No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Terence Quotations in Servius
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
A Previous article in this journal gave some account of Terence quotations in Priscian. A similar account for Servius is necessary. Umpf en bach's summary is far from accurate; and it has the serious defect that no distinction is made between Servius proper and the material peculiar to the enlarged Commentary. With Thilo's warning that the evidence is all against the assumption that the enlarged Commentary is a truer representation of what Servius himself wrote, we should, in any problem relating to Servius, confine ourselves strictly to what we know to be his work.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1930
References
page 183 note 1 C.Q. XXII, No. 2.
page 183 note 2 Commentary on Virgil, ed. Thilo. After each Terence reference I give the reference to the line of Virgil under which Servius makes the citation.
page 183 note 3 Preface to Terence, pp. liv–lvi.
page 183 note 4 Known as the ‘Scholia P. Danielis’ because that scholar first published this material in his edition of Servius (1600).
page 183 note 5 Vol. I, Preface.
page 183 note 6 See below, p. 185.
page 184 note 1 On Servius' use of contra (or econtra or item contra) see Aen. I 194, 210, 224, 599; III 130, 138. Aen. II 715 is an exact parallel. RELIGIO: metus. contra (‘contrariwise’) METUS: religio.
page 184 note 2 The words in square brackets are only in the enlarged Commentary.
page 184 note 3 I noticed too late for inclusion in this article Servius on Aen. VI 374, which is conclusive. Cf. Donatus, on Andr. 851Google Scholar.
page 185 note 1 Tbilo prints ergo here, but ego at Aen. IX 230.
page 185 note 2 I callergo an ‘emendation ‘because the idea ‘therefore’ is naturally suggested by the Terence context. If ergo were a mere miswriting it would be possible to argue that a slip in Servius was copied into Terence MSS.
page 186 note 1 See Dziatzko-Hauler, , Phormio, Anhang, p. 243Google Scholar.
page 186 note 2 Preface, pp. lxiv–lxv.
page 186 note 3 But Umpfenbach has been misled by an editor of Servius.
page 187 note 1 Cf. Phorm. 732 (Geo. IV 444).
page 187 note 2 I make the term Servius include Servius himself and any grammarian he may have used as his source.