Terence was studied, though not so much as Virgil, in monastery-schools. Their magistri bestirred themselves to get aid for pupils. Some famous magister— we know not who—had written, between the lines or in the margins, interpretations of difficult words in at least the three opening plays of the MS. which he used—Andr., Ad., Eun.—if not in all. These interpretations were collected from his MS. and found their way into many monastery-libraries. Goetz has published these glossae collectae of Terence from a (...) tenth century MS. in Vol. V. of his Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, pp. 529–539; Mr. Austin has added more from a Leyden MS. , written apparently in Belgium or Holland, c. 800–815 A.D. . Probably Dr. Theander will add a further batch from a Paris MS. (shrink)

My purpose in this paper is to reassert the traditional view that Athenian women of the classical period regularly had an association with phratries. As part of my argument I adduce an overlooked piece of evidence, a much discussed passage from the Donatus commentary on Terence; for this I provide a new interpretation.There is some evidence that Athenian women were introduced to their fathersphrateresat birth, or to their husbands'phrateresat marriage, or both. The speaker of Isaeus 3 repeatedly asserts that (...) a certain Pyrrhus would have presented his daughter to hisphrateresif she had been legitimate. A scholium on Aristophanes,Acharnians146 may refer to such a practice. Euxitheus calls as witnesses of his mother's citizenshipphrateresfor whom his father celebrated the wedding feast, thegamelia, on her behalf ; celebration of thegameliais regarded as proof of the legitimacy of the speaker's mother at Isaeus 8.19. Neither Demosthenes nor Isaeus says that women were formally registered among thephrateresor even present at the feast; but notices in the lexicographers do connect thegameliawith registration among or introduction to thephrateres. Many scholars have accepted these passages as evidence for normal practice at Athens in the classical period. (shrink)

My purpose in this paper is to reassert the traditional view that Athenian women of the classical period regularly had an association with phratries. As part of my argument I adduce an overlooked piece of evidence, a much discussed passage from the Donatus commentary on Terence; for this I provide a new interpretation. There is some evidence that Athenian women were introduced to their fathers phrateres at birth, or to their husbands' phrateres at marriage, or both. The speaker of (...) Isaeus 3 repeatedly asserts that a certain Pyrrhus would have presented his daughter to his phrateres if she had been legitimate. A scholium on Aristophanes, Acharnians 146 may refer to such a practice. Euxitheus calls as witnesses of his mother's citizenship phrateres for whom his father celebrated the wedding feast, the gamelia, on her behalf ; celebration of the gamelia is regarded as proof of the legitimacy of the speaker's mother at Isaeus 8.19. Neither Demosthenes nor Isaeus says that women were formally registered among the phrateres or even present at the feast; but notices in the lexicographers do connect the gamelia with registration among or introduction to the phrateres. Many scholars have accepted these passages as evidence for normal practice at Athens in the classical period. (shrink)

The spirit of Aelius Donatus must be uneasy of late years; so many scholars have attempted to evoke his ghost. Professor H. J. Thomson professes to see in the additional notes to Servius an image once removed from the true Donatus. ‘The question’, he writes, ‘how far we can assume that the words of Donatus are directly reproduced [in the additions first published by Daniel ] can hardly be satisfactorily answered.’ That Donatus was not the immediate (...) source of D, Thomson endeavours to show from three instances, in two of which we know for certain, either from the Glossaries or from Servius himself, the substance of a part, at least, of the note of Donatus on these passages. In the other the argument rests on the comparative meagreness of the note in the enlarged Servius. In all three cases, according to this theory, we have a rehandling of the D comment. The note on the passage from the Aeneid has already been discussed by Professor Thomson in his study of the Virgil scholia in the Abstrusa glossary. The conclusions reached there are repeated, though perhaps not so positively, in the article under discussion. I hold with Professor Rand that we have in Servius auctus substantially the voice of Donatus, though in a fragmentary form, due to the work of a compiler who, with Servius as a basis, has worked in with more or less success explanatory matter which departed from, or was an addition to, the information supplied by an interpreter who himself derived most of his material from Donatus. (shrink)

That the Vergilian commentary by Aelius Donatus – one of the most influential late-antique commentaries that have not survived – was extant in the ninth century and available to some Carolingian scholars is still a widespread belief. The evidence in support of this thesis is said to have been provided by the Harvard Servianist J. J. H. Savage in three articles published between 1925 and 1931. In these articles, Savage claimed that a few marginal notes in one of the (...) ninth-century primary witnesses to the DS scholia, the so-called ‘Vergil of Tours’ (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 165), were drawn almost directly from Donatus’ commentary and that a marginal note in a roughly coeval Servian witness (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms. 363) provided information about a place where a copy of the commentary could be found. A re-examination of the two manuscripts shows that the evidence adduced by Savage does not stand scrutiny and that the terminus post quem for the loss of Donatus’ commentary should be antedated by at least one century. (shrink)

In CQ 45 , 547–50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1–157. I offer some further emendations.

In CQ 45, 547–50, S. J. Harrison and M. Winterbottom propose a series of emendations to the text of the recently discovered passage of Donatus which contains his commentary on Aen. 6.1–157. I offer some further emendations.

Peter Marshall has done what all those concerned with manuscripts dream of doing: he has turned up a substantial lost portion of an ancient text. His discovery is related, with great modesty, in an article in Manuscripta 37 , 3–20, where he prints for the first time Tiberius Claudius Donatus' commentary on Virgil, Aeneid 6.1–157, edited from a gathering written in the sixteenth century and now bound into Vaticanus Latinus 8222 ff. 2r–9v. We offer here some emendations to the (...) text he prints; we are grateful to Prof. M. D. Reeve and Dr S. J. Heyworth for their suggestions, which we have incorporated in what follows. The bold figures represent the lines of Aeneid 6. (shrink)

(from t.p.) qui continet Historiam Regni Henrici Septimi, Regis Angliae -- Sermones fideles, sive, Interiora rerum -- Tractatum de sapienta veterum -- Dialogum de bello sacro -- Et Novam Atlantidem ... -- in hoc volumine, iterum excusi, includuntur Tractatus de augmentis scientiarum -- Historia ventorum -- Historia vitae [et] mortis.

In the first act of Terence'sAndria, we find a dialogue between the old man Simo and Sosia, the freedman, with the former explaining why he has decided to arrange a false wedding for his young son Pamphilus. He has, in fact, learned that his son, despite being betrothed, has had a relationship with another girl and that—quite a serious matter—the fiancée's father, Chremes, has heard about the clandestine affair. In verses 144–9 Simo reports on the not-altogether friendly meeting he has (...) had with Chremes, who is furious about the complete disrespect that has been shown to his daughter; Simo's only defence is to attempt to deny the truth (146:ego illud sedulo negare factum). (shrink)

Based on a new and complete collation of manuscripts and ancient editions, this paper will discuss some stemmatic and textual problems concerning the “Excerpta de comoedia” attributed to Aelius Donatus.

During the fourth century C. E. Donatus borrowed from the Greek tradition the idea of replacing res corporalis with res in the definition of the noun, because of the usual equivalence between pragma and res. This change had important consequences, such as a new distinction between corpus and res, as well as a new meaning proposed for the word res. This new meaning happened to be questioned by later commentators, because masters of grammar seemed to reject the Donatian distinction (...) between corpus and res, and consider that corpus is rather included inside res, before being later accepted by Sedulius and Remigius, perhaps under the influence of the common expression res verbi. However, the word remained poly-semic in spite of Donatus' attempt, as can be seen in the Glosulae in Priscianum (s. XII). (shrink)

Donatus, after enumerating Vergil's early poems, proceeds : ‘Mox cum res Romanas inchoasset, offensus materia, ad Bucolica transiit.’ We have learned to distrust such statements about Vergil's early life, having discovered that an all too literal interpretation of the Bucolics provided a large part of Suetonius' data. The line quoted above may be nothing but an inference from Eclogue VI. 3: cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit, etc.

Donatus, after enumerating Vergil's early poems, proceeds : ‘Mox cum res Romanas inchoasset, offensus materia, ad Bucolica transiit.’ We have learned to distrust such statements about Vergil's early life, having discovered that an all too literal interpretation of the Bucolics provided a large part of Suetonius' data. The line quoted above may be nothing but an inference from Eclogue VI. 3: cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit, etc.

Read audit in artes for the transmitted audet in artes in Gratt. 498. The correction has the effect that the phrase audere (ardere Gronovius) in proelia in Verg. Aen. 2,347 no longer has linguistic support.

The statement of Donatus that Vergil wrote the Culex at the age of sixteen seems to be regarded by most scholars as too good to be true. It is a very long time since it was first suggested that XXVI. should be read for XVI., and the proposal has not yet fallen from favour. The apparent justification of this view is found in a passage of Statius' Genethliacon Lucani, where Calliope is represented as foretelling the literary achievements of Lucan. (...) It is the purpose of the present paper to examine this supposed evidence. (shrink)

The statement of Donatus that Vergil wrote the Culex at the age of sixteen seems to be regarded by most scholars as too good to be true. It is a very long time since it was first suggested that XXVI. should be read for XVI., and the proposal has not yet fallen from favour. The apparent justification of this view is found in a passage of Statius' Genethliacon Lucani , where Calliope is represented as foretelling the literary achievements of (...) Lucan. It is the purpose of the present paper to examine this supposed evidence. (shrink)

1. Implicature: some basic oppositions IMPLICATURE is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said. What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood. Speaker S tacitly exploits pragmatic principles to bridge this gap and counts on hearer H to invoke the same principles for the purposes of utterance interpretation. (...) The contrast between the said and the meant, and derivatively between the said and the implicated (the meant-but-unsaid), dates back to the fourth century rhetoricians Servius and Donatus, who characterized litotes—the figure of pragmatic understatement—as a figure in which we say less but mean more (“minus dicimus et plus significamus”; see Hoffmann 1987 and Horn 1991a for discussion). In the classical Gricean model, the bridge from what is said (the literal content of the uttered sentence, computed directly from its grammatical structure with the reference of indexicals resolved) to what is communicated is constructed through implicature. As an aspect of speaker meaning, implicatures are by definition distinct from the non-logical inferences that the hearer draws; it is a category mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to sentences (e.g. P and Q) and subsentential expressions (e.g. some). But we can systematically (at least for generalized implicatures; see below) correlate the speaker’s intention to implicate q (in uttering p in context C), the expression p that carries the implicature in C, and the inference of q induced by the speaker’s utterance of p in C. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es observar el tratamiento que se ofrece en la Institutio Oratoria de Quintiliano y en las artes de Donato, Diomedes y Consencio, como también en el comentario de Pompeyo a la obra de Donato, de los ejemplos estándar de singularización de pluralia tantum: scala, scopa, quadriga. El análisis de la ambigüedad de los nombres tantum cobra relevancia desde que trasciende la mera discusión automatizada de un lugar común de las artes grammaticales, convirtiéndose en un problema (...) de descripción lingüística, al plantearse su coherencia para la descripción de toda la lengua. The purpose of this paper is the study of the treatment offered in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, in the artes of Donatus, Diomedes and Consentius, and in Pompeius's commentary on the work of Donatus, of the standard examples regarding the use of pluralia tantum in singular: scala, scopa, quadriga. The analysis of the ambiguity of the pluralia and singularia tantum gains relevance as it transcends the mere automated discussion of a commonplace of the artes grammaticales, becoming a problem of linguistic description, when the issue of its coherence for the description of the entire language is raised. (shrink)

William of Ockham’s discussion of which grammatical categories are relevant for describing the syntax of mental language occurs in two short and closely related passages: Quodlibeta V, 8 and Summa logicae I, 3. In the present paper, I discuss four riddles that are raised by these two texts: (1) I point to an apparent anomaly in the structure of Summa logicae I, 3 and I propose an amendment to the St. Bonaventure edition in this regard; (2) I argue that Ockham’s (...) main grammatical source in the two passages is the Latin grammarian Donatus rather than Priscian (as might have been thought) and I show why this is relevant; (3) I clarify what problem Ockham has in mind when saying that there is a special difficulty about whether distinctions of “quality” (qualitas) are found among mental names as they are among spoken names; (4) I explain what Ockham means by the “figure” (figura) of names and verbs and why he thinks that this grammatical category is of no relevance for the analysis of mental language. (shrink)

Early in the 1240s the University of Paris hired a recent graduate from Oxford, Roger Bacon by name, to teach the arts and introduce Aristotle to its curriculum. Along with eight sets of questions on Aristotle's natural works and the Metaphysics he claims to have authored another eight books before he returned to Oxford around 1247. Within the prodigious output of this period we find a treatise on logic titled Summulae dialectices, and it is this that is here annotated and (...) presented in translation. The book is unique in several respects. First, there is the breadth of its sources. Not only do we find explicit reference to the usual authors such as Aristotle, Plato, Boethius, Porphyry, Cicero, and Priscian, we also find unexpected reference to Augustine, Bernardus Silvestris, Donatus, Terence, and Themistius, along with mention of the Muslim philosophers Algazel and Ibn Rushd. Second, it is clear that Bacon is drawing on or reacting to an extraordinarily wide variety of medieval sources: Garland the Computist, Hugh of St. Victor, Master Hugo, Hugutius of Pisa, Isidore of Seville, Nicholas of Damas, Nicholas of Paris, Richard of Cornwall, Robert Kilwardby, Robert of Lincoln, and Robert the Englishman. Third, it unexpectedly presents a full-blown treatment of Aristotle's theory of demonstration. And finally, Bacon reveals a highly unorthodox view of the signification of common terms. Bacon, here, takes his students and us deeper into medieval sources and controversy than any of his rivals do. (shrink)

One of the gains to be reckoned from the study of nomenclature in the sepulchral inscriptions of the early empire is the gradual abandonment of attempts to distinguish between slave and freeborn on the basis of personal name or cognomen alone, especially when this is of Latin derivation. Nevertheless, one still finds personal cognomina in undated inscriptions adduced as sole evidence for the origin or status of individuals below senatorial rank. Thus in a standard work on freedmen in the early (...) empire, recently reprinted, names such as Agilis, Amandus, Auctus, Communis, Donatus, Faustus, Felix, etc., are said to be commonly servile, but others such as Aquila, Bassus, Capito, Cams, Celer, Crescens, etc., are taken as ingenuous. The criteria used in making such a distinction are subjective and arbitrary and the statistics based on them are largely valueless. It is the purpose of this note to consider briefly on this question the evidence of the personal nomenclature of the Imperial slaves and freedmen. In this group, the Familia Caesaris, no problem of status arises, and the fact that the majority of their inscriptions can be dated, at least approximately, makes it possible to trace the chronological development of the use of cognomina ingenua by one important group of servile origin from the first to the early third century A.D. Moreover, such a development is useful evidence for change in the social structure of the early empire. (shrink)

Late Antiquity witnessed intense scholarly activity on Virgil's poems. Aelius Donatus’ commentary, the twelve-bookInterpretationes Vergilianaecomposed by the fourth-century or fifth-century rhetorician Tiberius Claudius Donatus and other sets of scholia testify to the richness of late ‘Virgilian literature’. Servius’ full-scale commentary on Virgil's poetry marked a watershed in the history of the reception of Virgil and in Latin criticism in general. Primarily ‘the instrument of a teacher’, Servius’ commentary was intended to teach students and readers to read and write (...) good Latin through Virgil. Lauded by Macrobius for his ‘learning’ and ‘modesty’, Servius attained supremacy as both a literary critic and an interpreter of Virgil, the master of Latin poetry. Hisauctoritashad a profound impact on later Virgilian erudition. As Cameron notes, Servius’ commentary ‘eclipsed all competition, even Donatus’. Significantly, it permeated non-Virgilian scholarship from the fifth century onwards. The earliest bodies of scholia on Lucan, the tenth-century or eleventh-centuryCommenta BernensiaandAdnotationes super Lucanumand thescholia uetustioraon Juvenal contain material that can be traced as far back as Servius’ scholarly masterpiece. (shrink)

Caper in his section on the preposition ex cited Ennius, Ann. 309:nauibus explebant sese terrasque replebant,and declared that Virgil used the verb with this antique sense in Aen. 6, 545:discedam; explebo numerum reddarque tenebris,i.e. ‘minuam vestrum numerum.’This we are told in Servius' note, which begins: Ut diximus supra, explebo est minuam. Thilo gives no reference to any such previous words of Servius, and I have failed to find them. Can it be that Servius has carelessly transcribed a note of (...) class='Hi'>Donatus, and that Donatus had discussed ex minuens at Geo. 2, 65, or 4, 145? Donatus' note on Terence, Hec. 755, is Explere exinanire Terentianum est; the passage of Terence is:eas ad mulieres huc intro atque istuc iusiurandum idempolliceare illis: exple animum îs teque hoc crimine expedi,i.e., relieve their mind of suspicion against Pamphilus and free yourself from this charge. The phrase recurs in the next Scene :illis modo explete animum.i atque exple animum îs, coge ut credant. (shrink)