Of these lines Markland wrote in 1728 ‘patet ignari cuiusdam et barbari interpolatoris esse’; Dr. Trapp in 1735 found them ‘in themselves flat, and improper, and altogether unworthy of Virgil’; ‘in his ipsis miror qui factum sit ut Viri Doctissimi non agnouerint orationis uim et elegantiam’ ; ‘finding in them … all Virgil's usual ease and suavity … [we] hail those verses with joy, and reinstate them in their rightful … position as the commencing verses of the great Roman epic’ (...) ; ‘uersus praeclarissimos iniuria poeta abiudicauerunt editores plerique’. (shrink)

The clear affinity between Quintilian's art-criticism and the comparable portions of Pliny's Natural History has often been remarked. Pliny's principal sources for his chapters on art have long been recognized as going back through Varro to the great third-century critics, Xenocrates of Sicyon and Antigonus of Carystus, the latter of whom worked over Xenocrates' treatise and incorporated new material of his own; an earlier Greek source was Duris of Samos, on whom Antigonus drew for the anecdotic element in his tradition. (...) The careful work of many patient scholars has been successful in disentangling to a considerable extent the characteristic contributions of these and other authorities to Pliny's medley of information. On the other hand, Quintilian's incursion into the same field seems never to have been studied independently, but only incidentally to research on the Plinian sources. The purpose of this paper is to examine Quintilian's contribution afresh; my indebtedness to earlier studies, in particular to those of Robert, will be readily apparent. (shrink)

The MS. tradition of Prudentius is particularly interesting, since in the famous Codex Puteanus we have a MS. dating from the early sixth century—i.e. but little more than a hundred years after the publication of the collected poems in 405. Yet it has only been of late years that due consideration has been given to this ancient Codex, which is the actual MS. corrected by Vettius Mavortius' own hand. Mr. Winstedt has spoken of the neglect which it has suffered for (...) the most part from editors, and also of the similar lack of attention paid even by Dressel to its seventh-century companion at Milan—the Codex Ambrosianus; while, later, J. Bergman shewed himself enthusiastic in its praise . A confirmation is now available of a curious and generally discredited reading in this MS. , from that same Arma glossary of ‘saec. viii.-ix’ which bears witness to the readings of a lost Terence MS. of the δ-family, the best minuscule family, older than any extant MS., as I shewed in the April, 1925, number of this journal. At Prud. Apoth. 895 the reading of Puteanus is— Agenitus genitusque deus, pater et patre natus. (shrink)

On Aen. 2. 277 DServius notes ‘non sine ratione etiam hoc de crinibus dolet Aeneas, quia illis maxime Hector commendabatur, adeo ut etiam tonsura ab eo nomen acceperit, sicut Graeci poetae docent.’ Fraenkel showed that the reference in Graeci poetae is to Lycophron , the source of the comment being provided by Eustathius 1276. 29, a scholion on Il. 22. 401 f. He adds a caution against supposing that Servius’ source referred not only to Lycophron but also to other Greek (...) poets, ‘e.g. some Attic comedians’. That such allusions were in fact made in Comedy is proved by Pollux. (shrink)

Few critics can ever have shown more light-hearted thoughtlessness towards an anxious posterity than Servius in his casual preservation of the ‘Helen-episode’, lacking in our ancient manuscripts of Virgil and primarily extant only in this precarious form. A pity that Servius spoke at all, if he could not tell us more; and to make matters worse, he ignored the lines in his commentary. Aelius Donatus says nothing of them. Tiberius Claudius Donatus passes peacefully in his interpretatio from 2. 566 to (...) 2. 589; his prosy conscientiousness nowhere else allows him to skip so much. The passage so rashly preserved forms an exasperating Tummelplatz for students of Virgil: ‘quadereviridoctiiampridem inter se certarunt semperque, ni fallor, certabunt.’ The purpose of this paper is to suggest that Servius told the truth about the lines, and was not planting a forgery on a credulous world. (shrink)