What was literary theory in the Middle Ages? What was literary criticism? How did medieval scholars record their interpretations of texts? What forms did those interpretations take? And how do the forms of medieval literary criticism contribute to the shape of medieval literary theory? By teasing out answers to these questions from a series of examples of medieval (chiefly twelfth-century) commentary on classical literature, this chapter offers an introduction to the study of literary texts, its norms, assumptions, sources and priorities in the Latin Middle Ages. It concludes with an overview of the volume as a whole, focusing on how the various chapters relate to three overarching concepts: interpretation, invention and imagination.

This chapter examines the commentary tradition of a one-line fragment of Ennius’ Annals, qui vicit non est victor nisi victum fatetur (513 Skutsch). Although modern commentators have adduced a broad range of comparanda, their selection of historical parallels reflects preconceived notions of what the line must mean. By returning to the line’s original context in a late-antique scholium on the Aeneid, we are better able to appreciate the line as an epic fragment. Parallels drawn from Ennius and other poets allow for a different reading of the fragment, and suggest alternative methodologies for the use of fragments in historical arguments.

This chapter focuses on late-antique rhetorical analysis of Virgilian poetry: starting from the 2nd century AD, whether Virgil was to be considered an orator or a poet was one of the key issues in the reception of his work, as is attested by discussions in Florus, Macrobius, Servius and Tiberius Claudius Donatus. The chapter shows how Virgil’s text is “micro-rhetoricized” when elements of the poem are read as exemplifying a given rhetorical principle. As a close reading of Macrobius’ discussion of the issue in Saturnalia 5 reveals, this rhetorical analysis works also on the macro-level by constructing the poet himself as a rhetorical performer and reading as a form of rhetorical re-performance.

This chapter focuses on late-antique rhetorical analysis of Virgilian poetry: starting from the 2nd century AD, whether Virgil was to be considered an orator or a poet was one of the key issues in the reception of his work, as is attested by discussions in Florus, Macrobius, Servius and Tiberius Claudius Donatus. The chapter shows how Virgil’s text is “micro-rhetoricized” when elements of the poem are read as exemplifying a given rhetorical principle. As a close reading of Macrobius’ discussion of the issue in Saturnalia 5 reveals, this rhetorical analysis works also on the macro-level by constructing the poet himself as a rhetorical performer and reading as a form of rhetorical re-performance.