Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:48:52.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Ninth-Century Commentary on Donatvs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. Esposito
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A Manuscript belonging to the Municipal Library at Tours (No. 843, formerly 416, fols. 75a-101a) of the beginning of the thirteenth century contains a portion of a Commentary on Donatus, compiled in the middle of the ninth century by Sedulius of Liège. This copy was left unfinished by the scribe, and the Commentary comprises only about two-thirds of the Ars Minor. A brief note on the manuscript was contributed by Charles Thurot to the Comptes rendus de l' Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres in 1870.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1917 , pp. 94 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1917

Access options

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

References

page 94 note 1 On this writer see Esposito, (Studies, ii., 1913, pp. 505. 520)Google Scholar, and Hohl, (Rhein. Mus., 69, 1914, p. 580)Google Scholar.

page 94 note 2 Nouvelle Série, vi., pp. 242–43. Thurot's note was reprinted in the Revue Celtique, i., 1870–72, pp. 264–65. The Tours MS. was more recently described by Collon, M. (Catal, gén. des MSS, des Bibl. Publ. de France, Départements t. 37, 1900, pp. 615–16)Google Scholar.

page 94 note 3 Gesch. der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, i., 1911, p. 319Google Scholar.

page 94 note 4 According to Meyer, M. Paul (Romania, 12, 1883, p. 150Google Scholar, and Notices et Extraits, 35, ii., 1897, p. 646)Google Scholar, after the early years of the thirteenth century green capitals are no longer found in MSS. Professor Wilhelm Meyer on Göttingen, whose experience of mediaeval MSS, is probably unrivalled, tells me that, whereas this statement is substantially true of MSS. written in France, England, and Germany, it does not apply in the case of MSS. written in Italy.

page 94 note 5 On MSS. formerly belonging to the Carthusians at Mainz, see Roth, F. W. (Romanische Forschungen, 6, 1891, p. 430)Google Scholar.

page 95 note 1 Prisc, . De Fig. Num. 25 (ed. Keil, , Gr. Lat., iii., 1860, p. 414)Google Scholar with some variants.

page 95 note 2 pro Prisc. The MS. has.

page 95 note 3 Prisc, . Inst. Gramm. xiv. 6 (ed. Hertz, , Gr. Lat., iii., p. 27)Google Scholar.

page 95 note 4 commutant Prisc.

page 95 note 5 The first m is effaced. Folios 12a-67a comprise that portion of Sedulius's Commentary dealing with Donatus, Ars Gramm., I. 1–11. 17 (ed. Keil, , Gr. Lat., iv., 1864, pp. 367–392)Google Scholar.

page 95 note 6 The MS. generally has simply e for ae, but occasionally we find e as above.

page 95 note 7 This title is not found among Keil's variants (ed. p. 367).

page 95 note 8 For the matter of fols. 67a-80a, see Donatus, , Ars. II. 18-III. 6 (ed. pp. 392–402)Google Scholar.

page 95 note 9 The adjectives metaplasmaticus and schematicus are not found in the lexicons (Forcellini, Georges, Du Cange).

page 95 note 10 Differentialis is not in the lexicons.

page 96 note 1 This comes from Isidore, , Elymologiae, ii. 29, 7, ed. Lindsay, , 1911Google Scholar: Sexta species definitionis est, quam Graeci κατ⋯ διαϕορ⋯ν nos per differentiam dicimus.

page 96 note 2 Donatus, , Ars Gramm. ii. 18 (ed. p. 392)Google Scholar.

page 96 note 3 Ibid., iii. 6 (ed. p. 402).

page 96 note 4 Repeated thus in the MS.

page 96 note 5 In Keil's, edition the Ars Minor covers pp. 355–366Google Scholar. The portion commented on in the Tours MS. comprises only pp. 355–362.

page 96 note 6 This method of commencing an exposition was common in the Middle Ages. It is said by Traube, (Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, ii., 1911, p. 165)Google Scholar to go back to Boethius. For examples see Pseudo-Jerome, , Expos. Quatuor Evang., Prol. ap. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 30, 531Google Scholar; Manitius, (Gesch. der lat. Lit. des MA. i., pp. 491, 512)Google Scholar; Christianus, of Stablo, , Expos. in Matthaeum, i., ap. Migne, P.L. 106, 1264Google Scholar; various commentaries of Remigius of Auxerre ap. Mancini (Rendiconti delta R. Accad. dci Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, serie V., vol. II, 1902, p. 179)Google Scholar, Manitius, (Münchener Museum für Philol. des MA., ii., 1913, pp. 99, 101, 109)Google Scholar, and Esposito, (Didaskaleion, iii., 1914, p. 174)Google Scholar.

page 96 note 7 For peristasis see Petron, . Sat. 48, 4Google Scholar; Quintil. Inst. Orat. v. 10, 104; and Cic. Ad Att. iv. 8a, 2.

page 96 note 8 Neither Georges nor Du Cange give this word. It is, however, used both by Cassiodorus, (Expos, in Psalt. iv. 6, P. Lat. 70, 51)Google Scholar and by Isidore, (Etymol. ii. 21, 47, ed. Lindsay, )Google Scholar.

page 96 note 9 Donatus, , Ars Minor, ed. Keil, , p, 357, 2Google Scholar Thurot points out that Sedulius has adopted Priscian's theory of the pronoun, attributing it to Donatus, who really followed a quite different tradition.

page 96 note 10 Ars Minor, p. 357, 3.

page 97 note 1 Gesch. lat. Lit. des MA. i., pp. 318, 319.

page 97 note 2 See Roger, , Rev. de Philologie, XXX., 1906, pp. 122–123Google Scholar; and Teuffel, , Gesch. röm. Lit., 6e Aufl., iii., 1913, p. 463Google Scholar.