Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:18:32.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Literary Artistry of Terentianus Maurus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2022

Tom Keeline
Tom Keeline*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Terentianus Maurus, a North African writing probably in the third century a.d., bequeathed to posterity a preface and three polymetric poems: De litteris, De syllabis and De metris. The poems’ titles reflect their content, the first two covering the pronunciation of letters and syllables and the third discussing the details of a bewildering array of metres. Unpromising subject matter for poetry? On the contrary. Terentianus Maurus uses this raw material to display his extraordinary poetic skill, while also conveying useful technical information. This paper first examines the programmatic preface to his poems, which is studded with intertextual gems and shines with every kind of literary polish. It then turns to look at passages from the rest of Terentianus’ poetry to see how he puts the ideals of his preface into poetic practice. The paper aims to show that Terentianus Maurus is not, or not just, a grammarian, but rather a consummate literary artist in the tradition of learned didactic verse.

Keywords

Terentianus Maurusdidactic poetryintertextualitywordplaymetregrammar
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 112 , November 2022 , pp. 143 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

Footnotes

*Preliminary versions of this article were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Society for Classical Studies, the University of Iowa and the Oxford Philological Society; the present version is much the better for audience members’ suggestions. I thank also the anonymous readers for JRS, who improved every aspect of my argument and delivered their reports with miraculous speed, as well as the Journal's editor, Peter Thonemann, a model of efficiency and good cheer. Finally, thanks to my colleagues Kate Wilson, who discussed these ideas with me when they were just forming, and Tim Moore, who has read and commented at every stage from conference abstract to near-final paper.

References

Adams, J. N. 2007: The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. N. 2013: Social Variation and the Latin Language, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, W. S. 1978: Vox Latina, 2nd edn, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amacker, R. 1996: ‘Le traitement des diphtongues grecques et latines chez Térentianus le Maure: bref chapitre d'histoire de la grammaire’, in H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin: Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Jerusalem, April 1993, Innsbruck, 693–707.Google Scholar
Baldwin, B. 1989: ‘Some aspects of Commodian’, Illinois Classical Studies 14, 331–46.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. 1994: ‘Alcune difficoltà nella carriera di un poeta giambico: giambo ed elegia nell’epodo XI’, in Tovar, R. Cortés and Fernández Corte, J. C. (eds), Bimilenario de Horacio, Salamanca, 127–38.Google Scholar
Batstone, W. W. 1998: ‘Dry pumice and the programmatic language of Catullus 1’, Classical Philology 93, 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, J.-W. 1993a: Terentianus Maurus: De syllabis, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Beck, J.-W. 1993b: Concordantia in Terentianum Maurum, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Beck, J.-W. 1994: ‘Terentianus Maurus: Gedanken zur Datierung’, Hermes 122, 220–52.Google Scholar
Beck, J.-W. 1998: ‘Terentianus Maurus non paenitendus inter ceteros artis metricae auctor’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 34.4, 3208–68.Google Scholar
Beck, J.-W. 2003: ‘Terentianus Maurus’ (rev. of Cignolo 2002), Classical Review n.s. 53, 385–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R. 1711: Q. Horatius Flaccus, ex recensione & cum notis atque emendationibus Richardi Bentleii (2 vols in 1), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. 1836: The Works of Richard Bentley, D.D.: Vol. II. Dissertations upon the Epistles of Phalaris, &c., and Epistola ad Millium, ed. Dyce, A., London.Google Scholar
Blänsdorf, J. 2011: Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum, 4th edn, Berlin.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1963–82: Horace on Poetry (3 vols), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. 1980: ‘Poetae novelli’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 84, 127–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. 1995: Callimachus and his Critics, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. 2021: ‘Language and style’, in Quesnay, I. Du and Woodman, A. (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Catullus, Cambridge, 116–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champlin, E. 1981: ‘Serenus Sammonicus’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 85, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cignolo, C. 2000: ‘La struttura della praefatio al De litteris, syllabis et metris di Terenziano Mauro (GLK VI 325–327)’, in Toneatto, L. and Sconocchia, S. (eds), Lingue tecniche del greco e del latino III: atti del III Seminario internazionale sulla letteratura scientifica e tecnica greca e latina, Bologna, 235–45.Google Scholar
Cignolo, C. 2002: Terentiani Mauri De litteris, De syllabis, De metris: Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione italiana (2 vols), Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Connors, C. M. 1998: Petronius the Poet: Verse and Literary Tradition in the Satyricon, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Consbruch, M. 1906: Hephaestionis Enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1999: Latin Literature: A History, 2nd edn, trans. Solodow, J. B., rev. Fowler, D. and Most, G. W., Baltimore, MD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, R. and Sluiter, I. 2009: Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric: Language Arts and Literary Theory, AD 300–1475, Oxford.Google Scholar
Courtney, E. 2003: The Fragmentary Latin Poets, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. 2021: ‘An ugly cow with big feet: sex, metre and genre in Georgics 3’, Classical Quarterly n.s. 70, 717–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Alessandro, P. 2012: Varrone e la tradizione metrica antica, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
D'Angour, A. J. 1999, ‘Archinus, Eucleides, and the reform of the Athenian alphabet’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43, 109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielewicz, J. 2016: ‘The metrical aspects of the paean cry in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo’, Eos 103, 123–5.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. 1745: Miscellanea critica in sectiones quinque dispertita, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Della Bona, M. E. 2017: Agoni poetico-musicali nella Grecia antica, 2: I Pythia di Delfi, Pisa.Google Scholar
De Nonno, M. 2000: ‘I codici grammaticali latini d'età tardoantica: osservazioni e considerazioni’, in De Nonno, De Paolis and Holtz 2000, I 133–72.Google Scholar
De Nonno, M., De Paolis, P. and Holtz, L. (eds) 2000. Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance: Proceedings of a Conference held at Erice, 16–23 October 1997, as the 11th Course of International School for the Study of Written Records (2 vols), Cassino.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2013: Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. 2019: ‘Claiming inferiority: weakness into strength’, in Matzner and Harrison 2019, 13–28.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. 2019: ‘Name puns and acrostics in didactic poetry: reading the universe’, in Canevaro, L. G. and O'Rourke, D. (eds), Didactic Poetry of Greece, Rome and Beyond: Knowledge, Power, Tradition, Swansea, 123–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. 1988: Hexaflexagons and Other Mathematical Diversions, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Geer, R. M. 1933: ‘Terentianus Maurus, metrical magician’, Classical Journal 29, 33–40.Google Scholar
Gordon, A. E. 1973: The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Gottschalk, H. B: 1980. Heraclides of Pontus, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gowers, E. 2012: Horace: Satires. Book I, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hächler, N. 2019: Kontinuität und Wandel des Senatorenstandes im Zeitalter der Soldatenkaiser: Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Zusammensetzung, Funktion und Bedeutung des amplissimus ordo zwischen 235–294 n. Chr., Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainsworth, B. 1993: The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume III: Books 9–12, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, A. 2012: Callimachus: Aetia. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary (2 vols), Oxford.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1985: ‘Booking the return trip: Ovid and Tristia 1’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 31, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, S. 1998: Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
James, S. L. 1995: ‘Establishing Rome with the sword: condere in the Aeneid’, American Journal of Philology 116, 623–37.Google Scholar
Janson, T. 1964: Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Kajanto, I. 1965: The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Käppel, L. 1992. Paian: Studien zur Geschichte einer Gattung, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassel, R. 1975: ‘Quod versu dicere non est’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphie 19, 211–18.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. 1988: Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, A. 2019: ‘Palatine Apollo, Augustan architectural ecphrasis, and Flavian epic intertextuality’, in Coffee, N., Forstall, C., Galli Milić, L. and Nelis, D. (eds), Intertextuality in Flavian Epic Poetry: Contemporary Approaches, Berlin, 323–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunst, K. 1886: De Theocriti versu heroico, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Law, V. 1999: ‘Why write a verse grammar?’, Journal of Medieval Latin 9, 46–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonhardt, J. 1989: ‘Die beiden metrischen Systeme des Altertums’, Hermes 117, 43–62.Google Scholar
Manitius, M. 1935: Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Markley, A. A. 1998: ‘Barbarous hexameters and dainty meters: Tennyson's use of Classical versification’, Studies in Philology 95, 456–86.Google Scholar
Mattiacci, S. 2019: ‘Ineptiae e il lessico riduttivo in relazione alla poesia “minore”’, Lexis 37, 236–55.Google Scholar
Matzner, S. and Harrison, S. (eds) 2019: Complex Inferiorities: The Poetics of the Weaker Voice in Latin Literature, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. 2020: ‘Acrostics and telestichs in Augustan poetry: Ovid's edgy and subversive sideswipes’, Cambridge Classical Journal 66, 165–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli, G. 2000: ‘Metricologi latini di tradizione bobbiese’, in De Nonno, De Paolis and Holtz 2000, II 533–59.Google Scholar
Morelli, G. 2011 –12: Caesii Bassi De metris; Atilii Fortunatiani De metris Horatianis: Introduzione, testo critico e appendice (2 vols), Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Morelli, G. 2012: ‘Saturni e saturnini: una reminiscenza di Terenziano Mauro in Prudenzio’, Aevum 86, 281–5.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. 2007: ‘Metre matters: some higher-level metrical play in Latin poetry’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 46, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, L. 2010: Musa Pedestris: Metre and Meaning in Roman Verse, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munzi, L. 1992: ‘Il ruolo della prefazione nei testi grammaticali latini’, AION (filol.) 14, 103–26.Google Scholar
Nauta, R. R. 2004: ‘Hephaestion and Catullus 63 again’, Mnemosyne 4 57, 651–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. K. 1990: Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian Sensibility, Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Pelttari, A. 2011: ‘Approaches to the writing of Greek in late antique Latin texts’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51, 461–82.Google Scholar
Pelttari, A. 2014, The Space that Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Pretagostini, R. 2011: Scritti di metrica, ed. Celentano, M. Silvana, Rome.Google Scholar
Probert, P. 2019: Latin Grammarians on the Latin Accent: The Transformation of Greek Grammatical Thought, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimell, V. 2019: ‘The creative superiority of self-reproach: Horace's Ars Poetica’, in Matzner and Harrison 2019, 107–27.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 2019a: ‘Looking edgeways: pursuing acrostics in Ovid and Virgil’, Classical Quarterly n.s. 69, 290–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. 2019b: ‘Arms and a mouse: approaching acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, Materiali e Discussioni 82, 23–73.Google Scholar
Rondholz, A. 2012: The Versatile Needle: Hosidius Geta's Medea and Its Tradition, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallmann, K. (ed.) 1997: Die Literatur des Umbruchs: von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur. 117 bis 284 n. Chr., Munich.Google Scholar
Schad, S. 2007: A Lexicon of Latin Grammatical Terminology, Pisa.Google Scholar
Sjölund, R. 1938: Metrische Kürzung im Griechischen, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Skutsch, O. 1985: The Annals of Quintus Ennius, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. and Schenkenveld, D. M. 2018: ‘The grammarian and the Olympic athlete: intellectual old age in Terentianus Maurus’, in Swiggers, P. (ed.), Language, Grammar, and Erudition: From Antiquity to Modern Times. A Collection of Papers in Honour of Alfons Wouters, Leuven, 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, M. 2017a: ‘POP Art: the optical poetics of Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius’, in Elsner, J. and Lobato, J. Hernández (eds), The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, Oxford, 25–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, M. 2017b: ‘Optatian and his lettered art: a kaleidoscopic lens on Late Antiquity’, in Squire, M. and Wienand, J. (eds), Morphogrammata: The Lettered Art of Optatian. Figuring Cultural Transformations in the Age of Constantine, Paderborn, 55–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townshend, J. R. 2015: ‘Stop me if you've heard this one before: faux Alexandrian footnotes in Vergil’, Vergilius 61, 77–96.Google Scholar
Trezza, G. 1923: Terenziano Mauro: maestro di arte poetica e di metrica latina nell'età bronzea, Salerno.Google Scholar
Venuti, M. 2019a: ‘Riflessioni sulla poesia didascalica latina in età tarde: un genero “aperto”’, in Colombo, R., Gasti, F., Gay, M. and Sorbello, F. (eds), Il vero condito: caratteri e ambiti della poesia didascalica nel mondo antico. Atti della XI Giornata Ghisleriana di filologia classica, Pavia, 29–30 novembre 2017, Pavia, 75–94.Google Scholar
Venuti, M. 2019b: ‘Pontica: un elegante frammento poetico sulle creature marine (AL 720 R2 = FPL 4 Blänsdorf)’, Paideia 74, 685–710.Google Scholar
Weber, C. 1987: ‘Metrical imitatio in the proem to the Aeneid’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91, 261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, A. 1906: De Terentiani sermone et aetate particula prior, Leipzig.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1982: Greek Metre, Oxford.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1992: Ancient Greek Music, Oxford.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 2007: Indo-European Poetry and Myth, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1959: Euripides: Herakles, 4th edn (3 vols), Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Williams, F. 1978: Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wimmel, W. 1960: Kallimachos in Rom: die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 2018: Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 BCE–800 CE, Oxford.Google Scholar