Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:37:05.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terence Quotations in Servius Auctus1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. D. Craig
J. D. Craig
Affiliation:
The University, Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In dealing with excerpts from Terence in the Servian Commentary on Virgil I deferred consideration of the material found only in the enlarged Commentary, on the ground that, if any difference of quality or character should appear in this material, it must be kept distinct from the work of Servius.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 25 , Issue 3-4 , June 1931 , pp. 151 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1931

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.)

References

page 151 note 2 C.Q., XXIV, p. 183.

page 151 note 3 The Terence reference will be followed in each case by the reference to the line of Virgil under which the quotation stands.

page 153 note 1 In any case sapis cannot have been by Terence, because it is unmetrical.

page 153 note 2 If we assume for the moment that there was a separate γ text which differed from the ‘calliopian.’

page 153 note 3 D has been corrupted from γ MSS. Cf. Eun. 51, Ad. 666.

page 153 note 4 I do not attach much importance to this, bowever, because Phaedria also is omitted.

page 153 note 5 I do not add phorm. 1014 (G. iv, 488). Serv. Auct. quae with Ter. Σ (except v1quin), and -meritam. The possibility of independent scribal error is too great.

page 154 note 1 The agreement of Serv. Auct. with Σ in Andr. 849 (A. xi, 373), responde for the more idiomatic respondes attested by Donatus, must not be used as evidence in this connexion, because this line is not extant in Cod. Bemb.

page 154 note 2 No explanation has yet been offered of the apearance of eo in the line. And it is curious that of the minuscule MSS. of Terence only CPI (γ group) omit tibi.

page 154 note 3 Is adoro of D due to a suprascript ad which in its turn was due to annotation from a commentator who explained that etiam meant adhuc (or ad hoc)?

page 154 note 4 Cum is definitely ruled out as Terentian. For the constitution of the Terence text the rival variants are illa and illam. Klotz, (Philol. Wochenschr. 50, 599)Google Scholar supports ilia (Abl.) by Catullus 113, I (where the verb is solere). But the comment of Donatus, dicebant ueteres hanc rem consueui, is too circumstantial to be lightly set aside.

page 154 note 5 I have refused to take advantage of two purely chance agreements (p. 153, 11. 10–15).

page 155 note 1 Nothing like Housman's discovery of attinet for Ovid, , Her. I. 2Google Scholar (C.Q. XVI, 2, 88)—a certain reading which finally gets rid of an embarrassing attamen and restores our confidence in Penelope's womanliness and good sense. There is, however an attamen in Haut. 225. Serv. Auct. (A. xii, 589) implies it by giving satagit rerum suarum as the Terentian parallel to Virgil's trepidae rerum. In capitals SATAGITATTAMEN (so Cod. Bemb.) may be divided according to the fancy of the reader or copyist. Bentley plumped for satagitat tamen on the strength of Charisius' statement, and, more especially, of Latin usage. But in Haut. 225 attamen means precisely ‘yet at least.’