chapter ÂÚd ϲ˘ÁÁÂÓ›·ϲ, On kinship) (Fig. 2): 162 abortare àÌ‚Ïáϲ·È ¬ıÂÓ Î·d à̂ψıÚ›‰ÈÔÓ Ùe äÊ·ÓÈϲ̤ÓÔÓ Î·d âÊı·Ṳ́ÓÔÓ ·Ì‚ψÙÚÈ·È (aborticia s.l.) cod.|˘Ê·ÓÈϲÌÂÓÔÓ (fortasse assumpta s.l.) cod.|âÊı·Ṳ́ÓÔÓ] praeuiciata uel praue nata s.l.

from this comes the word amblothridion for the immature foetus, which has come to perish.

This comment must likewise originate in a monolingual dictionary in which the difficult word was àÌ‚Ïáϲ·È. In this particular case, however, no Atticist bias is in evidence. The closest parallels come this time from Etymologicum Magnum: em 347.7 à̂ψıÚ›‰ÈÔÓ Ùe âÊı·Ṳ́ÓÔÓ (amblothridion is the abortive child’) em 80.11 âd ÙáÓ Á˘Ó·ÈÎáÓ ÙáÓ àÙÂÏÉ Ùa ‚Ú¤ÊË â΂·ÏÔ˘ϲáÓ Ï¤ÁÂÙ·È àÌ‚Ï˘ÒÙÙÂÈÓ, ηd ηÙa ϲ˘ÁÎÔcÓ àÌ‚ÏÒÙÙÂÈÓ. hH âÎ ÙÔÜ àÌ·ÏÉϲ·È, n öϲÙÈ ÙcÓ ÁÔÓcÓ àÊ·Ó›ϲ·È, àÌ‚ÏÉϲ·È, ηd ÙÚÔ” ÙÔÜ Ë Âåϲ ˆ the verb ambluottein is used in reference to women expelling their foetuses before completion; with syncope the verb is also amblottein. Or from the verb amalesai, which means ‘to do away with the foetus’ we have amblesai, changing eta to omega.1

Influence from an Atticist source is clearly recognizable at 18.158 neruus Ô‰ÔηÙÔ¯‹, Ô‰ÔοÎË (in the chapter ÂÚd ϲÙÚ·ÙÈÄϲ, de militia),2 because one of the two Greek glosses provided in hc , Ô‰ÔηÙÔ¯‹, is a non-existent word, but an ancient pseudoetymological explanation of Ô‰ÔοÎË/Ô‰ÔοÎÎË. The ear1 Only àÌ‚Ïfiˆ «to have an abortion» in lsj (à̂Ϥˆ in lbg , but textual corruption is suggested). 2 At the start of 33r, lemma 18.96, the words no longer belong to the military sphere, but to that of city buildings. Presumably a new section de aedificiis begins here, although Celtis numbered sections and folia consecutively.

hermeneumata celtis 157 liest Greek lexicographical source in which the two terms are associated is Harpocration, Lexicon in decem oratores 251.14: ¶Ô‰ÔοÎÎËØ ¢ËÌÔϲı¤ÓËϲ ηÙa TÈÌÔÎÚ¿ÙÔ˘ϲ. Ùe ͇ÏÔÓ Ùe âÓ Ù† ‰Âϲ̈ÙËڛŠÔ≈Ùˆϲ âηÏÂÖÙÔ, õÙÔÈ ·ÚÂ̂‚ÏË̤ÓÔ˘ ÙÔÜ ëÙ¤ÚÔ˘ Î, Ô‰áÓ ÙÈϲ οΈϲÈϲ Ôsϲ·, j ηÙa ϲ˘ÁÎÔcÓ, œϲ ÊËϲÈ ¢›‰˘ÌÔϲ, ÔxÔÓ Ô‰ÔηÙÔ¯‹.

Podokakke: Demosthenes, Against Timocrates. Thus were called the stocks in the gaol, either with the addition of a kappa, as the word indicates a kind of ill-treatment [kakosis], or with syncope, as Didymus says, as if from a ‘fettering the feet’ [podokatoke].

Some antiquarian interest in the Attic traditions emerges from 21.108 (in the chapter ÂÚd àÁˆÁÉϲ ηd âÌ‚È‚¿ϲˆϲ, On education and instruction), titulus ô͈Ó. The pair appears at first incomprehensible, as ôÍˆÓ does not mean ‘title’ or ‘inscription’ (expected traslations were âÈÁÚ·Ê‹, ϲÙ‹ÏË). On the other hand, ôÍÔÓÂϲ were the wooden tablets where laws were inscribed and put on display in Athens. As such, ôÍÔÓÂϲ is a classic lexicographical term, and is recorded in Pollux, Pausanias, Harpocration, and later Byzantine lexica.1 A similar case is 18.147 porticus regia ‚·ϲ›ÏÂÈÔϲ ϲÙÔ¿. The Greek lexicographical tradition records that there were famously two such ϲÙÔ·› in Athens (Ael. Dion. Nomina Attica ‚.8.1; Harpocration, Lex. 71.10; Hesychius, ‚.277, Photius, ‚.80), and the ‘royal porticus’ is mentioned alongside other city monuments in Pollux, Onom. 9.45. Since there are no regiae porticus on record in the West, the entry is another signal of the Greek monolingual origin of a significant section of hc . 12.1233 pauidus pauidus Ù¿ÎÈϲ, „ÔÊԉ‹ϲ 12.1300 ferox ÌfiıˆÓ)

In these two entries the Latin words are relatively high-frequency and their usage is not restricted to a specific context or genre. By contrast, the Greek words are linguistic rarities, mostly from Attic classical texts. The use of ÌfiıˆÓ is restricted to one occurrence in Aristophanes (Plu. 279 óϲ ÌfiıˆÓ Âå ηd Îfi‚·ÏÔϲ, ‘how impudent and vulgar you are’), whereas Ù¿ÎÈϲ, described as the feminine of Ù¿Í in lsj , occurs only in Hesychius, .4183 and Pollux, Onom. 3.137, where it is described as ϲÊfi‰Ú· ÎÔÌÈÎfiÓ. It is unlikely that anyone attempting to find Greek equivalents for the fairly common pauidus chanced on such a rare and recherché term. The direction of the translation went, therefore, from Greek to Latin, and the Greek was a literary word-list, or an Atticist lexicon, not a dictionary of current and colloquial usage. In other cases the Greek translation is a Homeric gloss. This too yields a clue that the origin of the gloss was a monolingual lexicon, not necessarily different from the previous one, because Homeric glosses were themselves sometimes an

1 Pollux, Onom. 8.128 ôÍÔÓÂϲ ‰b ÙÂÙÚ¿ÁˆÓÔÈ ¯·ÏÎÔÖ qϲ·Ó ö¯ÔÓÙÂϲ ÙÔfϲ ÓfiÌÔ˘ϲ; Harpocrat. Lex. 220.11; Pausanias, Nomina Attica, Î.58.2.

158 rolando ferri object of interest for Atticist lexicographers. We know that many such works existed, and many are extant in papyri. In titulus 10, ÂÚd ÌÂÏáÓ àÓıÚˆ›ÓˆÓ, de membris humanis, we read 10.211 utera Ó‹‰˘È·. The Greek Ùa Ó‹‰˘È· ‘bowels, entrails’ is clearly a Homeric gloss (it occurs only in Homer, Il. 17.523-524 âÓ ‰¤ Ôî öÁ¯Ôϲ Óˉ˘›ÔÈϲÈ Ì¿Ï\ çÍf ÎÚ·‰·ÈÓfiÌÂÓÔÓ Ï‡Â Á˘Ö· and in later poets imitating this passage, not to mention the Homeric scholia. Other cases of clear Homeric glosses are at 21.22 opicus: ÓÉÈϲ (cf. Od. 8.179 Ôé ÓÉÈϲ à¤ıψÓ), and at 43.97 rupes ÚÒÔÓÂϲ, projecting point, foreland (the Attic form is ÚáÓÂϲ). At 18.326 medianus ̤ϲϲ·˘ÏÔÓ, the ms offers the Homeric form for ‘the inner part of a house’, or ‘yard’. In later Greek the spelling was ÌÂϲ·-.1 Homeric glosses are also found at 12.803 insolens àϲ‡ÊËÏÔϲ and 12.269 contentiosus ÊÈÏfiÎÂÚÙÔÌÔϲ. 12.803 insolens àϲ‡ÊËÏÔϲ is not a precise match, as lsj translates the Greek word with «headstrong, perhaps foolhardy», but the exact meaning of this Homeric gloss (Il. 9.647) was unknown even to ancient scholars, who give multiple meanings for this word, and perhaps the Latin here is an early corruption of insipiens. In 12.269 contentiosus ÊÈÏfiÎÂÚÙÔÌÔϲ, the Greek is rare after Hom. Od. 22.287; cf. Hesychius, Ê 502. contentiosus elsewhere in cgl is rendered by ÊÈÏfiÓÈÎÔϲ, âÚÈϲÙÈÎfiϲ. To summarize the finds of this section, we have reasonably clear indications that the compilers of hc , perhaps at a very early stage of its formation (that is: before the book came West) drew on monolingual dictionaries, presumably with Atticist inclinations. That is not the only possible inference, as a monolingual Greek dictionary may have received its Latin glosses after coming West. It is also possible that the Homeric glosses may have been part, in origin, of a different collection, distinct from the Atticist vocabulary, although Homer could be treated as an Attic author by Atticist lexicographers. This was in a sense a foregone conclusion: one does not go about composing dictionaries with a pen in his mouth moving from one word to the next, and a translation from pre-existing materials seems the most reasonable option. This also explains some of the imprecise or non-specific translations, and the numerous cases in which an idiomatic colourful Greek expression is rendered by a vague, imprecise Latin word, or when no one-word translation is offered but only a descriptive periphrasis. One such case is 43.75 linea plumbea ad fundum terramque ηٷÂÈÚ¿ÙËϲ. In tlg the Greek word for ‘sounding-line’ is only known in the Ionic form ηٷÂÈÚËÙËÚ›Ë (in Herod. 2.5). The Greek lemma for ηٷÂÈÚ¿ÙËϲ in lsj is reconstructed from a Latin passage in Lucilius, transmitted in Isid. Orig.

1 The Latin word occurs in Ulpian, Dig. 9.3.5.2 and the VL Ev. Luc. 22.12 (cod. a) ille uobis ostendet maedianum stratum magnum (àÓ¿Á·ÈÔÓ cenaculum Vulg.), meaning either a common space for dining, in a large house shared by different tenants, or a dining-room in an inn.

hermeneumata celtis 159 19.4.10.3.1.1 hunc catapiratem puer eodem deferat unctum, plumbi pauxillum rodus linique mataxam («the boy would swallow down this sounding-lead in the same way, this little oiled chunk of lead and flaxen string», transl. Barney et alii).1 In this case the translator did not know a precise Latin correspondent, or perhaps refused to use the translitterated loan-word catapirates, which may have been current for ‘sounding-line’. 4. hc and the Roman tradition If we compare the thematic glossaries of Hermeneumata and the alphabetical bilingual glossaries edited in cgl , ii, the Latin-Greek ‘Philoxenus’ and the Greek-Latin ‘Cyrillus’ glossaries, we are struck by the significantly more literary outlook of the latter. Alphabetical glossaries have a significant proportion of high register, literary entries, which must have come from glossaries of school syllabus authors, such as Homer, Thucydides, the orators. It was shown long ago, by Gustav Loewe,2 that ‘Philoxenus’ and ‘Cyrillus’ exhibit significant debts to the Greek translations of Cicero’s Catilinarians in papyri, as well as to Vergil bilingual papyri. To take just one example, not known when Loewe wrote his book, the entry in Glossarium Cyrilli àÚÌÂÓÔÂÙ¤ϲ ueliuolum (cgl , ii.245.7) was hapax in Greek, until the word appeared in 1979 in P. Berol. inv. 21138 (ed. pr. Maehler 1979, containing passages from Verg. Aen. 1 and the beginning of Book 2), ll. 49-50, mare ÙËÓ ı·Ï·ϲϲ·Ó|ueliuolum ÙËÓ ·ÚÌÂÓÔÂÙË.3 A papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P.Oxy. 3660), it has been suggested,4 provides the preliminary phase of preparation of a glossary. In the papyrus, a list of Latin words, mostly from Livy, are placed in alphabetical order, presumably prior to being translated into Greek. Compilers of ‘Philoxenus’ even had access to manuscripts of Festus and ‘Philoxenus’ therefore can be used useful to reconstruct Festus where only Paulus is extant, as shown by Lindsay in his re-edition of Festus in the fifth volume of the Glossaria Latina (1930). ‘Philoxenus’ also quotes juridical texts, in particular the elusive Liber de officio proconsulis ascribed to Ulpian, which was

1 Other examples of a descriptive Latin entry glossing a technical Greek term: 43.77-78 trochleae summi mali per ÙÚÔ¯·ÓÙÉÚÂϲ|quas funes eunt ηگ‹ϲÈ·. The Latin phrase («pulleys of the mainmast through which ropes are pulled») is a description of ηگ‹ϲÈ·. ÙÚÔ¯·ÓÙÉÚÂϲ, according to Hesychius, was the name of something near the wheel (Úeϲ Ùa ˉ¿ÏÈ·. ηÏÂÖÙ·È ÙÉϲ Ú‡ÌÓËϲ ̤ÚÔϲ); 43.74 funis mediae nauis qui ad malum stringitur ôÁÎÔÈÓ·, for another type of ‘halyard’. 11.289 sordis sub ungue ÁÚ‡Í. There is only one occurrence of this word in tlg , Hesych. Á.951 ÁÚ‡ÍØ ï ®‡Ôϲ ÙÔÜ ùÓ˘¯Ôϲ. More often, the word is encountered as ÁÚÜ (cf., e.g., Scholia in Demosthenem 19.107 Dilts ÂúÚËÙ·È ‰b Ùe ÁÚÜ Ùe ÌÈÎÚeÓ àe ÌÂÙ·ÊÔÚÄϲ ÙÔÜ ®‡Ô˘ ÙÔÜ ÁÈÓÔ̤ÓÔ˘ âÓ ÙÔÖϲ ùÓ˘ÍÈÓ ÙÔÜ Ô≈Ùˆ ηÏÔ˘Ì¤ÓÔ˘ («this coin is called ‘the small gru’ metaphorically, from the word used for the dirt forming under the nails.»). 2 Loewe 1876, 186-194. 3 For the text of the Vergilian papyri I use Fressura 2010, where the parallel is noted on 39. 4 Maehler apud Cockle 1984, 63-70.

160 rolando ferri probably a handbook for Roman officials active in the Eastern half, and largely bilingual.1 By contrast, thematic glossaries of Hermeneumata are generally assumed to reflect the lower register of the language, and they are replete with names for everyday tools, vessels, clothing, either from a speaker’s living experience of the language or through the mediation of the glossaria cottidiana mentioned by Martyrius (gl , vii.167.8-9, see in this volume the contribution by F. Biville, 121-140), fragments of which survive in the ancient glossaries edited in Kramer (1983) and (2001a). After all, the greatest interest of Hermeneumata resides in the contribution they make to our repertoire of non-literary and colloquial Latin, and they have been successfully quarried in that perspective from the times of Heraeus (1899). Similarly, hc has much to contribute in this line. Yet, in the light of a complex and stratified history, it appears legitimate to ask whether the compilers of hc had any knowledge of the Roman antiquarian lexicographical tradition (Nonius, Festus, Varro).2 In the following list of examples I will show that in hc we encounter only very few entries in which a contact with such a tradition appears plausible, and in almost all cases it can be shown that this co-occurrence is coincidental, because the interpretations or explanations of the word, as evinced from the Greek translation, are different in hc and in the mentioned monolingual Roman dictionaries. At hc 21.22 opicus is glossed with the Homeric expression Ó‹Èϲ, «ignorant». The translation is correct, but different from that found in cgl , ii.149.18 (= ‘Philoxenus’) çÈÎÈϲÙcϲ óϲ \IÔ˘‚ÂÓ¿ÏÈÔϲ (cf. Iuv. Sat. 6.455 opicae castigat amicae uerba). The source of ‘Philoxenus’ must be some annotated or bilingual Juvenal text ( Juvenal underwent a resurgence of interest in Late Antiquity). çÈÎÈϲÙcϲ occurs only here in Greek, but the use of the Latinism çÈÎfiϲ, çÈΛ˙ˆ for ‘ignorant’ is found in ap (Philodemus) 5.131 and later in Johannes Lydus, De mensibus 1.13. The different translation rules out ‘Philoxenus’ as a source. 46.78 (de medicina) scrattae ÊıÈϲÈÎÔ›. The Latin word was known from Festus, 448.4-10 as an epithet for prostitutes, derived from the equation between women of low repute and ‘spittings, things of no value’: scraptae dicebantur nugatoriae ac despiciendae mulieres, ut ait unus, ab is quae screa idem appellabant, id est quae quis excreare solet, quatenus id faciendo se purgaret. Titinius in Prilia: “Rectius mecastor Piculetae Postumae lectum hodie stratum uidi scrattae mulieris.”

1 On the sources of ‘Philoxenus’ see Lindsay 1930a, 77-79, where their contribution on Festus is fully exploited. Lindsay’s hypothesis, however, was that the Greek in ‘Philoxenus’ went back to the activity of a conventual teacher active in partly bilingual Southern Italy in the vii century, and that therefore translations were partly at least made extempore. 2 Whether this arose as conflation from two monolingual word-lists of both languages, or from a pre-existent Greek lexicon to which new Latin entries were added is an immaterial and ultimately uninteresting question.

hermeneumata celtis

161

scraptae was the name given to women of low or ill-repute, as says someone.1 The name comes from what we call screa, the spittings, expectorations people spit on the ground to clear their throat. Therefore Titinius in the comedy Prilia says “Faith, the bed of Piculeta Postuma, the courtesan, when I saw it today, was less scruffy [than this].

In Festus, therefore, the word was registered for its metaphorical extensional value as a word for ‘prostitute’ and no doubt also because of its occurrence in Titinius. In hc , scrattae (with assimilated spelling) has no doubt the same etymology, but occurs in a totally different context, as a presumably colloquial word for a medical condition, that of consumptive, someone with a spitting cough. Another important but undecidable case is 43.75 linea plumbea ad fundum terramque ηٷÂÈÚ¿ÙËϲ, which we discussed earlier (cf. supra, 158). Isidore’s source at Orig. 19.4.10.3.1.1 is likely to have been a Festus manuscript where the word was explained and a Greek etymology was provided. It is in theory possible that whoever entered this lemma in hc took the Greek word from a Festus ms, but nothing proves it beyond doubt (for one thing, the description of the catapirates in Isidore is different: catapirates linea cum massa plumbea, qua maris altitudo temptatur, «the sounding-lead is a line with a lead weight, with which the depth of the sea is tested»), and it is in fact equally possible that the term was only present in its Greek form in a Greek word-list. In other cases identical lemmata occur in hc and Festus or Nonius, but it is impossible to find elements suggesting that the compiler of hc used either. 33bis.54 gumia ÌÔÓÔÊ·Á›·. Gumia is a rare word in Latin, a loan-word from Umbrian extant almost exclusively in lexicographical literature (Nonius, p. 117 gumiae: gulosi, Fest.-Paul. 99.21 L ingluuies a gula dicta. hinc et ingluuiosus et glutto, gulo, gumia) and in Lucilius (cf. 1066 and 1237 Marx). It survives in Spanish (gomia) and other Romance languages, from which it seems reasonable to assume that the word had some currency in the spoken language, in spite of its rarity in the written evidence. The Greek gloss in hc appears incorrect («eating alone»). In the light of this evidence, it does not seem possible to decide whether the word came to hc from the lexicographical tradition or from some everyday word-list. 10.90 grama Ï‹ÌË. The word is in Nonius, p. 119 gramae pituitae oculorum, in Paul.-Fest. 85.26 L gramiae oculorum sunt uitia, and in cgl , ii.35.1 (‘Philoxenus’) grama Ï‹ÌË. In theory, the word may have reached the lexicographers via Plautus, Curc. 318 gramarum habeo dentes plenos, but as the word is also found in Plin. nh 25.155 cremnos agrios gremias tollit oculorum, it is equally likely to have been included from a list of words in current usage. 13.120 glos Á¿Ïˆϲ. cgl , ii.34.29 ì ÙÔÜ àÓ‰Úeϲ à‰ÂÏÊ‹, Á¿Ïˆϲ, ·Úa ¶Ï·‡ÙÅ, Paul.-Fest. 87.70 L glos: uiri soror a Graeco Á·Ïfiˆϲ, Non. p. 557. The item occurs 1 Presumably Verrius, Festus’ source.

162 rolando ferri also in Charisius, 49.23 Barw. glos àÓ‰Úeϲ à‰ÂÏÊ‹, and in juridical literature (cf. Modestinus, Dig. 38.10.4.6 uiri soror glos dicitur, apud Graecos Á¿Ïˆϲ). The latter parallel suggests that the word, although rare, may have had some non-literary diffusion. In view of this range of occurrences in different sources, it is once again impossible to establish derivation from a lexicographical source. 33.16 tramen â›ÎÚÔÎÔÓ: trameu(m) cod. This is a particularly problematic case. In chapter 33, ÂÚd çıÔÓ›ˆÓ (On linen), the entry tramen, a variant of trama, is translated by the unexplained Greek word â›ÎÚÔÎÔÓ. This Greek term is only found in Hesychius, Â.5180, where the explanation is incomprehensible or corrupt (â·ÓıËÙfiÓ, for which Latte conjectured ϲ·ıËÙfiÓ «compactly woven»). In lsj Suppl. the word is explained as «name of a woman’s garment» on the basis of Paul. ex Fest. 72.17 L epicrocum: genus amiculi croco tinctum tenue et pellucidum.1 The Festus entry may have influenced other cgl entries, cf. cgl , ii.21.12 (‘Philoxenus’) âϲıÉÙÔϲ Âr‰Ôϲ, ii.62.16 ‰ËÏ·˘Á¤ϲ, and v.21.12 (‘Placidus’) pallium tenue meretricium, dictum a croceo colore, where the indication that this was a dress worn by prostitutes may come from the unabridged Festus entry, in turn quoting Plautus, Persa 96, epicrocum pellucidum. Festus may have provided the Greek equivalent of the word, but as things are we have no proof of this. The Latin offered in hc has the basic meaning of ‘thick pile’, or ‘thickly, compactly woven’. There is however some indication that trama itself also indicated a kind of dress, and the evidence comes from Varro, De lingua Latina 5.113 trama, quod trameat frigus id genus uestimenti («trama means wide-meshed cloth, because the cold passes through that type of dress»), from which it can be imagined that the dress was a see-through, suitable for courtesans. Varro however does not offer any connection with epicrocum, and the parallel therefore does not support the derivation from Festus or Varro for hc . 20.9 senaticulum ‚Ô˘Ï¢ÙÈÎfiÓ. The Latin may be a corruption of senaculum, for «a place where the senate assembled, usually to conduct business with nonmembers» (old ), and discussed in Paul.-Fest. 455.17 L senaculum locus senatorum and in Fest. 470.5-8 L, where the entry is longer, senacula tria fuisse Romae, in quibus senatus haberi solitus sit, memoriae prodidit Nicostratus in libro qui inscribitus ‘de senatu habendo’. In addition, the word occurs in Varro, De lingua Latina 5.156 senaculum uocatum ubi senatus aut ubi seniores consisterent, and in non-lexicographical sources (sha , Livius, Val. Max.). In the Greek evidence (Aristoph. Aues 794; Pollux, Onom. 4.122; Hesychius, ‚.922) ‚Ô˘Ï¢ÙÈÎfiÓ designates some seating space reserved for members of the ‚Ô˘Ï‹, this time, however, in the theatre: translators seem to have tried to find a match between two untranslatable institutions. Here, again, influence of a lexicographical Latin source is a possibility but not an unavoidable conclusion. 36.33 molluscula ÏÂÙÔÎ¿Ú˘·. The Greek translation means, according to lsj , «nut with a thin shell». The Latin is unparalleled in this exact form, but the form 1 Cf. also Renehan 1975, 89-90, for additional comment.

hermeneumata celtis 163 mollusca (nux) is found in Plaut. Calceolus 1, 1 molluscam nucem (quoted in Macr. Saturnalia, 3.18.9, where the nut is also described in more detail) and, without a noun, in Plin. nh 15.90 molluscae, putamen rumpentes. On this evidence, and in view also of the different ending, -ula, the word seems to have reached hc from the spoken language, or an everyday word-list, not from a lexicographical antiquarian collection. The conclusion of this survey is that hc has no direct debt to the lexicographical and encyclopedic tradition of Varro, Festus, Nonius, Isidore of Seville, and that overlaps are coincidental. The few possible contacts in the selection of entries are so isolated in their chapters as to suggest almost always a chance occurrence, and in general such words appear to be words which were also current in the colloquial language. One of the reasons for this absence of the Roman lexicographical tradition must reside in the selection of vocabulary carried out, especially, by Festus, where the great majority of entries are archaic and obsolete words which would have made little sense in a bilingual glossary intending to teach the current language for practical and professional purposes. The argument that Roman antiquarian lexicography (Nonius, Festus) is not an important source, perhaps not a source at all, for hc does not automatically imply that hc derives all its non-monolingual Greek material from an oral tradition. Bilingual dictionaries need not all have been full of menial, high-frequency words such as to eat, to drink, to go, conjuring up notions of ‘teach yourself ’ short language books suitable for the limited needs of modern day travellers. The vocabulary included in hc includes rare and low-frequency items which must have been collected from specialized word-lists. Some striking examples of this selection are in the chapters featuring magistrates and officials (tit. 15), workmen and performers (tit. 14), trade (tit. 16) and city buildings (tit. 18) but there are technical rare words in all chapters. Here we find words hitherto only known from one or two inscriptions, and otherwise unknown, or found only in the Corpus iuris ciuilis or juridical fragments. Some such literature must have been routinely available in bilingual form, Greek and Latin, as shown by the practice of having translations in inscriptions1 and in legal collections (for example the late-antique bilingual ms of the Corpus iuris, the Pisan Pandectae, now Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana). As mentioned earlier, juridical sources are even openly acknowledged in ‘Philoxenus’, where, for the first four letters of the alphabet, provenance from the mysterious De officio proconsulis is explicitly acknowledged.2 One of these examples is at 15.175, dissignator ‰È·‚Ú·‚‡ϲ (the ms has ‰È·ÊÚ·Ê¢ϲ), which cites the name of a minor official assigning seats in the am1 On the frequency of bilingual inscriptions cf. Biville et alii 2008. 2 Full reconstruction and study of this work in Rudorff 1866. However, the only overlap of hc with the entries ‘Philoxenus’ tags with liber de officio proconsulis is cgl , ii.28.53 Bellonarii Ôî ıÂÔÊÔÚÔ‡ÌÂÓÔÈ = hc 14.106 Bellonarius ÎÚÂÔÙfiÌÔϲ, on which cf. infra, 165.

164 rolando ferri phitheatre or the theatre. This name is very rarely found in the literary evidence (only Plaut. Poen. 19 and Schol. Hor. Epist. 1.7.6), but it occurs in inscriptions and the Corpus iuris. I have conjectured the otherwise unattested word ‰È·‚Ú·‚‡ϲ (cf. ‰È·‚Ú·‚‡ˆ in lsj , «to bestow») on the basis of a parallel in Ulp. Dig. 1.3.2.4 designatores autem, quos Graeci ‚Ú·‚¢Ùaϲ appellant, artem ludicram non facere Celsus probat, quia ministerium, non artem ludicram exerceant. et sane locus iste hodie a principe non pro modico beneficio datur («According to Celsus, designatores, whom the Greeks call ‚Ú·‚¢t·›, are not performers, because they exert a profession, not an art. And this view is confirmed by the fact that this position is granted by the emperor and counts as a significant privilege»).1 In 15.97, per libellum denuntiatio ‰È\ âÈϲÙÔÏÉϲ ·Ú¿ÁÁÂÏÌ·, we have a suggestion of a possible date. Harries 2001, 104 suggests that the first instance of this practice for launching litigation is a papyrus dated ad 427, and that the practice of writing to an official for lodging a complaint against some individual never appears to have become current in the West. 15.100 gratiosa sententia àfiÊ·ϲÈϲ ëÙÂÚÔ‚·Ú‹ϲ provides an instance of a juridical formula found also in Ulpian, Dig. 3.6.5, where it is clear from the context that gratiosus means ‘procured by influence, showing inappropriate favour’, which is the meaning clarified by the Greek. 15.35 praefectus arcendorum ÂåÚËÓ¿Ú¯Ëϲ.2 An inscription published in cil , xiii.5010 (Noviodunum, no date assignable) mentions a praefectus arcendis latrociniis, otherwise unknown (Figs. 3-4). tll , s.v. praeficio 630.3-5 quotes two further inscriptions with similar abbreviations, arc. latr., which might also stand for a genitive arcendorum latrociniorum. This is one of the cases, like that of ®ˆÌ·ÈϲÙ‹ϲ I have discussed in Ferri 2008, in which hc transmits near-unique evidence or supplements imperfectly known epigraphic evidence for littleknown words.3 15.49 uiocurus àÌÊÔ‰¿Ú¯Ëϲ.4 The amphodarches was the officer responsible for the running of a neighbourhood and the management of local city and village streets. Viocurus is an old Latin term, already in Varro (ll 5.158) and in a few inscriptions in cil , for a similar magistrate in charge of road-making. The term is in cgl several times, but only twice with a Greek gloss, at iii.450.67 (Glossae Stephani) and iii.483.46 (Glossae Loiselii), where the presence of a different Greek 1 Kramer’s ‰È·Áڷʇϲ (lsj someone ‘who drew up a register’ of taxable properties, at Athens’) is palaeographically good for the transmitted ‰È·ÊÚ·Ê¢ϲ, but seems to me less convincing in the face of the Ulpian passage, and does not correspond to what is known of the meaning of the designator/dissignator as a public official. 2 Wrongly read as praefectus mercaturae in Kramer 2001b. 3 The Noviodunum inscription has been studied extensively, and the prerogatives of this prefect are compared to the Greek ÂåÚËÓ¿Ú¯Ëϲ in Brélaz 2005, App. C. The ending of the Greek word in lsj is given also as -·Ú¯Ôϲ. Brélaz believes that the inscriptions relate to the increase of brigandage in the third century. 4 Wrongly read as uiator, the term for «traveler» or «apparitor» in Kramer 2001b.

hermeneumata celtis 165 translation, àϲÙ˘ÓfiÌÔϲ, proves that hc formed an independent branch in the Hermeneumata tradition at an early stage. Chapter 14, ÂÚd Ù¯ÓÈÙáÓ, de artificibus, includes among ‘professionals’ what appear to be denominations for priests and ministers of public ceremonies and festivals (Fig. 5). 14.106 bellonarius ÎÚÂÔÙfiÌÔϲ 107 bacchus Ï˘ÎÔÜÚÁÔϲ, ‚¿Î¯Ôϲ 108 †dulhenarius (uel duchen- p.c.) âÓıÂÔÙfiÌÔϲ 109 archigallus àÚ¯›Á·ÏÏÔϲ

No evidence can be found for 107, although some celebration of Bacchic rites is clearly the point, but we happen to know something of 106 Bellonarii, priests of Bellona sometimes confused with priests of Magna Mater, whose activities involved self-inflicted cuttings and lashings.1 108 is probably an alternative spelling of Bellonarii, i.e., Duellonarii.2 5. hc , the spoken language, and Petronius After surveying the relevance, among the sources on which hc drew, of Greek monolingual lexica and authors’ glossaries, of the Roman antiquarian tradition, and of some Roman technical handbooks, we come to what is arguably the most important, even if elusive, source, that is the spoken language, possibly through the mediation of the so-called glossaria cotidiana, bilingual lists of everyday words (see supra, and Biville’s chapter, 121-140). Since these glossaries are not extant (nor is ‘the spoken language’, for that matter), this is only an indirect conclusion, but the importance of all bilingual glossaries for reconstructing aspects of the spoken language or, as it was once more frequently called, ‘Vulgar Latin’, has long been recognized. Heraeus 1899 in particular put the glossaries to good use in interpreting several difficult phrases in Petronius’ Satyricon, an acclaimed source of low-register and popular Latin. Following in Heraeus’ footsteps, I will present some cases in which hc provides help in the interpretation of Petronius and, finally, I will discuss a few more entries which provide a Latin parallel for a Romance development.

1 Cf. Lucan. 1.565 quos sectis Bellona lacertis saeua mouet, cecinere deos, crinemque rotantes sanguineum populis/ulularunt tristia Galli; Mart. 12.57.11 turba … entheata Bellonae; Min. Fel. 30.5 Bellonam sacrum suum haustu humani cruoris imbuere; Lact. Inst. 1.21.16 alia sacra sunt Virtutis quam eandem Bellonam uocant, in quibus ipsi sacerdotes non alieno, sed suo cruore sacrificant; sha , Lampr. Comm. 5 Bellonae seruientes uere exsecare brachium praecepit studio crudelitatis; Schol. Hor. sat. 2.3.222 insaniunt Bellonarii cum lacertos umerosque concidunt; Schol. Iuv. Sat. 6.105. 2 Cf. Comm. Instr. 1.17.6 uidistis saepe Duellonarios (Dombart, dulcmarios C, didemarios rell.) quali fragore luxorias ineunt. A second possibility is that this is a minuscule script error for Dindymarii, the priests and celebrants of Magna Mater or Cybele, also known for performing bloody rituals on the public streets.

166 rolando ferri At 18. 165, matella Ï·ÈοϲÙÚÈ· (Fig. 6) is an important addition to our knowledge of abusive expressions in Latin. Hitherto, only Petr. 45.8 provided evidence for the abusive use of matella (literally only ‘chamberpot’) as ‘prostitute’, in a speech by a freedman, magis illa matella digna fuit quam taurus iactaret («It was she, the pisspot, who deserved tossing by the bull far more than he»). Ipsissimus at 13.43 (de cognatione, On kinship - Fig. 7), as a superlative of ipse, is an attested form, meaning «his very self» (in Plautus). The entry in hc however, after dominus and erus, proves that an antonomastic meaning ‘master’ also existed in Latin. 13.40 dominus ·ÚÈÔϲ 41 erus ‰ÂϲfiÙËϲ 42 ipse ·éÙfiϲ 43 ipsissimus1 ·éÙfiÙ·ÙÔϲ

This is a particularly important find because the noun ipsimus, ipsum-, also feminine as ipsuma, in origin a variant of the same superlative, but lexicalized with the meaning ‘master’ was known already from Petronius (e.g., 69.3 solebam ipsumam meam debattuere, «I was wont to batter my mistress»).2 Recently, Heikki Solin has proposed a revision of the Pompeian graffiti published in cil , iv.2178a, nica creteissiane, which he now reads as nica c(h)re(s)te issime, «may you triumph [= ӛη], Chrestus, yourself».3 If the new reading is correct, the superlative issime, with the ‘popular’ assimilated spelling -ss-, is a very important acquisition. The meaning of course is not ‘yourself ’ but ‘master’, and both Solin’s new reading and the new evidence provided by hc 13.43 lend support to the rare honorific that up to now was known only from Petronius.4 18.176 balneator: trix ‚·Ï·Ó‡ϲ, ‚·Ï·Ó‡ÙÚÈ·. The feminine form, in Latin, was controversial, but Servius ascribes that to Petronius (cf. Serv. Aen. 12.159 ‘hic et haec balneator’, licet Petronius (frg. 2) usurpauerit ‘balneatricem’). Unfortunately we know nothing else regarding this fragment, and the coincidence is obviously no evidence that compilers were using Petronius. 12.1262 alaposus ¤ÚÂÚÔϲ. The word alaposus is absent from tll . It occurs in the chapter de moribus humanis, with a Greek translation meaning «boastful». The closest to alaposus we find in Classical Latin is Petr. 38.9 est tamen subalapa et non uult sibi male. The meaning of this Petronian passage is controversial, but Heraeus already found a parallel in ‘Philoxenus’ with an alapator η˘¯ËÙ‹ϲ,

1 A marginal gloss by Celtis in the ms, partly cut out in rebinding, reads … [illegible] no(men) / su]perlatiuum / a]b ipse. 2 Cf. Heraeus 1899, 78-79. 3 Solin 2008, 62. On ӛη as an acclamation cf. Cameron 1973, 78-79; Adams 2003, 406, especially common in acclamations of gladiators. 4 For isse, issa as honorifics in Pompeian inscriptions cf. cil , iv.8364 secvndvs|prime svae vbi|qve isse (= issae, ‘my mistress’) salvte, cil , iv.8954, habitvs issae salvtem. Also important is Plautus’ issula at Cist. 450 meae issula sua aedes egent.

hermeneumata celtis 167 «vainglorious».1 Subalapa therefore seems to mean «a bit pompous», rather than ‘still mindful of his having been a slave’. 12.118 scordalus ‚¿Ó·˘ϲÔϲ, ‘a vulgar, aggressive person’. From ϲÎfiÚ‰ÔÓ, garlic, thought to be a stimulant. Cf. Petr. Sat. 59 agite, inquit, scordalias de medio, «Banish, he said, quarrel from here». When a Petronius parallel can be found, the relationship of hc to Vulgar Latin is easy to appreciate and assess, and Petronius provides a relatively firm terminus ad quem. There are however numerous other terms for which hc , like other glossaries transcribed in cgl , is of some help to understand aspects of the ‘submerged’ Latin vocabulary, both for words not attested except in the Romance inheritors of Latin but thought to have existed at an earlier stage, and for existing Latin words with regard to which hc suggests a new meaning. It should not be forgotten, of course, that dating is difficult to establish for all entries because of the different linguistic strata coexisting in the glossary.2 18.164 spurca ηϲ·˘ÚÂÖÔÓ. The Greek has only three occurrences in tlg , Aristophanes, Eq. 1282; Poll. Onom. 6.188; Hesych. Î.961, and seems to qualify therefore as a word taken from the originally monolingual, Atticist, source. The Latin term is not registered in available Latin lexica in the sense required by the context (de aedificiis, after words for ‘brothel’, e.g., 163 lupanar ÔÚÓÂÖÔÓ). 41.283 olca ö·˘ÏÈϲ. olca is in tll with only one literary source, Greg. Tur. In gloria confessorum 78 (p. 795, 4 Krusch, mgh, srm , i), campus tellure fecundus – tales enim incolae olcas uocant («a fertile plot of land, which the locals call olca»). A Cantabrian toponym Octauiolca (= ‘Octavius’ farm’) was identified in an inscription (ae , 1921.6; ae , 1924, p. 14 s. n. 62); there are also several later Latin parallels from medieval charters and wills in Du Cange. The word means ‘plot of arable land’, and is the basis for later French ouche. It may be an instance of ‘regional’Celtic-Latin, and in fact the topic may deserve further study, because at least one other word in the glossary has connections with ‘Gallic’ Latin – 41.232 (de agri cultura) embractum †ÂÓıÚ˘ÎÙÔÓ –, and the presence of a ‘Gallo-Latin’ flair was detected by Dionisotti (1982) in her analysis of clothing and drink in the language of the colloquium.3 The Greek means farm, country house (cf. 41.66 uilla ·éÏ‹, ö·˘ÏÈϲ), and the meaning seems to match, as olca may easily have become by synecdoche the house or farm inside the plot. 24.87 depanatorium ÌËÚ˘Ù‹Ú. The entry comes from the chapter de supellectile, On house tools. A reconstructed form *depanare is assumed by rew , 2569 as the 1 The meaning ‘boastful’ is also supported by the Greek in Cic. Att. 9.13.4 auxiliis Gallorum quos Matius âÏ¿È˙ÂÓ, ut puto ‘the reinforcements of which Matius was so boastful’. Rönsch 1891, 25 related the Spanish alabar ‘to boast’ to the Greek Ï·›˙ÂÈÓ. 2 I have discussed the chronological issue of the later additions to the glossary (ie. words with patently Germanic etymologies) in Ferri forthcoming, where I have also offered a catalogue of new words found in hc (Greek loan-words, Latin words for which a new meaning is offered, Latin words hitherto only suspected to have existed from Romance developments). 3 Dionisotti 1982, 123. I have discussed embractum in Ferri forthcoming.

168 rolando ferri basis for the various Romance inheritors, e.g., It. dipanare, from panus, «a spool wound with thread» (old ), and connected with ÉÓÔϲ. ÌËÚ˘Ù‹Ú also is not on record, but seems connected with ÌËÚ‡ÔÌ·È, ‘to wind off’ thread. 6. Conclusions Our study has shown that a Greek monolingual Atticist lexicon in origin designed for first-language advanced study was turned into a bilingual tool: we are in no position to see by whom and where, since in principle one such dictionary, certainly composed in the Eastern half of the Empire, could have been taken West and have received its Latin glosses there. It is impossible, tempting as it may seem, to extract such information from the relatively colourless and non idiomatic nature of Latin translations of such ‘Atticist’ Greek entries, as inept translators are to be found both among native and non-native speakers of any given language. Yet it appears to me at least certain that the operation happened in Antiquity, not in the Middle Ages, because Atticist lexica travelled West only in the Renaissance. That material was then combined with monolingual Latin word lists, or bilingual lists in which Latin was the primary language. The chronological priority between these two main groups of materials is impossible to determine. The bilingual glossary as we have it was a vast reference work, in which a variety of different needs were served: Greek-speaking learners of Latin who needed to develop their vocabulary in the area of the administration and trade will have found little use in learning so many different words for ‘pot’, ‘handle’, ‘bar’, ‘lattice’ or a vast catalogue of fish’ and birds’ names. For very much the same reasons, a precise date of composition for hc is impossible to determine, as two subsequent lemmata may have been entered at two different dates, in theory. However, no Christian elements are in evidence, which may suggest that the greater part of the lemmata were composed in Late Antiquity (up to the v century), rather than in the Byzantine period. Even if there were early medieval intrusions, as I have shown in Ferri forthcoming analyzing two cases of back-formations into Latin of (possibly) Germanic words (33bis.47 brama «desire» and 15.6 se(n)natus «sensible»), only few entries can have been added after the end of Antiquity.1 In the light of the composite, contaminated nature of the glossary, the question of whether the original audience was one of Greek or of Latin native speakers fades into insignificance, as we have no means of reconstructing whether Latin into Greek or the reverse represent the oldest formative stage of the glossary. Both the Latin and the Greek columns have examples of descriptive rather than idiomatic translations (the type 12.376 sine bile ôÏ˘Ôϲ). The presence of 1 Particularly important here are chapters such as 7 de sacris aedibus, with its concentration on pagan rites, and total absence of Christian elements.

hermeneumata celtis 169 Latin on the left-hand column may at least suggest that, in the last active formative stage, Latin was the language to be learned, the one from which the reader was translating. This element seems to be reconcilable with the presence of several Greek glosses for a Latin term (cf. for example 20.26 uolumen ÂåÏËϲÌfiϲ, ÙÂܯÔϲ with the first interpretamentum corresponding also in etymology, though not idiomatic for ‘book’; also 22.11, 18, 21). On the other hand, the several repetitions of Latin uictimarius, every time with a different Greek gloss, in non-consecutive lines of cap. 7 (7.68 uictimarius ÌÔϲ¯ÔÙfiÌÔϲ, 7.94 uictimarius ı‡ÙËϲ, 7.115 uictimarius ÌÔϲ¯ÔÙfiÌÔϲ, ÌÔϲ¯Ôı‡ÙËϲ, 7.116 uictimarius ‚Ô˘ı‡ÙËϲ), cannot have been very useful for someone who was learning or translating from Latin and knew Greek, and the fact is revealing of the conflatory nature of the glossary, and of some lack of planning in its structure. The glossary served different functions at different times and in different places, and we have seen that there are idiomatic, hardly translatable expressions in both columns of hc , as well as, on both sides, incorrect inadequate translations. On the basis of the colloquium, Dionisotti advanced the tentative suggestion that the author of the translation of that section was a Greek,1 and in Ferri 2010, 240 I have added the suggestion that Byzantine later translators may have worked on the colloquium. Such a conclusion need not apply to the more stratified glossary, and an ancient nucleus, no later than the v century and perhaps much older, appears certain, although it is often impossible to draw a line between the medieval additions (both to the Latin and the Greek halves) and the earlier entries. The presence of multiple stages in the formation of hc , which I have tried to illustrate in this paper, makes a univocal conclusion impossible, but hc remains an unexplored source of great linguistic value and interest. 1 1982, 96 and note 71. Note in particular the following: «two Greek words are often given for one Latin one, in some cases apparently pairing uox propria with etymological calque».

This page intentionally left blank

E T Y M O LOGIEN IN DEN VA RI AE CASSI O DO RS Paolo Pieroni 1. Anthroponimische Glossen Cassiodors bei Valla

B

ei der eingehenden Untersuchung des langen, Etymologien von Eigennamen bezüglichen und Ex Cassiodoro betitelten Exzerptes, das sich am Rande des f. 7v des Codex Par. lat. 7723 findet, der die Anmerkungen Lorenzo Vallas zu Quintilians Institutio oratoria enthält,1 ist Rizzo 1997, 349-352, die auch eine Edition des Fragments gegeben und sie mit einem detaillierten Kommentar versehen hat, zu folgenden Schlüssen gekommen: 1. Dieses Fragment2 sei nicht aus einem lexikographischen Text geschöpft worden,3 sondern aus einem grammatischen; 2. es entstamme einem spätantiken Text, wie die angewandte grammatische Terminologie vermuten lasse;4 3. der Autor könne wirklich Cassiodor sein, vorausgesetzt, dass man sich darüber im Klaren sei, der Begriff von Autor könne im Fall von grammatischen Werken eine ganz besondere Bedeutung annehmen, d.h. auch einen Kompilator bezeichnen; 4. unser Fragment könne aus

1 Die Verfassung dieser Anmerkungen begann 1444 und erstreckte sich wahrscheinlich bis zu Vallas Tod (1457). Es erscheint mir nicht fehl am Platz, hier – im Rahmen einer der lateinischen Lexikographie gewidmeten Tagung – daran zu erinnern, dass gerade diese Anmerkungen, die an einigen Stellen die Benutzung von Festus’ De uerborum significatione voraussetzen, ermöglicht haben, die Entdeckung seines Hauptzeugen (des codex Farnesianus), deren terminus ante quem bisher in den Jahren 1469-1470 lag, auf die der Lukan-Kommentar von Pomponius Laetus zurückgeht, um etliche Jahre vorzudatieren: dazu mehr bei Pieroni 2004, 30-32. 2 Es ist in zwei Abschnitte aufgeteilt, die jeweils der Etymologie von 64 agnomina mit weiblicher Endung aber männlichem Geschlecht und der Behandlung von 4 Gattungsnamen desselben Typus (d.h. a-Stämmen männlichen Geschlechts) gewidmet sind. 3 Die Ansicht, es sei lexikographischer Natur und stamme aus einem mit den Glossaren irgendwie verwandten Text, da viele Etymologien in mehr oder weniger buchstäblicher Form in dieser Art Sammlungen wiederkehrten, hatte Cesarini Martinelli 1996, cx-cxiii vertreten, die darüber hinaus erklärte, das Fragment stelle ein wahres Rätsel dar, weil es weder in irgendeinem Werk Cassiodors, noch in einem der uns bekannten Texte klassischer bzw. spätantiker Zeit oder bei den mittelalterlichen Lexikographen eine Entsprechung finde. Die Forscherin hielt es für möglich, dass der Name Cassiodor eine konventionelle Angabe bildet: Valla könnte beispielsweise auf am Rand oder am Ende einer echte Werke Cassiodors enthaltenden Handschrift gefundene Anmerkungen verwiesen haben. Nach einer Klassifizierung der im Fragment vorhandenen Materialien bot Cesarini Martinelli auch einige allgemeine und vorläufige Folgerungen, doch sie überließ im Grunde anderen Forschern die Aufgabe, sich näher mit dem betreffenden Text auseinanderzusetzen. 4 Z.B. das Wort uocabularia, für das Rizzo 1997, 357 behauptet, keine Belege in den Lexika des antiken und mittelalterlichen Lateins gefunden zu haben, und das als Gegenstück zum Wort agnomina des Satzes, der den ersten Teil des Exzerptes einleitet, ‘Gattungsnamen’ bedeuten und uocabula gleichkommen muss; oder das Wort extremitas, im technisch-grammatischen Sinn von ‘Endung’ erst seit Terentius Scaurus (1. Hälfte des 2. Jhdts. n. Chr.) belegt (vgl. tll , v.2, 2080.59-76).

172 paolo pieroni den gemina commenta stammen, von denen in Inst. 2.1.1 nobis […] placet in medium Donatum deducere […], cuius gemina commenta reliquimus, ut, supra quod ipse planus est, fiat clarior dupliciter explanatus die Rede ist, d.h. aus den zwei Kommentaren zu Donat, von denen Cassiodor im Vorwort seines Traktats De or thographia (gl , vii.144.7-8) behauptet, er habe sie mit beiden artes Donats, einem Liber de etymologiis und dem Werk De schematibus des Marius Plotius Sacerdos in einem einzigen Codex zusammengesetzt, um seine Mönche über die Grammatik aufzuklären.1 Rizzo 1997), 378 fährt folgendermaßen fort: «I due commenti a Donato potrebbero essere stati da lui rielaborati con accorciamenti, excerpta, adattamenti alla maniera dei dodici ortografi utilizzati per compilare il De orthographia e quindi non è impossibile che il nome di Cassiodoro figurasse in testa alla compilazione».2 Mit anderen Worten wären beide Donatkommentare von Cassiodor nur überarbeitet und doch als eigene Werke betrachtet worden.3 Die Vermutung, dass der Autor (im oben angegebenen weiten Sinne des Wortes) des Fragments tatsächlich Cassiodor sein kann, wird Rizzo von der Feststellung nahegelegt, dass auch weitere Werke dieses Schriftstellers eine entfesselte Leidenschaft für Etymologien aufweisen. Das Augenmerk der Forscherin richtet sich ausschließlich auf den Psalmenkommentar – das erste Werk, das Cassiodor nach seiner conuersio schrieb –,4 in dem Etymologien tatsächlich auf Schritt und Tritt vorkommen (Erdbrügger 1912, 6-14 sammelte sogar über 160 davon). 1 Vgl. Cassiod. gl , vii.144.7-9 post codicem, in quo artes Donati cum commentis suis et librum de etymologiis et alium librum Sacerdotis de schematibus […] collegi, ut […] fratres, ubi necesse fuerit, similia dicta sine confusione percipiant. Der Inhalt dieses grammatischen Codex wird auch Inst. 2.1.3, S. 96 Mynors (in einer späteren Redaktion: vgl. die Ausgabe Mynors, praef. xxvii-xxix: bes. xxviii, wo der englische Philologe es für gesichert hält, dass die Worte, die sich auf den Codex beziehen, aus Cassiodors Feder geflossen sind) erwähnt (ceterum qui ea uoluerit latius pleniusque cognoscere, […] codicem legat, quem […] formauimus, id est artem Donati, cui de orthographia librum et alium de etymologiis inseruimus, quartum quoque de schematibus Sacerdotis adiunximus). Nach Rizzo 1997, 379 könnte das Fragment aus dem Kommentar zu Don. gramm. mai. 2.5 p. 620.1-3. Holtz geschöpft worden sein. 2 Hingegen glaubt Holtz 1981, 249 die gemina commenta gingen auf Cassiodor selbst zurück, und der angeführte Ausdruck sei durch die Gliederung von Donats Werk in zwei Teile (ars minor e ars maior) zu erklären: gegen diese Hypothese siehe die richtigen Vorbehalte Rizzos 1997, 377-378, und Stocks 2005, 114-116. 3 Das geht daraus hervor, dass der grammatische Codex bei Cassiod. gl , vii.144.7-9. als vierter Eintrag in einer vom Autor redigierten Liste von Werken vorkommt, deren wahrer Verfasser er auch ist. Zu vergleichen ist das Verhalten von Festus, der unter dem Lemma poriciam (S. 242.19 Lindsay), sich höchstwahrscheinlich auf seine Epitome aus Verrius Flaccus’ enzyklopedischem Lexikon beziehend (doch es gibt auch eine abweichende Interpretation), in his libris meis schrieb, was beweisen würde, dass er die Schrift de uerborum significatione als eigenes Werk betrachtete, und zwar zu Recht nach der Meinung Morellis 1988, 170: «Perché mai Festo non avrebbe potuto affermare a buon diritto che il de uerborum significatione era opera sua, e non di Verrio, se suoi erano i criteri che lo avevano guidato nella scelta delle voci da includere nella trattazione, sua la rielaborazione abbreviata delle voci stesse, come pure la cernita degli esempi giudicati più adatti ad illustarle, sua la ripartizione della materia in venti libri, e soprattutto se era persuaso di aver fatto assai spesso anche opera originale, specie là dove polemizzava con Verrio?». 4 Vgl. Cassiod. gl , vii.144.1-2.

etymologien in den variae cassiodors 173 Dasselbe große Interesse Cassiodors für etymologische Erklärungen kommt jedoch auch in den Variae zum Vorschein, und ausgerechnet bei den darin vorkommenden Etymologien, welche in Rizzos Studie vollkommen ausgeblendet wurden, möchte ich mich hier auf halten, beginnend mit einer kurzen Darstellung dieses Werkes. 2. Die Variae Die Variae sind eine 12 Bücher umfassende Sammlung von insgesamt 468 thematisch breit gestreuten Urkunden (vor allem offiziellen Briefen, aber auch Edikten und formulae),1 die Cassiodor – nach Mommsens heute allgemein akzeptierter Datierung – mit einigen Unterbrechungen zwischen 506-507 und 537-538 n. Chr. in verschiedenen Ämtern sowohl im Namen unterschiedlicher ostgotischer Herrscher (Theoderich, Bücher 1-5; Athalarich, Bücher 8-9; Amalasuntha, Theodahad, Gudeliva und Witigis, Buch 10) als auch in seinem eigenen Namen (als praefectus praetorio, Bücher 11-12) verfasste. Als Sammlung, die ausschließlich aus amtlicher Korrespondenz besteht, unterscheiden sich also die Variae von älteren Briefsammlungen (z.B. von Plinius dem Jüngeren, Ambrosius oder Symmachus), die in erster Linie den privaten Briefwechsel umfassten und bei denen der offizielle Briefverkehr als separates (bei den erwähnten Autoren zehntes) Buch dem Cor pus hinzugefügt wurde. «Legt man […] in der Untersuchung der Variae als Interpretationsmodell Thraedes “Dreieck der Briefsituation” zugrunde und betrachtet das Verhältnis zwischen selbstbezogenen, sachbezogenen und partnerbezogenen Informationen in den Urkunden,2 so nimmt selbstverständlich in den Dokumenten Cassiodors der zweite Punkt, die sachliche Aussage, einen deutlich größeren Platz ein als in den privaten Sammlungen seiner literarischen Vorgänger».3 Das hindert jedoch Cassiodor nicht daran, im ersten Vorwort auf einen verbreiteten Topos der privaten Epistolographie4 zurückzugreifen und seine Briefe auch als «Spiegel seines Geistes» (speculum mentis), d.h. als getreues Abbild seiner Persönlichkeit, zu gestalten.5 Dass der Brief als diejenige Gattung betrachtet wurde, in der der Mensch sich selbst am deutlichsten offenbart, ist bekannt: Sein Hauptzweck war nämlich nicht – um Coserius Worte zu benutzen –,6 jemandem etwas mitzuteilen, sondern bestand darin, sich jemandem 1 D.h. Ernennungsformeln für verschiedene Ämter, die in den Büchern 6 und 7 enthalten sind (zu dieser Bedeutung des Wortes formula siehe Conso 1982. 2 Vgl. Thraede 1980, 186-189. Dass sich bei dieser Dreiteilung einige Arten von Briefen schwer einordnen lassen, ist Schröder 2007, 148-150. nicht entgangen, die ein erweitertes Modell vorschlägt. 3 Kakridi 2005, 55. 4 Dazu Müller 1980. 5 Wie er selbst indirekt zu verstehen gibt: Er schildert nämlich, wie Freunde beredt versuchen, seine Skrupel hinsichtlich einer Publikation seiner Briefe zu überwinden und ihn warnen, dass er andernfalls ein wichtiges Dokument seiner Persönlichkeit verborgen halten werde, in dem ihn jedes kommende Zeitalter werde betrachten können (vgl. Var. praef. 10 celas etiam, ut ita dixerim, speculum mentis tuae, ubi te omnis aetas uentura possit inspicere). 6 Vgl. Coseriu 1981, 61.

174 paolo pieroni mitzuteilen, mit dem anderen in Verbindung zu treten. Dass es möglich war, den erwähnten Epistolartopos auf amtliche Schreiben zu übertragen und «formalisierte Briefe, die man in einer öffentlichen Funktion verfasst hatte, als Dokumente eines individuellen Empfindens darzustellen», hängt damit zusammen, dass in einer Adelsgesellschaft «das öffentliche Amt mit dem privaten Leben unzertrennlich verbunden war, somit Inhalte und Formen, die für den privaten Brief entwickelt wurden, mit geringen Modifikationen jederzeit auf den amtlichen übertragen werden konnten».1 So kommt es häufig vor, dass in Cassiodors Urkunden der sachliche Gehalt von der persönlichen Profilierung des Erstellers überlagert wird, welcher immer wieder der Versuchung nachgibt, seine Bildung, seine wissenschaftlichen Interessen und seinen literarischen Geschmack in den Vordergrund zu stellen,2 am deutlichsten in den zahlreichen digressiones, d.h. in den kunstvollen Abschweifungen vom konkreten Anliegen des jeweiligen Schreibens,3 aber auch in den vielen Zitaten (vor allem aus Cicero, Vergil und Plinius dem Jüngeren)4 oder in den zahlreichen etymologischen Erklärungen, die – genau wie Digressionen und Zitate – ein präzises, diesmal linguistisches Interesse des Autors widerspiegeln. 3. Funktion der Etymologie in literarischen Texten Dass Etymologien auch außerhalb grammatischer und lexikographischer Werke begegnen, ja dass sie in weiten Teilen der lateinischen Literatur – in der Dichtung sowie in der Prosa – recht verbreitet sind, ist sicherlich allzu bekannt, als dass man diesen Gebrauch durch aus dem einen oder anderen Autor herausgegriffene Beispiele belegen müsste.5 Wenn jedoch die etymologischen Erklärungen von Plautus oder Apuleius dazu dienen, das Komische durch geistreiche Wortspiele zu schüren,6 bildet die Etymologie bei anderen Literaten (z.B. bei den Augusteern) eine gelehrte Praxis, die häufig (vor allem bei Properz und in 1 Vgl. Kakridi 2005, 53-54. 2 Was übrigens auch seinen ostgotischen Herrschern zum Vorteil gereichte, in deren Namen die meisten Briefe geschrieben wurden und die somit ihr Prestige bei den Römern sowie bei den anderen barbarischen Königen wachsen sahen (vgl. Lepelley 1990, 38). 3 Wo er u.a. Landschaften und Naturerscheinungen, Quellen und Thermalbäder, Zirkus- und Theaterspiele beschreibt, bei besonderen Kunstgegenständen, Bauten von Architekten und Ingenieuren und ausgesuchten Speisen verweilt, Wissenswertes und Kurioses aus dem Tierleben erzählt, über verschiedene wissenschaftliche Disziplinen referiert. Zu den Digressionen in den Variae siehe u.a. Nickstadt 1921; Kakridi 2005, 63-64. 4 Zu den Zitaten siehe Kakridi 2005, 64-66. 5 Zur Etymologie in der lateinischen Literatur siehe u.a. Opelt 1966, 810-813. 6 Man denke für Plautus an die berühmte Stelle der Menaechmi (V. 263-264), an dem man behauptet, die Stadt Epidamnus sei so benannt, weil fast kein Fremder dort ohne Schaden (damnum) auf halten könne, oder an diejenige der Cistellaria (V. 197-202), wo der Gott Auxilius dem römischen Heer wünscht, die Punier (Poeni) sollten Strafe (poena) erhalten. Zu den etymologischen Wortspielen bei Apuleius siehe jetzt Nicolini 2007. Auch u.a. Martial verwendet Etymologien zu (leicht zotigen) Witzen (vgl. 3.34, 3.67.10, 3.78.2).

etymologien in den variae cassiodors 175 den Fasten Ovids) zu einem Untersuchungsinstrument im Dienste der Ätiologie wird, das bei der Rekonstruktion von Menschen-, Götter- und Ortsnamen Verwendung findet und bei der Erklärung von Herkunft und Eigentümlichkeiten von Bräuchen und Feiern unentbehrlich ist. Einen gelehrten Charakter hat auch die Etymologie bei Cassiodor, die jedoch – während sie sich im Psalmenkommentar (genauso wie in anderen exegetischen Werken nicht nur christlicher Autoren) als Auslegungswerkzeug erweist, welches das Textverständnis erleichtern soll1 – in den Variae keine einheitliche Funktion annimmt. 4. Etymologische Erklärungen in den Variae : Stellung, Inhalt, Funktion Etymologien kommen in fast jedem Buch der Variae vor,2 verhältnismäßig häufiger jedoch in dem ersten und den beiden letzten Büchern. Sie begegnen sehr häufig innerhalb von mehr oder weniger breiten Digressionen – u.a. sechs in derjenigen zum Theater (Var. 4.51.5-9), drei in derjenigen über die Münzen (7.32.3), zwei jeweils in denjenigen zur Arithmetik (1.10.5-6) und zur Musik (2.40.6-12) sowie in der Beschreibung der Gegend um Como (11.14.2), eine in der Beschreibung der Anhöhe, auf der die Festung Verruca liegt (3.48.1), und eine im in demselben Brief vorkommenden Exkurs über die Vorsicht der Tiere (3.48.4) –, was sich aus der Ähnlichkeit der Instanz erklären lässt, aus der Digressionen und Etymologien bei Cassiodor hervorgehen, da die erstgenannten häufig dem Autor die Gelegenheit bieten, mit Leuten gleichen Bildungsniveaus angenehme Gespräche über gelehrte Themen aus der Ferne zu führen (vgl. z.B. Var. 1.10.5, wo Cassiodor einen neuen Abschnitt des Arithmetik-Exkurses folgendermaßen einführt: «weil es uns Freude bereitet, über die größeren Geheimnisse dieser Disziplin mit Experten zu sprechen»;3 oder Var. 2.40.17, wo der soeben abgeschlossene lange Exkurs über die Musik als eine «ergötzliche Abschweifung» bezeichnet wird, «weil es immer angenehm ist, über wissenschaftliche Themen mit Sachkundigen zu diskutieren»),4 und auch die Etymologien großer Gelehrsamkeit bedürfen, «ob wir nun aus dem Griechischen Stammen1 Zum Psalmenkommentar vgl. Schlieben 1974, 48. Das gilt u.a. auch für die von Servius im Vergilkommentar gebotenen Etymologien (vgl. Uhl 1998, 513-517). 2 Ihre Zahl ist auf 43 von van den Besselaar 1945, 145-147 berechnet worden, der sie auch auflistet; 34 von ihnen werden auch in Traubes Index (539, s.v. etymologiae) zu Mommsen 1894 angegeben. Von van den Besselaar (a.a.O.) nicht mitgerechnet wurden u.a. die Ableitung von sucinum (‘Bernstein’) ex arboris suco (Var. 5.2.2), die Herleitung der Benennung pater imperii für den praefectus praetorio aus dem Wort patriarcha (Var. 6.3.2), einige Wortspiele (Beispiele bei Hägg 1911, 37, und Fridh 1968, 40-41) sowie einige sinngemäß gedeutete Eigennamen (dazu Kakridi 2005, 90, mit Anm. 250): Die neue Zahl dürfte sich auf etwa 50 belaufen. 3 Var. 1.10.5 quoniam delectat nos secretiora huius disciplinae cum scientibus loqui. 4 Var. 2.20.17 uoluptuosa digressio, quia semper gratum est de doctrina colloqui cum peritis. Beide Briefe sind an Boethius adressiert, Verfasser eines Traktats De institutione arithmetica und eines De institutione musica.

176 paolo pieroni des behandeln […], oder ob wir aus der Kenntnis der Geschichte früherer Zeiten nach den Namen von Menschen, Orten, Völkern und Städten forschen»1 (Rahn 19882, i.99). Neben zu Theater und Musik gehörenden Wörtern, neben Währungs-, Tier- und Ortsnamen werden in den Exkursen der Variae auch Namen von Monaten (Var. 1.35.2), Weinen (12.4.2), Bauten (3.51.10, 7.15.4), usw. etymologisiert. In all diesen Fällen dient die Etymologie meistens nur dazu, die Bildung des Autors zur Schau zu stellen und gleichzeitig den Text auszuschmücken,2 zwei Funktionen, die traditionell auch Cassiodors Exkursen zugeschrieben werden.3 Außerhalb von Digressionen werden Etymologien mehrmals in Bezug auf Namen von verschiedenen öffentlichen Ämtern eingesetzt, und in solchen Fällen können sie zum einen die Wesenszüge eines Amtes hervorheben, um die Beamten an ihre Pflichten zu erinnern (vgl. Var. 3.27.2 tamdiu enim iudex nominatur, quamdiu et iustus putatur, quia nomen, quod ab aequitate sumitur, per superbiam non tenetur;4 6.3.2: vgl. oben, S. 4, Anm. 22) bzw. vor Angriffen zu verteidigen (Var. 9.2.1 curiales, quibus a prouida sollicitudine [i.q. cura] nomen est, grauissima dicuntur infestatione quassari, ut, quicquid eis honoris causa delegatur, ad iniuriam potius uideatur esse perductum)5 bzw. auf die Gefahren ihres Amtes aufmerksam zu machen (11.6.5 respice [scil. cancellarie], quo nomine nuncuperis. Latere non potest, quod inter cancellos egeris),6 oder um amtliche Maßnahmen als Abweichungen von den mit den jeweiligen Ämtern verbundenen Pflichten zu kennzeichnen (Var. 11.40.1, ein Amnestieedikt, quamuis nomen ipsum iudicis dicatum uideatur esse

1 Quint. Inst. 1.6.31 [scil. etymologia] continet […] in se multam eruditionem, siue ex Graecis orta tractemus, quae sunt plurima, […] siue ex historiarum ueterum notitia nomina hominum, locorum, gentium, urbium requiramus. 2 Vgl. Kakridi 2005, 89: «Die Etymologie […] tritt […] in den Urkunden als ein zusätzliches, leicht isolierbares Element auf, das den Text in ähnlicher Weise wie der übrige ornatus ausschmückt». 3 Vgl. Nickstadt 1921, 6: «digressiones doctae […], quas ut scientia sua gloriaretur non paucis epistulis intexuerat [scil. Cassiodorus]»; Fridh 1956, 19: «L’emploi des digressions est devenu, chez Cassiodore, un style maniéré qui ne sert que d’ornement extérieur». Doch zur Möglichkeit, ein tiefergehendes funktionales Verhältnis zwischen Digressionen und Kontext in den Variae zu erkennen, siehe Pieroni 2009. 4 «Denn nur so lange verdient jemand den Namen Rechtsprecher, als er für gerecht gehalten wird, da man diesen Namen, der von der gerechten Gleichbehandlung her kommt, mit Hilfe von Hochmut nicht behalten kann»; vgl. auch Var. 11.9.3 (siehe unten, S. 183). 5 «Es wurde uns gesagt, dass die Curialen [zu diesen Stadtverwaltern siehe Meyer-Flügel 1992, 310-317], deren Name von der umsichtigen Fürsorge her kommt, zur Zielscheibe äußerst feindlicher Taten gemacht worden sind, so dass, was ihnen als Ehre gewährt wurde, anscheinend zum Mittel geworden ist, um ihnen zu schaden». 6 «Denk daran, welcher dein Name ist; es kann nicht verborgen bleiben, was du zwischen den Schranken getan haben wirst». Zu den cancellarii, Vermittlern zwischen dem Publikum und dem praefectus praetorio in seiner Funktion als Richter, siehe Morosi 1978. Cassiodors Behauptung ist folgendermaßen aufzufassen: «Cassiodoro fa intendere al suo dipendente che ciò che compirà davanti o dietro ai cancelli sarà noto a tutti, tanto al pubblico quanto al giudice e che, essendo così in vista, non potrà nascondere nulla» (ebd., 134).

etymologien in den variae cassiodors 177 iustitiae),1 zum anderen einem Amt eine besondere Bedeutung beimessen (vgl. Var. 6.2.4 patriciatus culmen escende, quod quidam […] a patribus dictum esse uoluerunt).2 4. 1. Formen etymologischer Ableitung Nimmt man die Form der Etymologien in Augenschein, kann man nicht umhin zu bemerken, dass diese teils streng durchgeführt werden (vgl. z.B. Var. 12.4.2 [scil. uinum] acinaticium, cui nomen ex acino est), teils aus Erklärungen zur Herkunft eines Wortes bestehen, bei denen die Ausgangsform umschreibend angegeben wird (vgl. oben, S. 5, die Etymologie von curiales, Var. 9.2.1), auch durch eine Übersetzung aus dem Griechischen (vgl. Var. 4.51.9 [scil. Pantomimo] a multifaria imitatione nomen est): ein Verfahren, das auf den ersten Blick als dilettantischer Zug erscheinen könnte, doch selbst unter den Berufslexikographen verbreitet war.3 Wenn man sodann einer tiefergehenden formalen Analyse der Etymologien der Variae die von Erdbrügger 1912 erstellte Klassifizierung derjenigen, die im Psalmenkommentar vorkommen, zugrundelegt, kann man leicht feststellen, dass Cassiodor in beiden Werken nicht immer gleich vorgegangen ist, d.h. dass er nicht immer dieselben Typen etymologischer Ableitung oder diese mit derselben Häufigkeit verwendet hat. 4. 1. 1. Deriuatio Der Typus, dem Cassiodor in seinem exegetischen Werk Erdbrügger 1912, 1718. zufolge den Vorzug gibt, ist die sogenannte deriuatio.4 Dieses Ergebnis gilt auch für die Variae: man vergleiche z.B.

1 «Obwohl der Name Rechtsprecher der Gerechtigkeit gewidmet zu sein scheint». 2 «Erklimm den Gipfel des Patriziats, das nach dem Willen von einigen seinen Namen von patres (‘Patrizier’, ‘Senatoren’) hernahm» – In einem Fall scheint der Name eines Amtes nur um der Etymologie willen erklärt worden zu sein (vgl. Var. 11.36.4 [scil. cornicularius] praefuit […] cornibus secretarii praetoriani, unde ei nomen est deriuatum, «er stand den Hörnern des Sekretärs der Prätorianerpräfektur vor, woher sein Name gekommen ist»). 3 Auch Nonius gibt oft bei Etymologien nur den Sinn, nicht die Wortbildung an: vgl. z.B. p. 12.4 exspes dicitur sine spe; p. 12.8 exules dicuntur extra solum. 4 Zu den Begriffen von deriuatio und compositio vgl., e.g., Don. gramm. mai. 2.8 p. 624.1-3 Figurae nominibus accidunt duae, simplex et composita: simplex, ut doctus, potens, composita, ut indoctus, impotens. Conponuntur autem nomina modis quattuor: ex duobus integris, ut suburbanus; ex duobus corruptis, ut efficax, municeps; ex integro et corrupto, ut ineptus, insulsus; ex corrupto et integro, ut pennipotens, nugigerulus. Conponuntur etiam de conpluribus, ut inexpugnabilis, inperterritus, und die Worte Amslers 1989, 62 dazu: «Implicit in this description, whose categories and examples are repeated throughout imperial technical grammar, is the distinction between words formed by compositio and words formed by deriuatio. Compositio indicates the joining of two or more morphems […] which may or may not be significant in isolation (sub + urbanus, penni + potens). Deriuatio indicates the generation of a secondary form based upon a root or primary form (mons > montanus)«.

178

paolo pieroni

Var. 1.10.5 [scil. ueteres] sex milia denariorum solidum esse uoluerunt, ut radiantis metalli formata rotunditas aetatem mundi quasi sol aureus conuenienter includeret;1 1.17.2 hanc [scil. audaciam] merito expeditionem nominauere maiores, quia mens deuota proeliis non debet aliis cogitationibus occupari;2 1.30.5 inter […] quoque aduersarios […] non erant prius armata certamina, sed pugnis se quamlibet feruida lacessebat intentio, unde et pugna nomen accepit; postea Belus ferreum gladium primus produxit, a quo et bellum placuit nominari;3 2.40.12 hinc […] appellatam aestimamus chordam, quod facile corda mouet;4 3.48.4 mergi, quibus nomen ex facto [i.q. a mergendo] est;5 3.51.10 circus a circuitu dicitur;6 3.52.5 [scil. agrimensori) ab arte nomen est;7 4.51.8 comoedia a pagis dicta est: comus enim pagus uocatur;8 6.18.6 Pan […] primus consparsas fruges coxisse perhibetur, unde et nomine eius panis est appellatus;9 7.4.2 Raetiae […] munimina sunt Italiae et claustra prouinciae: quae non immerito sic appellata esse iudicamus, quando contra feras et agrestissimas gentes uelut quaedam plagarum obstacula disponuntur;10 7.15.4 regis Mausoli pulcherrimum monumentum, a quo et mausolea dicta sunt;11 7.32.3 pondus […] constitutum denariis praecipimus debere serVari, qui olim penso quam numero uendebantur: unde uerborum uocabula competenter ab origine [i.q. ex pondere] trahens compendium et dispendium pulchre uocitauit antiquitas;12 8.31.4 coloni sunt, qui agros iugiter colunt;13 11.14.2 [scil. urbs illa] merito ergo Comum nomen accepit, quae tantis laetatur compta muneribus.14 1 «Die Vorfahren wollten, dass 6.000 denarii einen solidus bilden, damit die nachgeformte Rundheit des gleißenden Metalls – als es sich quasi um eine goldene Sonne handelte – das Alter der Welt angemessen beinhaltete» («The number six thousand […] reflects the age of the world, reckoned to begin in 5509 b.c. and therefore six thousand years old in 491 a.d.»: Cuppo Csaki 1990, 143). 2 «Die Vorfahren haben diese mutige Tat mit Recht Expedition (eig. Loslösung, Befreiung) genannt, weil ein den Kämpfen ergebener Sinn nicht von anderen Gedanken in Beschlag genommen werden darf». 3 «Ursprünglich gab es selbst unter Feinden keine bewaffneten Kämpfe, sondern sie, so gross ihre Inbrunst auch sein mochte, stritten mit Fäusten, woher auch das Wort Kampf gekommen ist; später hat Belus als erster das eiserne Schwert eingeführt, und von ihm soll auch der Krieg seinen Namen bekommen haben». 4 «Ich glaube, dass die Saite deswegen so genannt wird, weil sie so leicht die Herzen bewegen kann». 5 «Tauchervögel, deren Name von der Handlung herkommt». 6 «Zirkus vom Herumdrehen [scil. um die spina – d.h. die sich in der Mitte der Arena längs hinziehende Schranke –]». 7 «Feldmesser, dessen Name von seiner Kunst herkommt». 8 «Die Komödie ist nach den Dörfern benannt worden, denn das Dorf wird ÎáÌÔϲ genannt». 9 «Pan soll als erster einen Teig gebacken haben, woher das Brot nach ihm benannt worden ist». 10 «Raetien ist das Bollwerk Italiens und der Riegel der Provinz: Ich glaube, dass es nicht zu Unrecht so genannt wurde, weil gegen wilde und bäurischste Völker sozusagen Hindernisse von Jagdnetzen verteilt sind». 11 «Das wunderschöne Denkmal des Königs Mausolus, nach dem auch die Mausoleen benannt worden sind». 12 «Wir ordnen an, dass das den denarii zugewiesene Gewicht beachtet wird, die einmal eher nach dem Gewicht als nach der Zahl ausgegeben wurden: Daher sprachen die Vorfahren zu Recht von Gewinn und Ausgabe, indem sie die Namen dieser Wörter angemessen aus ihrem Ursprung nahmen». 13 «Die Pächter sind es, die ständig die Äcker bebauen». 14 «Zu Recht also erhielt die Stadt den Namen Como, die sich freut, da sie mit so vielen Geschenken geschmückt ist». Oder sollte man eher denken, dass Cassiodor den Namen Como von Compta Muneribus herleitet, und diese Etymologie zu den weiteren Zusammensetzungen stellen?

etymologien in den variae cassiodors

179

Einige dieser Etymologien sind korrekt (z.B. mausoleum < Mausolus; coloni < colere), andere jedoch vollkommen falsch (z.B. die von solidus, von panis, von chorda oder des Namens Raetien);1 manches ist wohl auf eine nachlässige Lektüre der Quellen zurückzuführen (man denke an die etymologische Erklärung des Wortes comoedia, von gr. ÎáÌÔϲ abgeleitet, das Cassiodor mit dem lat. pagus gleichsetzt, dem jedoch gr. kèmh entspricht; vgl. unten, S. 11), während circus a circuitu eine vielen Grammatikern der Antike gemeinsame Schwierigkeit an den Tag legt, die häufig Primäres und Sekundäres verwechselten, so dass Paul.-Fest. 14.6-7 L behaupten konnte: arbiter dicitur iudex, quod totius rei habeat arbitrium,2 und Nonius p. 16.32 strena a strenuitate ableitete, woraus hervorgeht, dass sie mit Ableitungsuffixen gar nicht vertraut waren, nicht einmal mit den gebräuchlichsten unter ihnen.3 4. 1. 2. Compositio Wie im Psalmenkommentar, so werden auch in den Variae Wörter manchmal (doch verhältnismäßig seltener als im erstgenannten Werk) als Zusammensetzungen aufgefasst. Diese Art der etymologischen Deutung findet sich z.B. in Var. 1.35.2 quod ab ipsis quoque mensibus (sc. Septembri, Octobri, Nouembri, Decembri) datur intellegi, quando ex numero imbrium […] competenter nomina susceperunt;4 2.40.6 [scil. Harmonia] diapason nominatur, ex omnibus (sc. tonis) scilicet congregata;5 3.51.10 circenses quasi circuenses: propterea, quod apud antiquitatem rudem, quae necdum spectacula in ornatum deduxerat fabricarum, inter enses et flumina locis uirentibus agerentur;6 4.51.7 tragoedia ex uocis uastitate nominatur, quae concauis repercussionibus roborata talem sonum uidetur efficere, ut paene ab homine non credatur exire; erigitur autem in hircinos pedes, quia si quis inter pastores tali uoce placuisset, capri munere donabatur;7 9.14.4 commodum […] debet esse cum modo: nam si mensuram 1 «Die Ableitung von dem lateinischen retia, Netze, wegen der verschlungenen Täler und Gebirgszüge», welche «nur ein Scherz des Gotenkönigs Theoderich» ist (Haug 1914, 42), wurde auch für bare Münze genommen (vgl. ebd.). 2 Vgl. jedoch auch Paul.-Fest. 14.10 L. arbitrium dicitur sententia, quae ab arbitro statuitur. 3 Vgl. Wölfflin 1893, 437. 4 «[scil. dass Schifffahrten im Herbst gefährlich sind,] kann man aus den Monaten selbst verstehen, da sie ihren Namen von der Zahl der Regenfälle zu Recht abgeleitet haben». 5 «Die harmonische Dehnung wird Diapason genannt, weil sie aus allen [scil. Tonarten] besteht», also von ‰Èa ·ϲáÓ (scil. ¯ÔÚ‰áÓ) abgeleitet (ähnl. Inst. 2.5.7 diapason […] dicta est quasi ex omnibus sonis constans). 6 «Die Zirkusspiele quasi ‘um die Schwerte herum’: Deswegen, weil sie bei den groben Vorfahren, welche die Spektakel noch nicht in schöne Gebäude verlegt hatten, an grünen Orten unter Flüssen und Schwerten stattfanden». 7 «Die Tragödie verdankt ihren Namen der Kraft der Stimme [scil. des Schauspielers], welche durch Wölbungen widerhallend und somit gestärkt solch einen Schall hervorzubringen scheint, dass man kaum glauben könnte, er komme aus einem Menschen. Sie richtet sich auf Bockfüße auf, weil man

180

paolo pieroni

aequalitatis excesserit, uim sui nominis non habebit;1 11.9.3 iudicium quasi iuridicium [i.q. iuris dictio]2 cognoscite uocabulum.3

4. 1. 3. Ableitungen aus dem Griechischen Im Gegensatz zum Psalmenkommentar, wo aus Fremdsprachen abgeleitete Wörter durchweg fehlen (vgl. Erdbrügger 1912, 20), findet man in den Variae, vor allem in den Exkursen über Musik und Theater, aber auch in einigen topographiae, Etymologien, die stillschweigend oder ausdrücklich auf das Griechische zurückgreifen.4 Denjenigen unter ihnen, die wir schon gesehen haben, kann man folgende hinzufügen: Var. 2.39.4 balnea contra diuersos dolores corporis attributa […] Aponum Graeca lingua […] nominauit antiquitas;5 4.51.5 Athenienses […] theatrum graeco uocabulo uisorium nominantes, quod eminus astantibus turba conueniens sine aliquo impedimento uideatur;6 4.51.6 frons […] theatri scaena dicitur ab umbra luci densissima;7 4.51.8 Musae […] Eoa lingua quasi homousae [i.q. Ðmoà oâsai, d.h. ‘diejenigen die zusammen sind’] dicuntur, quod inuicem sicut uirtutes necessariae sibi esse uideantur;8 4.51.9 [scil. pantomimo] a multifaria imitatione nomen est;9 12.14.1 Regenses ciues […] a Siciliae corpore uiolenti quondam maris impetus segregauit, unde ciuitas eorum nomen accepit – diuisio enim region Graeca lingua uocitatur.10

einen Bock demjenigen unter den Hirten schenkte, der wegen solcher Stimme gefallen hätte» (also von ÙÚ¿ÁÔϲ und «‰‹ abgeleitet). 1 «Eine Belohnung soll angemessen sein, denn sie wird, wenn sie über das Gebührende hinausgeht, den Wahrheitsgehalt ihres Namens verloren haben». 2 Vgl. tll , vii.2·670.1-2. 3 «Erkennt, dass das Wort Urteil sozusagen von Rechtsprechung herrührt» (ähnl. Cassiod. in psalm. 36.30 l. 568 iudicium […] dictum est, quasi iuris dictum, quod in eo ius dicatur; 71.2 l. 49 iudicium […] quasi iuris dicium). 4 Das Heranziehen des Griechischen in den etymologischen Erklärungen war in Rom schon lange gang und gäbe: Im 1. Jhdt. v. Chr. hatte sich sogar eine gelehrte Strömung gebildet, die dazu neigte, lateinische Wörter auf einen griechischen Ursprung zurückzuführen, und der u.a. Hypsicrates, Verfasser eines Werkes über die Wörter, quae a Graecis accepta sunt, Cloatius Verus, der u.a. ein Werk uerborum a Graecis tractorum schrieb, und Verrius Flaccus, dessen Etymologien häufig denjenigen des ‘latinisierenden’ Varro gegenüberstehen, angehört haben dürften (mehr dazu bei Pieroni 2004, 112-113). 5 «Auf das Griechische [d.h. ôÔÓÔϲ] zurückgreifend haben die Vorfahren den Ort mit den Bädern, in denen der Körper von den verschiedenen Schmerzen geheilt wird, Aponus genannt». 6 «Die Athener nannten den Platz, auf den sie schauten, Theater, weil diejenigen, die weit weg standen, die hier versammelte Menge problemlos sehen konnten». 7 «Der vordere Teil des Theaters wird wegen des sehr tiefen Schattens des Waldes Szene genannt» (von ϲÎÈ¿). 8 «Die Musen sind im Griechischen – ich transkribiere – homousae genannt, weil sie wie die Tugenden miteinander eng verbunden zu sein scheinen». 9 «Der Pantomimus, der seinen Namen von der vielfältigen Nachahmung bekommen hat» (vom Stamm von Ę, ÄÛ·, ÄÓ und ÌûÌÔ˜). 10 «Die Bewohner von Regium hat einmal ein heftiger Angriff des Meeres von Sizilien getrennt, woher ihre Stadt diesen Namen bekam, denn ®‹ÁÈÔÓ heißt im Griechischen ‘Trennung’».

etymologien in den variae cassiodors

181

Wie man sieht, handelt es sich dabei immer um Wörter klarer griechischer Herkunft, die Cassiodor zu etymologisieren nicht versäumt haben wird, um mit seinen Griechischkenntnissen aufzutrumpfen. Denn für ihn stellte die Kenntnis der griechischen Sprache und Kultur nicht nur einen Zusammenhang mit den eigenen Wurzeln dar – da inschriftlichen Zeugnissen zufolge1 seine Familie, Anfang des 5. Jhdts. von Syrien nach Bruttium ausgewandert, ursprünglich griechischsprachig gewesen sein soll –, sondern sie war auch ein wichtiger Auszeichnungsfaktor, wie einige Stellen seiner Werke hinlänglich beweisen: vgl. z.B. die tanta latinitatis et graecitatis peritia, die Inst. 1.23.2 bei dem Mönch Dionysius Exiguus hervorgehoben wird (vgl. auch ebd. in utraque lingua ualde doctissimus), oder das dem comes sacrarum Cyprianus (Var. 5.40.5 instructus enim trifariis linguis non tibi Graecia quod nouum ostentaret inuenit nec ipsa, qua nimium praeualet, te transcendit argutia) und dem Redner Felix (Var. 2.3.4 rerum quoque naturalium causas subtilissime perscrutatus, Cecropii dogmatis Attico se melle saginauit) erwiesene Lob, oder das Portrait des Boethius in Var. 1.45, das um den von ihm durch seine Beziehungen mit dem Griechentum errungenen Ruhm kreist, oder ebenso das Lob Amalasunthas (vgl. Var. 11.1.6 Atticae facundiae claritate diserta).2 4. 2. Herkunft der Etymologien In seiner sorgfältigen Studie über die Etymologien im Psalmenkommentar führt Erdbrügger 1912, 20-29, einen Verdacht seines Lehrers Georg Goetz3 bestätigend, die meisten der einem Autor zuweisbaren (32) auf Varro zurück; er löst außerdem die Frage, ob sie aus Varro direkt oder durch die Ver mittlung anderer Autoren übernommen wurden, im Sinne der ersten Hypothese.4 Dreizehn stammten hingegen aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach von Servius, andere möglicherweise von Laktanz, Aelius Donatus, Nonius, Festus; was die übrigen angeht (mehr als hundert), könnten einige von Cassiodor selbst erstellt worden sein, die anderen jedoch seien aus verschiedenen Werken geschöpft worden, aus Kommentaren und von Etymologien strotzenden grammatischen Schriften mehr als aus Glossaren (vgl. Erdbrügger 1912, 30-34). Darüber hinaus habe Cassiodor die im Psalmenkommentar vorkommenden Etymologien nach und nach gesammelt, und zwar schon vor dem Beginn der Verfassung seines Kommentars, denn es sei wenig plausibel, dass er, jedesmal wenn er ein Wort etymologisch habe erklären wollen, die meistens sehr umfangreichen Bände exegetischen, grammatischen oder glossographischen Inhalts in die Hand genommen und durchgeblättert habe; das Ergebnis dieser Sammeltätigkeit könne 1 Vgl. Mommsen 1894, vii, Anm. 2. 2 Vgl. Garzya 1986, 119. 3 Vgl. Goetz 1910, 1367-1368. 4 van den Besselaar 1945, 149 glaubt hingegen, man dürfe aus den Übereinstimmungen zwischen Cassiodor und Varro auf keine direkte Abhängigkeit schließen, da die Etymologien Varros schon früh Eingang in die Kommentare der Schulautoren gefunden hätten.

182 paolo pieroni schließlich jener liber de etymologiis sein, den Cassiodor selbst Inst. 2.1.3 sowie im Vorwort zur Schrift De orthographia1 erwähnt und von dem sonst jede Spur fehlt (vgl. Erdbrügger 1912, 34 f.). Geht man jetzt vor diesem Hintergrund der Frage nach, von welchen Autoren die Variae-Etymologien stammen, stellt man zunächst fest,2 dass etwas weniger als die Hälfte der Eigen- oder Gattungsnamen, deren Herkunft Cassiodor erklärt, anscheinend nur von ihm etymologisiert wurde (vgl. libra,3 expeditio, Aponus, diapason, Verruca,4 agrimensor, pantomimus, patriciatus, Raetiae, Comum, Addua,5 cornicularius, acinaticium), oder von ihm als erstem – vgl. chorda, dessen Etymologie dann bei Isid. orig. 3.22.6 chordas dictas a corde, quia sicut pulsus est cordis in pectore, ita pulsus chordae in cithara wieder auftaucht), oder von anderen vor ihm, doch auf andere Weise (ich beziehe mich hier u.a. auf die Etymologie von solidus (bei Fest. 372.27 f. Lindsay von dem Oskischen sollus abgeleitet),6 von circus7 (auf Circe zurückgeführt bei Tert. spect. 8 p. 9.14), von theatrum (von Serv. ad Aen. 5.288 àe ÙÉϲ ıˆڛ·ϲ abgeleitet), von panis, das Varro mal von pannus (ling. 5.105), mal von pascere (ap. Non. p. 63.24) abgeleitet zu haben scheint, und von iudicium (vgl. unten) –. Es ist wohl legitim anzunehmen, dass wenigstens ein Teil dieser Etymologien – vor allem die auf der Hand liegenden – von Cassiodor selbst erstellt wurde.8 Außerdem scheint Varro als etymologischer Quelle im Gegensatz zum Psalmenkommentar so gut wie keine Rolle zuteilzuwerden, denn zwar war ca. ein Viertel der in den Variae etymologisierten Wörter auch von diesem Autor etymologisch gedeutet worden (u.a. bellum, iudex, mergus, panis, comoedia, compendium, dispendium, pecunia), in den meisten Fällen jedoch ganz anders, und auch in den übrigen weisen einige Indizien eher in andere Richtungen: z.B. bei den Etymologien von compendium und dispendium auf Charisius (396.5-6 Barwick, wo beide Wörter auf pondus zurückgeführt werden), bei derjenigen von mergus auf Ambrosius (Hex. 5.13.43, eine Stelle, mit der die ganze kurze Digression Cassiodors über die Gewohnheiten dieses Meeresvogels genaue Übereinstimmungen aufweist),9 bei derjenigen von comoedia auf Diome1 Vgl. oben, S. 2, Anm. 5. 2 Anhand von Maltby 1991, einem unschätzbar wertvollen Hilfsmittel, dessen Lücken nach und nach ausgefüllt werden: vgl. zuletzt Marangoni 2007. 3 Vgl. Var. 1.10.6 Merito […] dicitur libra, quae tanta rerum est consideratione trutinata, «zu Recht wird das Pfund so genannt, weil es mit soviel Umsicht abgewogen wurde». 4 Vgl. Var. 3.48.1 [scil. Verruca castellum] a positione sui congruum nomen accepit, «die Festung Verruca hat den zu ihrer Lage passenden Namen erhalten». 5 Vgl. Var. 11.14.4 Addua fluuius […] ideo tale nomen accepit, quia duobus fontibus acquisitus quasi in proprium mare deuoluitur […], «die Adda bekam deshalb diesen Namen, weil sie, zwei Quellen entsprungen, sozusagen ins eigene Meer abfließt». 6 Doch Cassiodors Etymologie bezieht sich auf das Substantiv (aureus), diejenige von Festus hingegen auf das Adjektiv. 7 Oder ist hier Serv. ad. Aen. 8.636 (vgl. unten, S. 183) die Quelle? 8 So auch van den Besselaar 1945, 149. 9 Von Nickstadt 1921, 17; Weissengruber 1976, 380-381, und Zumbo 1993, 194 hervorgehoben.

etymologien in den variae cassiodors 183 des (gl , i.488.5-7, wo beide von Cassiodor durcheinandergebrachten Erklärungen vorkommen: comoedia dicta àe ÙáÓ ÎˆÌáÓ, ÎáÌ·È enim appellantur pagi […]; uel àe ÙÔÜ ÎÒÌÔ˘ id est comisatione […]). Da Cassiodor jedoch weder die Namen seiner Quellen preisgibt1 noch diesen sklavisch folgt, gestaltet sich der Versuch, die Herkunft seiner etymologischen Deutungen zurückzuverfolgen, meistens als ein äußerst schwieriges Unterfangen, wie aus folgendem Beispiel ersichtlich wird. Die Etymologie, die Cassiod. Var. 3.27.2 und 11.40.1 für iudex bietet, stimmt mit der jenigen überein, die von Rufin. Orig. in Rom. 3.1 gegeben wird (a iustitia […] et iudex et iudicium nominatur). Doch während an dieser Stelle auch iudicium auf iustitia zurückgeführt wird, leitet Cassiod. Var. 11.9.3 das erstgenannte Wort von iuridicium (d. h. iuris dictio) ab. Dabei kann man natürlich vielerlei denken, u.a. dass Cassiodor diese Etymologie selbst geschmiedet hat,2 oder dass er auf eine andere, uns unbekannte Quelle umgestiegen ist, oder auch, dass er von Anfang an nicht aus Rufinus geschöpft hat, sondern aus einer Quelle, in der die etymologische Erklärung Rufinus’ zusammen mit der anderen zu finden war. Erst wenn wir uns solcher Schwierigkeiten sowie der aus ihnen resultierenden Unsicherheit der Ergebnisse bewusst sind, können wir versuchen, weitere Quellenforschung zu betreiben, ohne jedoch eine vollständige Behandlung des von Cassiodor vorgelegten etymologischen Materials anzustreben. Zum Beispiel scheint die Etymologie von pugna a pugnis auf Don. Ter. Hec. prol. 2.33 pugil dictus a pugna et pugna a pugno3 zurückzugehen, diejenige von bellum – vom Eigennamen Belus abgeleitet – auf Hyg. Fab. 274.22 Belus Neptuni filius gladio belligeratus est, unde bellum est dictum.4 Auf Servius’ Vergilkommentar verweisen die Etymologien von circenses (vgl. ad georg. 3.18 olim […] in litore fluminis circenses agebantur, in altero latere positis gladiis […], unde et circenses dicti sunt, quia exhibebantur in circuitu ensibus positis; licet alii a circumeundo dicant circenses uocari und ad Aen. 8.636 circenses dicti uel a circuitu, uel quod ubi nunc metae sunt, olim gladii ponebantur, quos circumibant. Dicti autem circenses ab ensibus, circa quos cur rebant), von scaena (vgl. ad Aen. 1.164 et dicta scaena àe ÙÉϲ ϲÎÈÄϲ),5 von Leucothea (vgl. 1 Für eine Ausnahme vgl. unten, S. 184 und Anm. 4. 2 Vielleicht aufgrund der Ableitung des Wortes iudex von ius + dicere (dafür vgl. Varro Ling. 6.61 hinc [i.q. a dicendo] iudex, quod iudicat accepta potestate, id est quibusdam uerbis dicendo finit; Cod. Iust. 6.47.2.1 iudex, qui … ius dicit). 3 In seinem Kommentar zu Ter. Ad. 171 (pugnus a pugna dicitur. An ab illo pugna?) erwägt Donat auch die Möglichkeit, dass das Ableitungsverfahren in die entgegengesetzte Richtung vor sich ging. 4 An eine direkte Abhängigkeit von Hyginus’ Stelle denkt wohl zu Recht Aricò 1986, 162. Problematischer ist hingegen das Verhältnis zwischen den Variae und anderen Stellen von Hyginus’ mythographischem Werk, wofür verschiedene Möglichkeiten in Erwägung gezogen wurden: Benutzung einer gemeinsamen Quelle; Existenz eines uns nicht erhaltenen ‘Hyginus plenior’, aus dem Cassiodor geschöpft hätte; Benutzung durch Cassiodor von mehreren Quellen: dazu Nickstadt 1921, 11; Aricò 1986, 161-164. 5 Zur Bedeutung von scaena an der von Servius kommentierten Vergilstelle siehe Malaspina 2004, bes. 111-116).

184 paolo pieroni Var. 8.33.1 [scil. Lucaniae conuentus] Leucothea nomen accepit, quod ibi sit aqua nimio candore perspicua1 mit ad Aen. 7.83 Albunea dicta est ab aquae qualitate, quae in illo fonte est; unde […] nonnulli ipsam Leucotheam uolunt)2 sowie von liber (vgl. Var. 11.38.4 priscorum opuscula libros appellauit antiquitas; nam hodie quoque librum uirentis ligni uocitamus exuuias3 mit ad Aen. 11.554 liber dicitur interior corticis pars […]; unde et liber dicitur in quo scribimus, quia ante usum chartae uel membranae de libris arborum uolumina […] compaginabantur). Schließlich scheinen sich die etymologischen Deutungen von sucinum (Var. 5.2.2) und pecunia (Var. 7.32.3 pecunia […] a pecudis tergo nominata) auf Tacitus bzw. Plinius den Älteren zurückführen zu lassen: vgl. Germ. 45.5 [scil. sucinum] sucum […] arborum esse intellegas4 und nat. 33.43 Seruius rex primus signauit aes […]; signatum est nota pecudum, unde et pecunia appellata. 5. Zusammenfassung Nicht nur im Psalmenkommentar, sondern auch in den Variae legt Cassiodor seinen Hang zu Etymologien an den Tag. Sie belaufen sich auf etwa 50, sind über die ganze Sammlung verstreut und begegnen sehr häufig in den Exkursen, mit denen diese übersät ist: Hier haben etymologische Erklärungen überwiegend die Funktion, die Bildung des Autors zur Schau zu stellen und gleichzeitig den Text auszuschmücken. Sie kommen jedoch auch außerhalb von digressiven Teilen vor, öfters auf Namen von verschiedenen öffentlichen Ämtern bezogen, und in solchen Fällen dienen sie meistens dazu, den wahren Charakter eines Amtes hervorzuheben oder einem Amt eine besondere Bedeutung beizumessen. Was ihre Form angeht, handelt es sich bei ihnen teils um streng durchgeführte Etymologien, teils um Erklärungen zur Herkunft eines Wortes, bei denen die Ausgangsform umschreibend angegeben wird, auch durch eine Übersetzung aus dem Griechischen. Legt man sodann einer tiefergehenden formalen Analyse dieser Etymologien die von Erdbrügger (1912) erstellte Klassifizierung der im Psalmenkommentar vorkommenden zugrunde, stellt man leicht fest, dass Cassiodor in beiden Werken nicht immer gleich vorgegangen ist. Denn

1 «Lukaniens Jahrmarkt erhielt den Namen Leucothea, weil das Wasser hier bis zur Durchsichtigkeit weiß ist». 2 Oder sollte man eher denken, dass Cassiodor von allein auf diese auf der Hand liegende Ableitung kam? 3 «Die Antike nannte libri die Bücher unserer Vorfahren; denn noch heute nennen wir liber die abgezogene Rinde des Baumes» (vgl. Cassiod. Inst. 2 praef. 4 liber […] dictus est a libro, id est arboris cor tice dempto atque liberato, ubi ante inuentionem cartarum antiqui carmina describebant, «das Buch wurde nach dem liber benannt, d.h. der abgezogenen und entfernten Rinde des Baumes, worauf die Vorfahren vor der Erfindung der Papyrusblätter ihre Verse schrieben»). 4 Dass dies die Quelle ist, erklärt Cassiodor selbst, Var. 5.2.2 haec quodam Cornelio [scil. Tacito] describente legitur […] ex arboris suco […] sucinum ([scil. dici]; vgl. Plin. nat. 37.43 ob id [scil. arboris sucum] sucinum appellantes [scil. prisci nostri]).

etymologien in den variae cassiodors 185 zwar zeigt Cassiodor auch in den Variae eine Vorliebe für einen bestimmten Typus etymologischer Ableitung, die sogenannte deriuatio, doch in diesem Werk werden Wörter verhältnismäßig seltener als im Psalmenkommentar als Zusammensetzungen aufgefasst, in welchem im Gegensatz zur Briefsammlung aus dem Griechischen abgeleitete Wörter durchweg fehlen. Widmet man sich schließlich der Frage nach der Herkunft dieser Etymologien, stellt man zunächst fest, dass wenigstens ein Teil von denen, die anscheinend nur bei Cassiodor oder bei ihm als erstem vorkommen, auch auf ihn zurückgehen könnte. Außerdem spielt Varro als etymologische Quelle im Gegensatz zum Psalmenkommentar so gut wie keine Rolle, denn zwar war ca. ein Viertel der in den Variae etymologisierten Wörter auch von Varro etymologisch erklärt worden, in den meisten Fällen jedoch ganz anders, und auch in den übrigen weisen einige Indizien eher auf andere Autoren (z.B. Charisius, Diomedes und Ambrosius). Weitere Etymologien scheinen schließlich u.a. auf Plinius den Älteren, Tacitus, Hyginus, Donatus und Servius zu verweisen. Cassiodor gibt jedoch fast nie die Namen seiner Quellen an und folgt diesen nicht sklavisch, so dass der Versuch, die Herkunft seiner etymologischen Deutungen zurückzuverfolgen, sich meistens als sehr schwierig erweist und zu unsicheren Ergebnissen führen muss.

This page intentionally left blank

P RO B L ÈM ES DE L EXIC OGRAP HI E HUMANI ST E : U N S AVANT ET U N D I CT I O NNAI RE , PAOLO M ANU ZIO ET LE CALE P I N Martine Furno Introduction

L

e dictionnaire de Calepin, ou comme le dit déjà Paolo Manuzio en 1543, le Calepin, est un objet lexicographique à la fortune européenne étonnante tout au long du xvie siècle. Dictionnaire scolaire pour étudiants avancés, plus moderne pour sa forme que pour ses contenus, il est d’abord publié en Italie avant de passer en France et en Allemagne où les éditions, plus ou moins modifiées par rapport à l’original, se succèdent régulièrement à Paris, Lyon et Bâle notamment. La fortune italienne de ce livre est essentiellement liée aux presses vénitiennes: elles assureront la diffusion du dictionnaire à ses débuts, du vivant de l’auteur dès la seconde édition de 1503, et suivront ses mutations en dictionnaire multilingue par exemple jusqu’au début du xviiie siècle.1 L’un des plus remarquables éditeurs vénitiens de ce livre est sans doute Paolo Manuzio. En effet, ce typographe entre dans l’histoire du dictionnaire à la fois comme imprimeur et comme savant: le livre qu’il publie n’est pas seulement composé sur ses presses pour être vendu, mais aussi retravaillé du point de vue philologique à partir des éditions antérieures. Ce travail est réel, quelle que soit la part de fatuité publicitaire avec laquelle il s’étale sur les pages de titre. De plus, beaucoup de ses éditions comportent un élément de curiosité, c’est à dire des Additamenta, dont la forme se fixe à partir de 1558, et qui vont devenir une sorte de ‘marque de fabrique’ des dictionnaires de Manuzio. Ces Additamenta auront même une vie propre et seront rapidement et longtemps imprimés par d’autres typographes que Manuzio, comme A. Gryphe à Lyon, ou A. Guerigli à Venise encore au début du xviie siècle. Ces Additamenta ont motivé une enquête qui m’a permis de réfléchir au statut de ce dictionnaire au cours du xvie siècle. Je me suis demandée pourquoi un éditeur juge utile, alors qu’il compose lui-même un dictionnaire tant du point de vue typographique que du point de vue philologique, de livrer des Additamenta à ce dictionnaire, c’est à dire de donner une liste de termes en appendice, hors de la nomenclature, où il aurait eu tout loisir de les intégrer si le but avait été simplement d’enrichir le fonds du livre. Ainsi posée, la question suppose qu’il y a derrière ces Additamenta un geste personnel et une intention délibérée que j’ai cherché à comprendre. 1 Pour une histoire des éditions du Calepin, voir Labarre 1975.

188 martine furno Nous verrons donc d’abord comment se situent les impressions aldines de ce livre particulier dans l’histoire de la pédagogie et de la lexicographie latine qu’est le Calepin; après une description aussi précise que possible des différentes formes de ces Additamenta au fil des éditions de Paolo Manuzio, je tenterai de comprendre leur fonction; enfin nous nous arrêterons sur quelques unes de ces entrées, revendiquées comme personnelles et inédites par Manuzio, pour analyser aussi son rapport à la langue latine et sa pratique de celle-ci. 1. Les lexiques humanistes et l’histoire du dictionnaire de Calepin 1. 1. Quelques notions générales Le renouveau d’intérêt, à partir du xve siècle, pour les textes latins antiques profanes s’accompagne inévitablement d’un renouvellement des réflexions pédagogiques et des méthodes d’apprentissage de la langue latine elle-même. Ces réflexions génèrent donc de nombreux outils, des traités pédagogiques plus ou moins idéalistes, beaucoup de manuels comme grammaires, manuels d’épistolographie, colloquia, mais aussi de nouveaux lexiques ou dictionnaires de toute sorte. Les premiers lexiques issus de ce mouvement sont des dictionnaires que l’on peut dire savants, c’est à dire des dictionnaires monolingues latins destinés à un public assez avancé; les dictionnaires plus pédagogiques ou scolaires, entre autres les ouvrages bilingues avec des vernaculaires, viendront ensuite et ne commenceront à paraître systématiquement que à partir de 1535-1540.1 Ces premiers dictionnaires savants n’apparaissent pas à partir de rien: ils modifient et infléchissent des instruments existants au Moyen Age, par les nouveaux buts qu’ils poursuivent et les nouveaux moyens de connaissances qui se font jour. Ils veulent permettre à l’utilisateur de retrouver la littérature latine classique qui est désormais la finalité des études: leur but, même quand il n’est pas totalement explicite, est, pour les premières générations de dictionnaires, de rassembler et d’offrir cette littérature pour l’explication et la compréhension, mais surtout pour l’écriture en latin. On cherche dans ces recueils des formules pour mieux écrire et maîtriser une pratique contemporaine de la langue latine que l’on veut imitative de celle de l’antiquité. Pour tenter de résumer très sommairement ce qui change ente les ouvrages anciens et les ouvrages récents, il faut évoquer les principales caractéristiques de ces livres, sur deux points qui les structurent fortement: le classement des lemmes et les citations d’auteurs qui illustrent les sens ou les emplois décrits. Les recueils des xiie ou xiiie siècles comme le Catholicon de Balbi, le lexique de Papias ou celui d’Uguccione da Pisa qui porte explicitement le titre de Deriuationes, sont de structure dérivatoire, c’est à dire que les mots sont regroupés par familles de mots, les primitifs ou étymons étant complétés par leurs dérivés par 1 Pour une présentation plus précise de ces dictionnaires renaissants, voir Furno 2010.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 189 suffixation et/ou préfixation. Ce classement trouve peut-être son origine lointaine dans un classement de type pédagogique, le groupement des mots par champs connotatifs étant bien adapté à la mémorisation. Mais dans l’univers docte des clercs de cette période, ce classement est surtout rationnel et savant: il permet de faire apparaître, ne serait-ce qu’implicitement, qu’il y a un ordre et une raison à la langue, car elle est créée par Dieu de manière donc rationnelle et non arbitraire. Cette idée forte qu’il y a un ‘ordre de la langue’, lui-même reflet d’un ordre du monde tel que le Créateur l’a voulu, reste très longtemps active: on va la retrouver en débat dans les dictionnaires jusqu’au cours du xvie siècle, même si par la suite son aspect ‘idéologique’ est atténué au profit d’une conception simplement rationnelle et ordonnatrice de la langue. Matériellement, la nomenclature est donc partiellement alphabétique, car il faut tout de même une part d’ordre alphabétique pour classer les primitifs eux-mêmes: le plus souvent ce sont les trois premières lettres du mot, rarement au-delà, qui servent de support. Les citations d’auteurs ou de textes pour illustrer les usages des mots en contexte sont peu nombreuses: priorité est donnée aux gloses et éclaircissements du sens. Lorsqu’elles existent, ces citations sont puisées essentiellement aux textes sacrés, plus rarement aux auteurs antiques profanes. Le corpus des textes classiques cités est de plus assez mince: il se réduit aux grands auteurs couramment connus entre xe et xiie siècles, soit Plaute, l’œuvre rhétorique de Cicéron, Virgile et Ovide. Il n’est pas impossible de voir quelques autres noms, mais il s’agit d’exceptions ponctuelles.1 Les dictionnaires renaissants vont se bâtir en regard et en opposition à ces pratiques, très décriées par les auteurs humanistes, même si les premiers d’entre eux comme Perotti ont été formés par ces ouvrages antérieurs, dont ils reprennent parfois, et en ce cas sans le signaler, certaines explications ou présentations. Un des points communs au début de la période entre anciens et modernes est que les ouvrages lexicographiques restent dans le registre savant: tous les grands lexiques entre 1470 et 1535 sont des dictionnaires monolingues latins de fait, malgré les intentions affichées par la première version du Thesaurus de Robert Estienne par exemple, et sont conçus comme des instruments de travail pour étudiants à un stade avancé déjà. Ces dictionnaires correspondent donc aux besoins de ce niveau d’apprentissage du latin, c’est à dire qu’ils doivent donner non seulement l’explication des termes, mais aussi les références qui vont permettre d’écrire dans un latin le plus proche possible de celui des Anciens, avec l’apparence de la spontanéité ou du naturel: cette maîtrise d’une pratique écrite all’antica est un marqueur culturel d’appartenance au monde des intellectuels. Trois grands ouvrages se partagent successivement les faveurs des lecteurs: le Cornu Copiae de Niccolò Perotti, publié posthume en 1480, le livre d’Ambrogio Calepino, sans titre à ses débuts et paru en 1502, et les trois versions successives, en 1531, 1536 et 1543 du Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne. Les deux 1 Voir Furno 1997.

190 martine furno derniers finissent par avoir raison du premier, emporté par la vague du renouvellement des titres; la permanence du nom de Calepin, d’autre part, masque de profondes mutations du contenu de ce livre.1 Ces trois ouvrages réactivent, les uns après les autres et plus ou moins explicitement, les deux grands débats de la lexicographie ancienne: quelle doit être la méthode de classement de la nomenclature? quels textes citer à l’appui des explications, et comment les citer? La discussion court toujours entre classement dérivatoire, jugé seul ordre digne de ce nom car rationnel, et classement alphabétique, clairement plus commode, qui existe de fait presque toujours dans ces livres, car il faut bien, comme on l’a vu plus haut, classer les étymons. C’est sa part qui fait débat: doit-il donc ne s’appliquer qu’aux étymons, ou aux étymons puis aux dérivés à l’intérieur d’un article de dérivation, ou être le seul critère absolu hors considération des familles de mots? Le débat n’est toujours pas tranché en 1694 quand naît le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française… . D’autres questions entrent en jeu à propos des citations ou exemples à offrir aux lecteurs: quels auteurs choisir, d’abord? faut-il réduire le corpus aux auteurs classiques profanes, fondements de l’enseignement, et ne plus puiser d’exemples dans les textes sacrés? Ce premier débat se résout peu à peu dans les faits par la prédominance des auteurs classiques devenus scolaires, mais on verra que le premier Calepin était précisément une réaction devant des ouvrages comme celui de Perotti, implicitement présenté comme trop oublieux des Pères et des textes chrétiens. Une autre différence se fait jour dans le référencement des citations, en un premier temps limité au seul nom de l’auteur, ce qui revient à demander au lecteur de faire une parfaite confiance au lexicographe quant à la fiabilité de l’exemple fourni, dans une sorte de conception verticale du savoir. Plus tard apparaissent les titres des œuvres et des divisions du texte, ce qui soulève la question des supports utilisés pour ces divisions: prétendre la nécessité de ces références précises fonde l’apparition d’un mode de travail que nous dirions scientifique, où le lexique devient un ‘livre ouvert’ ramenant le lecteur aux textes premiers.2 Une brève comparaison entre les deux plus importants lexiques humanistes, depuis les débuts de la période jusqu’en 1550, permet de brosser le paysage dans lequel s’inscrit le Calepin dont on va parler en détail. Le Cornu Copiae de N. Perotti et le Thesaurus de Robert Estienne peuvent en effet être rapprochés dans le tableau ci-dessous:

1 Sur Perotti, voir Furno 1995; sur les dictionnaires de Robert Estienne dans leur ensemble, voir Eadem 2000. 2 Pour une étude plus précise de ces changements de références bibliographiques, voir Furno 2010.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste

191

N. Perotti, Cornu copiae

Robert Estienne, Thesaurus linguae Latinae

Date: mort en 1470, Perotti a rédigé l’ouvrage dans les dernières années de sa vie, mais la compilation du matériel est sans doute très antérieure.

Date: un des ouvrages du début de la carrière typographique d’Estienne, commencée en 1527-1528. La récolte du matériel lexicographique commence probablement dès les premiers travaux d’imprimerie.

Parution: un manuscrit d’apparat destiné au Parution: Estienne imprime lui-même son duc de Montefeltro, avant l’édition princeps en texte pour la première fois en 1531, sous la forme d’un dictionnaire encylopédique latin 1480 à Venise. avec très ponctuellement des mots français dans les cas où l’explication entièrement en latin est difficile à élaborer, par exemple dans le cas de termes techniques. Le Thesaurus est augmenté et repris en 1536, et le français supprimé; dernière reprise encore augmentée en 1543. Diffusion: grande fortune éditoriale jusque vers 1520, malgré quelques éditions encore postérieures; Aldo Manuzio publie de manière régulière et répétée le Cornu Copiae, accompagné d’autres petits ouvrages lexicographiques antiques tardifs et cet ensemble est un des fondamentaux de sa production pédagogique.

Diffusion: très grand succès, et de nombreux plagiats dans toute l’Europe malgré le privilège royal qui ne protège Estienne qu’en France, et assez mal.

Classement des lemmes: dérivatoire, à partir d’un support original bien que presque impraticable, c’est à dire le texte de Martial dont le lexique serait un commentaire. La nécessité d’un index alphabétique pour s’y retrouver apparaît rapidement, dès les premiers manuscrits. Beaucoup d’explications viennent de dictionnaires antérieurs des xiie et xiiie siècles.

Classement des lemmes: dérivatoire mais, comme celui du Calepin qui le précède, “tempéré”: Estienne conserve la structure par famille de mots avec un classement alphabétique intégral des primitifs. Mais la famille de mots est en fait réduite à la dérivation par suffixation, et les composés par préfixation sont à leur place alphabétique dans la nomenclature. A l’intérieur des articles, le classement des exemples est souvent partiellement alphabétique.

Corpus de citations: très nombreuses citations d’auteurs classiques, aucune citation de la Bible; ces citations sont souvent indirectes, c’est à dire reprises à des lexiques antérieurs ou par compilation de lexiques de l’Antiquité tardive comme Nonius. Les citations sont référencées par le seul nom de l’auteur.

Même corpus de très nombreuses citations classiques, parfois reprises explicitement à Perotti. Aucune citation des textes sacrés qu’Estienne édite régulièrement par ailleurs. Les citations sont référencées avec le nom de l’auteur, le titre du texte et une division du texte, en général fondée sur les éditions d’Estienne lui-même.

192

martine furno 1. 2. Le dictionnaire de Calepin

Le premier ouvrage signé Ambrogio Calepino paraît avec le nom de l’auteur mais sans titre chez Dionigi de’ Bertocchi à Reggio nell’Emilia en 1502; une préface sous forme d’une lettre dédicace au Sénat de Bergame pose les principes de ce livre que rien pourtant ne semblait destiner au particulier et immense succès de librairie qui va être le sien pendant trois siècles. Dictionnaire latin pour la nomenclature et essentiellement en latin pour les explications, malgré la présence d’un peu de grec à la fois comme un élément de définition sur certaines entrées et parfois comme remarques explicatives à l’intérieur des articles, ce manuel vise comme ses prédécesseurs les étudiants avancés. Il est cependant assez réactionnaire sur le corpus d’exemples cités: dictionnaire humaniste certes car il se détourne des ouvrages médiévaux et pose comme références indépassables «Nonius, Festus, Pédianus, Servius, Donat, Varron, et les autres lumières de la langue latine», il oppose pourtant à l’autorité d’auteurs connus et souvent contemporains, comme Valla, «le sérieux et la science d’Ambroise, de Jérôme ou d’Augustin, et des grecs».1 Il s’agit clairement d’un livre composé par un religieux, qui n’aime pas Valla à qui probablement il reproche le De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione, et qui, beaucoup plus que Perotti par exemple ne le faisait avant lui, s’appuie sur les Pères de l’Eglise pour donner ses références latines. Cette dimension polémique disparaîtra assez vite dans les éditions postérieures à la mort de l’auteur: l’humanisme chrétien dont il fait preuve est en un sens régressif, plus proche de la génération de Pétrarque que de celle des Valla et Perotti qui le précèdent immédiatement, et par là même condamné à être effacé par la dynamique des nouvelles recherches. Le livre connaît un succès immédiat, est repris et enrichi, voire détourné après la mort de l’auteur en 1520. Il répond en effet non tant en soi au besoin d’un lexique humaniste (besoin que peuvent satisfaire les très complètes éditions aldines du Cornu Copiae, souvent accompagné de Nonius) mais d’un lexique commode à utiliser. Par rapport à l’ouvrage de Perotti, Calepino introduit en effet des concessions dans le système dérivatoire, concessions qui deviendront la norme minimale pour les ouvrages suivants. En effet, l’ordre alphabé1 Cf. Lettre de Calepino Au Sénat de Bergame, [dédicace méthodologique faisant office de préface]: certoque sciam me nec tanto ingenio, tantaue litteratura praecellere ut quae a Nonio Marcello, Festo Pompeio, Pediano, Seruio, Donato, Varrone caeterisque latinae linguae luminibus elucubrata fuerint, «Je le sais bien, je ne brille ni d’un talent ni d’une connaissance des lettres telles que je puisse écrire, moi qui suis voué à la religion plus qu’à n’importe quelle discipline, avec plus de clarté et de netteté tout ce qui a été élaboré par Nonius, Festus, Pédianus, Servius, Donat, Varron, et les autres lumières de la langue latine.»; et multa contra Laurentium Vallam, contra Priscianum aliosque autores praestantiorum auctoritate nixus, plus enim apud me Ambrosii, Hieronymi, uel Augustini grauitas et doctrina ualet et graecorum quam Laurentii Vallae studiosa reprehensio, «J’ai fait beaucoup d’efforts, avec l’autorité de mes maîtres, contre Laurent Valla, contre Priscien, et d’autres auteurs, car le sérieux et la science d’Ambroise, de Jérôme ou d’Augustin, et des grecs, ont pour moi plus de valeur que la critique activiste de Laurent Valla».

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 193 tique est stable au minimum sur les trois premières lettres pour les primitifs; les dérivés et composés par suffixation sont classés sous le primitif, mais les composés par préfixation, qui perturbent le plus l’ordre alphabétique puisque leur initiale n’est plus celle du primitif, sont classés à leur place alphabétique dans la nomenclature où ils sont une entrée à part entière. Les citations enfin sont référencées au-delà du nom de l’auteur, avec un titre et plus rarement une division du texte, et le livre est globalement plus maniable et facile à utiliser que la masse compacte du Cornu Copiae par exemple. Cette commodité va en faire un succès européen: on peut distinguer en gros une première époque de diffusion, de 1510 à 1540 environ, où le texte va être modifié surtout par des corrections d’erreurs ou des enrichissements, en introduisant par exemple des équivalents grecs de plus en plus systématiques comme première glose des entrées latines. Parallèlement, les éditeurs souvent en même temps imprimeurs, font évoluer les citations vers plus de ‘politiquement correct’ humaniste: la présence majeure des Pères de l’Eglise est progressivement gommée ou supplantée par l’introduction de références classiques scolaires abondantes, Cicéron, Virgile, Salluste, Tite Live, qui n’étaient pas absents de la version de départ mais n’étaient pas majoritaires. La parution en 1531 de la première version du Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne amorce un changement. En effet, le caractère à la fois moderne et sérieux du nouveau dictionnaire risque de rendre caduque le Calepin traditionnel déjà ancien, d’autant que la préface de ce Thesaurus affiche clairement sa volonté de le remplacer: poussé par des proches à imprimer comme d’autres un nouveau Calepin, Estienne explique avoir trouvé l’entreprise tellement difficile et compromise par les erreurs existantes qu’il préfère tout recommencer à zéro et reprendre complètement un travail nouveau de lexicographie.1 Ses concur1 Voir la Préface du Thesaurus de 1531: Triennium est, aut eo amplius, cum a me complures efflagitabant, vt Calepini dictionarium, iuxta posteriorem ipsius authoris recognitionem, suæ integritati restituerem: restitutumque, meis typis castigatius ac diligentius, quam vulgo haberetur, excuderem. Quod cum sæpe negauissem me facturum (multis enim de caussis id ipsum præstare diffidebam) tandem victus tot importunis clamoribus, re ter quater tentata, nihilominus incœpto desistere coactus fui. Cum enim uniuersum opus diligenter inspectum, animo perlustrassem, adhibitis etiam in consilium viris prudentissimis: reperiebam, me in eo genere citra infinitum laborem parum reipublicæ profuturum esse. Talis enim mihi occurrebat eius libri facies, tanta ubique deprauatio, tantum (vt ita dicam) chaos, et rerum omnium confusio, etiam in iis codicibus, qui minus corrupti vulgo ferebantur: vt omnino desperarem, opus illud a me corrigi atque instaurari posse: nisi (qui labor, præsertim in tantis occupationibus meis, vehementer me absterrebat) totum exemplar mea ipse manu conscriberem, «Voilà trois ans ou plus que de très nombreuses personnes me réclamaient de restituer le Dictionnaire de Calepin dans son intégrité, à la suite de la dernière révision de l’auteur lui-même, et qu’après l’avoir restitué, je l’imprimasse sur mes presses de manière plus soignée et diligente qu’il ne se fait couramment. J’ai souvent dit que je n’en ferai rien (car pour de nombreuses raisons je me méfiais d’une telle promesse); mais enfin, vaincu par des cris si nombreux et si importuns, je tentai la chose trois ou quatre fois. Je fus contraint d’abandonner tout à fait le projet commencé. En effet, alors que, après avoir parcouru avec diligence l’ouvrage tout entier, j’y avais réfléchi, et après avoir aussi pris conseil auprès des hommes les plus sages, je trouvais que je serais de peu d’utilité à la république des lettres de cette

194 martine furno rents mesurent vite tout l’intérêt que représente le nouvel ouvrage: il sera en fait rapidement et régulièrement pillé ou plagié, dès l’édition de 1531, et plus encore dans les éditions de 1536 et 1543 qui en présentent de nouvelles versions augmentées. Un moyen commode de faire ce plagiat en contournant sans risque le privilège royal accordé à Estienne est de publier certes des pans entiers du Thesaurus linguae Latinae, mais sous le nom de Calepin: déjà argument de vente et objet de commerce, le nom de l’érémitain, doublé d’accroches publicitaires personnelles des imprimeurs, permet de couvrir les emprunts, qui se multiplient après 1545. Un des imprimeurs particulièrement habile à ce procédé est Sébastien Gryphe à Lyon: après chaque parution d’un Thesaurus linguae Latinae chez Robert Estienne, il donne, dans les douze à quatorze mois qui suivent, un Calepin fondé sur cette publication d’Estienne. La production de Calepins chez Gryphe, c’est-à-dire des ouvrages qui offrent en majeure partie le fonds du Thesaurus linguae Latinae, mais enrichi de la présence quasi systématique d’un glose grecque à l’entrée latine, et surtout avec une nomenclature classée en ordre alphabétique intégral, va servir de base à toute la vie européenne des calepins de la seconde moitié du xvie siècle. La nouveauté la plus commentée de cette période, qui a même parfois occulté la réalité scolaire, est l’introduction d’équivalents vernaculaires venant doubler en fait la glose grecque de départ. Due à des nécessités pédagogiques spécifiques dans sa première version, cette nouveauté, qui devient rapidement elle aussi commerciale, se transforme en compétition entre Lyon et Bâle essentiellement pour l’enchérissement du nombre de vernaculaires représentés: trois, cinq, sept, neuf langues modernes doublent parfois le latin et le grec. On n’a souvent vu de ces éditions que le vernaculaire, dont la portée est en fait très limitée, puisque sa présence n’est pas absolument systématique et qu’il ne modifie en rien le fond, ni même la forme de la partie latine: celle-ci demeure reprise aux Calepins de Gryphe, plus ou moins agrémentés de variantes mineures selon les imprimeurs.1 2. Paolo Manuzio, le Calepin et ses Additamenta 2. 1. Petit historique des éditions du Calepin par Paolo Manuzio Le témoignage de Robert Estienne dans la préface du Thesaurus nous confirme que ce sont principalement les imprimeurs savants qui, depuis le début, se sont façon sans une peine infinie. Tel en effet m’apparaissait le visage de ce livre, si grand de tous côtés son mauvais état, si grands (pour ainsi dire) le chaos et la confusion, même dans les manuscrits qu’on disait les moins corrompus, que je désespérais tout à fait de pouvoir corriger et restaurer cet ouvrage, sans réécrire moi-même l’exemplaire tout entier de ma propre main – travail qui me terrifiait vivement, particulièrement au milieu de mes innombrables occupations». 1 Pour plus de précisions sur ces Calepins polyglottes et leur place dans l’univers de l’apprentissage des langues au xvie siècle, voir Furno 2008.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 195 chargés de faire vivre le dictionnaire et de lui donner de nouvelles personnalités au fil des rééditions. Josse Bade par exemple, l’un des premiers, travaille sur le contenu du livre dans son édition parisienne de 1509, ajoute beaucoup de grec aux gloses déjà existantes, et sera suivi en cela par la plupart des imprimeurs parisiens jusque 1530. Jérôme Curion à Bâle ensuite, Sébastien Gryphe à Lyon, on l’a vu, interviendront sur le texte. Il était donc assez improbable que l’officine des Manuzio pût rester hors de la concurrence, d’autant que Venise est aussi un centre de production de Calepins, depuis les toutes premières parutions. Alde l’Ancien cependant n’imprime pas de Calepin, et laisse l’ouvrage à ses concurrents: Peter Liechtenstein et Bernardino Benali notamment l’imprimeront à la période même où Alde aurait pu le faire. La raison en est probablement qu’Alde reste fidèle, dans sa propre officine, aux instruments de travail qu’il a lui même mis sur le marché en ce domaine, notamment le Cornu Copiae de Perotti. Il est difficile de savoir si cette décision est purement commerciale, l’imprimeur évitant d’ajouter à son catalogue un livre qui risquerait de plomber les ventes d’un autre, ou si elle a aussi une motivation intellectuelle, Aldo considérant le Cornu Copiae comme un instrument plus complet ou plus sûr que les versions du Calepin qui circulent alors. C’est donc son fils Paolo qui entre dans la production du Calepin en 1542; né en 1512, il reprend en 1533 l’imprimerie qu’avait tenue André d’Asola après la mort d’Alde, et qui était fermée depuis deux ans; jeune savant alors, qui a été éduqué par tous les grands noms de l’humanisme vénitien également familiers de son père et de sa librairie, il édite essentiellement du latin, et beaucoup d’ouvrages classiques pour les écoles, notamment beaucoup de Cicéron dont il est aussi un fier spécialiste.1 Son premier Calepin de 1542 est un ouvrage très caractéristique de la lexicographie de cette période: sans aucun doute réellement revu par lui du point de vue philologique notamment en ce qui concerne les citations et leurs références, il prend pour fondement un Calepin de type Gryphe, c’est-à-dire un déguisement du Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne. Il y ajoute ponctuellement quelques remarques, et des variantes sur l’ordre et la forme des entrées, mais les remaniements et rénovations portent surtout sur des points où Paolo peut faire jouer ses compétences philologiques. Comme il le dit lui-même dans la préface, il a renoncé à beaucoup de corrections que nous appellerions strictement lexicographiques: il constate que «dans le livre de Calepin, il y avait beaucoup de termes je ne dis pas peu latins, mais tout à fait barbares», mais ajoute: «nous avons fait peu de changements de ce genre: car tout changer aurait été sans fin».2 Mais Paolo s’attarde au contraire sur les éléments qui lui permettent 1 Sur les années de formation puis de pratique de l’imprimerie de Paolo Manuzio, voir Cataldi Palau 1998 et Barberi 1985; sur l’imprimerie des Manuzio en général, voir Renouard 1803. 2 Paolo Manuzio, liminaire au Calepin, 1542, page de titre vº: Multa erant in Calepino libro non dico parum latine scripta, sed plane barbare: huius generis nonnula mutauimus; nam omnia fuisset infinitum.

196 martine furno de briller, soulignant quelques entrées (Intractus, Marmoratus, Iulius, Martia, Familiaris) où il peut corriger soit les citations du point de vue philologique à partir d’un texte mieux établi, soit des erreurs de ‘civilisation’ où il se montre plus précisément compétent que ses prédécesseurs.1 Dans la préface de l’édition suivante en 1548, Paolo Manuzio se montrera plus occupé de travail proprement lexicographique: il mentionnera, j’y reviendrai, des lemmes ajoutés, mais aussi des lemmes supprimés pour cause de ‘non latinité’, revenant sur un aspect du travail auquel il semble avoir renoncé dans l’édition précédente.2 L’édition partagée en 1550 avec J. Gryphe comporte la traduction italienne des entrées. Le titre souligne l’apport pédagogique de cette nouveauté, et le soin apporté au choix des références vernaculaires, prises «à Francesco Petrarca, Giovanni Boccaccio, Dante Alighieri, Pietro Bembo, Lodovico Ariosto, Giulio Camillo, et d’autres écrivains très estimés».3 Cette présence de l’italien sera désormais constante dans toutes les éditions, même si elles ne l’annoncent pas toutes, ou ne l’annoncent de nouveau qu’à partir de l’édition de 1565: l’entrée latine est doublée le plus souvent d’un synonyme grec et d’un synonyme italien, même si l’explication ensuite se fait en latin, et même si l’équivalent vernaculaire n’est pas toujours d’une grande exactitude. A partir de 1558, le dictionnaire est relativement stable, et ne comporte plus que des changements mineurs de mise à jour malgré les titres tapageurs. Toutes 1 Voir par exemple la préface au Calepin, 1542, page de titre vº: Vt in dictione intractvs , locum recitat ex libro Ciceronis de amicitia; cum in eo libro non, intracto, legatur, sed intractato. Et in dictione marmoratvs , dici putat posse marmoratas laudes, adductus in hanc opinionem ex Ciceronis loco in oratione pro Archia; cum eum locum mendosum esse postea cognitum sit; nam ubi legebatur, et marmoratis laudibus, apparet esse legendum e marmore at iis laudibus, «Par exemple dans l’entrée intractvs , il donne un passage pris au De amicitia de Cicéron, alors que dans ce texte, on lit non pas intracto, mais intractato. Et dans l’entrée marmoratvs , il pense qu’on peut dire marmoratas laudes, amené à cette opinion par un passage du Pro Archia de Cicéron, alors que par la suite on s’est rendu compte que ce passage était erroné. Car là où on lisait marmoratis laudibus, il apparaît qu’il faut lire e marmore at iis laudibus». Pour le lemme Iulius, Paolo reproche aux lexiques antérieurs d’avoir écrit entre autres que le nom de Iulius Caesar vient du mois Iulius et non l’inverse; il signale aussi sa connaissance des noms romains, en précisant qu’une Martia ne peut être fille de Porcius Cato. 2 Paolo Manuzio, préface du Calepin de 1548, page de titre vº: Vt in dictionibus Graecis Latinarum ordini insertis, uel potius intrusis, multas quasi de alieno loco migrare coegimus. Exempli gratia, inter Latinas dictiones quem locum habere potuit Catabathynus, aut Hodoedocus, aut Pseudonymus, & huiusmodi quae a Latinis scriptoribus Latine pro exemplo adducta uix reperias: quae propemodum innumerabilia sustulimus, eodem iure quo Latina uocabula ex Graeco Dictionario tolleremus, «De même pour les mots grecs insérés, ou plutôt mis en intrus, dans l’ordre des mots latins, nous en avons contraints beaucoup à émigrer, comme d’un lieu où ils sont étrangers. Par exemple, quelle place peuvent avoir, au milieu de mots latins, Cathabatynus, ou Hodoedocus, ou Pseudonymus, ou d’autres de ce genre qu’on trouverait avec peine pris comme exemples en latin par des auteurs latins? nous en avons ôté une quantité presque innombrable, selon le même droit avec lequel nous ôterions des termes latins d’un Dictionnaire Grec». 3 Ambrosii Calepini Dictionarium, Venezia, P. Manuzio et J. Griffo, 1550, page de titre: ex Francisco Petrarcha, Ioanne Bocatio, Dante Aligerio, Petro Bembo, Lodouico Ariosto, Iulio Camillo, aliisque probatissimis sciptoribus autoritates curaremus.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 197 les éditions aussi à partir de 1558 comportent comme préface un texte dédicace Aloysio Garzonio, à Lodovico Garzonio, secrétaire pontifical en charge de la délivrance de divers privilèges qu’il signe dans la période 1555-1565: cette épître publicitaire générale reprend les idées principales de la page de titre, soulignant le travail de Manuzio sur la nomenclature et son classement, sur le grec, sur les citations, travail qu’il présente comme le nettoyage des écuries d’Augias… 2. 2. Les Additamenta et leur histoire La première édition qui mentionne les Additamenta en tant que tels sur la page de titre est celle de 1558, mais l’idée d’imprimer un appendice au dictionnaire est visiblement antérieure, et a évolué lentement jusqu’à la forme définitive de 1558, même si les contenus sont encore modifiés en 1565. En effet, certains exemplaires de l’édition de 1542 comportent un ajout de 25 folios, intitulé DICTIONES MVLTAE ADDITAE AD AMBRO=||sii calepini dictionarivm a nobis anno||svperiore impressvm, qvae ivvare|| stvdiosos homines possvnt, ajout que l’on peut donc dater de 1543.1 Les entrées sont rangées par ordre strictement alphabétique, le lemme en capitales est suivi d’une courte définition en italiques, en général de deux ou trois lignes, parfois beaucoup moins. On y trouve quelques mots courants, dont les entrées sont assez développées, sur le mode du dictionnaire qui précède, et semblent avoir été tout simplement oubliées pendant la composition, comme celle du verbe aemulor. Mais ces cas sont rares: pour l’essentiel ces ajouts sont composés de mots techniques, noms propres, toponymes, ou mots rares, c’est à dire que Manuzio donne ici au lecteur ce qu’on pourrait appeler un ajout lexicographique d’érudition, manquant selon lui au corps du dictionnaire.2 Certains de ces lemmes passeront dans la nomenclature dans les éditions suivantes, d’autres seront définitivement condamnés, mais il est à noter qu’aucune de ces entrées ne sera reprise dans les Additamenta “canoniques” de 1558 et au-delà. C’est donc le principe d’un ajout qui est en germe ici, et non sa réalisation finale: cela est d’autant plus visible dans la partie peut-être la plus significative pour notre propos de ces dictiones additae de 1542, qui se trouve au folio 25. Celui-ci comporte en effet une liste supplémentaire de termes, intitulée DICTIONES QVAE IN CALEPINIS||aliorvm typis impressis non le gvntvr:||nostri tantvmmodo habent. Ce nouveau supplément est inté1 J’ai consulté pour cette édition l’exemplaire conservé à la Biblioteca Nazionale di Torino (Ris.30.275). Dans cet exemplaire, l’ajout est un nouveau cahier, qui commence cependant sur un fº signé Aii, sans que rien ne manque au contenu, le folio Ai semble avoir disparu sans trace. Si l’on considère qu’il manque un folio, les folios de l’ajout de cet exemplaire sont numérotés [2] 3-25. 2 Les tout premiers mots de cette liste, très représentatifs de toute la suite, sont: abba oppidum in Arabia felici, ut auctor est Ptolemaeus, est et civitas Phocidis Straboni et Aristoteli, Mons item Armeniae unde oritur Euphrates.||abae Abarum oppidum phocidis. Strabo||abala oppidum in Africa, ut Plin.||abali Indiae populi Plin. cap. 19 lib. 6.

198 martine furno ressant à plus d’un terme: d’abord, et de manière anecdotique, parce qu’il est peut-être un des premiers cas attestés et officiellement imprimés de l’emploi du mot Calepinus comme un nom commun, au pluriel, dans l’expressions in calepinis aliorum typis impressis, et non plus comme le nom propre véritablement de Calepin.1 Ensuite, l’idée même qui motive ce nouvel ajout est frappante pour la suite des pratiques de Paolo Manuzio: peut-être pour ne pas laisser blanc le dernier feuillet, l’imprimeur donne une liste entièrement publicitaire, où les mots repris sont tous des entrées déjà dans la nomenclature par ailleurs. Les articles sont réimprimés exactement dans le même état que dans le dictionnaire, et sont donc soulignés comme des ‘exclusivités’ par le seul fait de leur reprise sur la dernière page. Il y a là en germe l’idée d’utiliser l’ajout comme un lieu de publicité pour le livre, car la position de ces listes, à la fois liées au dictionnaire et en dehors de lui, leur donne un relief particulier. L’idée d’une liste publicitaire flotte toujours sur l’édition de 1548, même si elle ne comporte pas d’ajout: l’avis au lecteur insiste plus que précédemment, on l’a vu, sur le travail proprement lexicographique, et plutôt que d’en rester à la mention globale de lemmes supplémentaires, Manuzio préfère donner explicitement les principaux. La fin de l’épître prend alors des allures de publicité comparative, exercice dans lequel l’imprimeur se montre tout à fait à son aise: Il ne convient pas de rappeler ici ce qui nous avons ajouté, et dans quels lemmes, comme dans les lemmes Antiquo, Antonius, Catapulta, Centesimae, Cohors, Columnarium, Comitium, Commodum, Diuortium, Eo, Equus, Eximo, Fides, Fortuna, Gladiatores, Iaceo, Inaudio, Insolentia, Intercedo, Nisi, Obseruo, Pars, Promulgo, Putidum, Repraesento, Sepultura, Sequor, Simul, Sin, Subseciuus, Testa, Toga, Tribus, Triumuir, Vaticinor, Vrbs, et bien d’autres de ce genre, qu’on cherchera en vain dans les autres dictionnaires. Ces ajouts en effet n’ont pas été tirés des index grand ouverts de Dioscoride ou de Ptolémée, mais ont été puisés aux sources cachées de la langue latine.2

La pratique de l’ajout final réapparaît dans l’édition de 1552, qui est donnée par Labarre pour l’identique de 1548 en ce qui concerne le dictionnaire lui même, mais comporte une page de titre nouvelle et une fin refaite. Celle-ci comporte une nouvelle page de titre, constituée comme suit:

1 Je n’ai pas rencontré d’attestation écrite antérieure de cet emploi («dans les calepins imprimés sur les presses d’autres imprimeurs»), mais ma connaissance des textes n’est pas exhaustive. Si Paolo Manuzio est réellement un pionnier, il ne l’est sans doute que dans l’officialisation d’un emploi parlé qui devait déjà être relativement courant dans le milieu scolaire, et n’a fait que se banaliser ensuite. 2 P. Manuzio, Dictionnarium Calepini, Venezia, 1548, Avis au lecteur: Non enim libet hic commemorare quae quibus in uerbis sint a nobis addita, ut in verbo Antiquo, Antonius, Catapulta, Centesimae, Cohors, Columnarium, Comitium, Commodum, Diuortium, Eo, Equus, Eximo, Fides, Fortuna, Gladiatores, Iaceo, Inaudio, Insolentia, Intercedo, Nisi, Obseruo, Pars, Promulgo, Putidum, Repraesento, Sepultura, Sequor, Simul, Sin, Subseciuus, Testa, Toga, Tribus, Triumuir, Vaticinor, Vrbs, et huiusmodi sexcentis, que, ut opinor, in aliis Dictionariis desiderabuntur. Non enim desumpta sunt ex apertis indicibus Dioscoridis aut Ptolemaei, sed ex abditis Latinae linguae fontibus deriuata.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 199 DICTIONES PLVRIMAE, QVARVM SIGNIFICATIO||PERVTILIS AC NECESSARIA EST, VNDECVNQVE||conquisitae, et separatim hic impressae sunt: cvm, quo tem-||pore ipsvm calepini dictionarivm imprimebatvr,||collectae nondvm essent.||[marque]||venetiis, m d lii.1 Elle ouvre sur une liste considérable de soixante-deux feuillets de lemmes supplémentaires, dont le motif avoué («mots … imprimés ici de manière séparée, puisque, au moment où le dictionnaire même de Calepin était en cours d’impression, ces mots n’étaient pas encore rassemblés») est en quelque sorte un défaut de coordination entre les deux personnalités de Paolo Manuzio, l’imprimeur et le savant. Mais cet argument est tellement topique chez tous les imprimeurs savants ou moins savants de cette période qu’on ne peut guère s’y fier véritablement. Cet ajout assez volumineux est une sorte de dictionnaire annexe, où les lemmes sont classés par ordre alphabétique avec un titre courant A ante B A ante C, du type de celui que l’on trouve dans le corps du livre. Cette liste semble être prête à entrer dans le dictionnaire principal, car les entrées y sont construites de la même façon, avec le lemme suivi de son équivalent grec, puis une glose et des exemples. Ces articles ne sont pas très longs, allant de quelques mots à une vingtaine de lignes, mais suppléent des manques du corps du dictionnaire: noms propres, mots grecs, ou noms propres grecs, mots techniques, et mots grammaticaux comme quelques dérivés de qui qui ne sont effectivement pas dans la nomenclature. Il est difficile de comprendre le statut exact de cette liste: à la différence du folio 25 des dictiones additae de 1542, elle est trop longue pour servir d’accroche publicitaire et complète réellement le dictionnaire, mais en rend la consultation moins aisée puisqu’elle oblige, pour des mots courants comme quincunque et quinetiam, à passer dans les derniers feuillets après avoir constaté leur absence dans la nomenclature. En fait, un détail peut nous mettre sur une piste pour comprendre peut-être la présence de cet ajout. La liste comporte en effet une entrée Ab praepositio uide in superiori dictione, mais, au pied de la lettre, l’entrée précédente dans la liste, c’est à dire Aaron, ne comporte strictement rien qui puisse nous éclairer sur Ab praepositio. En fait, il est probable que cette ligne renvoie à l’article A qui ouvre la nomenclature et contient les parties A nomen litterae Hebraeis, A ou Ah interiectio, et A ou Ab praepositio. L’entrée redoublée Ab devait être prévue dans la nomenclature, mais a été supprimée ou omise; elle reste dans la liste d’ajouts de 1552 qui nous semble être une liste mélangée, et peut-être mal triée, non seulement réellement d’ajouts possibles pour l’édition suivante, mais aussi de repentirs sur le sort desquels Manuzio n’a pas clairement statué. Cette idée peut être confirmée par le fait que beaucoup de mots de cette liste passent dans la nomenclature de 1558, notamment des noms propres, mais d’autres références disparaissent: pour le début de lettre A que nous avons signalé, Ab praepositio n’est pas repris, mais Aaron, Abaculi, Abaea et

1 Les deux premiers feuillets de chaque cahier sont signés giunta (ou gionta) del Calep. a aii b bii, etc.

200 martine furno Abaetae qui l’entourent sont intégrés au dictionnaire. Pas une seule des entrées ajoutées de 1552 ne se retrouvera dans les Additamenta de 1558, qui ont une tout autre allure. Les Additamenta prennent donc leur forme définitive et ‘officialisée’ dans l’édition de 1558, puisqu’ils sont annoncés dans la page de titre, et cela même si leur contenu est encore retouché dans l’édition suivante. Le dictionnaire en luimême se présente en deux tomes: un premier de A à L, et un second de M à Z. Une nouvelle page de titre explique au nom de la commodité matérielle du lecteur cette division qui disparaîtra dans les éditions suivantes.1 Au f º 229 du second tome commencent les Additamenta, précédés d’un petit texte qui restera inchangé dans toutes les éditions suivantes: Paulus Manutius Aldi Filius bonarum litterarum studiosis s. d. Vetus nostrum tueor institutum, quam licet, accurate, ut ex aedibus nostris nullum librum exire patiar, quem non uel auxerit, uel aliquo pacto nostra expoliuerit atque ornauerit industria. In Calepino praestitimus ea quae polliciti sumus in fronte libri: hoc addidimus egregia multa, ut putamus, certe non admodum peruulgata; quae uobis tum utilia, tum grata in primis fore existimamus. Habent enim doctrinam homine dignam eleganti, et qui literarum humanarum in studio libenter uersetur. Quae suis locis inserere & inter Calepini uerba imprimere uisum non est: laterent enim quodam modo, quasi sepulta, nec intelligere facile esset quem uobis fructum ex opera studioque nostro liceat percipere. Qui certe, si uoluntati nostrae responderet, esset uberrimus: nec minimum tamen qui haec legerit, esse iudicabit. Paul Manuce, fils d’Alde, à ceux qui étudient les bonnes lettres, salut. Je préserve autant que possible avec soin notre vieux principe, de ne permettre qu’aucun livre ne sorte de notre atelier sans avoir été augmenté, ou poli ou orné de quelque façon par notre industrie. Nous avons fourni dans le Calepin ce que nous promettions sur le titre du livre: nous avons ici ajouté beaucoup, à notre avis, et sans aucun doute des éléments qui ne sont pas encore très répandus; éléments dont nous pensons qu’ils vous seront surtout utiles, et agréables. Ils sont pleins en effet d’une science digne d’un homme élégant, versé de lui-même dans l’étude des lettres. Il ne nous a pas paru bon d’insérer ces éléments à leur place dans le dictionnaire et de les imprimer au milieu des mots du Calepin: ils y seraient cachés d’une certaine manière, et comme ensevelis, et il ne serait pas facile de comprendre quel fruit vous pourriez tirer de notre travail et de notre étude. Ce fruit, s’il répondait à notre volonté, serait sans aucun doute des plus copieux: et celui qui lira ces Additamenta jugera cependant qu’il n’est pas minuscule.

Même si ce liminaire n’est pas d’un grand secours pour reconstituer exactement le travail et les intentions de Paolo Manuzio, il nous apprend au moins deux choses: que décidément l’imprimeur n’appelle plus son livre Dictionarium Calepini ou librum Calepini, mais Calepinus tout court; et que le fait de sortir cette liste 1 Selon Manuzio, le livre ainsi divisé en deux tomes tractari posset atque in manibus haberi, sine ullo labore ac molestia vel a pueris ac senibus infirmis, «pourra être utilisé et être tenu dans les mains, sans aucune peine ni difficulté tant par les enfants que par les faibles vieillards»…

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 201 de la nomenclature comme un ajout n’est pas lié ici au manque de temps, à un oubli ou à une contrainte, mais qu’il est délibéré, pour que le contenu n’en soit pas noyé, en quelque sorte illisible, au milieu du reste. 2. 3. Forme, contenus et fonction des Additamenta à partir de 1558 Ces Additamenta sont donc une liste strictement alphabétique d’entrées, soit s’ajoutant à la nomenclature, soit complétant des entrées existantes. La longueur de ces entrées est variable: certaines sont très brèves (deux lignes ou à peine plus), d’autres très longues, sur plusieurs colonnes. La liste évolue entre la première édition de 1558 et celle de 1565: quelques lemmes sont ajoutés, un disparaît (duco) sans que son contenu ne se retrouve strictement dans le dictionnaire,1 quelques-uns sont augmentés, notamment les articles lex et senatus. La liste est aussi réorganisée de manière plus rationnelle, l’entrée adrianus ager devient une entrée Hadrianus, l’entrée crimen est déplacée pour se trouver à son poste alphabétique régulier; enfin la dernière entrée, qui est une liste et description des trente-cinq tribus romaines, est reprise sous un nouveau lemme, tribus, en 1565, alors qu’en 1558 c’était une entrée Voltinia tribus qui était complétée d’une liste des Tribuum xxx nomina. A partir de 1565, la liste est stable et sera reproduite dans toutes les éditions sans changement. Ces Additamenta sont un succès commercial énorme: ils sont immédiatement repris dans les éditions d’autres pays d’Europe, ceux de 1558 dès 1559 à Lyon, et de même pour ceux de 1565 ensuite. Ils perdureront dans de très nombreuses éditions jusqu’au début du xviie siècle: très fréquents dans les éditions françaises et notamment lyonnaises, moins fréquents dans les éditions bâloises, ils seront repris par tous les éditeurs italiens2 jusqu’en 1700, preuve qu’ils font désormais partie de l’objet commercial au même titre que les gloses multilingues qui accompagnent le latin. A partir de 1584, les Additamenta de Ma1 L’article Duco des Additamenta de 1558 est une entrée sémantique, et porte sur le sens de ducere se comme «se cacher», «s’enfuir»: Duco, vetus locutio fuit, ducere se pro latentes abire ac discedere. Terentius in Hecyra [v. 522], Vxor inquit vbi me ad filiam ire sentit, se duxit foras. Plautus in Aulularia [v. 708] Ego me deorsum duco de arbore et in Bacchidibus [v. 593: duc te ab aedibus] Duc te ab arbore, et Asinius in epistola ad Ciceronem [Fam. 10, 32]: Balbus quaestor magno pondere auri, maiore argenti coacto de publicis exactionibus, ne stipendio quidem militibus reddito, duxit se a Gadibus. Ex nostris scholiis in epist. Fam. L’entrée Duco de la nomenclature de 1558 comporte d’autres sens (quandoque significat respicere… Quandoque allicere … quandoque uoluere, cogitare… Nudare … contrahere … dormire … struere…) mais intègre déjà celui de Demittere Descendere, Pla. In Aul. Ego me duco ab arbore, qui était déjà, avec la citation correcte des Bacchides, dans le Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne de 1543 (article Duco, fº 518v Ducere se deorsum de arbore, descendere de arbore. Plautus Aulul. 24, 8 me collocaui in arborem / Indeque exspectabam, aurum vbi abstrudebat senex / Vbi ille abiit, ego me duco de arbore.) Cet article Duco de la nomenclature est repris à l’identique dans l’édition de 1565 et dans toutes les suivantes. 2 Ces imprimeurs italiens du Calepin, sont, au xviie siècle, essentiellement vénitiens: il n’existe en dehors de Venise que quatre éditions italiennes, deux à Pavie, une à Rome et une à Turin. Voir Labarre 1975.

202 martine furno nuzio sont cependant en concurrence avec les deux appendices de Enrico Farnese, ou Henri Dufour:1 jusqu’en 1607, tous ces ajouts sont imprimés en parallèle à la fin du livre, puis ceux de Manuzio cèderont la place en quelque sorte à ceux de Farnese à partir de l’édition de Guerigli à Venise en 1607. Cet imprimeur en effet intègre les entrées des feus Additamenta dans le dictionnaire, suo cuique proprio nomini, mais les mentionne encore sur la page de titre. Après 1700, ils restent intégrés dans le dictionnaire mais ne sont plus mentionnés, preuve qu’ils ont fini par perdre leur actualité commerciale. Mais l’idée d’ajouter au dictionnaire un supplément qui serve d’appel commercial est entrée dans les mœurs: en 1647, l’édition donnée à Lyon par les imprimeurs Prost, Borde et Arnaud, est la première qui soit explicitement revue par un Jésuite, le Père La Cerda. Pour en quelque sorte marquer cette parution de son empreinte, il ajoute (ou on lui fait ajouter) un Supplementum Calepini, pourvu d’une page de titre propre, qui comporte une liste de gloses de mots difficiles élaborée à partir d’Isidore de Séville.2 Sur le fond, les Additamenta de 1558 représentent bien un complément au Calepin: celui-ci est en effet un dictionnaire général de mots, pour étudiants non débutants, dictionnaire visant à aider la lecture mais aussi ou surtout l’écriture en latin grâce à la fois aux explications et aux citations d’auteurs classiques. L’ajout de Manuzio apporte des realia, des notices d’histoire, sur les coutumes, les lois, le droit romain. Au regard de la longueur comparée du dictionnaire dans son ensemble et de ces Additamenta, on pourrait penser que ce complément est dérisoire, mais tout est fait pour le mettre en valeur et éviter de le noyer dans la masse du dictionnaire. Cette tonalité résolument tournée vers l’histoire et la civilisation est probablement la raison aussi qui fait ôter de la liste, en 1565, l’entrée duco, purement sémantique et stylistique. En ce sens, le travail de Manuzio est ici réellement travail de philologue, soucieux d’enrichir le dictionnaire pour en faire un manuel plus complet, donnant une idée plus précise de la vie à Rome et dans l’Antiquité, même s’il s’agit de la reproduction de sources évidemment livresques. Celles-ci sont en général clairement indiquées: à la fin de l’article l’origine du texte est citée, à quelques rares exceptions d’articles courts. Ces sources en fait ne sont pas très nombreuses: oeuvres précédentes ou immédiates de Manuzio lui-même, un texte de Carlo Sigonio et peut être un de Panvinio, Isidore de Séville, et, en masse, un recueil de Gromatici publié par Adrien Turnèbe à Paris en 1 Ce philologue belge, né on ne sait quand et mort peut être vers 1610, a été professeur d’éloquence à l’Université de Pavie, et quasi ‘naturalisé’ italien au point d’user habilement de la forme latine (Henricus Farnesius) ou italianisée de son nom. Il est l’auteur entre autres, dans le domaine des lettres, de quelques ouvrages sur la correction de la langue latine, qui sont en partie repris dans ses ‘ajouts’ au calepin. 2 On peut voir la page de titre de ce Supplementum ainsi que le reste du volume par le lien http://diglib.hab.de/drucke/kb-40-2f-2/start.htm?image=00851.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 203 1554.1 Quelques entrées se concluent par la remarque Ex nostris observationibus, ou l’équivalent. Lorsqu’on confronte de plus près ces sources et le texte des Additamenta, on se rend compte qu’il s’agit le plus souvent d’une copie au mot près: quelques lignes d’introduction qui permettent de présenter le sujet amènent des extraits repris de manière totalement littérale au texte cité en fin ou en cours d’article. Une telle pratique peut permettre de réfléchir alors autrement à la fonction des Additamenta. Il me semble en effet que ce texte, dans sa reproduction de sources qu’il indique lui-même, est à considérer non seulement du côté du philologue pour les contenus, mais aussi du côté de l’imprimeur pour l’origine de ces contenus: en 1558, et sans doute encore en 1565 et au-delà, les Additamenta représentent entre autres un échantillonnage de livres récents que Manuce cherche à vendre, ou peut-être à ‘tester’ avant de les imprimer. En effet, bon nombre des références citées dans les Additamenta renvoient aux propres livres de Paolo Manuzio publiés par Paolo Manuzio: ses commentaires et scholies à Cicéron, tous repris récemment en 1556 ou 1557, mais aussi le De legibus dont la grande princeps in folio, probablement chère, est aussi parue en 1557, et sera republiée en petit format in 8 en 1559. Il est probable que la parution d’extraits de cet ouvrage dans les Additamenta cherche à le faire connaître, et il est possible que cette publicité ait été suffisante pour qu’une demande en naisse et incite Manuzio à compléter et réimprimer son ouvrage dans un format portatif moins onéreux. Les sources des Additamenta mentionnent également le livre de Carlo Sigonio sur les Fasti Consulares, imprimé par Manuzio en 1555 puis 1556, et vendu par lui: or l’article praenomen des Additamenta se termine non seulement sur la référence Ex libro Caroli Sigonii de nominibus Romanorum, mais ajoute in quo et alia leguntur sane praeclara, admodumque scitu digna: témoignage d’admiration peut-être, mais sans aucun doute aussi publicité pour un ouvrage à vendre dans la maison… Cette idée de ‘l’appât’ du consommateur me paraît incontestable, même si elle n’explique pas tout, et Manuzio philologue ou érudit n’est sans doute pas totalement dépendant de ses activités de marchand. Comme toujours chez ces générations d’imprimeurs savants du xvie siècle, les deux sont indissociables: goût de l’étude et de la curiosité ne font pas oublier qu’il faut aussi vivre de commerce, lequel ne l’emporte pas toujours sur le goût de l’étude et de la curiosité. Celui-ci est peut-être par exemple à l’origine de la citation d’Isidore de Séville,2 auteur pourtant peu prisé voire honni de la première renaissance. Rien n’empêche de voir là la tentation de l’érudit qui a voulu connaître un auteur 1 Voir les documents annexes, 217-222. 2 Cela concerne les entrées: Anulus reprise de Isidore, Etym. 19.32 en entier et mot à mot (à l’exception de quelques expressions); Circus reprise de Isidore, Etym. 18.28 à 41.2, long texte reproduit presque mot pour mot, à peine condensé parfois; Gladiator (gladiatorum genera), reprise de Isidore, Etym. 18.5357 en entier; Vestis, reprise de Isidore, Etym. 19.23, 1-7.

204 martine furno mal aimé mais qui, pour lui, une fois passé l’ostracisme de principe des générations précédentes, a le goût un peu étrange de la curiosité savante. De même, il m’est en l’état difficile de savoir exactement pourquoi les Additamenta utilisent aussi massivement l’ouvrage de Gromatici apparemment imprimé par Adrien Turnèbe seul, à Paris, en 1554. De la part d’un Italien, la question ne peut pas être de chercher de manière discrète à détourner le privilège accordé à Turnèbe, puisque ce privilège royal ne s’applique pas hors de France. Tout est imaginable ensuite, de relations personnelles dont la source est peut être dans la foisonnante correspondance de Manuzio qu’il faudrait dépouiller entièrement, à une double raison scientifique et marchande là encore: fort intéressé du point de vue de l’érudition par les textes imprimés par Turnèbe, Manuzio hésite peut être à les imprimer lui-même en tant que tels de crainte de ne pas les vendre et tenterait alors cette sorte d’impression intermédiaire, ou d’impression à l’essai, via les Additamenta.1 S’il s’agissait de tester l’enthousiasme d’éventuels lecteurs, celui-ci n’a pas dû être suffisant pour décider Manuzio, puisqu’il n’imprimera jamais ces textes autrement que sous cette forme. Il en va de même de l’ouvrage de Panvinio, mentionné une fois dans la fiche Censor sous la forme ex libro de ciuitate Romana: cette allusion probable au second livre, ciuitas romana, des Commentariorum libri tres d’Onofrio Panvinio parus en 1558 chez Vincenzo Valgrisio nous laisse ouvertes toutes les interprétations. Manuzio peut le citer par pur intérêt d’historien, mais aussi avoir vu le livre au cours de son élaboration ou impression,2 avoir voulu l’imprimer lui-même, ou souhaiter faire de la publicité à Valgrisio… 3. Place intellectuelle des Additamenta dans le travail de Paolo Manuzio Je voudrais enfin m’arrêter sur les quelques entrées présentées dans les Additamenta comme tirées ex obseruationibus nostris ou signalées par une formule équivalente qui souligne autant un travail personnel du philologue que le fait que ces réflexions n’ont pas encore été imprimées et ne peuvent donc avoir de ‘vraie’ référence bibliographique. Il s’agit de Diribere et dirimere (1558 et 1565), Eques (1558 et 1565), Humanitas (1565), Interrex (1558 et 1565), Libertatis nomen (1565), Roma en partie (1558 et 1565), Senatus en partie (1558 et 1565), Socii latini (1558 et 1565), Voltinia tribus (1558), Vsu1 Anna Clara Cataldi Palau signale par exemple que, dans les premières années de son exercice, Paolo Manuzio a eu des acords commerciaux avec des libraires en France, notammnent les Torresani, pour ce qu’on appellerait une diffusion croisée des ouvrages des uns et des autres, en France et en Italie. Nous n’avons aucun indice matériel concernant Turnèbe, mais des accords de ce genre sont possibles. Voir Cataldi Palau 1998, 353-356. 2 Je n’ai pas pu reconstituer la chronologie d’impression de ces deux textes; ils portent simplement le même millésime, et, sauf rivalité conflictuelle, les contacts étaient facile à la fois entre érudits sur les même sujets, et entre ateliers vénitiens.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 205 capere (1565). Le contenu de ces entrées n’est pas exactement du même type pour toutes. La majorité d’entre elles (Eques, Interrex, Roma, Senatus, Socii latini, Voltinia tribus, Vsucapere) sont ce que nous appellerions des notices pour un dictionnaire de civilisation ou d’histoire romaine. Ces textes peuvent avoir été des fiches préparées lors de notes de lecture, et jamais publiées dans des scholies ou commentaires, où leur forme entrerait parfaitement, peut être parce que le philologue n’a jamais trouvé un support où les glisser de manière tout à fait pertinente. Ces fiches ont notamment réuni tout un matériel intellectuel autour des notions de hiérarchie sociale à Rome et de définition des ordres dans la Rome républicaine: différenciation entre chevaliers et sénateurs, passage d’un ordre à un autre, ces thèmes reviennent de manière proche dans les entrées eques et senatus par exemple. La teneur de ces notices, qui sont donc des descriptions d’histoire appuyées sur des citations classiques, n’a rien que de très scolaire, aspect visible dans les répétitions même: il s’agit de documents pour un travail d’étude des textes, présentés ici peut-être pour ne pas être perdus faute d’avoir trouvé place dans une publication, et rassemblant des notices parfois parallèles, mais laissées en l’état, sur des sujets se recoupant entre eux. D’autres ressemblent plus à ces fiches, notules, remarques érudites dont abondent les publications universitaires de ce temps et qui sont autant de polémiques, discussions, voire règlements de comptes entre savants par presse interposée. Ainsi dans l’entrée Senatus, dans un passage lui-même introduit par Animaduersione dignum est quod legendo obseruauimus, la tournure Atque ego … minime crediderim, parce qu’elle est soulignée par le passage à la première personne du singulier et un superlatif, est un probable démenti infligé à un autre ego, qui reste à identifier… De même, la note sur diribere/dirimere, qui se présente sous la forme traditionnelle de la differentia, est clairement polémique selon les habitudes du temps. Sous un indéfini dans une petite phrase à propos de la leçon dirimuntur (défendue) ou diribentur (rejetée) dans un texte de Varron,1 sic enim scriptum est in ueteribus libris, non, ut a quibusdam huius uerbi uim ignorantibus nimis temere intrusum, diribentur, se cache sans doute une discussion philologique, où certains savent qui sont les quidam, dont un des épisodes s’imprime ici. Deux seules de ces nostrae obseruationes sonnent peut-être de façon un peu plus personnelle et non plus seulement dans des tonalités scolaire ou érudite. La notice sur Libertatis nomen, tout en restant très livresque à propos de la libération des esclaves et des endettés, se termine par l’évocation d’un sens plus large, où la liberté est définie comme l’obéissance à la seule loi, et les peuples libres 1 Cf. Varron, Res rusticae 3.2.1 Comitiis aediliciis cum sole caldo ego et Q. Axius senator tribulis suffragium tulissemus et candidato[s], cui studebamus, uellemus esse praesto, cum domum rediret, Axius mihi, Dum diribentur, inquit, suffragia, uis potius uillae publicae utamur umbra, quam priuati candidati tabella †dimidiata aedificemus nobis?

206 martine furno comme ceux qui n’obéissent qu’à eux mêmes, notions non propres à Paolo Manuzio mais reprises de passages de César ou Cicéron. Cela dit, le choix des exemples ensuite, c’est à dire les cité de Carthage, Corinthe et Athènes, et l’évocation des ultra quingentos annos où Rome fut libre, excluant toute la période Royale et l’empire, rejoint d’autres passages où l’intérêt de Manuzio se porte essentiellement sur cette période républicaine, et ni sur la Royauté, appelée simplement comme témoignage par effet de contraste, ni sur l’Empire. Je pense que nous sommes là devant la légère trace d’un goût personnel du savant, bien qu’il reste impossible de dire s’il s’agit d’un choix uniquement philologique de ‘classicisant’, ou d’une position plus politique en lien avec la sensibilité de l’homme contemporain, citoyen de Venise. L’entrée humanitas enfin de ces Additamenta laisse peut être apercevoir d’autres enjeux, à travers la façon d’écrire et de travailler du savant. La notice des Additamenta vient en complément d’une notice relativement brève de la nomenclature, mais assez caractéristique des données des calepins de cette période.1 On y trouve d’abord une relative négligence, ou manque de clarté, dans l’introduction par Manuzio d’un équivalent vernaculaire italien: gloser Humanitas par Humiltà peut éventuellement se soutenir, si ce n’est pas qu’une confusion, mais mériterait au moins une explication. Les gloses grecques sont reprises des calepins de Gryphe précédents, de même que l’article latin, tissant beaucoup de citations venant du Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne dans sa version de 1543.2 De manière très attendue, cet article dans la nomenclature montre d’abord le souci d’une structuration des sens entre sens propre et sens seconds, soulignés par le métalangage traditionnel de la lexicographie en ce domaine: proprie … significat, puis accipiatur pro … et enfin ponitur pro … L’explication synonymique par équivalence peut cependant amener à un résultat peu classique si on vise non la compréhension mais l’écriture: si virtus tractabilis existe chez Cicéron en ce sens, le substantif tractabilitas n’est que vitruvien, mais il se trouve déjà chez Estienne, par le français traictable probablement, comme glose d’humanitas. Les sens qui sont pris en compte ici sont donc ceux de l’humanisme studieux et de ses effets, la culture rendant plus ‘traictable’… L’appareil de citations, dont le classicisme scolaire est évident, est présenté de manière habituelle, c’est à dire que les textes y sont ce que nous appellerions exacts mais non littéraux. Cette façon de faire est tout à fait conforme aux habitudes prises à la fin du xve siècle: les formulae sont adaptées pour être immédiatement utilisables dans l’écriture en latin, et sont donc raccourcies, ou passées à l’infinitif ou au nominatif, alors que le texte de départ était autrement construit. Ce procédé est très caractéristique d’une lexicographie scolaire à visée d’écriture, qui ne cherche pas tant ou pas seulement à faire lire les textes, qu’en ce cas on travaille plutôt avec des 1 Voir le texte complet dans les annexes, 217-220. 2 Voir le texte de cet article dans les annexes, 220-222.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste 207 commentaires, qu’à fournir des modèles prêts à l’emploi pour la rédaction personnelle. A côté de cet article de la nomenclature, la notice humanitas de Manuzio dans les Additamenta est un complément sur un autre registre, propre au philologue qui se trouve être aussi l’imprimeur du dictionnaire. En effet ce texte ne relève pas strictement de la lexicographie scolaire dont on vient de voir les attendus, mais vise la lecture des textes, leur commentaire, pour entrer dans l’univers antique via ce qu’on pourrait appeler philosophie, ou simplement psychologie et sagesse des hommes. En effet, cet article tout d’abord est un débat sémantique, une précision du sens pur, dont Manuzio vise à donner apertam et exploratam notionem. Son travail suppose une lecture préalable et critique des textes, qui aboutit à la fixation d’une explication de ces textes, et donc d’un sens, présenté ici comme double, duobus modis accipitur, uoluntaria uirtus vs necessitudo. Ce sens qu’on vient de fixer est prouvé par une citation longue, de nouveau glosée par une formule qui relève du métalangage du commentaire: hac sententia. Les exemples relèvent eux aussi du registre du commentaire dans leur organisation: toujours classiques mais plus longs que dans le corps du dictionnaire, ils exposent non des sens différents, mais une sorte de gradation d’excellence voulue par le commentateur qui donne son avis: respexisse uidetur Cicero … nisi si illustrius etiam est quod mihi quidem uidetur… Quid illud in Antonium…, pour finir par une accumulation de preuves. Cette accumulation finale est elle aussi caractéristique de commentaires où l’abondance de la matière prouve l’érudition et la valeur du commentateur. Tous ces éléments nous montrent donc que nous sommes ici dans du travail philologique de niveau non tant plus élevé que la notice du dictionnaire, que différent: les Additamenta relèvent du domaine du commentaire et de l’explication des textes, et non plus de la maîtrise de la langue. Paolo Manuzio y joue de son renom d’érudit, puisque rien d’autre ne donne du poids à ces notices que le fait qu’elles sont les siennes, c’est à dire celles d’un savant assez reconnu. Et pour revenir une dernière fois au début de notre exposé sur les Additamenta, on voit que ce savant sait ce que vaut son nom en matière commerciale: c’est parce que les Additamenta sont de Manuzio qu’ils ont du prix, et dans la formule Additamenta Pauli Manutii qui passe dans les titres de tous les autres éditeurs, toute la valeur du génitif est bien dans son sens de ‘écrits par’ et pas seulement ‘organisés ou conçus ou imprimés par’. Le succès de librairie dont les Additamenta ont été couronnés dans toute l’Europe est assez éloquent sur la justesse des choix intellectuels et commerciaux de leur auteur. En conclusion, cette petite étude des Additamenta nous permet de mieux dessiner la lexicographie des savants imprimeurs de la seconde moitié du xvie siècle. La situation de Paolo Manuzio est probablement plus proche en effet de celle de Henri Estienne que de celle de Robert Estienne: héritier comme Henri d’une officine mais aussi d’un renom scientifique que son statut même d’imprimeur lui permet désormais de faire fructifier, il peut donc mettre en avant cette

208 martine furno érudition reconnue et ce statut de savant comme une publicité de certaines de ses impressions. Il a certes besoin de donner une vue de ses productions, ce qui le conduit à bâtir les Additamenta comme une sorte de catalogue aux échantillons plus développés que la simple liste des titres vendus dans l’atelier. Cette idée est judicieuse puisque le livre vise un public qui à un moment ou à un autre, dans l’étude, a toutes les chances d’avoir besoin de sortir du dictionnaire simple pour aller au commentaire complémentaire dont il trouve des extraits dans les Additamenta. Le latin des lexicographes du xvie siècle change donc entre le début du siècle et les apprentissages stylistiques de Robert Estienne, qui produisent les Thesaurus linguae Latinae jusqu’en 1543, et les années 1560, où une autre scolarité et d’autres apprentissages se sont peu à peu mis en place; le latin a changé d’utilisation, pour ne pas dire d’utilité, vers une langue qu’on cherche plutôt à comprendre par la traduction, sans doute parce qu’on n’y arrive plus autrement, que par une pratique spontanée. Le rêve du père de Montaigne, de Robert Estienne vers 15351540, et de la génération des colloquia, c’est à dire le souhait d’un apprentissage direct par immersion pour une pratique spontanée de la langue, est sans doute enterré au moins dans les faits en 1560. Les calepins scolaires et leurs formulae loquendi standardisées, doublées d’Additamenta à valeur de commentaire des textes, avouent, ou entérinent peut-être, ce qui n’est sans doute ni une dévaluation ni un progrès, mais la simple constatation des changements culturels de la fin du xvie siècle où le docte va devenir peu à peu l’honnête homme de la période classique. DOCUMENTS ANNEXES 1. Liste des éditions du Calepin par Paolo Manuzio 1542: ambrosii calepini||dictionarivm mvltarvm di-||ctionvm additione et ex-||planatione locvpletatvm,||mvltisqve item vindi-||catvm ab erroribvs qvi||lectorem latinæ lingvæ||peritvm offende-||re potvis-||sent||[marque]||venetiis apvd aldi filios||mense avgvsto|| m.d.xlii. in 2. 1548: ambrosii calepini||dictionarivm||In quo restituendo atque exornando haec praestitimus.||Primum non solum illud curauimus, quod ab omnibus iam solet, vt adderemus||quam plurima, sed etiam, quod nemo hactenus fecit, vt multarum dictionum ob-||scuram significationem aperiremus. Deinde, cum exempla quaedam Calepinus ad-||duxerit, quae nunc in libris emendate impressis aliter leguntur, ea sustulimus, &||aptiora reposuimus. Praeterea, cum totum Dictionarium ex multiplici impressio-||ne redundaret erroribus, ad eos libros, qui citabantur, crebo recurrimus, ve-||ramque lectionem inde petitam Calepino restituimus. nam in Graecis dictionibus||infinita sunt quae male affecta sanauimus.||[marque]||venetiis, apvd aldi filios.||m. d. xl viii. In 2. 1550: Paolo Manuzio et J. Gryphe: édition partagée, sur la base de l’édition antérieure de J. Gryphe de 1546; comporte la traduction italienne des entrées.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste

209

1552: ambrosii calepini||dictionarivm,||In quo restituendo atque exornando cum multa praestitimus||tum in extremo plurimarum dictionum seiunctam||a libro appendicem impressimus, & no-||uam & vtliissimam, ac pe-||ne necessariam. In 2. 1558: ambrosii calepini||dictionarium,||in qvo restitvendo atqve exor||nando haec praestitimus.||primvm,||Non solum illud curauimus, quod ab omnibus iam solet, vt adderemus quam pluri-||ma; sed etiam, quod nemo hactenus fecit, vt multarum dictionum obscuram si-||gnificationem aperiremus: Deinde, cum exempla quaedam Calepinus addu-||xerit, quae nunc in libris emendate impressis aliter leguntur, ea sustulimus, &||aptiora reposuimus: Praeterea cum totum dictionarium ex multiplici impres-||sione redundaret erroribus, ad eos libros, qui citabantur, crebro recurrimus, ve-||ramque lectionem, inde petitam, Calepino restituimus: Postremo, in Graecis||dictionibus male affecta quamplurima sanauimus.||Additamenta Pauli Manutii,||Tum ad intelligendam, tum ad exornandam linguam latinam, quaedam etiam||ad Romanarum rerum scientiam vtilissima.||cvm privilegiis||Pauli IIII. Pontificis Max. Philippi Hispaniae Regis,||Veneti Senatus, in annos x.||[marque]||venetiis, mdlviii.||Apud Paulum Manutium, Aldi filium. 1563: même titre que 1558; la présentation matérielle des Additamenta comporte un folio de plus. 1564: même titre que 1558; reprise de l’édition précédente. 1565: ambrosii||calepini||dictionarium,||in qvo restitvendo||atqve exornando||haec praestitimvs.||primvm,||Non solum illud curauimus, quod ab omnibus iam solet, vt adderemus quam plurima; sed||etiam, quod nemo hactenus fecit, vt multarum dictionum obscuram significationem ape-||riremus: Deinde, cum exempla quaedam Calepinus adduxerit, quae nunc in libris emen||date impressis aliter leguntur, ea sustulimus, & aptiora reposuimus: Praeterea cum to-||tum dictionarium ex multiplici impressione redundaret erroribus, ad eos libros, qui cita-||bantur, crebro recurrimus, veramque lectionem, inde petitam, Calepino restituimus:||Postremo, in Graecis dictionibus male affecta quamplurima sanauimus.||Additamenta Pauli Manutii,||Tum ad intelligendam, tum ad exornandam linguam latinam, quaedam etiam ad||Romanarum rerum scientiam vtilissima.||His adiunximus dictionum innumerabiles significatus Italico sermone conscriptos;||deinde Dictionarium Italicum copiosissimum ad utranque||linguam intelligendam necessarium||cvm privilegiis|| [marque]||venetiis, Apud Paulum Manutium,||Aldi F. mdlxv . 1571: même édition que 1565. 1573: même édition que 1565.

2. Liste des entrées des Additamenta Les entrées marquées * ne se trouvent pas dans la nomenclature du dictionnaire. Entrées 1558 Acroama

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

Source explicitée Comment. Pro Sestio

210

martine furno Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

De agrorum conditionibus Renvoi au lemme mensura

Actuarius limes Actus *Adoptio

De legibus Romanis Aerarium

Adrianus ager

Ager Agrorum Qualitates Agna Alluuionum

Source explicitée

Prend la forme Hadrianus; classé lettre H.

Comment. Ad Att. De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

Alluuius ager

Pas de source citée

*Ampliatio & comperendinatio

De legibus Romanis Asconius Pedianus

Anulus

Isidore de Séville

Apollinares Ludi

De legibus Romanis

*Arcifinius ager

De agrorum conditionibus

*Augustei termini

Pas de source citée

Auspicia

Comment. Pro Sestio

Brutus

Comment. Ad Quint.

*Candetum

De agrorum conditionibus

Capitale crimen

De legibus Romanis

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Crimen

Déplacé selon l’ordre alphabétique en 1565.

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

211

Source explicitée De legibus Romanis De agrorum conditionibus De legibus Romanis Onofrio Panvinio Ex nostris obseruationibus De agrorum conditionibus

Cardo Censor Census Centuria *Cilicii termini

Pas de source citée

Circulus

De agrorum conditionibus

Circus

Isidore de Séville

Claudia gens

Comment. Ad Quint.

Cognomen

Carlo Sigonio Cognoscere

Cic. Pro Rosc. Amer. Asconius Pedianus

Collegia

Comment. Pro Sestio

Colonia

De agrorum conditionibus

Comitia

De legibus Romanis

Conciliabula

De agrorum conditionibus [Crimen déplacé] De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

Culinae loca *Cultellare Deferre Dictator

Scholia in Epsit. Fam. De legibus Romanis

212

martine furno Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

Source explicitée

*Diribere, et dirimere

Ex nostris obseruationibus

Discedere

Comment. Ad Att. Diuortium aquarum

Duco

Supprimé en 1565

De agrorum conditionibus Scholia in epist. Fam Scholia in epist. Fam.

Edictum

Comment. Ad Quint. Epulari

Scholia in Epist. Fam.

Eques

Ex nostris obseruationibus

Exilium

De legibus Romanis

*Extraclusus ager *Extremitas Flamen

De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus Pas de source indirecte citée

Foris

Comment. Ad Quint.

Gallia togata

Comment. Ad Att.

Gens, & familia

Carlo Sigonio

Gladiator

Humanitas *Id Quod

Comment. Pro Sestio Comment. Ad Att. Isidore de Séville Pas de source Hactenus et adhuc indirecte citée [Hadrianus ager déplacé] Ex nostris obseruationibus Comment. Ad Quint.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

Interrex Ire, discedere, transire Italia Iudicia Lapidum finalium Latinae feriae

213

Source explicitée Ex nostris obseruationibus Pas de source indirecte citée. De agrorum conditionibus Comment. Ad Quint. De legibus Romanis De agrorum conditionibus Comment. Ad Quint. Comment. Ad Att.

Legatio libera

Comment. Ad Quint

Legio

Comment. Ad Quint.

Lex

augmentée

De legibus Romanis Libertatis nomen

Lima Limites Literae in terminis

Corrigé en Limina

Ex nostris obseruationibus Pas de source citée De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

Maiestas

De legibus Romanis

Magistratus

De legibus Romanis

Mensura Municipia Muti lapides Numerus

De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus Comment. Ad Att.

214

martine furno Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

Source explicitée

Pars

Scholia in epist. Fam.

Parere

De agrorum conditionibus

Peculatus

De legibus Romanis

Perduellio

De legibus Romanis

Pertica

De agrorum conditionibus

Plebs

Comment. Ad Quint.

*Plinthides

De agrorum conditionibus

*Praenomen

Carlo Sigonio

Praetexta

Comment. Pro Sestio

Praetor

Comment. Ad Quint. De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

Profanum *Prorsi limites Prouincia

De legibus Romanis

*Quintarium

De agrorum conditionibus

Quaesitor

Entrée Qvaesitor modifiée en Qvaestor; un seul article en deux parties en 1565.

De legibus Romanis

Quaestor

De legibus Romanis

*Relicta loca

De agrorum conditionibus

Repetundae

De legibus Romanis

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

*Rerum prolatio, & res prolatae *Ricor

215

Source explicitée Comment. Ad Att. De agrorum conditionibus Ex nostris obseruationibus Carlo Sigonio

Corrigé en Rigor

Roma *Romilia lex

Pas de source citée

Rura

De agrorum conditionibus

Sacerdos

De legibus Romanis

Senatus

Comment. Ad Att. Comment. Ad Quint. Ex nostris obseruationibus Comment. In Epist. Fam. (ajout 1565)

Article augmenté.

Sepulcrum

De legibus Romanis De agrorum conditionibus Ex nostris obseruationibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

*Siluani Socii latini Soluti agri *Stadialis ager Status *Striga *Subrunciui limites Suffragium

De legibus Romanis Supplicatio

Comment. In Epist. Fam.

216

martine furno Entrées 1558

Modifications et suppressions (1565)

Entrées ajoutées en 1565

Source explicitée De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus De agrorum conditionibus

Templa Termini Terram, punctum esse caeli Territorium Testamentum

De legibus Romanis

Theatrum

De legibus Romanis

Tribunus Pl.

Comment. Ad Quint. De legibus Romanis Scholia in Epist. Fam. Tribus (déplacement et remaniement de Uoltinia tribus de 1558)

*Trifinium

De agrorum conditionibus

Triumphus

De legibus Romanis

Veneficium

De legibus Romanis

Vestis

Isidore de Séville

Vis

De legibus Romanis

Voltinia tribus Vsucapere

Remanié et déplacé vers Tribvs

Quae olim obseruauimus Ex nostris obseruationibus

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste

217

4. Références des sources citées Œuvres de Paolo Manuzio: Pauli Manutii in orationem Ciceronis pro Sestio commentarius, Venetiis, 1556, Apud Paulum Manutium. M. T. Ciceronis Epistolae Familiares… Pauli Manutii scholia… Index additus, aucta scholia, Apud Paulum Manutium, Venetiis, 1556, in 8. (Edition des scholies légèrement augmentée par rapport aux diverses éditions précédentes) In epistolas Ciceronis ad Atticum Pauli Manutii commentarius, Venetiis, Apud Aldi filios, 1556. In 8. D’après Renouard, reprise de l’édition de 1547, et encore de 1553. Commentarius Pauli Manutii in epistolas M. T. Ciceronis ad M. Iunium Brutum, et ad Q. Ciceronem fratrem. Venetiis, Aldus, 1557. (Première édition du commentaire en forme et séparée). Antiquitatum romanarum Pauli Manutii liber de legibus. Index rerum memorabilium. Venetiis, Aldus, 1557, in fol. Editio princeps. Autres publications contemporaines: Carlo Sigonio: Caroli Sigoni Fasti consulares, ac triumphi acti a Romulo rege… Eiusdem de romanorum nominibus liber … apud Paulum Manutium, in fol, 1556. [Deuxième édition ‘stabilisée’ pour la suite, augmentée par rapport à celle de l’année précédente]. Siculus Flaccus, Aggenus, Hygenus (seule édition existante à cette date): de agrorvm conditio-||nibus et constitutionibus limitum,||sicvli flacci lib.i||Ivlii frontini lib. i||aggeni vrbici lib. ii||hygeni gromatici lib. ii||variorvm avctorvm|| Ordines finitionum. De iugeribus metiundis.||Finium regundorum. Lex Mamilia. Colonia-||rum pop. Romani descriptio. Terminorum in-||scriptiones ac formae. De generibus lineamen-||torum. De mensuris et ponderibus.||Omnia figuris illustrata.||parisiis, m. d. liiii.||Apud Adr. Turnebum typographum Regium.||ex privilegio regis. Onofrio Panvinio: onvphrii||panvinii, veronensis||fratris. eremitæ||avgvstiniani||reipvblicæ. romanæ||commentariorvm||libri. tres||Et alia quaedam quorum seriem se-||quens pagella indicabit||[marque]||venetiis Ex Officina Erasmiana||apud Vincentium Valgrisium,||m d lviii. (division en trois livres: I urbs roma, ii ciuitas romana, iii imperium romanum).

5. Lemme Humanitas Texte et traduction de l’entrée Humanitas dans la nomenclature de l’édition du Calepin de P. Manuzio, 1558 et 1565: Humanitas, atis, Humiltà, antrhôpismos, anthrôpotès, proprie naturam humanam significat. Cic. pro Rosci. Amer. Magna est vis humanitatis, communio sanguinis, natura ipsa.1 Et quoniam eruditio et bonarum artium disciplinae soli homini sunt propriae, factum est vt humanitas accipiatur pro eruditione, & bonarum litterarum scientia, 1 Cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer., 63 magna est enim uis humanitatis; multum ualet communio sanguinis; reclamitat istius modi suspicionibus ipsa natura.

218

martine furno

quam Graeci vocant paideian vt apertissime ostendit Gellius lib. 13 cap. 16 adducens locum Varr. ex li. I rerum humanarum, qui sic habet: Praxiteles propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum humaniori ignotus.1 Cic. In Verr. Tu sine ulla arte, sine humanitate, sine ingenio, sine litteris, solus iudicas?2 Idem de Ora. Homo non hebes, neque inexercitatus, neque communium litterarum et politioris humanitatis expers.3 Praeterea quia homo inter omnia animalia maxime mitis est, id circo humanus pro facili et miti ponitur, & humanitas pro facilitate, tractabilitate, mansuetudine, clementia, beneuolentiaque quam Graeci philantropian vocant, quasi amorem in homines. Cice. Lib. i Offi. Non modo id virtutis non est, sed est potius immanitatis, omnem humanitatem repellentis.4 Humanitas, atis, Humilité, antrhôpismos, anthrôpotès, au sens propre signifie la nature humaine. Cic. Pro Roscio, Grande est la force de l’humanité, la communion du sang, la nature elle-même. Et puisque l’érudition et les disciplines relevant des arts libéraux sont le propre de l’homme seul, il s’ensuit que humanitas est pris pour érudition, et science des arts libéraux, que les Grecs appellent éducation, comme le montre très clairement Aulu Gelle livre 13 chapitre 16 en citant ce passage de Varron, livre 1 des choses humaines: Praxitèles, qui n’est inconnu à personne d’un peu éduqué, à cause de son talent artistique remarquable. Cicéron in Verrem: Toi, sans aucun art, sans éducation, sans talent, sans lettres, tu juges seul? Le même, de oratore: Un homme pas idiot, ni sans éducation, ni dépourvu des lettres communes et d’une humanité assez polie. De plus, parce que l’homme est le plus doux parmi tous les animaux, donc humanus est mis pour facile et doux, et humanitas pour facilité, fait de se laisser fléchir, douceur, clémence, bienveillance, que les grecs appellent “philanthropie”, au sens de “amour envers les hommes”. Cicéron de officiis: non seulement cela ne relève pas de la vertu, mais bien plutôt de l’horreur, qui écarte toute humanité.

Texte et traduction de la notice des Additamenta de 1565: Humanitas quid significet in promptu uidetur esse; ut ego arbitror, ap[p]ertam & omnibus exploratam notionem non habet. Quod enim exemplis liceat intelligere, non eadem semper huic uoci subiecta res est, uerum duobus accipitur modis, uel ut uoluntaria quaedam, a nonnullis cum laude culta, ab iis quos barbaros appellamus, ignorata, uirtus, uultu, sermone, consuetudine, officio declarata: uel ut, non a uoluntate profecta, sed nobiscum simul genita necessitudo per uniuersum diffusa genus humanum, omnesque pariter homines attingens, ipsa quasi commendante natura; & communi quodam mutuae caritatis uinculo adstringente, hoc ipso duntaxat nomine, quod homines aeque simus, id est eadem praediti forma, eodem uocis ac sermonis usu instructi, eiusdem participes rationis, ad hanc hominum inter homines cognitionem, in qua non praecipua beneuolentiae causa, sed propensio quaedam naturalis inest ad alterum alteri conciliandum opemque indigentibus ferendam, & communicanda etiam ignotis, alienis necessa1 Gell. 13.17.3 Praxiteles, qui propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum modo humaniori ignotus. 2 Cic. Verr. 2.4.98 tu sine ulla bona arte, sine humanitate, sine ingenio, sine litteris, intellegis et iudicas! 3 Cic. Orat. 2.72 ludus est homini non hebeti neque inexercitato neque communium litterarum et politioris humanitatis experti. 4 Cf. Cic. Off. 1.62 non modo enim id uirtutis est sed est potius immanitatis omnem humanitatem repellentis.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste

219

ria uitae commoda, respexisse uidetur Cicero in Quinctiana oratione, cum ita inquit: Ipsius Sex. Neuii lacrimans manum apprehendit; obsecrauit per fratris sui mortui cinerem, per nomen propinquitatis, per ipsius coniugem, & liberis, quibus propior P. Quinctio nemo esset, ut aliquando misericordiam caperet aliquam, si non propiquintatis, at aetatis suae, si non hominis, at humanitatis rationem haberet.1 Hac sententia: si nullam ipsius Quinctii rationem habendam putat, moueatur saltem ea necessitudine quae omnes homines omnibus hominibus ipsius quasi naturae uoce commendat. Nihil praecipue tribuendum Quinctio statuit: esto, communia tamen quaedam sunt, quae homo homini denegare non possit; quae cum Neuius imploranti Quinctio negauerit, homo non est. Quaerit enim Cicero & misericordiam reo, & odium Neuio, qui communem etiam humanitatem a se alienam putet. Simile exemplum occurrit, nisi si illustrius etiam est, quod mihi quidem uidetur, in oratione pro Flacco: si quem, inquit, infimo loco natum, nullo splendore uitae, nulla commendatione famae defenderem; tamen [ciues] ciuem a ciuibus communis humanitatis iure, ac misericordia deprecarer.2 Quid illud in Antonium, Phil. ix? Naturae et humanitati inimicus:3 nonne patet latius quam quae in aliquem proprie confertur humanitas? Et cum pro Amerino dixit: Magna est uis humanitatis: multum ualet communio sanguinis, natura ipsa.4 Et pro Sylla: peterem errato ueniam L. Caecilii ex intimis uestris cogitationibus, atque ex humanitate communi.5 Ex hac humanitate communi, cuius uim sentimus, cum de sepeliendo etiam alieni hominis corpore laboramus, oritur illa, paulo quidem angustius contracta, sed affectione tamen intimoque sensu maior humanitas, qua complectimur eos, qui ad nos adeunt, quique nobiscum aliquid contrahunt, ita communiter ac benigne, ut saepe amor in nos, & quaedam referendae gratiae cupiditas excitetur. Ex nostris obseruationibus. Le sens de humanitas semble être facilement accessible; à mon avis, la notion n’est pas évidente ni explorée pour tous. En effet, pour ce qu’il est permis de comprendre par les exemples, le même objet n’est pas toujours posé sous ce mot, mais il est pris de deux façons: ou bien comme une sorte de vertu volontaire, cultivée avec louange par certains, et ignorée par ceux que nous appelons barbares, vertu montrée par le visage, le discours, les habitudes, les devoirs; ou bien, comme une nécessité non pas issue de la volonté, mais née en même temps que nous, diffusée dans tout le genre humain, touchant de manière égale tous les hommes, comme si la nature elle-même la recommandait. Et comme une sorte de lien commun d’affection mutuelle nous attache, ne seraitce que du fait de ce nom même, parce que nous sommes de manière égale des hommes, c’est à dire pourvus de la même forme, équipés du même usage de la voix et du discours, participants de la même raison, Cicéron, dans le discours Pro Quinctio, semble 1 Cf. Cic. Pro Quinctio, 97, Naeui lacrimans manum prehendit in propinquorum bonis proscribendis exercitatam, obsecrauit per fratris sui mortui cinerem, per nomen propinquitatis, per ipsius coniugem et liberos, quibus propior P. Quinctio nemo est, ut aliquando misericordiam caperet, aliquam, si non propinquitatis, at aetatis suae, si non hominis, at humanitatis rationem haberet. 2 Cf. Cic. Pro Flacco, 24, si quem infimo loco natum, nullo splendore uitae, nulla commendatione famae defenderem, tamen ciuem a ciuibus communis humanitatis iure ac misericordia deprecarer. 3 Cf. Cic. Phil. 11.10, neque nunc fortasse alienus ab eo essem, nisi ille nobis, nisi moenibus patriae, nisi huic urbi, nisi dis penatibus, nisi aris et focis omnium nostrum, nisi denique naturae et humanitati inuentus esset inimicus. 4 Cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer., 63. Voir p. 217, n. 1. 5 Cf. Cic. Sul. 64, peterem ueniam errato L. Caecili ex intimis uestris cogitationibus atque ex humanitate communi.

220

martine furno

avoir regardé du côté de cette connaissance des hommes entre les hommes, dans laquelle se trouve non tant la cause principale de la bienveillance, mais une sorte de propension naturelle à accorder les uns avec les autres, à porter de l’aide aux indigents, et à partager les avantages nécessaires de la vie avec des étrangers, même inconnus; tels sont ses mots: “En larmes, il prend la main de Naevius; il le supplie par les cendres de son frère mort, par la parenté, par sa femme, et ses enfants, à qui personne n’est plus proche que Quinctius, d’avoir quelque pitié, et si ce n’est de la parenté, qu’il considère au moins la raison de son âge, et si ce n’est de l’homme, au moins celle de l’humanité”. Ce dont le sens est: s’il pense qu’on ne doit avoir aucune raison pour Quinctius luimême, qu’il soit au moins touché par cette nécessité qui recommande tous les hommes à tous les hommes par la voix quasiment de la nature même. Il décide que rien ne peut être donné à Quinctius: soit, mais certaines choses sont communes, que l’homme ne peut nier; et en cela, quand Naevius les refuse à Quinctius qui l’implore, il n’est pas un homme. Cicéron demande la pitié pour l’accusé, et la haine pour Naevius, qui pense que l’humanité commune lui est étrangère. Un exemple semblable se présente dans le discours Pro Flacco, s’il n’est pas encore plus clair, ce qu’il est à mon avis: “si je défendais, dit-il, quelqu’un né très bas, sans aucun éclat dans la vie, sans aucune recommandation de la réputation, cependant je demanderais à ses concitoyens l’indulgence pour un citoyen, au nom de la pitié et du droit de l’humanité commune”. Que dire de ce mot contre Antoine, Philippique ix? “Il est ennemi et de la nature et de l’humanité.” Ne va-t-il pas au-delà de l’humanité qui est conférée au sens propre à quelqu’un? et quand dans le Pro Amerino, il dit: “Grande est la force de l’humanité; beaucoup valent la communion du sang, la nature même”. Et dans le Pro Sylla: “je demanderai pour celui qui s’est trompé le pardon de Cécilius, fondé sur vos pensées intimes, et sur l’humanité commune”. De cette humanité commune, dont nous sentons la force lorsque nous peinons à ensevelir le corps d’un homme même étranger, naît cette humanité, resserrée un peu plus étroitement, mais cependant plus grande par l’affection et le sentiment intime, du fait de laquelle nous embrassons ceux qui viennent vers nous, et ceux qui nous sont attachés en quelque chose, de manière commune et bienveillante, de telle sorte que souvent s’éveillent en nous l’amour et une envie de remercier. A partir de nos observations.]

Texte de l’entrée Humanitas dans le Thesaurus linguae Latinae de Robert Estienne, 1543: Humanitas pen. Corr. Huius humanitatis, Propriè humanam naturam significat. Cic. Pro Rosc. Amer. 38, Magna est enim vis humanitatis: multum valet communio sanguinis, natura ipsa. Communis humanitas, Cic. pro Flacco, 18, Tamen ciuis ciuem a ciuibus communis humanitatis iure ac misericordia deprecarer, ne etc. Et pro Sylla, 48, Peterem errato animam L. Caelii ex intimis vestris cogitationibus, atque ex humanitate communi. Humanitas vitae, pro Humana natura. Plin. Lib. 13 capit. 11, 2, Quum chartae vsu maxime humanitas vitae constet, é memoria. Humanitas, facilitatem etiam significat, lenitatem, mansuetudinem, comitatem, vrbanitatem, suauissimos mores, benignitatem, mansuetudinem morum ac facilitatem, suauitatem sermonum atque morum & leporem. His omnibus promiscue vtitur Cicero Mettelo, lib. 5, 2, 25, Cognosce nunc humanitatem meam, si humanitas appellanda est in acerbissima iniuria remissio animi et dissolutio.

problèmes de lexicographie humaniste

221

Comitas & facilitas. Cic. de Amicitia. Humanitas et modestia. Cic. ad Atticum lib. 7, 125, 2. Singularis humanitas, suauissimi mores. Cic. ad Att. Li. 16, 341, 5. Lepor et humanitas in omni vitae tempore versetur Cicero de Oratore. Mansuetudo atque humanitas. Cic. Pro Sylla, 68. Facilitas et humanitas tua. Cic. Seruio, lib. 13, 25, 3. Literae et humanitas. Cic. Seruio, lib. 14, 25, 3. Expers humanitatis. Cic. 2 de Diuinatione 22. Placet igitur humanitatis expertes habere diuinitatis authores? Accipere humanitatem Vide accipio. Humanitate adductus. Cic. Pro Sylla, 61. Tamen humanitate adductus aduocationem hominis improbissimi sella curuli, atque ornamentis et suis et consulatus honestauit. Comprehendere aliquem humanitate, vide comprehendo. Humanitati suae constare, Vide consto. Ab humanitate deducere, Vide dedvco. Deest illi humanitas, Cic. Ad Atticum, lib. 5, 88, 6, Quid quaeris vel ipsi hoc dicas licet, humanitatem ei meo iudicio illo die defuisse. Habere humanitatem. Cic. Pro Sext. Rosc. Amer. 26, Natura certe dedit, vt humanitatis non parum haberes. Obtinere humanitatem alicuius. Cic. Figulo lib. 4, 13, 8, Obtinemus ipsius Caesaris summam erga nos humanitatem. Tribuere humanitatem alicui. Cic. Ad Q. fratrem, lib. 1, 1, 41. Grauitas et humanitas, contraria. Cic. 3 de legib. 2, Quid enim est elegantia tua dignius, cuius et vita et oratio consecuta mihi videtur difficillimam illam societatem grauitatis cum humanitate? Immanitas et humanitas, contraria. Cic. 1 Offic. 90. non enim modo id virtutis non est sed potius immanitatis omnem humanitatem repellentis. Humanitas etiam pro eruditione. Gellius lib. 13. Cap. 15, Qui verba latina fecerunt, quique iis probe vsi sunt, humanitatem non id solum esse voluerunt quod vulgus existimat, quodque a Graecis philantrôpian et significat dexteritatem quandam beneuolentiamque erga omnes homines promiscuam: sed humanitatem appellauerunt id propemodum quod Graeci paideian vocant, nos eruditionem institutionemque in bonas arteis dicimus: quas qui synceriter cupiunt appetuntque, ii sunt vel maxime humanissimi. Huius enim scientiae cura et disciplina ex vniuersis animalibus vni homini data est, idcircoque humanitas appellata est. Sic igitur eo verbo veteres esse vsos, & cum primis M. Varronem, Marcumque Tullium, omnes ferme libri declarant. Quamobrem satis habui vnum interim exemplum promere. Itaque verba posui Varronis, e libro rerum humanarum primo, cuius principium hoc est, Praxiteles qui propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum modo humaniori ignotus. Hactenus Gellius. Cic. 6. Verr. 88, Tu sine ulla bona arte, sine humanitate, sine ingenio, sine litteris intelligis & iudicas? Politior humanitas. Cic. 2. De Oratore. 39, omnium caeterarum rerum oratio, mihi crede, ludus est. Homini non hebeti, neque inexercitato, neque communium literarum et politioris humanitatis experti. Informare artibus ad humanitatem. Cicero pro Archia, 1, Atque ab his artibus quibus aetas puerilis ad humanitatem informari solet. Vir humanitate politus. Cic. De oratore 84.

222

martine furno

Versari in humanitate. Cic. 1 de Orat. 134. In omni recto studio atque humanitate versarentur. Humanitatis studia, artes ipsae liberales dicuntur. Harum enim scientiae cura & disciplina ex vniuersis animalibus soli homini data est. Cic. pro Murena, 55, Et quoniam non est nobis haec oratio habenda aut cum imperita multitudine, aut cum aliquo conuentu agrestium, audacius paulo de studiis humanitatis, quae & mihi & vobis nota & iudicanda sunt, disputabo.

A B B REVIATIONS AND BI BLI O G RAP HY Abbreviations cgl : Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, ed. G. Goetz, voll. 1-6, Leipzig, 1888-1923. cil : Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Berlin, 1863-. cla : Codices Latini Antiquiores, ed. E. A. Lowe, Oxford, 1934-1992. dmlbs : Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British sources. a-l , Oxford, 1997-. Du Cange: C. Du Cange, Mediae et infimae Latinitatis Glossarium, Parisiis, 1883-1887. Forcellini: Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, Patavii, 1930. gl : Grammatici Latini, ed H. Keil, Leipzig, voll. i-viii, 1855-1880. ila lg: Inscriptions latines de l’Algerie, Paris, 1864-1932. ils : Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin, 1892-1916. Latham: R. E. Latham (ed.), Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, London, 1965. lbg : E. Trapp (ed.), Lexikon zur Byzantinischen Gräzität besonders des 9-12. Jahrhunderts, Wien, 2001-. lsj : H. G. Liddell - R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn., Oxford, 1940 with Supplements 1968, 1996. mlw : Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch, München, 1999. Niermeyer: J. F. Niermeyer, C. Van de Kieft, J. W. J. Burgers (edd.), Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden-Darmstadt, 1976. old : P. Glare et alii (edd.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1976. Souter: A. Souter (ed.), A glossary of Later Latin to 600 a.d. , Oxford, 1949. tlg : Thesaurus linguae Graecae, Packard Institute for Humanities, cd-r om and online version. tll : Thesaurus linguae Latinae, Leipzig, 1900-.

Works cited Adams 1977: J. N. Adams, The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus, Manchester. Adams 2002: J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, second edn., London. Adams 2003: J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge. Adams 2007: J. N. Adams, The Regional Diversification of Latin 200bc - ad 600, Cambridge. Ammirati 2010: S. Ammirati, Bibliologia e codicologia del libro latino antico, tesi di Dottorato, Università Roma Tre, Roma. Amsler 1989: M. Amsler, Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Amsterdam-Philadelphia. Anon. 1987: Anon. (ed.), Filologia e forme letterarie: studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, Urbino. Aricò 1986: G. Aricò, Cassiodoro e la cultura latina, in Leanza (a cura di), 154-178. Asperti S. 2007, Il testo dell’“Appendix Probi iii ”, in Lo Monaco, Molinelli 2007, 41-64. Baehrens 1922: W. A. Baehrens, Sprachlicher Kommentar zur Vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi, Halle. Barberi 1985: F. Barberi, Paolo Manuzio e la Stamperia del popolo romano, 1561-1570, con documenti inediti, Roma.

224

abbreviations and bibliography

Barnett 2006: F. Barnett, The Second Appendix to Probus, «Classical Quarterly», 56, 257278. Barnett 2007: F. Barnett, The Sources of the Appendix Probi: A New Approach, «Classical Quarterly», 57, 701-736. Barwick 1919: K. Barwick, Die sogenannte “Appendix Probi”, «Hermes», 54, 409-422. Battisti, Alessio 1950: C. Battisti, G. Alessio, Dizionario etimologico italiano, Firenze. Bertini 1972: F. Bertini, Nonio e Fulgenzio, «Studi Noniani», ii, 33-60. Bertini 1975: F. Bertini, Nonio e Prisciano, «Studi Noniani», iii, 57-96. Bertini 1981: F. Bertini, Niccolò Perotti e il De compendiosa doctrina di Nonio Marcello, «Res Publica Litterarum», 4, 27-41. Bertini 1982: F. Bertini, Tracce del l. xvi del De compendiosa doctrina di Nonio Marcello nel Cornucopiae del Perotti?, «Res Publica Litterarum», 5, 1, 7-12. Bertini 1983: F. Bertini, Spigolando lungo il testo del Cornucopiae perottino, «Res Publica Litterarum», 6, 37-41. Bertini 1986a: F. Bertini, Il de orthographia di Cassiodoro, in Atti della settimana di studi su Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro, Catanzaro, 92-104. Bertini 1986b: F. Bertini, Ancora su Nonio e Perotti, in Commemoratio. Studi di filologia in ricordo di Riccardo Ribuoli, Sassoferrato, 7-12. Bethe 1895: E. Bethe, Die Überlieferung des Onomastikon des Julius Pollux, «Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse», 322348. Bick 1920: J. Bick, Die Schreiber der Wiener griechischen Handschriften, Wien. Biville 1990, 1995: F. Biville, Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique, 2 vols., Louvain-Paris. Biville 1990: F. Biville, Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique, tome 1, Introduction et consonantisme, Louvain-Paris. Biville 1995: F. Biville, Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique, tome 2, Vocalisme et conclusions, Louvain-Paris. Biville 1998: F. Biville, Pathologie de la voix, in G. Sabbah et A. Debru (éds.), Nommer la maladie. Recherches sur le lexique gréco-latin de la pathologie, Saint-Étienne, 63-81. Biville 1999: F. Biville, Emprunts et productivité: la branche latine du grec ‚¿Ïψ, in A. Blanc et A. Christol (éds.), Langues en contact dans l’Antiquité. Aspects lexicaux, Nancy, 57-80. Biville 2006: F. Biville, Doublets et gloses synonymiques dans les traités latins tardifs, in C. Arias Abellán (éd.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif vii . Actes du vii e colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Séville, 2-6 septembre 2003), Sevilla, 109-123. Biville 2008: F. Biville, Normes orthographiques et oralité dans la latinité tardive. Le latin du De orthographia de Cassiodore, in R. Wright (éd.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif viii . Actes du viii e colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Oxford, 6-9 septembre 2006), Hildesheim, 381-391. Biville et alii 2008: F. Biville, Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie: actes du colloque organisé à l’Université Lumière-Lyon 2 […] les 17, 18 et 19 mai 2004, Lyon. Biville forthcoming: F. Biville, La référence au grec dans les traités orthographiques latins des 6e-8e s. p. C. (Cassiodore, Bède, Alcuin), in N. Kasansky, V. Mazhuga, A. Wouters (éds.), La grammaire antique et sa survie. Actes du colloque de Saint-Pétersbourg (20-23 avril 2005), Leuven.

abbreviations and bibliography

225

Bona 1964: F. Bona, Contributo alla studio della composizione del ‘De verborum significatu’ di Verrio Flacco, Milano. Bona 1982: F. Bona, Opusculum Festinum, Ticini. Braund 2000: D. Braund, Learning, Luxury and Empire. Athenaeus’s Roman Patron, in D. Braund, K. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, Exeter, 3-22. Brélaz 2005: C. Brélaz, La sécurité publique en Asie Mineure sous le Principat (i er-iii ème s. ap. J.-C.), Basel. Brooks 1982: N. Brooks (ed.), Latin and the Vernacular Languages in Early Medieval Britain, Leicester. Brugnoli 1955: G. Brugnoli, Studi sulle Differentiae verborum, Roma. Brugnoli, Buonocore 2002: G. Brugnoli, M. Buonocore (edd.), Hermeneumata Vaticana (cod. Vat. Lat. 6925), Città del Vaticano. Bücheler 1880: F. Bücheler, Glossemata Latina, «Rheinisches Museum», 35, 69-73 = Kleine Schriften ii , Stuttgart, 1915-1930 (repr. Osnabrück, 1965), 366-370. Bücheler 1882: F. Bücheler, Coniectanea, «Rheinisches Museum», 37, 321-342 = Kleine Schriften ii , Stuttgart, 1915-1930 (repr. Osnabrück, 1965), 444-463. Busaeus 1605: J. Busaeus, Paralipomena opusculorum Petri Blesensis, et Ioannis Trithemii aliorumque, Maguntiae. Cairns 1989: F. Cairns, Virgil’s Augustan Epic, Cambridge. Cameron 1973: A. Cameron, Porphyrius the Charioteer, Oxford. Cameron 1980: A. Cameron, Poetae Novelli, «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology», 84, 127-175. Casamassima, Staraz 1977: E. Casamassima, E. Staraz, Varianti e cambio grafico nella scrittura dei papiri latini. Note paleografiche, «Scrittura e Civiltà», 1, 9-110. Cataldi Palau 1998: A. C. Cataldi Palau, Gian Francesco d’Asola e la tipografia aldina, la vita, le edizioni, la biblioteca dell’Asolano, Genova. Cavallo 1975: G. Cavallo, La trasmissione dei testi nell’area beneventano-cassinese, in La Cultura antica nell’Occidente Latino dal vii all’xi secolo, Spoleto, 357-424. Cekalova 1966: E. I. Cekalova, Un moment d’histoire de la lexicographie romaine. Sur la nature du lexique de Verrius Flaccus, in Jazyk i stil anticnykh pisatelej, Leningrad, 188-193 (résumé dans «bco», 13, 1968, coll. 377-378). Cervani 1978: R. Cervani, L’epitome di Paolo del De verborum significatu di Pompeo Festo. Struttura e Metodo, Roma. Cesarini Martinelli, Perosa 1996: L. Cesarini Martinelli, A. Perosa (edd.), Lorenzo Valla. Le postille all’«Institutio oratoria» di Quintiliano, Padova. Chahoud, Dickey 2010: A. Chahoud, E. Dickey (eds.), Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge. Chambon 2008: L. Chambon, Les traités orthographiques latins (ii ème-viii ème siècles p.-C.). Historique, traduction, commentaire, these de Doctorat soutenue à l’Université Lumière Lyon, 2 le 6 octobre 2008, pp. 698, [inédite]. Churchill White 1980: D. Churchill White, The Method of Composition and Sources of Nonius Marcellus, «Studi Noniani», viii, 111-211. Cockle 1984: H. Cockle, Latin Word-List, P. Oxy., lii, 1984, 63-70. Collart 1972: J. Collart, “Ne dites pas … mais dites …” (Quelques remarques sur la grammaire des fautes chez les Latins), «Revue des Études Latines», 50, 232-246. Conso 1982: D. Conso, Sur le sens de «formula» dans les «Variae» de Cassiodore, «Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes», 56, 265-285. Coseriu 1981: E. Coseriu, Textlinguistik. Eine Einführung, Tübingen.

226

abbreviations and bibliography

Courtney 1981: E. Courtney, The Formation of the text of Vergil, «Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies», 28, 13-29. Cribiore 1996: R. Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Atlanta (ga). Cuppo Csaki 1990: L. Cuppo Csaki, Money and Order in the Variarum libri xii of Cassiodorus, in W. Ginsberg (ed.), Ideas of Order in the Middle Ages, Binghamton (ny), 137-149. Daneloni 2005: A. Daneloni, Due libri postillati dal giovane Poliziano, «Studi medievali e umanistici», 3, 155-212. De Paolis 1995: F. De Paolis, Tradizioni carolinge e tradizioni umanistiche: il De orthographia attribuito a Flavio Capro, in Pecere, Reeve 1995, 263-297. Della Corte 1954: F. Della Corte, Varrone terzo gran lume romano, Genova. Della Corte 1973: F. Della Corte, La lex Lindsay e i frammenti citati da Nonio, in F. Della Corte, Opuscula, iv, Genova, 263-319. Della Corte 1980: F. Della Corte, Le due sorgenti cui attinge Nonio, «Studi Noniani», vi, 63-82. Della Corte 1987: F. Della Corte, I modelli di Nonio, «Studi Noniani», xii, 27-39. Delvigo 1987: M. L. Delvigo, Testo virgiliano e tradizione indiretta. Le varianti probiane, Pisa. Deufert 2001: M. Deufert, Zur Datierung des Nonius Marcellus, «Philologus», 145, 137149. Dickey 2011: E. Dickey, T he Creation of Latin Teaching Materials in Antiquity. A ReInterpretation of P. Sorb. Inv. 2069, «Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik», 175, 171-185. Dickey, Ferri 2011: E. Dickey, R. Ferri, A new edition of the Latin-Greek glossary on P. Reinach 2069 (verso), «Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik», 175, 155-170. Diggle, Goodyear 1972: J. Diggle, F. R. D Goodyear, The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman, 3 vols., Cambridge. Dionisotti 1982: A. C. Dionisotti, On Bede, grammars, and Greek, «Revue Bénédictine», 92, 111-141. Dionisotti 1982: A. C. Dionisotti, From Ausonius’ schooldays? A school-book and its relatives, «Journal of Roman Studies», 72, 83-125. Dionisotti 1984-1985: A. C. Dionisotti, From Stephanus to Du Cange: Glossary stories, «Revue d’histoire des textes», 14-15, 303-336. Dionisotti 1988: A. C. Dionisotti, Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in Carolingian Europe, in M. Herren (ed.), The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks, London, 1-57. Elcock 1960: W. Elcock, The Romance Languages, London. Erdbrügger 1912: H. Erdbrügger, Cassiodorus unde etymologias in psalterii commentario prolatas petivisse putandus sit, diss., Jena. Ferri 2008: R. Ferri, New evidence on the meaning of rhomaistes ‘actor of Latin comedies’, «Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik», 166, 155-158. Ferri 2010: R. Ferri, Textual and linguistic notes on the Hermeneumata Celtis and the Corpus glossariorum, «Classical Quarterly», 60, 238-242. Ferri forthcoming: R. Ferri, Vulgar Latin in the bilingual glossaries: the unpublished Celtis Hermeneumata and their contribution, in F. Biville (éd.), Latin vulgaire - Latin tardif ix . Actes du ix e Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Lyon, 5-8 septembre 2009), Lyon.

abbreviations and bibliography

227

Fischer 2003: I. Fischer, Phonétique et graphie dans l’Appendix Probi, in Solin et alii 2003, 237-244. Flammini 2004: G. Flammini (ed.), Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana Leidensia, MünchenLeipzig («Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana»). Flobert 1987: P. Flobert, La date de l’Appendix Probi, in Anon. 1987, 4.299-320. Fressura 2010: M. Fressura, Corpus dei papiri bilingui dell’Eneide di Virgilio. Parte prima, tesi di Dottorato, Università Roma Tre, Roma, [inedita]. Fridh 1956: Å. J. Fridh, Terminologie et formules dans les Variae de Cassiodore, Stockholm. Fridh 1968: Å. J. Fridh, Contributions à la critique et à l’interprétation des Variae de Cassiodore, Göteborg. Funck 1893: A. Funck, Glossographische Studien, «Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie», 8, 394. Furno 1995: M. Furno, Le Cornu Copiae de Niccolò Perotti, culture et méthode d’un humaniste qui aimait les mots, Genève. Furno 1997: M. Furno, De l’elementarium au thesaurus, l’émancipation des lexiques latins monolingues aux xv e et xvi e siècles, «Histoire Epistémologie Langage», 19, 1, 151-175. Furno 2000: M. Furno, Les dictionnaires de Robert Estienne, sens et finalités d’une œuvre lexicographique, «Voces», 10-11, 11-27. Furno 2008: M. Furno, Du commerce et des langues, latin et vernaculaires dans les lexiques et dictionnaires plurilingues au xvi e siècle, «Histoire et civilisation du livre», iv, 93-116. Furno 2010: M. Furno, Doctrina vel disciplina, tensions et évolutions des dictionnaires latins humanistes, 1502-1636, Anderlecht, Turnhout, 2010 («Nugae humanisticae», 8, «Les instruments de travail à la Renaissance», sous la direction de J.-F. Gilmont, A. Vanautgaerden), 68-103. Furno forthcoming: M. Furno, A l’aube de la bibliographie, les références externes dans les dictionnaires latins, 1480-1545, in Renaissance et Réforme, Actes du Colloque Bibliography 2008 (Victoria University, bc, Canada, 28-29 mai 2008). Gaide 1988: F. Gaide, Les substantifs masculins latins en …(i)o, …(i)onis, Louvain-Paris. Garzya 1986: A. Garzya, Cassiodoro e la grecità, in Leanza 1986, 118-134. Gatti 1994: P. Gatti, Synonyma Ciceronis. La raccolta Accusat, lacescit, Trento. Gatti 1996: P. Gatti, Nonius, in J. Hamesse (ed.), Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen âge. Actes du Colloque international organisé par le “Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture” (Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994), Louvain-laNeuve, 79-91. Gatti 1999: P. Gatti, Martyrius, in Der Neue Pauly, 7, 967. Gatti 2000: P. Gatti, Nonio nei glossari, in G. Barabino, R. Mazzacane, P. Gatti, Prolegomena Noniana, Genova, 79-100. Gatti 2004: P. Gatti, Introduzione a Nonio Marcello, in Prolegomena Noniana iii , Genova, 5-20. Gatti 2005: P. Gatti, Glossae Nonii Leidenses, La prima serie, Trento. Gatti 2006: P. Gatti, Nomi di pesci negli Hermeneumata Celtis, «Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi», 64, 105-121. Goetz 1894: G. Goetz (ed.), Placidus. Liber glossarum. Glossaria reliqua, Lipsiae (= cgl , v). Goetz 1899-1901: G. Goetz, Thesaurus glossarum emendatarum, Lipsiae (= Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, vi-vii). Goetz 1910a: G. Goetz, Zu Varro de lingua latina, «Berliner philologische Wochenschrift», 30, 1367-1368.

228

abbreviations and bibliography

Goetz 1910b: G. Goetz, Glossographie, in Pauly - Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, vii, 1, Stuttgart, 1433-1466. Goetz 1923: G. Goetz, De glossariorum latinorum origine et fatis, in cgl , i. Goold 1970: G. P. Goold, Servius and the Helen Episode, «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology», 65, 291-341. Grandazzi 1991: A. Grandazzi, Les mots et les choses, la composition du De Verborum Significatu de Verrius Flaccus, «Revue des Études Latines», 69, 101-121. Gratwick 1982: A. Gratwick, Latinitas Britannica: Was British Latin Archaic?, in Brooks 1982, 1-79. Gulick 1951: Ch. B. Gulick, Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, second edn., Cambridge (ma). Gulletta 1991: M. I. Gulletta, Il lessico dei vasi in Ateneo: macro e micro struttura del libro xi dei Deipnosophistai, «Giornale Italiano di Filologia», 43, 299-310. Hägg 1911: E. Hägg, Linköpingshandskriften af Cassiodorus’ Variae, diss., Göteborg. Hamesse 1996: J. Hamesse, Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen Âge, Louvain-la-Neuve. Hansen 2000: D. U. Hansen, Leser und Benutzer. Überlegungen zu Athenaios, «Classica & Medievalia», 51, 223-236. Hansen 2005: D. U. Hansen, ME°A BIB§ION-ME°A KAKON . Wie bändigt Athenaios sein Material?, in R. M. Piccione, M. Perkams (edd.), Selecta Colligere 2, Alessandria, 7996. Harlfinger et alii 1989: D. Harlfinger, Graecogermania. Griechischstudien deutscher Humanisten, Wölfenbüttel. Harries 2001: J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Haug 1914: F. Haug, Raeti, in Pauly - Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, i.A 1, Stuttgart, 42-46. Heraeus 1899: W. Heraeus, Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen = J. B. Hofmann (éd.), Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus, Heidelberg, 1937. Heraeus 1900: W. Heraeus, Zur “Appendix Probi”, «Archiv für Lateinische Lexikographie», 11, 61-70; Die “Appendix Probi”, ibidem, 301-331, 451-452. Heraeus 1937: W. Heraeus, Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen, in J. B. Hofmann (ed.), Kleine Schriften von Wilhelm Heraeus, Heidelberg, 52-149. Holtz 1981: L. Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical, Paris. Holtz 1996: L. Holtz, Glossaires et grammaires dans l’Antiquité, in Hamesse 1996, 1-21. Hunger, Hannick 1994, H. Hunger, Chr. Hannick, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Supplementum graecum, Wien, p. 35. Jarecki 1927: C. Jarecki, Sur l’“Appendix [Probi] iii ”, son lieu d’origine et son auteur, «Eos», 30, 1-25. Jocelyn 1984-1985: H. D. Jocelyn, The Annotations of M. Valerius Probus, «Classical Quarterly», 34, 464-472; 35, 149-161, 466-474. Jocelyn 1989: H. D. Jocelyn, Some Notes on Virgil, Probus, Servius and Servius Danielinus, «Sileno», 15, 5-25. Kakridi 2005: Chr. Kakridi, Cassiodors Variae. Literatur und Politik im ostgotischen Italien, München-Leipzig. Kassel 2007: R. Kassel, Das Opfer des Stratonikos, «Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik», 163, 44. Kaster 1978: R. A. Kaster, Servius and Idonei Auctores, «American Journal of Philology», 99, 181-209.

abbreviations and bibliography

229

Kaster 1988: R. A. Kaster, Guardians of language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. Kay 1985: N. M. Kay, Martial, Book xi , London. Keyser 1994: P. T. Keyser, Late Authors in Nonius Marcellus and Other Evidence of his Date, «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology», 96, 369-389. Keyser 1996: P. T. Keyser, Nonius Marcellus’ quotations of Sallust, «Wiener Studien», 109, 181-226. Kramer J. 1983: J. Kramer, Glossaria bilinguia in papyris et membranis reperta, Bonn. Kramer 2001a: J. Kramer, Glossaria bilinguia altera, München-Leipzig. Kramer 2001b: J. Kramer, Die Ämterliste aus dem Wiener Celtis-Glossar, in B. Palme (ed.), Wiener Papyri, als Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Hermann Harrauer, Wien, 249-265. Kramer 2004a: J. Kramer, Essai d’une typologie des glossaires gréco-latins conservés sur papyrus, «Archiv für Papyrusforschung», 50, 49-60. Kramer 2004b: J. Kramer, Lateinisches-Griechisches Glossar: Celtis’ Abschrift aus einem Papyruskodex, in J. M. S. Cowey, B. Kramer (Hrsg.), Paramone. Editionen und Aufsätze von Mitgliedern des Heidelberger Instituts fur Papyrologie zwischen 1982 und 2004, Leipzig, 43-62. Labarre 1975: A. Labarre, Bibliographie du Dictionarium d’Ambrogio Calepino (1502-1779), Baden-Baden. Lamacchia 1988: R. Lamacchia (ed.), Munus Amicitiae. Scritti in memoria di A. Ronconi, 2 vols., Firenze. Langslow 2000: D. Langslow, Medical Latin in the Roman Empire, Oxford. Leanza 1986: S. Leanza (ed.), Atti della settimana di studi su Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro (Cosenza-Squillace 19-24 settembre 1983), Soveria Mannelli (cz). Lebecq 1990: S. Lebecq, Les origines franques, v e-ix e siècle, Paris. Lepelley 1981: C. Lepelley, Les cités de l’Afrique romaine en bas-empire, ii, Paris. Lepelley 1990: C. Lepelley, Un éloge nostalgique de la cité classique dans les Variae de Cassiodore, in M. Sot (ed.), Haut Moyen-Age, culture, éducation et société. Études offertes à Pierre Riché, La Garenne-Colombes, 33-47. Lhommé 2003: M.-K. Lhommé, Antiquaires et recherches sur la religion romaine à l’époque du Haut Empire. L’exemple du De uerborum significatione de Festus, thèse éphé, [inédite]. Lhommé 2009: M.-K. Lhommé, Lectures traditionnelles et relectures augustéennes de la religion romaine: Verrius Flaccus, un antiquaire au service d’Auguste, in A. Bendlin, J. Rüpke (Hrsg.), Römische Religion im historischen Wandel. Diskursentwicklung von Plautus bis Ovid, Stuttgart («Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge», 17), 143-156. Lindsay 1901: W. M. Lindsay, Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin, Oxford. Lindsay 1903: W. M. Lindsay (ed.), Nonii Marcelli De compendiosa doctrina libros xx , iii, Lipsiae. Lindsay 1913: W. M. Lindsay (ed.), Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, Leipzig. Lindsay 1918: W. M. Lindsay, Bird-Names in Latin Glossaries, «Classical Philology», 13, 1-22. Lindsay 1921: W. M. Lindsay, Ancient Lore in Medieval Latin Glossaries, London. Lindsay 1928: W. M. Lindsay, Festus, De Verb. Sign. 284, 30, «Classical Quarterly», 22, 117-118. Lindsay 1930a: W. M. Lindsay, F estus, in J. W. Pirie, W. M. Lindsay (edd.), Glossaria Latina, iv, Paris, 71-506. Lindsay 1930b: W. M. Lindsay, Nonius Marcellus ii-iv , «The Classical Quarterly», 24, 53.

230

abbreviations and bibliography

Lo Monaco, Molinelli 2007: F. Lo Monaco, P. Molinelli (edd.), L’“Appendix Probi”. Nuove ricerche, Bergamo («Traditio et Renovatio», 2). Loew 1911: E. A. Loew, The Naples ms . of Festus; its Home and Date, «bphw», coll. 917-918. Loewe 1876: G. Loewe, Prodromus corporis glossariorum Latinorum, Lipsiae. Loporcaro 2007: M. Loporcaro, L’“Appendix Probi” e la fonologia del Latino tardo, in Lo Monaco, Molinelli 2007, 95-124. Lowe 1963: E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini antiquiores, x. Lyne 1978: R. O. A. M. Lyne, The Neoteric Poets, «Classical Quarterly», 28, 167-187. Malaspina 2004: E. Malaspina, I fondali teatrali nella letteratura latina (Riflessioni sulla scaena di Aen. i 159-169), «Aevum antiquum», 4, 95-123. Maltby 1991: R. Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, Leeds. Maltby 2003: R. Maltby, Evidence for Late and Colloquial Latin in the Commentaries of Porphyrio, Donatus and Servius, in Solin, Leiwo, Halla-Aho 2003, 265-276. Maltby 2005: R. Maltby, Donatus and Terence in Servius and Servius Danielis, in T. Fögen (ed.), Antike Fachtexte/Ancient Technical Texts, Berlin-New York, 207-220. Mancini 2007a: M. Mancini, “Appendix Probi”: correzioni ortografiche o correzioni linguistiche?, in Lo Monaco, Molinelli 2007, 65-94. Mancini 2007b: M. Mancini, Strutture morfoprosodiche del latino tardo nell’Appendix Probi, «Revue de linguistique romane», 71, 425-465. Mantero t. 1975, La inscriptio dei codici del De compendiosa doctrina e Nonius Marcellus peripateticus Thubursicensis, «Studi Noniani», iii, 123-188. Marangoni 2007: C. Marangoni, Supplementum etymologicum latinum i , Trieste (www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2724/1/Marangoni.pdf ). Maxwell-Stuart 1981: P. G. Maxwell-Stuart, An unexplained Syriac word in Athenaeus, «Glotta», 59, 117. Mazal 1981: O. Mazal, Byzanz und das Abendland, Wien. Meyer-Flügel 1992: B. Meyer-Flügel, Das Bild der ostgotisch-römischen Gesellschaft bei Cassiodor, Bern. Milanese 2005: G. Milanese, Censimento dei manoscritti noniani, Genova. Mommsen 1894: Th. Mommsen, Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, Berolini («mgh» [Auct. ant. 12]). Morelli 1988: G. Morelli, Ancora su Festo epitomatore di Verrio Flacco in Diomede, «Maia», 40, 159-172. Morosi 1978: R. Morosi, Cancellarii in Cassiodoro e in Giovanni Lido, «Romanobarbarica», 3, 127-158. Moscadi 1979: A. Moscadi, Verrio, Festo e Paolo, «Giornale Italiano di Filologia», 31, 1736. Moscadi 2001: A. Moscadi, Il Festo Farnesiano (cod. Neapol. iv .A.3), Firenze. Müller 1839: K. O. Müller (ed.), Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatione quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, Leipzig. Müller 1980: W. G. Müller, Der Brief als Spiegel der Seele. Zur Geschichte eines Topos der Epistolartheorie von der Antike bis zu Samuel Richardson, «Antike und Abendland», 26, 138-157. Naoumides 1961: M. Naoumides, The fragments of Greek lexicography in the papyri, in Classical studies presented to Ben Edwin Perry by his students and colleagues at the University of Illinois, 1924-1960, Urbana (il) («Illinois Studies in Language & Literature», 58), 181202.

abbreviations and bibliography

231

Neff 1891: K. Neff, De Paolo Diacono Festi epitomatore, Kaiserslautern. Nickstadt 1921: H. Nickstadt, De digressionibus quibus in Variis usus est Cassiodorus, Marpurgi Chattorum. Nicolini 2007: L. Nicolini, Ad (l)usum lectoris: giochi di parole nelle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, «md», 58, 115-179. Niermeyer 1984: J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon minus, Leiden. North 2007: J. North, Why Festus quotes what he quotes, in F. Glinister, C. Woods (eds.), Verrius, Festus and Paul, Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society, London («bics Supplement», 93), 49-68. North 2008: J. North, Restoring Festus from Paul’s epitome, «Acta Antiquitatis Hungarica», 48, 157-170. Oliver 1947: R. P. Oliver, “New Fragments” of Latin Authors in Perotti’s Cornucopiae, «Transactions of the American Philological Association», 78, 376-424. Onions, Lindsay 1898: J. H. Onions, W. M. Lindsay, The Nonius Glosses, «Harvard Studies in Classical Philology», 9, 67-86. Opelt 1966: I. Opelt, Etymologie, in Th. Klauser (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vi, Stuttgart, 797-844. Orioles 1998: V. Orioles, Forme ipercorrette dell’“Appendix Probi’, in L. Agostiniani et alii (edd.), Do-ra-qe pe-re. Studi in memoria di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, Pisa, 281-292. Ötvös 2008: Z. Ötvös, A renaissance vocabularium by Janus Pannonius? (önb Suppl. Gr. 45), «Acta Antiqua», 48, 237-246. Paris 1887: G. Paris, L’Appendix Probi, in Mélanges Renier. Recueil de travaux publiés par l’Ecole pratique des hautes études, Paris, 301-309. Passalacqua, Asperti 2006: M. Passalacqua, S. Asperti, L’“Appendix Probi”: testimone di confine, «Filologia mediolatina», 13, 39-64. Pecere, Reeve 1995: O. Pecere, M. D. Reeve (edd.), Formative Stages of Classical Traditions: Latin Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Spoleto. Pieroni 2004: P. Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus “De significatu verborum” in den Auszügen von Sextus Pompeius Festus und Paulus Diaconus: Einleitung und Teilkommentar (159,19186,29 Lindsay), Frankfurt am Main. Pieroni 2009: P. Pieroni, Il rapporto tra digressioni e contesto nell’epistolario di Cassiodoro, un’ipotesi per Variae 12, 14, «Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale», li, 141-152. Powell 2007: J. G. F. Powell, A New Text of the Appendix Probi, «Classical Quarterly», 57, 687-700. Quirk 2006: R. J. Quirk, The Appendix Probi. A Scholar’s Guide to Text and Context, Newark (de). Radiciotti 1997: P. Radiciotti ‘Manoscritti digrafici grecolatini e latinogreci nella tarda antichità’, «Papyrologica Lupiensia», 119, 107-146. Rahn 1988: H. Rahn, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Ausbildung des Redners. Zwölf Bücher, Darmstadt. Reitzenstein 1887: R. Reitzenstein, Verrianische Forschungen, Breslau. Renehan 1975: R. Renehan, Greek Lexicographical Notes, Göttingen. Renouard 1803: A.-A. Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde, ou Histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs impressions, Paris. Rey 1992: A. Rey (ed.), Le Robert, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue française, Paris. Rizzo 1997: S. Rizzo, Glosse antroponimiche di Cassiodoro in una recente edizione del Valla, «Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica», 125, 343-381.

232

abbreviations and bibliography

Roberts, Skeat 1985: C. N. Roberts, T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex, London. Robson 1963: C. A. Robson, L’Appendix Probi et la philologie latine, «Le Moyen Âge», 69, 37-54. Rochette 1997: B. Rochette, Le latin dans le monde grec: recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Bruxelles. Rodriguez-Norriega Guillén 2000: L. Rodriguez-Norriega Guillén, Are the Fifteen Books of the Deipnosophistae an Excerpt?, in D. Braund K. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and his World, Exeter, 245-255. Rosén 1999: H. Rosén, Latine loqui. Trends and Directions in the Crystallisation of Classical Latin, München. Rönsch 1891: H. Rönsch, Collectanea philologa, Bremen. Rudorff 1865: A. F. Rudorff, Über den liber de officio proconsulis, «Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin», 233-321. Rupprich 1934: H. Rupprich, Der Briefwechsel des Konrad Celtis, München. Santini 1988: P. Santini, Osservazioni in margine all’Appendix Probi, in Lamacchia 1988, ii, 112-117. Savagner 1846: A. Savagner, Sextus Pompeius Festus, De la Signification des Mots, Paris. Schlieben 1974: R. Schlieben, Christliche Theologie und Philologie in der Spätantike, Berlin-New York. Schmidt 1993: P. L. Schmidt, De honestis et nove veterum dictis. Die Autorität der veteres von Nonius Marcellus bis zu Matheus Vindocinensis, in W. Vosskamp (Hrsg.), Klassik im Vergleich. Normativität und Historizität europäischer Klassiken. dfg -Symposion 1990, Stuttgart-Weimar, 366-388. Schmidt 1997a: P. L. Schmidt, Grammatische und glossographische Materialquellen des Nonius, in P. L. Schmidt, R. Herzog (Hrsg.), Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, iv, München, 239. Schmidt 1997b: P. L. Schmidt, Sex. Pompeius Festus, in P. L. Schmidt, R. Herzog (edd.), Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, iv, München, 240-245. Schröder 2007: B.-J. Schröder, Bildung und Briefe im 6. Jahrhundert. Studien zum Mailänder Diakon Magnus Felix Ennodius, Berlin-New York. Scivoletto 1963: N. Scivoletto, Studi di Letteratura Latina Imperiale, Naples, 155-221. Seider 1978: R. Seider, Paläographie der lateinischen Papyri, Zweiter Teil, Literarische Papyri, Stuttgart. Solin 2008: H. Solin, Vulgar Latin and Pompeii, in R. Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif viii . Actes du viii e Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Oxford, 6-9 septembre 2006, Hildesheim-New York, 60-69. Solin, Leiwo, Halla-aho (éds.) 2003: H. Solin, M. Leiwo, H. Halla-aho, Latin vulgaire latin tardif vi . Actes du vi e Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Helsinki, 29 août-2 septembre 2000, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York. Souza 2004: M. de Souza, La question de la tripartition des catégories du droit divin dans l’Antiquité romaine, Saint-Étienne. Stock 2005: Chr. Stock, Sergius (Ps.-Cassiodorus), Commentarium de oratione et de octo partibus orationis artis secundae Donati. Überlieferung, Text und Kommentar, MünchenLeipzig. Stok 1997: F. Stok, Appendix Probi iv , Napoli («Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità», 18). Stoppacci 2010: P. Stoppacci, Cassiodoro, De ortographia. Tradizione manoscritta, fortuna, edizione critica, Firenze.

abbreviations and bibliography

233

Stoppacci forthcoming: P. Stoppacci, Le fonti del «De orthographia» di Cassiodoro. Modalità di ricezione e fruizione, Communication présentée au ix e colloque international de ‘Latin vulgaire - latin tardif ’ (lvlt 9), Lyon, 2-6 septembre 2009, à paraître in F. Biville (éd.), Latin vulgaire - latin tardif ix , Lyon. Strzelecki 1932-1933: W. Strzelecki, Zur Entstehung der Compendiosa Doctrina des Nonius, «Eos», 34, 113-129. Strzelecki 1936a: W. Strzelecki, De Flavio Capro Nonii auctore, Kraków. Strzelecki 1936b: W. Strzelecki, Nonius Marcellus, in Pauly - Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, xvii, Stuttgart, 882-897. Stuurman F. 1990: F. Stuurman, Two Grammatical Models of Modern English, LondonNew York. Supino Martini 1987: P. Supino Martini, Roma e l’area grafica romanesca (secoli x-xii ), Alessandria. Thewrewk de Ponor 1889: E. Thewrewk de Ponor, Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, i, Budapest. Thiermann 1996: P. Thiermann, I dizionari greco-latini fra medioevo e umanesimo, in J. Hamesse (éd.), Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l’antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen age: Actes du Colloque international organisé par le “Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture” (Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994), Louvain-la-Neuve, 657-675. Thraede 1980: K. Thraede, Zwischen Gebrauchstext und Poesie. Zur Spannweite der antiken Gattung Brief, «Didactica Classica Gandensia», 20, 179-218. Timpanaro 1986: S. Timpanaro, Per la Storia della Filologia Virgiliana Antica, Rome, 77127. Turner 1963: E. Turner, A Curse Tablet from Nottinghamshire, «Journal of Roman Studies», 53, 122-124. Uhl 1998: A. Uhl, Servius als Sprachlehrer. Zur Sprachrichtigkeit in der exegetischen Praxis des spätantiken Grammatikerunterrichts, Göttingen. Ullmann 1892: H. Ullmann, Die Appendix Probi, «Romanische Forschungen», 7, 145-226. Väänänen 19672, 19813: V. Väänänen, Introduction au latin vulgaire, Paris. Van den Besselaar 1945: J. J. Van den Besselaar, Cassiodorus Senator en zijn Variae, de hoveling, de diplomatieke oorkonden der Variae, de rhetor, Nijmegen. Velaza 2007: J. Velaza, La lex Lindsay y el método de trabajo de Nonio Marcelo, hacia una formulación flexible, «Emerita», 75, 225-254. Weissengruber 1976: F. Weissengruber, Benützung des Ambrosius durch Cassiodor, in G. Lazzati (a cura di), Atti del congresso internazionale di studi ambrosiani nel xvi centenario della elevazione di sant’Ambrogio alla cattedra episcopale (Milano, 2-7 dicembre 1974), vol. ii, Milano («Studia Patristica Mediolanensia», 7), 378-398. Wendel 1939: C. Wendel, Onomastikon, in Pauly - Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, xviii.1, Stuttgart, 507-516. Wessner 1930: P. Wessner, Martyrios n. 23, in Pauly - Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, xiv.2, Stuttgart, 2041-2043. Wilkins 2001: K. Wilkins, Manger, chercher, se promener à la campagne: les méthodes de recherche d’Athenée et de Galien au ii e siècle de notre ère, «Cahiers du Centre GustaveGlotz», 12, 213-228. Willis 1972: J. Willis, Latin Textual Criticism, Urbana (il)-Chicago-London. Wölfflin 1893: E. Wölfflin, Die Etymologien der lateinischen Grammatiker, «Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik», 8, 421-440, 563-585.

234

abbreviations and bibliography

Wölfflin 1933: E. Wölfflin, Ausgewählte Schriften, Leipzig. Wright 1958: R. P. Wright, Roman Britain in 1957: ii . Inscriptions, «Journal of Roman Studies», 48, 150-155. Wright 1982: R. Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, Liverpool. Wright 1991: R. Wright (ed.), Latin and the Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages, London. Zetzel 1981: J. E. G. Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity, New York. Zumbo 1993: A. Zumbo, Sugli excursus zoologici nelle Variae di Cassiodoro, in S. Leanza (ed.), Cassiodoro, dalla corte di Ravenna al Vivarium di Squillace. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Squillace 25-27 ottobre 1990), Soveria Mannelli (cz) («Bibliotheca Vivariensis», 2), 191-197.

I NDEX OF PAS S AGES DI SCUSSE D Appendix Probi 1: 91 9: 113 18: 94 19: 113 20: 115 21: 97 22: 112 23: 116 25: 115 26: 93 27: 112, 116 31: 93 34: 118 39: 116 43: 75, 116 45: 76, 91 46: 93 47: 93 48: 115 49: 113 50: 76 55: 93 60: 112 64: 115 66: 91 67: 93 70: 113 71: 93 74: 93 76: 113 78: 97 82: 112 84: 116 86: 76 89: 76 93: 113 100: 76 106: 112 115: 76, 115 116: 115 118: 93

126: 109 127: 98, 115 129: 116 134: 112 143: 113 144: 115 145: 76 150: 76 151: 98 153: 94, 98 156: 76 158: 76 159: 112 162: 76 163: 116 165: 76, 94 166: 76 173: 94 178: 91 183: 116 189: 115 190: 91 196: 76 203: 94, 115 207: 94-95, 112 208: 116 211: 94 212: 94 215: 113 216: 113 219: 113 223: 113 224: 113 225: 112 226: 113 Aristophanes Equites 1236: 155 Plutus 279: 157

236 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 1.1a: 13 2.56a: 19 2.70e: 19 3.82c: 20 3.85c: 20 3.85d: 20 3.97cd: 20 3.98c: 21 3.108f: 16 3.111c: 21 3.113d: 21 3.114e: 21 3.115a: 17 3.121e-f: 21 3.125f-126a: 21, 25 4.170e: 22 4.171a: 22 4.171c: 22 7.277a: 15 7.310ae: 22 7.330b: 22 8.333c: 18 8.335a: 17 8.362ab: 23,26 9.376d: 23 9.383e: 18 9.398ef: 18 10.440e: 23 11.459e: 16 11.503e: 16 11.509e: 16 14.639b: 15 14.647e: 23 14.648c: 27 14.657e: 24 15.701b: 24 Aristoteles De arte poetica 1458a.18-23: 64 Cassianus Bassus Geoponica 2.1: 150

index of passages discussed Cassiodorus De orthographia (gl Keil) 7.120.18: 93 7.144.7-9: 172 7.158.15: 116 7.195.2: 131 Institutiones (Mynors) 1.23.2: 181 2.praef.4: 184 2.1.1-3: 172 Variae (Mommsen) 1.10.5: 178 1.10.6: 182 1.17.2: 178 1.30.5: 178 1.35.2: 179 2.3.4: 181 2.39.4: 180 2.40.6: 179 2.40.12: 178 3.27.2: 176 3.48.1: 182 3.48.4: 178 3.51.10: 178-179 3.52.5: 178 4.51.5: 180 4.51.6: 180 4.51.7: 179 4.51.8: 178, 180 4.51.9: 177, 180 5.2.2: 184 5.40.5: 181 6.18.6: 178 6.2.4: 177 6.3.2: 176 7.4.2: 178 7.15.4: 178 7.32.3: 178, 184 8.31.4: 178 8.33.1: 184 9.2.1: 176 9.14.4: 179 11.6.5: 176 11.9.3: 180 11.14.2: 178 11.14.4: 182

index of passages discussed 11.36.4: 177 11.38.4: 184 11.40.1: 176 12.4.1: 180 12.4.2: 177 Cicero Orator 20-21: 64 69: 64 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (cil ) iv.2178a: 166 xiii.5010: 164 Corpus glossariorum Latinorum (cgl Goetz) 2.28.53: 163 2.34.29: 161 2.149.18: 160 2.245.7: 159 2.562.50: 143 3.119.15-28: 147 3.120.9-16: 149 3.166.10-29: 148 3.171.35-172.4: 152-153 3.289.21-35: 147 3.294.53-295.9: 152-153 3.401.18: 142 Diomedes (gl Keil) Ars 1.488.5-7: 183

Festus-Paulus Excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi de significatione uerborum 14.6-7: 179 14.10: 179 32.4: 130 72.17: 162 85.26: 161 87.70: 161 99.21: 161 169.07: 41 183.10: 45 269.08: 43 293.01: 38, 43 455.17: 162 506.16-19: 129 Gregorius Turonensis (mgh, srm 1 Krusch) In gloria confessorum 78: 167

Donatus Ars maior (Holtz) 2.8 p. 624.1-3: 177 Commentum in Terentii Hecyram prol. 2.33: 183

Harpocration

Etymologicum magnum 80.11: 156 347.7: 156

Coll. 73: 144 praef.: 148 1.76: 145 3.4-5: 105 3.46-47: 105 3.112: 105 7.128: 143

Festus De uerborum significatione (Lindsay) 160.14: 41

237

161.06: 41 168.26: 41 182.23: 45 242.19: 30-31 268.27: 43 292.03: 38, 43 372.27: 182 448.4-10: 160-161 470.5-8: 162

Lexicon in decem oratores 251.14: 157 Hermeneumata Celtis (colloquium Dionisotti; capitula unpublished)

238 8.1-24: 152 9.22: 103 9.75: 103 9.110: 103 9.117: 103 10.56: 104 10.64: 104 10.71: 104 10.87: 104 10.218: 104 10.227: 104 10.233: 104 10.263: 104 12.118: 167 12.174: 145 12.1143: 145 12.1233: 157 12.1262: 166 12.1300: 157 13.40-43: 166 13.78: 105 13.122: 105 13.126: 105 13.162: 156 14.106: 163-164 15.6: 105 15.35: 164 15.49: 164 15.97: 164 15.100: 164 15.175: 163 18.49: 145 18.147: 157 18.158: 156 18.164: 167 18.165: 166 18.176: 166 18.190: 145 18.359: 145 20.9: 162 22.11: 145 22.18: 146 24.87: 167 26.24: 145 31.65: 155 33.16: 162 33bis.54: 161

index of passages discussed 36.33: 162 41.108: 145 41.213: 145 41.283: 167 43.37: 154 43.44: 156 43.75: 158, 161 46.78: 160 47.119: 156 Herodianus Epimerismi 156.4Ù: 149 Homerus Ilias 17.523-524: 158 Odyssea 8.179: 158 Hyginus Fabulae 274.22: 183 Iohannes Chrystostomus In acta apostolorum 60.91.13: 149 Isidorus Origines 3.22.6: 182 19.4.10.3.1.1: 159, 161 Iuuenalis Satirae 6.455: 160 Lexicon Syntacticum (Sturz) 587 post 29t: 149 Martialis Epigrammata 11.8.1: 98-99 11.27.4: 98

index of passages discussed Martyrius De B muta et V uocali (gl Keil) 7.165.6-11: 122 7.165.8: 122 7.165.13-14: 124 7.167.7-13: 135, 160 7.169.7: 126 7.169.9: 129 7.169.10-11: 129 7.169.11-13: 129 7.170.14-171.1: 128 7.171.8: 134 7.172.14-173.3: 132 7.173.4-6: 132 7.173.12-14: 130 7.173.14-174.1: 127 7.174.1-3: 128 7.174.9-11: 137 7.174.14-175.1: 134 7.175.3-5: 137 7.175.7-8: 134 7.175.10-11: 124 7.175.13-176.4: 128 7.176.14-15: 138 7.177.9-10: 139 7.178.5-8: 134-135 7.178.14: 124 7.179.3-4: 134 7.180.8-9: 127 7.180.12-181.1: 130 7.181.3-5: 134 7.181.8-12: 133 7.186.9-10: 134 7.189.15-190.1-2: 131 7.193.2: 127 7.194.11-195.2: 130 7.195.1-2: 135 7.196.10-12: 131 7.197.3-4: 133 Modestinus Digesta Iustiniani 38.10.4.6: 162 Paulus Aegineta Epitome medica pr.1.1.77: 150

Pausanias Nomina Attica Â.6.3: 155 Petronius Satyricon fr. 2: 166 38.9: 166 45.8: 166 59.1: 167 56.9: 130 Plato Phaedo 57a: 13 Plautus Calceolus 1.1: 163 Cistellaria 450: 166 Persa 96: 162 Vidularia fr. 3: 118 Plinius Naturalis Historia 33.43: 184 Pollux Onomasticon 3.137: 157 6.91.8: 155 7.139: 156 8.128: 157 Priscianus Institutiones grammaticae (Keil) gl 2.170.2: 93 Quintilianus Institutio oratoria 1.6.31: 176 8.48: 66 12.10: 70

239

240

index of passages discussed

Rufinus-Origenes, Expositio in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 3.1: 183 Seneca rhetor Controuersiae 1.3.14: 154 Scholia in Iliadem 2.380a.1: 70 8.1b.1-4: 69 15.589.1-4: 67 18.346a.1-4: 67

3.134: 69 3.343: 68 8.404: 68 8.428: 68 8.456: 68 8.731: 69 9.324: 69 9.411: 69 10.192: 72 10.483: 69 11.590: 73 11.914: 69 12.170: 70 12.605: 71

Servius Commentarii in Vergilii Bucolica praef. p. 1.16-18: 64 6.76: 68 Commentarii in Vergilii Georgica 1.391: 65 3.18: 183 4.122: 72 Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos libros praef. p. 4.8: 64 1.164: 183 1.465: 68 1.701: 70 1.726: 65 1.177: 66 2.20: 67 2.482: 67 3.624: 68 4.254: 69 6.187: 71 6.320: 71 7.83: 184 8.242: 67 8.636: 183 10.763: 67 11.373: 73 11.554: 184 11.715: 71

Tacitus Germania 45.5: 184

Servius Auctus Commentarius in Vergilii Aeneidos libros 2.46: 68

Vergilius Aeneis 1.49-50: 15

Socrates scholasticus Historia ecclesiastica 3.7.53: 149 Suetonius De grammaticis et rhetoribus 24.2: 107 Synagoge · 2173: 25

Ulpianus Digesta Iustiniani 1.3.2.4: 164 Varro De lingua latina 5.113: 162 5.156: 162 Res rusticae 3.2.1: 205 3.5.3: 99-100

INDEX OF S U BJE CT S 1 Additamenta, of Paolo Manuzio, to his 1558 Calepinus, 197-208 aetiological narrative, to explain lexical usage, in Festus, 33; eliminated in Paulus, 41 alphabetical, order, in Verrius, 30; in Festus, up to the third letter of each word, not consistent, 32; in Nonius, only in books ii-iv, limited to initials, 52; in bilingual glossaries, 143; in medieval Latin dictionaries, 189; in Cornu Copiae and Thesaurus, 191; in Calepinus, 193 analogy, as a principle of lexical interpretation, in Festus, 33; as a cause of error, in ap entries, 117 antigraph, of Celtis’ ms, 143 antiquarian research, feeding Festus’ interest in Roman religious customs and vocabulary, 36; in hc , 160; among the sources of Manuzio’s Additamenta, 203 antiqui, Latin writers down to the first century bc, 29; generalized label in Paulus, 30; grammatical and orthographical differences from modern (i.e. classical) usage, 34, 36; called ueteres in Nonius, who holds them as models for current usage, 52, 54 archaic, words (see also: antiqui*, prisca uerba*), are called sermones abditi, uocabula diserta by Paulus, 47; and obsolete, Latin words, translated into Greek for nonnative speakers, 134; in Festus, 163 àÚÌÂÓÔÂÙ¤ϲ, translating ueliuolum in Vergil, 159 aspirates, omitted, in condemned entries of ap , 91, 112 assarius, 24 Atticism, and Greek lexicography, in hc , 155-157

\AÙÙÈÎÔ›, in the phrase ηÙa \AÙÙÈÎÔ‡ϲ, ‘in

Greek’, 129 b/u, confused, in Latin, 113; as the topic of Martyrius’ essay, 122 Balbi, Giovanni, author of Catholicon, 188 ballo, ‘to dance’, a word ‘purloined from the slums of Rome’, 23 barbare, ‘corrupt’, in Calepinus’ entries, according to Manuzio, 195 ‚·Ú‚·ÚÈ΋, ÚÔϲÊÒÓËϲÈϲ, ‘barbaric term’, 137 Bellonarii, priests of Magna Mater, 165 Bertocchi, Dionigi, first printer of Calepinus, 192 bilingual (see also: glossaries*, Hermeneumata*), word-lists, 103; consulted by Martyrius, 139; papyri of Vergil, 159; texts, available for juridical literature, 163 books, of ancient glossaries, in roll or codex format, 147 bread, discussed in Athenaeus, Deipn., 3 16 calques, created ad hoc to explain the lemma, 129 candela, ‘candle’, 24 card catalogue, of notes taken in a fixed sequence by Nonius while preparing his dictionary, 59 cardus, ‘cactus’, 20, 24 cases, see: nominative* Cassiodorus, author of De orthographia, 123, 174; is ascribed authorship of collection of excerpts in Par. Lat. 7723 171; mentions lost commentaries to Donatus, and one liber de etymologiis, 174 catalogues and word-lists, as part of the narrative in Athenaeus, 27

1 * marks a separate entry.

242

index of subjects

catillus ornatus, 23 change, linguistic, of lexical meaning over time, in Festus, 34-35; awareness by Paulus, 42; in Nonius, 53; not easy to evaluate from study of grammatical orthographical works, 81, 87 Christian, authors, cited to exemplify linguistic usage, in medieval dictionaries, 189; in Calepinus, as a reaction against Valla, 192 chronology, of linguistic change, reflected by incorrect spelling in ap , difficult to establish, 87 Cicero, as an author of Hermeneumata and other school materials, 142; bilingual Catilinarians used in ‘Philoxenus’ and ‘Cyrillus’, 159 citrus, ‘citrus’, 20 classical, spelling*, restored in ap , 80; authors, their study is the purpose of Latin instruction for Humanist teachers, 188-189; quotations, predominate in Humanist Latin dictionaries, 190, 193 classified, word-lists (see also: thematic*), in Nonius books xiii-xx, 54; in Hermeneumata, 77; and ap , 80, 100-101; were mostly bilingual, in antiquity, 154 Cloatius Verus, author of a work by the title of uerborum a Graecis tractorum, 180 codex, format, used for books from second century onwards, 51; for works for Republican authors subsequently lost, 58 collocations, of words, common to ap and Martial, 98 colloquial, (see also: usage*) register, of diminutives*, 111; vocabulary, transmitted by cottidiana glossemata, 135, 140; vocabulary, confused with technical and specialized words, in medieval Hermeneumata, 154 comic writers, cited in Athenaeus as lexical sources, 15 Compendiosa doctrina, circulated as codex, not rolls, 51; summary, 53-54, varying length of books and damage in ms tradition, 60-61

compound, words, are treated as independent entries, rather than as derivatives, in Calepinus, 193 comprehensiveness, not a universal criterion for ancient lexicography, 77 condemned, forms (see also: errors*), in Appendix Probi, 75; on the right-hand side column, 78 Conrad Celtis, German Humanist, 141 consuetudo (in consuetudine), for ‘current language, in Nonius, 51 contents, in index, of Greek works, 150 correct (see also: proprie*, usage*), or recommended, forms, not always Classical in ap , 82 corruption, textual, reflected by some condemned forms in ap , 88, 95-96; draucus, in ancient copies of Martial, 98-99 cups, discussed in Athenaeus, Deipn. 11, 16 cursive, hands, used in ancient glossaries, 144-145 Cyrillus, so-called, Greek-Latin alphabetical glossary, drawing on literary sources, 159 De officio proconsulis, liber, 159 declension, metaplasms, 118 decocta 21 definition (see also: entries*, lemmata*), of a lexical entry in Festus, 33; in Greek, in hc , pointing to a monolingual Greek lexicon as a source, 132 Deipnosophistae, as a work of fiction, 13 derivatives, not lemmatized, in medieval Latin dictionaries, 189 descriptive, vs. exact or idiomatic translations*, in Hermeneumata, 168 Deufert, Marcus, dates Nonius to the fifth century, 51 ‰È·‚Ú·‚‡ϲ, designator, assigns seats in the theatre, 164 diachrony, see: change* dictio, for the ‘lemma’, 197 dictionaries, ancient, criteria of lexical selection, 9, 37; their scope, according to Festus, 35; thematic, in Nonius, 54; not

index of subjects aiming at comprehensiveness, 77; bilingual, of Humanists, 142; Latin, early modern, provided with vernacular translations only from 1535-1540, 187188; medieval, 189 differentiae, uerborum, lists of words illustrating difference between close-meaning words, 34; in Nonius, 53; Valerii Probi, in Neap. Lat. 1, 80, 107; in Manuzio’s Additamenta, 205 digammon, indicating u, semivocalic [w] or fricative [v] diminutives, rejected as colloquial, by grammatical writers, 89, 110 diphthongues, simplified, in Paulus’ mss, 38; not an important issue for the composer of ap , 112 Donatus, Aelius, author of commentary of Vergil, 63 draucus, ‘one who performs feats of strength’, in Martial and ap , 98-99 druppa, ‘over-ripe olives’, 19; seen as Latin word by Pliny, 24 ducere se, colloquial* expression for ‘to take to one’s heels’, the only linguistic entry in Manuzio’s 1558 Additamenta, 201-202 e/ı˘ confusion, in non-standard Latin, 114 editors, of ancient glosses, in the Byzantine period, 147 embractum, perhaps an example of ‘Gallic’ Latin, 167 emendations, ap as a list of textual corrections to unknown texts, 99 encyclopedia, not clearly distinct from dictionary, in Verrius, 37; Realien, in Manuzio’s Additamenta, 202 Ennius, the first to write double consonants, according to Verrius-Festus, 36 entries (see also: lemmata*), lexical, their structure in Festus, 29-30, 32, 37; in Paulus, 39; in Nonius, 54; in medieval dictionaries, organized by word families and base forms, 188 â¤ÓıÂϲÈϲ, appropriate for the high style, 66

243

â›ÎÚÔÎÔÓ, ‘woman’s garment’, worn by

courtesans 162 epithets, elevating style in poetry, 67 epitome, of Paulus, principles of selection from Festus’ text, 39-41; of Nonius, in the Glossae Nonii, 61 errors, not always helpful in the study of linguistic change, 78-79; some are tralatician, in ap , 86; one-off slips, in ap , 88; by lexical substitution, 91; according to ancient grammatical writers, 95; in written texts, provide limited evidence for the evolution of spoken Latin, 109; caused by hesitation between declensional endings 117; used to establish transmission history of hc , 143-145 Estienne, Robert, author of Thesaurus linguae Latinae, 189, 191 Etymologicum Magnum, 155 etymologies, Greek, of Latin words in common usage, in Athenaeus, 26; absent in some Festus entries, 33; as a principle of linguistic interpretation in Verrius-Festus, 35; in Paulus, 40; adduced in support of a spelling, 132-133; of proper names, in the fragment ex Cassiodoro, 171; in Cassiodorus’ other works, 174177; in Nonius, are based on similarity of meaning, rather than word forms, 177 examples (see also: quotations*), from authors, support the intepretation of the lemma, in Nonius, 54; in grammatical texts, culled from lexicographical materials, 121 extremitas, ‘ending’, in grammatical writers, 171 Farnesianus, xi century, the only extant ms of the unabridged Festus, 37 Festus, otherwise unknown, active in the second century ce, 29; letters A-M are extant only in Paulus, 37; perhaps used by Nonius, 55; ‘Philoxenus’ supplements Paulus where the Farnesianus is missing 159; probably not used in hc , 160; interested mostly in archaic vocabulary, 163

244

index of subjects

fish, names, discussed in Athenaeus, Deipn., 7 17 frequency, low, of many technical items of vocabulary in ap , 89; high, of Latin terms used in translations in hc , 157 Gellius, as a source of Nonius, 50 gemination, of consonants, not marked in spelling of antiqui, 36; in censured items of ap , 85 gender, grammatical, different from the Classical standard in antiqui*, according to Nonius, 53 geographical, distribution of variants, difficult to identify for Latin, 84, 115; ‘Gallic’ Latin, 167 Glossae Nonii, epitome of Compendiosa doctrina earlier than the archetype, 61 glossaries, different from dictionaries*, 30; give the current equivalent of an obsolete term, in Paulus, 46; are used by Nonius, 55; according to Lindsay, are in essence exegetical works with literary quotations, on the model of Noctes Atticae, 58; classified, their relation to ap , 100-101; some derive from orthographical treatises, 122; cot(t)idiana, are a source of Martyrius, 123, 135; Greek, monolingual, as sources of Martyrius, 130, 132; sometimes written on loose leaves, in antiquity, 147; Homeric, used by the composers of hc , 157 glossemata, meaning ‘collections of glosses’, in Martyrius, 135 glosses, Greek, as a grammatical metalanguage, 121-122; taken from a monolingual lexicon, in hc , 154-155; in Calepinus’ later editions, 193 grammar, of antiqui, different from modern usage, according to Festus, 34, 53-54; as the reason for creating a lexical entry, 100 grammarians, discuss orthographical matters, 80-81, 121-123; are the preservers of classical usage, 86; collect orthographic and phonetic errors, 86; classify errors by adiectio, detractio, im-

mutatio, 95; are indebted to ancient lexicographers, 121 grammatical, texts, transmitted in the ms of ap , 79 gratiosus, ‘showing inappropriate favour’, 164 Greek, language, richer than Latin, according to some speakers in Athenaeus, 27; used in lexical definitions, in Festus, 33; etymologies, frequent, in Festus, 35, 180; orthographical pratice, adopted by Ennius in marking consonant germination, 36; borrowings, accommodated into Latin spelling, 89; transcription of ˘, in Latin, not uniform, 90; rendering of Greek plosives in Latin, 90; interference, in ap , 91; glosses, in Martyrius 122; translations, for Greek speakers who need help in Latin 134; etymologies, in Cassiodorus 180; in Cassiodorus’ circle 181; used for some definitions, in Calepinus, 192 Gryphius, Sebastian, printer of Calepini modelled on Estienne’s Thesaurus, 194-195 gumia, ‘voracious’, cf. span. gomia, 161 gustator, ‘foretaster’, 22 Heraeus, Wilhelm, drew on glossaries to explain informal linguistic usage and vocabulary, in Petronius 160, 165 Hermeneumata, used in language teaching 77; Celtis, and AP 103-105; and Dositheus’ grammar 143; divided in three books according to an ancient preface 146; in Seneca the Elder 134; combine specialized and everyday vocabulary 154; some versions were composed in the East for Greek-speaking Latin students 168 Hesychius 155 hodiernus, sermo, Lindsay’s expression for what Nonius describes as ‘contemporary’ usage, 51 Homeric, glosses, 157 homographs, and homonyms, disambiguated with Greek explanatory glosses, 126

index of subjects honestas, as a sociolinguistic term for ‘elegance of diction’, in writing, 66 honorifics, isse, issa, for ‘master’, 166 humilis, stilus, according to Servius, 65, 68; appropriate when subject is lowly, 66 hypercorrection (see also: errors*), 92, 109 idonei, auctores, or recentes, contrasted with neoterici, in Servius, 72 improprie, of metaphorical usage, in Nonius, 53 incipit, in ancient mss of bilingual glossaries, 147 indexing, in ancient works, for easy consultation, 61, 150 informal, register* or style: see: colloquial* informants, usually written sources, in Antiquity, 50-51, 86-88 initio, introducing an aetiological* explanation, in Festus, 33 interference, from Latin etymology, in condemned ap entries, 91; Latin, in Hermeneumata prefaces, 150 interpolations, medieval, in late-antique Hermeneumata, 168 iotacism, in ap , 91; in the Greek of hc , 146 isicium, ‘hash’, 23 issimus, in inscriptions, Petronius, and hc , meaning ‘master’, 166 åϲ¯ÓfiÓ, corresponding to genus tenue, 70 Iuba, mentioned as a lexicographical source in Athen. Deipn. 25 juridical compilations, used in bilingual glossaries, 159, 163 ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·, in the phrase ηÙa ÎÂÊ¿Ï·È·,

meaning ‘divided into chapters’, to introduce classified glossaries, as opposed to alphabetical, 149-150 Keyser, Paul T., dates Nonius to the age of Apuleius and Septimius Serenus, 51 Kramer, Johannes, reconstructs Celtis’ antigraph, 143 language, of Nonius, 51 Latin, glosses, in Athenaeus, 19; their use is criticized by purists, in Athenaeus, 25-26

245

left-hand side column, in bilingual handbooks, indicating the source language, 169 lemmata, in alphabetical order, in Nonius 53; describe a syntactical construction, in Nonius, 54; not always in the nominative, in Nonius, 54; not followed by interpretation in corrupt passages in Nonius, 60; only primitives or base forms, in medieval Latin dictionaries, 189 lexicographers, and grammatical writers, 121 lexicon, of Paulus, suitable for Carolingian linguistic reforms 38; monolingual Greek, among the sources of hc , 154 libus, ‘flat pudding’, 22 Lindsay, lex, establishes the sequence in which Nonius quotes his sources, 55-56; not valid for some classical and Late authors, 60 lists, of examples, in Festus, 35 loan-words, see: Greek*, calques*, translation* ÏÔÁ¿ÚÈ·, for ‘collections of lexicographical notes’, 16 Lucilius, in Isidore, 158-159 m, final, in Latin, 109, 113 malapropism, as a cause of linguistic error, 92 Mantero, Teresa, interpreted peripateticus as grammaticus, 49 Manuzio, Aldo, printer of Greek texts and dictionaries, rejects Celtis’ offer to publish his dictionarium, 141-142; printer of Cornu Copiae, 191, 195 Manuzio, Paolo, printer of Calepinus in 1542, 195 Martial, some of his word collocations occur in ap , 98-99; in origin Cornu Copiae was a running commentary of his epigrams, 191 matella, lit. ‘pot’, with the metaphorical meaning of ‘prostitute’, 166 matiana, ‘apples’, 20, 24 meaning (see also: proprie*), correct, in Festus, opposed to colloquial usage, 34; of

246

index of subjects

religio and sacer, different in Festus’ and Paulus’ Latin, 42; of the same word, varies in different contexts, topic of book iv of Nonius, 53 medieval, Latin spellings, 146; Latin dictionaries, 188 metalinguistic, formulae (quod appelatur, quod Graeci dicunt), in grammatical writers, 121 metaphorical, usage, see: improprie* miliarium, ‘oven-cauldron’, 21 minuscule, errors, in Celtis’ ms, 144-145 mitulus, ‘mussel’, 20 monolingual, Latin dictionaries up to the mid-sixteenth century, 192 morphology, in Nonius, 54; is the Roman grammarians’ primary concern, 117 muta, B, meaning ‘consonant’, 123 Mutinus Titinus, little known deity, in Verrius-Festus and Paulus, 44 names, of speakers in Athenaeus, 14 napuras nectito, religious formula, in Festus, 41 nasalisation, of vowels, compensating loss of -m, 113 neotericus, ÓÂÒÙÂÚÔÈ, depreciatively, in reference to post-Homeric writers, in Greek scholia, or to writers of the Imperial period, in Servius, 70-71 nica (ӛη), as acclamation, 166 Nixi di, statues in Festus, 45 nominative, as the ‘lexicographical’ case, 96 Nonius Marcellus, peripateticus Thuburgicensis, 49; active at least after Gellius and before Priscian, 50; working methods, 58; quoting his own Epistulae de peregrinando a doctrinis, 60; his etymologies disregard word forms, 177; is a source of Cornu Copiae, 191 non-standard, spellings, are placed in the right-hand side column in ap , 109; Latin, in the Empire, 112 notes, taken from earlier authors, 16, 59 noue, for contemporary linguistic usage, in Nonius, 52

nouns, in word-lists memorized by pupils in schools, 154 nunc, for ‘current language’, in Nonius, 51 o/u˘, merger in spoken Latin, 115 obseruatio, ex obseruationibus nostris, in Manuzio’s Additamenta, 204-205 obsonator, ‘marketer’, 22 olca, in ‘Gallic’ Latin, meaning ‘farm’, 167 order, of entries (see also: alphabetical*); of authors’ quotations, in Nonius, constant, as proved by the lex Lindsay 57; not systematic, in ap , 80; influenced by classified bilingual glossaries, in ap , 103; considers only first three letters, in medieval dictionaries, 189 orthography (see also: spelling*); correction of faults in ap , 80; was understood more broadly in antiquity, 80; in modern editions of Latin texts, based on first-century norm, 86; is a primary concern in ap , 86; no longer phonetic, by the time of ap , 108; classical, not always clear to composer of ap , 113 panis, ‘bread’, 21; given a Greek etymology in Athenaeus, 25 passum, ‘sweet wine’, 23 Paulus Diaconus, abridges Verrius-Festus’ entries and turns the ‘encyclopedia’ into a glossary, 30, 37; misunderstands classical meaning of some Latin words in Festus, 43 pedagogy, Humanist, and methods of language teaching, 188 periphrasis, high-sounding, deployed to express lowly subject-matter, in poetic language, 65 perna, ‘ham’, 24 Perotti, Niccolò, author of Cornu copiae, 189, 191 Petronius, and hc , 165-166 Philoxenus, so-called, Latin-Greek alphabetical glossary, draws on literary sources, 159; was put together by a Southern Italian monk, according to Lindsay, 160

index of subjects phonetic, evolutions, reflected in ap , 82; errors, predominate, in ap , 86; explanations, of errors, 88 Plato, imitated in Athenaeus, Deipn. 1.1-2, 13-14 Plautus, in Nonius, 58; in ‘Philoxenus’, 161 plosives, their treatment in Greek loanwords in Latin, 90 Pollux, Iulius, author of Atticist Onomasticon, 154-155 polysemy, in ancient bilingual dictionaries, 106 poriciam, lemma containing a programmatic statement, in Festus, 30 position, in the word, helps to determine the phonetic value of -b-, 125 praeciamitatores, attendants of the flamines, 43 praefectus arcendorum, corresponding to Greek ÂåÚËÓ¿Ú¯Ëϲ, ‘chief constable’, 164 prisca uerba (see also: archaic*), privileged in Festus, 32; are the reason of the creation of entries, in Verrius, 37 Priscian, earliest source quoting Nonius, 50 pro, introducing a current equivalent of an archaic word, in Festus, 33 Probus, Valerius, wrote commentaries on Eclogues and Georgics, 72; pseudoepigrapha in Neapolitanus Latinus 1, 80, 107 production, of written texts in Latin, is the goal of Humanist Latin pedagogy, 188, 206 pronunciation, Late Latin, affecting spelling, 87; palatal, of Á before a front vowel in Later Greek, 90; convergence of long e and short i, in late Latin, 114 proprie (proprietas sermonis), introducing the precise, or etymological, meaning, in Festus, 34; theme of the first book of Compendiosa doctrina, 52; in Manuzio’s Additamenta, 206 prudentes, indicating authoritative sources, in Nonius, 50 quadratum, a variety of bread loaf, 21

247

quod, and quia, introducing an etymology, in Festus, 33 quotations (see also: examples*, sources*), literary, split up among different lemmata, in Festus, 33; primary and secondary, in Nonius’ articles, 60; of classical authors, not frequent in medieval dictionaries, 189; only accompanied by author’s name, in Cornu Copiae, 191; with full reference, in Calepinus, 193; from Italian authors, in Manuzio’s Calepinus, 196 reconstruction, linguistic, of a non-existing form, to support an etymology, in Verrius, 35; in Cassiodorus, 183; *depanare, ‘to wind off’ thread, 167-168 reference, dictionaries, opposed to wordlists for study, 77 references, to authors cited in the lemma, become more complete in Humanist Latin dictionaries, 190; in Estienne’s Thesaurus, 191 regional, see: geographical* register (see also: colloquial*), low, of some Latin vocabulary, according to Athenaeus, 23; stylistic, in Servius, 63; of diminutives, 111; in cottidiana glossaria, 140 religion, Roman, provides numerous lemmata, in Festus, 36; neglected or misunderstood by Paulus, 41-47 Republican authors, known to Nonius 50; as linguistic authorities, 54 rhombus, ‘flounder’, 22 Robson, Charles Alan, saw ap as an eighth-century compilation, 79 rolls, or uolumina, rare by Nonius’ time and mostly in public libraries, 51 Romance developments, thought to be foreshadowed by condemned forms in ap , 78, 82, 85-86, 109; in glossaries, 138 rules, orthographic, devised by ancient grammatical writers, 127 scholia, Homeric, commenting on style levels, 67, 73

248

index of subjects

scrattae, has different meanings in Festus and in hc , 160 scribal, errors, collected in ap , 88 selection, of entries, non systematic, in Verrius, 37 (see also: comprehensiveness*, dictionaries*); in ap , from one or more textual sources, 100; prompted by a grammatical point or multiple meanings, 100, 106 Servius, and Servius auctus, 63 sources, for Latin words, in Athenaeus, 2425; poetic, in Festus, 33; eliminated in Paulus, 39; commentarium sacrorum, ‘book of religious rituals’, in Festus, 42; referred to without name, in Nonius, 50; near-contemporary, in Nonius, 51; lex Lindsay, 55; textual rather than in the spoken language, for ap , 79, 89; in glossaries, for Martyrius, 123; of bilingual glossaries and hc , 159-160; Servius, Tacitus, Varro, Plinius, Charisius, as sources of Cassiodorus’ etymologies, 183-185 speech parts, as a criterion of lexical classification, 121 spelling (see also: orthography*), changes in time for some words, according to Festus, 34, 36; ancient, supports etymological explanations, in Verrius-Festus, 35; reflecting sound-changes, 82; is an important concern for Roman grammarians, 87; determined by etymological or morphological considerations, 87; of Greek loan-words, not uniform, in ap , 90; no longer corresponding to pronunciation at the time of ap , 108; b/u confused 113; in medieval Latin, 146 spoken, Latin, not unmediately reflected in ap , 106; and hc , 163, 165 standard, orthography of Latin, based broadly on first-century ce practice, 83, 108 ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ, in the phrase ηÙa ϲÙÔȯÂÖÔÓ, meaning ‘in alphabetical order’, 148 strena, ‘gift’, 20 structor, ‘table-server’, 22

style, as a concern of Nonius, 52; as a concern of Humanist dictionaries, 188 substitution, lexical, in ap entries, 91-94; morphological, in ap , 91 ϲ˘Ì‚ÔÏ·›, as excerpts of lexicographical notes, 16 Supplementum Graecum, 43, the ms transmitting hc , 141 syncope, in ap and in spoken Latin, 116 Synonyma Ciceronis, 102 synonyms, see: differentiae uerborum*, homographs* syntax, discussed in Nonius’ ninth book, 54 Ù·›ӈϲÈϲ, for lowness of style or diction,

66-68 tense, imperfect, used in descriptions of Rome’s pagan customs, in Paulus, 38 thematic, order of entries, determined by the sources used by Festus, 32; catalogues of words, in Nonius, 54; wordlists, 77; glossaries, draw on colloquial language more than on literary authors, 160 ti- (+ V), changes to ci-, in Paulus’ mss, 38 tintinnabulum, meaning ‘intestines’, 104 title, of Festus’ work, in 242.19 L poriciam (Priscorum uerborum cum exempis libri), differs from ms heading, 30-31, 55; of Nonius, 52 topics, of individual books of Nonius, 52 tracta, a type of dough, 21 translation, Greek, impossible for some technical Latin terms, 26; of obsolete Latin words into current equivalents, in Paulus, 46; of Latin words taken from the Vulgata into more current terms, in the Reichenau Glosses, 77; to distinguish between homonyms, 132; for Greek speakers needing help with Latin, 134; into Latin, sometimes ad hoc and non idiomatic, in hc , 154; descriptive. vs. idiomatic, in some entries of hc , 168; vernacular, absent, in early modern Latin dictionaries, 188; systemati-

index of subjects cally included in Gryphius’ Calepini, 194; in Humanist pedagogy, is seen as the ultimate vehicle of comprehension of Latin texts, 208 tursio, ‘cut of fish’, 22 ueclus, for classical uetulus, in ap , 84 uelut, introducing an etymology, in Festus, 33 uerruca, ‘mountain peak’, too lowly for epic, 66 uetus, ueteres, indicating sources, in Nonius, 50; indicating linguistic usage, in Nonius, 52 Uguccione da Pisa, author of the Deriuationes, 188 uicus capitis Africae, a street in Rome, mentioned in ap , 78 uilitas, meaning low-register word, in Servius, 65 uncial, as a late-antique hand, 143 uocabularium, not used in classical Latin for lexicographical compilations, 171 usage, linguistic, varies in the course of time, according to Festus, 34; current, said of necto meaning ‘to bind’, in Festus, 42; current, according to Nonius, 51; metaphorical, called improprium, in Nonius, 53; correct, in Vergil, 72; based on examples from written texts, for ancient grammarians, 85 uulgo, with reference to a colloquial or imprecise meaning, in Festus, 34 Variae, 175

249

variation, of meaning, for the same word, acceptable in some cases, 35 Varro, aimed at comprehensiveness in his Antiquitates, 36; Res rusticae, appear to be a textual source of ap , 99; as the source of Cassiodorus’ etymologies, 181 Vergil, as a source for lexica and glossaries, 134 vernacular, polyglot translations, added in re-editions of Calepinus by Gryphius, 194; from Italian authors, in Manuzio’s Calepinus, 196 Verrius Flaccus, as a source of Festus, 29; cited by name in Festus, 31; diverges from Festus, 34; created artificial words to support an etymology, according to Festus, 35; author of Praenestine Fasti, 36 yodisation, of e before a back vowel, 114 vulgarisms, in manuscripts of classical texts, 102, 113; diminutives, replacing the classical form, 110; in Martyrius’ cottidiana glossaria, 137 word-formation, in Nonius, 54; takes place by compositio and deriuatio, in ancient grammar, 177 word-lists, in antiquity, for study of a foreigh language or a technical subject, 77, 154; as a basis of ap , 102, 106; specialized, 163 x, final, not clearly distinct from -s in late Latin, 87

This page intentionally left blank

PL ATES

This page intentionally left blank

Fig. 1, önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 43r.

Fig. 2, önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 30r.

Fig. 3, önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 31r.

254

plates

Fig. 4. cil , xiii, 5010.

Fig. 5. önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 30v.

Fig. 6. önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 33r.

Fig. 7, önb, Suppl. gr. 43, 29v.

co m p o sto i n c a r att e re da n t e m onotype da lla fa b ri z i o se rr a e d i to re, pisa · ro m a . sta m pato e ri l e gato nella t i p o g r a f i a d i agna n o, ag nano pisa no (pisa ).

* Gennaio 2011 (cz 2 · fg 21)

Tutte le riviste Online e le pubblicazioni delle nostre case editrici (riviste, collane, varia, ecc.) possono essere ricercate bibliograficamente e richieste (sottoscrizioni di abbonamenti, ordini di volumi, ecc.) presso il sito Internet:

www.libraweb.net Per ricevere, tramite E-mail, periodicamente, la nostra newsletter/alert con l’elenco delle novità e delle opere in preparazione, Vi invitiamo a sottoscriverla presso il nostro sito Internet o a trasmettere i Vostri dati (Nominativo e indirizzo E-mail) all’indirizzo:

[email protected] * Computerized search operations allow bibliographical retrieval of the Publishers’ works (Online journals, journals subscriptions, orders for individual issues, series, books, etc.) through the Internet website:

www.libraweb.net If you wish to receive, by E-mail, our newsletter/alert with periodic information on the list of new and forthcoming publications, you are kindly invited to subscribe it at our web-site or to send your details (Name and E-mail address) to the following address:

[email protected]

R IC ERC HE S U L LE LI NG UE D I FR AM M ENTAR IA AT T E STAZ I O NE collana diretta da paolo poccetti * 1. Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, Dal miceneo al greco alfabetico. Osservazioni sullo sviluppo delle labiovelari con particolare riferimento alla lingua epica, 1990. 2. Linguistica è storia. Sprachwissenschaft ist Geschichte. Scritti in onore di Carlo De Simone. Festschrift für Carlo De Simone, a cura di Paolo Poccetti, Simona Marchesini, 2003. 3. Enrico Campanile, Latina & Italica. Raccolta degli scritti minori sulle lingue dell’Italia antica, a cura di Paolo Poccetti, 2008. 4. Einar Löfstedt nei percorsi della linguistica e della filologia latina. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma 6-7 maggio 2007, a cura di Paolo Poccetti, 2007. 5. Les prénoms de l’Italie antique. Journée d’études, Université de Lyon 2, 26 janvier 2004, a cura di Paolo Poccetti, 2008. 6. Blanca María Prósper, El bronce celtibérico de Botorrita, i, 2008. 7. The Latin of Roman Lexicography, ed. by Rolando Ferri, 2011. 8. Scritti minori di Michel Lejeune, in preparazione.

F ABRIZ I O S E RRA E D I TO RE Pisa · Roma www.libraweb.net

Fabrizio Serra

Regole editoriali, tipografiche & redazionali Seconda edizione Prefazione di Martino Mardersteig · Postfazione di Alessandro Olschki Con un’appendice di Jan Tschichold Dalla ‘Prefazione’ di Martino Mardersteig

O

[…] ggi abbiamo uno strumento […], il presente manuale intitolato, giustamente, ‘Regole’. Varie sono le ragioni per raccomandare quest’opera agli editori, agli autori, agli appassionati di libri e ai cultori delle cose ben fatte e soprattutto a qualsiasi scuola grafica. La prima è quella di mettere un po’ di ordine nei mille criteri che l’autore, il curatore, lo studioso applicano nella compilazione dei loro lavori. Si tratta di semplificare e uniformare alcune norme redazionali a beneficio di tutti i lettori. In secondo luogo, mi sembra che Fabrizio Serra sia riuscito a cogliere gli insegnamenti provenienti da oltre 500 anni di pratica e li abbia inseriti in norme assolutamente valide. Non possiamo pensare che nel nome della proclamata ‘libertà’ ognuno possa comporre e strutturare un libro come meglio crede, a meno che non si tratti di libro d’artista, ma qui non si discute di questo tema. Certe norme, affermate e consolidatesi nel corso dei secoli (soprattutto sulla leggibilità), devono essere rispettate anche oggi: è assurdo sostenere il contrario. […] Fabrizio Serra riesce a fondere la tradizione con la tecnologia moderna, la qualità di ieri con i mezzi disponibili oggi. […]

*

Dalla ‘Postfazione’ di Alessandro Olschki

Q

[…] ueste succinte considerazioni sono soltanto una minuscola sintesi del grande impegno che Fabrizio Serra ha profuso nelle pagine di questo manuale che ripercorre minuziosamente le tappe che conducono il testo proposto dall’autore al traguardo della nascita del libro; una guida puntualissima dalla quale trarranno beneficio non solo gli scrittori ma anche i tipografi specialmente in questi anni di transizione che, per il rivoluzionario avvento dell’informatica, hanno sconvolto la figura classica del ‘proto’ e il tradizionale intervento del compositore.

Non credo siano molte le case editrici che curano una propria identità redazionale mettendo a disposizione degli autori delle norme di stile da seguire per ottenere una necessaria uniformità nell’ambito del proprio catalogo. Si tratta di una questione di immagine e anche di professionalità. Non è raro, purtroppo, specialmente nelle pubblicazioni a più mani (atti di convegni, pubblicazioni in onore, etc.) trovare nello stesso volume testi di differente impostazione redazionale: specialmente nelle citazioni bibliografiche delle note ma anche nella suddivisione e nell’impostazione di eventuali paragrafi: la considero una sciatteria editoriale anche se, talvolta, non è facilmente superabile. […]

2009, cm 17 × 24, 220 pp., € 34,00 isbn: 978-88-6227-144-8

Le nostre riviste Online, la nostra libreria Internet

www.libraweb.net *

Our Online Journals, our Internet Bookshop

www.libraweb.net

Fabrizio Serra editore®

Accademia editoriale®

Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali®

Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa®

Edizioni dell’Ateneo®

Gruppo editoriale internazionale®

Per leggere un fascicolo saggio di ogni nostra rivista si visiti il nostro sito web: To read a free sample issue of any of our journals visit our website:

www.libraweb.net/periodonline.php