University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
71- 27,433 BOBER, Richard John, 1931- THE LATINITAS OF SERVIUS. [Portions o f Text in L atin ], The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Language and Literature, classical University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE lATINITAS OF SERVIUS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Richard John Bober, M.A. ***** The Ohio S ta te U n iv ersity 1971 Approved by Advise! Department of Classics vim September 17, 1931 > . Born - L o rain , Ohio 1949-1931................................ St, Charles College, Baltimore, Maryland I 95I-I 9 5 7...................... .... St. Mary Seminary, Cleveland, Ohio 1957-1959 ....................... Associate Pastor, Cleveland, Ohio 1959-I 96O ....................... M.A,, Catholic University of America, W ashington, D.C. 1960 -I963 .......................... Borromeo College Seminary, Vftckliffe, Ohio, Classics Department 1963-1965 ....... Graduate School, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1965-1975 .......................... Borromeo College Seminary, Wickliffe, Ohio, Department of Classics FIELDS OF STUDY fhjor Field: Greek and la tin literature Studies in Ancient History. Studies in Palaeography. Studies in Epigraphy. Studies in Archaeology. i i mBLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER page VITA ........................................................................................... i i INTRODUCTTON.............................................................................................................. 1 I . ANCIENT GRAMMARIANS AND THE WORK OF SERVIUS................................. 3 II. THE NOUN........................................................................................................... 20 III. ADJECnVES ...................................................................................................... 60 I V . VERBAL F O R I 'iS .............................................................. .................................. 75 V. USE OF C A SE S................................................................................................. 113 VI. PREPOSITEONS, ADVERBS, PRONOUNS AND CONJUNCTIONS..................... l40 V II. SERVIUS' lATINITAS: lATE AND VULGAR L A T IN ..................................... 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 181 i i i INTRODUCTION IMs dissertation has as its aim an examination of the latinitas of Servius, principally in relationship to the la tin expressed in the poetry of Vergil and in the other writings of the classical period. In view of the inçortance of the fourth century for the transmission of texts, a study of the activities of the grammatici seems to offer a worthwhile contribution to a better understanding of what happened in the course of this textual transmission. As reflecting a link in this process and a facet of fourth-century scholarship, the Commentaries of Servius constitute and appropriate subject for analysis. The method followed in this investigation included a classifi cation of most of the data provided by the commentary on the Aeneid. Because this proved to be an adequate source of information, the Bucolics and the Georgies were excluded from this limited study. The information that was considered pertinent to limited aspects of Latinitas, as forms, spellings, meaning and grammatical points, were then selected from this classified material and correlated according to specific areas or categories, so that the differences between the Latin used by Vergil and the Latin revealed by Servius' comments might be more readily noted. The sim ilarities were for the most part eliminated from consideration unless there were some evidence of even a minor dif ference surfacing. A summary of these differences were then compared to some of the traits of Late Latin in the hope of providing some 1 2 indication of the trend of direction, if any, that the Latinitas of Servius was reflecting. Because of the grammarians' usual reliance upon the work of other grammarians who preceded him and thus influenced his own understanding and opinions, there is presented a rather basic historical survey of the grammatic i. serving to introduce some opinions concerning the interrelationship of Donatus, Servius, and Macrobius. Comments based on the firs t five books of the Aeneid are rendered according to the Harvard Servius: for the remaining books, the edition of Ihilo has been adopted. Passages appearing exclusively in the Servius D&nielis are bracketed. ■ CHAPTER I ANCIENT GRAMMARIANS AND THE WORK OF SERVIUS Because the development of the grammatical treatises involved a dependence upon previous endeavors and achievements in the field, a brief historical sketch might serve to indicate some of the relation ships existing between the various grammarians or writers who include aspects of grammar in their works. Because this study w ill concentrate more on linguistic and grammatical comments found in the Commentaries than on stylistic features, the contributions of various rhetoricians are deliberately excluded from this brief survey. Roman interest in formal grammar was perhaps first occassioned, or at least stimulated, by Crates of Mallos (c. 169 B.C.). The Greek training he and others received influenced Roman grammatical theory as is evidenced by the very terminology the grammarians used, e.g. casus (fTTojrij), accentua coniugatio It was the doc trines of the Stoic scholars of Pergamon which provided the model for Roman grammatical treatises. A ccius ( I 7O-C. 90 B.C.) was the first to discuss the genuineness of certain plays tliat were wrongly assigned to Plautus. Among the peculiarities of his orthography was the absence of the letters Y and Z, Whenever A, E, or Ü was long, he indicated this by doubling the vowel, Exanples provided by Marius Victorinus and Priscian indicate 3 that he recommended Greek practice in some spellings: ng should be expressed by gg and the sound no by go. Some of his suggestions were taken seriously not only by contemporaries but in subsequent times; there is some evidence that the elder Pliny was influenced by the doubling of vowels, A contemporary of his, Lucilius, (180-103 B.C.), censures the innovations in language and the spelling introduced by Accius. While discussing various points of orthography and prosody, he rebukes his contemporaries for their provincialisms and affected im itation of Greek phraseology; he objects to the introduction of Greek words into Latin. In being the first to give literary presentation to the satura. he included various themes, e.g. spelling. The foremost scholw.r of the age was L. Aelius Stilo (c. 1^4- c. 74 B.C.). The title of his lost treatise. De oratore, reveals a legal and antiquarian interest. Much of his grammatical and etymo logical inquiries passed into the pages of Varro, Verius Flaccus, Pliny the elder and Gellius. Among his works was a glossary including articles on etymological and historical subjects. The most famous of his pupils was M. Terentius Varro (116-2? B.C.), described by Cicero as diligentissimus investigator antiquitatis and by Quintilian as vir Romanorum eruditissimus. His grammatical works included De antiquitate litterarum . De origine linguae latinae. iry^t (on formation of words), Quaestiones Plautinae (interpre tations of rare words found in the comedies of Plautus), ^ sim ilitudine verborum (on regularity in forms and verbs), ^ utilitate sermonis. which dealt with the principle of anomaly or irregularity, ^ sermone 5 latino (orthography and metres of poetry), De lingua Latina. which has survived in part: only books V to X are extant and these have serious gaps in them. He distinguished only four parts of speech; nouns (including adjectives and pronouns), verbs, participles and particles (including adverbs). The genitive, dative and ablative cases he called casus patricus. casus dandi. and casus sextus. Ihe value of these books lies in their citations from the Latin poets, and not in their in te r e s tin g etym ologies. Books VIII-X dealt with the controversy between analogy and anomaly. Analogy was the theme of a work w ritten by Caesar sometime while crossing the Alps, probably in 53 B.C. Dedicated to Cicero, it con sisted of two books: the first dealt with the alphabet and words ; the second contained irregularities of inflection in nouns and verbs. The works of Cicero reflect that he is an analogist with due respect for custom. His services in creating a philosophical vocabulary in Latin are incomparable. In addition to providing us with some excellent examples of Cicero as a literary critic, his Orator exemplifies for us the nature and extent of his knowledge of Latin philology: chapters 45-48 are instructive on points of spelling, derivation, and inflection. He introduced or translated many technical terms from the Greeks; he crystallized the use of many Latin nouns and adjectives. Criticizing Cicero and advocating the A tticist style was Asinius P o llio (76 B.C.-5 A.D.). His literary achievements included some grammatical writings. He was denounced for his severity of judgment, which included his reference to the Patavinitas of Livy. Nigidius F ig u lu s ( 98-54 B.C.) was considered at a later age as being second to 6 Varro in learning. His grammatical treatises treated grammar, ortho graphy, synopyms and etymology, which are often quoted by Gellius. To iJigidius