Verrius, Festus, and Paul: Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society (BICS Supplement 93)

BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 93 GENERAL EDITOR: MIKE EDWARDS

,/f A XT A nT\jn

TSTXTTfXD • D T r ' U A D R

OTArfDCrvM

VERRIUS, FESTUS, & PAUL LEXICOGRAPHY, SCHOLARSHIP, & SOCIETY

EDITED BY FAY GLINISTER & CLARE WOODS WITH J. A. NORTH & M. H. CRAWFORD

INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

The front cover image shows an imagined representation of Festus, author of the abridged Lexicon, taken from the frontispieceof the edition of André Dacier (Amsterdam 1699).

BICS SUPPLEMENT 93 ISBN 978-1-905670-06-2 First published in 2007 by the Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. © Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 2007 The right of the contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and computer typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements

vu

Contributors

ix

Abbreviations

xi

Introduction

1

Part 1: Lexicography and scholarship 1. Fay Glinister 2. Marie-Karine Lhommé

3. J. A. North

Constructing the past

11

Varron et Verrius au 2ème siècle après Jésus-Christ 33 Appendix I: Quelques antiquaires cités chez Festus Appendix II: Varron dans le De verborum significatione Appendix III: Quelques divergences entre Varron et Verrius Appendix IV: Verrius et Festus: deux rivaux? Appendix V: Les mentions de Verrius Flaccus dans Aulu-Gelle Appendix VI: Les critiques de Verrius Flaccus dans Festus (extraits) Why Festus quotes what he quotes

49

Part 2: Festus and Roman society 4. Philippe Moreau

Le Lexique de Festus. Témoin de la naissance d'une science de la parenté à Rome Appendix

5. Rebecca Flemming Festus and the role of women in Roman religion

69

87

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

vi

Part 3: The transmission of Festus and post-classical scholarship 6. Clare Woods

A contribution to the king's library: Paul the Deacon's epitome and its Carolingian context 109 Appendix I: Preliminary handlist of manuscripts containing Paul the Deacon's epitome: The medieval witnesses Appendix II: Festus and other glossaries

7. Giovanna Mancini I codici Vaticani Latini 1549 e 3369 e le pagellae perdute del codice Farnesiano Appendix I Appendix II

137

Bibliography Frequently cited works General bibliography

159 160

Indexes General Index Festus lemmata Paul lemmata Index of ancient authors (excluding Festus and Paul) Inscriptions Manuscripts

171 180 183 185 190 190

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The papers in this volume originated in a conference held in June 2002, for which the Institute of Classical Studies generously provided the venue and funding.1 The intention of the conference was to present to the scholarly community the work of the Festus Lexicon Project, and to promote collaboration with Festus scholars worldwide; to these aims we hope that Verrius, Festus, and Paul: lexicography, scholarship, and society will contribute.2 The authors would like to thank all the participants at the conference, in particular Carlotta Dionisotti, whose contribution to the discussion was invaluable. Finally, we wish to record our appreciation for the cheerful assistance of the staff of the library of the Institute of Classical Studies.3 Fay Glinister, Clare Woods, and J. A. North.

1 The conference also included two papers which do not appear in this volume. Michael Crawford's paper, 'Fulvio Orsini and the codex Farnesianus', explored how the edition of Festus by Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600) was produced, highlighting the contribution made to that edition by the Spanish scholar Pedro Chacon (1525-1581). Tim Cornell's paper, 'Cato's Origines and Festus', discussed Catonian fragments surviving in the Lexicon. 2 Unless otherwise stated, all references to Festus and Paul are to the 1913 edition of W. M. Lindsay. 3 Fay Glinister also wishes to thank Max and Alexander, whose arrival delayed the progress of the volume, but whose patience enabled its completion.

CONTRIBUTORS Rebecca Flemming Fellow, Jesus College Cambridge Fay Glinister Research Fellow, Department of History, University College London Marie-Karine Lhommé Maître de conférences, Département des Lettres, Université Lumière, Lyon II Gio vanna Mancini Professor, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche nella Società e nella Storia, Université degli studi di Teramo Philippe Moreau Professor of Latin, Université de Caen and member of the Unité mixte de recherche n° 8585, 'Centre Gustave Glotz' of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique J. A. North Emeritus Professor of Ancient History, Department of History, University College London Clare Woods Associate Professor, Department of Classics, Duke University, North Carolina

ABBREVIATIONS Journal abbreviations American Journal of Philology. AJPh Anglo-Saxon England. ASE Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di lettere efdosofia. ASNP Athenaeum. Studiperiodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichità. Athenaeum Atti e memo rie de II'Arcadia. AM Arc Bulletin de l'Institut historique belge de Rome. BIBR Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London. BICS Bullettino dell'Istituto di Diritto romano. BIDR Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. BCH Bryn Mawr Classical Review. BMCR Classical Philology. CP Classical Quarterly. CQ Classical Review. CR Early Medieval Europe. EME Filologia mediolatina Filologia mediolatina: rivista della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini. Giornale italiano di filologia. GIF Glotta. Zeitschrift fur griechische und lateinische Sprache. Glotta Gnomon. Kritische Zeitschrift fur die gesamte klassische AltertumsGnomon wissenschaft. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. HSPh Index: International Survey of Roman Law. Index Italia medioevale e umanistica. IMU Journal of Philology. JPh Journal of Roman Studies. JRS Latomus: revue d'études latines. Latomus The Library Chronicle of the University of Texas at Austin. Libr. Chron. Univ. Tex. Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Française de Rome, MEFRA Antiquité. Numen Numen: International Review for the History of Religions. Philologus: Zeitschrift fur antike Litératur und ihre Rezeption. Philologus Phoenix: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada. Phoenix Proceedings of the British Academy. PBA Prometheus. Rivista quadrimestrale di studi classici. Prometheus Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken. QFIAB Revue des Études Latines. RÉL

xii

RBen RHT RPh R1SG RFIC SMSR StudMed StudUrb(B) TAPhA Traditio ZGR ZPE

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Revue Bénédictine. Revue d'Histoire des Textes. Revue de philologie de littérature et d'histoire anciennes. Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche. Rivista difdologia e di istruzione classica. Studi e materiali di storia délie religioni. Studi medievali. Studi urbinati di storia, fdosofia e letteratura. Transactions of the American Philological Association. Traditio: Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion. Zeitschrift fur geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft. Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

Other abbreviations CAH CGL CGLV

CIL GRF HCC LSCG LSJ LTUR MGH OLD ORF* RE RRC TLL Walde-Hofmann

The Cambridge ancient history. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum. Corpus grammaticorum Latinorum veterum II. Pauli Diaconi Excerpta ex lib ris Festi De significatione verborum et Sexti Pompeii Festi Fragmenta librorum De significatione verborum / collegit, auxit, recensuit ac potiorem lectionis varieiatem adiecit Fridericus Lindemannus sociorum opera adiutus; cum commentariis Antonii Augustini, Fulvii Ursini, losephi Scaligeri integris, aliorum exerptis, ed. F. Lindemann (Leipzig 1832). Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, eds T. Mommsen et al. (Berlin 1863- ). Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta I, ed. H. Funaioli (Leipzig 1907). Robertson, A. Roman imperial coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet (Glasgow) (5 vols, Glasgow and Oxford 1962). Lois sacrées des cités grecques, ed. F. Sokolowski (Paris 1969). Liddell, H. G. & R. Scott, A Greek-English lexicon, rev. H. Stuart Jones & R. McKenzie (Oxford 19409); Suppl. by E. A. Barber étal. (Oxford 1968). Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, ed. E. M. Steinby (6 vols, Rome 1993-2000). Monumenta Germaniae historica (Hanover and Berlin 1826- ). Oxford Latin dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford 1982). Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae, ed. H. Malcovati (Turin 19673); (2 vols, Turin 1976-794). Real-Encyclopàdie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, eds A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll (Stuttgart 1893-1980). Crawford, M. H. Roman republican coinage (Cambridge 1974) Thesaurus linguae Latinae (Leipzig 1900- ). Walde, A. and J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Wôrterbuch (Heidelberg 1938-563).

ABBREVIATIONS Ancient authors Apuleius, Apol. Aristophanes, Thesm. Augustus, RG Charisius, Gramm. Cic, Balb. Cic, Leg. Cic, Nat. Deor Cic, Verr. Dig. Dion. Hal. Ennius, Ann. Gaius, Dig. Gaius, Inst. Gell.,M4 Hor., Carm. Hon, Epist. Isid., Orig. Livy Macrob., Saf. Modest., Dig. Non. Ovid, Am. Ovid, Ars Ovid, Fas*. Ovid, #er. Ovid, Met. Paul., D/g. Paus. Phleg., Mir. Plaut., Amph. Plaut., AM/. Plaut., Pcéw. Pliny, Atf/ Plut., Fab. Max. Plut., Nwma Plut., Quaest. conv. Plut., g/? Plut., Rom. Prop. Sen., Contr. Serv. Statius, Theb.

L. Apuleius, Apologia. Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae. Augustus, Res Gestae. Flav. Sosipater Charisius, Ars grammatica. M. Tullius Cieero, Pro Balbo. De legibus. De natura deorum. In Verrem. Digesta. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae. Q. Ennius, Annales. Gaius Iulius, Digesta. Institutiones Iuris Civilis. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae. Q. Horatius Flaccus (Horace), Carmina {Odes). Epistulae. Isidorus Hispalensis (Isidore), Origines. T. Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita. Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, Saturnalia. Herennius Modestinus, Digesta. Nonius, De compendiosa doctrina. P. Ovidius Naso (Ovid), Amores. Ars amatoria. Fasti. Heroides. Metamorphoses. Iulius Paulus, Digesta. Pausanias, Periegesis Hellados (Description of Greece). Phlegon, Mirabilia. T. Maccius Plautus, Amphitruo. Aulularia. Poenulus. C. Plinius Secundus (maior) (Pliny), Naturalis Historia. Plutarch, Fabius Maximus. Numa. Quaestiones convivales. Quaestiones Romanae. Romulus. Sex. Aurelius Propertius, Elegiae. L. Annaeus Seneca, Controversiae. Maurus Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii carmina Commentarii. P. Papinius Statius, Thebais.

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL Tib. Val. Max. Varro, Anîiquitates Varro, DVPR Varro, LL Varro, RR Varro, Sat. Men. Verr. Flac. Verg., A en. Verg., Eel.

Albius Tibullus, Elegiae. Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum memorabilium. M. Terentius Varro, Anîiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum. De vita populi Romani. De lingua Latina. De re rustica. Saturae Menippeae. M. Verrius Flaccus. P. Vergilius Maro (Virgil), Aeneis. Eclogae.

INTRODUCTION VERRIUS, FESTUS AND PAUL It is none too easy in the twenty-first century to imagine a world where the alphabet was not regularly used as a principle of organization in dictionaries, encyclopaedias and similar reference works. In the ancient world, the idea of using the alphabet for this purpose was not quite unknown, but it was used very erratically and its value seems never to have been properly grasped. The Lexicon of Festus is a landmark, if a puzzling one, in this story. It is a dictionary of a kind, arranged in a rough alphabetical order, with an abundance of etymologies and grammatical explanations, touching on widely differing fields of inquiry. It collects much information too about the history and society of Republican Rome and Italy, and is important for its numerous explicit citations of early Roman authors,fromFabius Pictor on.1 As we shall see, however, its alphabetical organisation was not carried through methodically enough for it to have been much help to readers in search of information. So its basic character and purpose set major problems, which the contributors to this book are seeking, with very different approaches, to resolve. The attempt is made more difficult by the nature of the extant texts, whose complicated gestation and afterlife make all discussion of the Lexicon particularly challenging. It was compiled during the Roman imperial period, but about Festus himself we know virtually nothing. Mainly on the basis of references to Lucan and Martial in Paul the Deacon's epitome of the Lexicon, Festus is thought to have lived in the second century AD; his work certainly fits well with the literary climate of that era.2 A fourth-century grammarian, Charisius, provides a terminus ante quern when he cites Porphyrio, in the early third century, as having used Festus.3 A connection with Narbo in Gaul has long been posited, but is highly tenuous.4

1 See North, this volume. 2 These authors are mentioned only in Paul's epitome, however, and may not have been included in the corresponding entry of Festus; Paul, however, takes his quotations straightfromFestus and seldom if ever adds them himself. 3 Charisius, Gramm., 285.12, ed. C. Barwick (Leipzig 1944), cites: Porphyrio ex Verrio et Festo. Cf. R. Helm, s.v. Tomponius Porphyrio', REA2 (1952), coll. 2412-16. 4 A catalogue from the monastery at Cluny (no. 328, c. 1158-1160) contains amongst other works a liber Festi Pompeii. The dedication is ad Arcorium Rufum, corrected by M. Manitius, 'Zu Pompeius Festus', Hermes 27 (1892) 318-20 to Artorium, and identified as a descendant of the grammarian C. Artorius Proculus, mentioned by Festus. InscriptionsfromNarbo {CIL XII4412,5066) connect the families of the Pompeii with the Artorii, providing a possible, if very speculative context for the author of the Lexicon.

2

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

The Lexicon is Festus' only extant text, although another work is advertised in one of the entries (242.19F poriciam). The Lexicon itself and also the other advertised work were derived from the much larger De verborum significatu (On the meaning of words) of Verrius Flaccus (c. 55 BC-AD 20)\ This learned grammarian and antiquarian, tutor to Augustus' grandsons, is best known for his authorship of the Fasti Praenestini, an annotated calendar of festivals set up in the town of Praeneste in Latium. His other writings include Libri rerum memoria dignarum (cited by Aulus Gellius, NA 4.5.6), a book on orthography {De orthographia), a work on Etruscan culture (Res Etruscae), and a discussion of Cato's use of language, De obscuris Catonis (mentioned by Gell., NA 17.6.2). His work drew on a series of studies by writers of the last century of the Republic, who collected and analysed information about the traditions of their past and the institutions of their own day, which they believed were threatened. Apart from scattered fragments, these works, like Verrius' own, are now almost entirely lost, meaning that Festus' Lexicon provides a crucial link to this whole tradition of learning. That link is a fragile one. Although early imperial writers such as Pliny the Elder made much use of Verrius' encyclopaedia, it was huge in size (the letter 'A' alone took up four books), and awkward to use. Festus' condensed version proved more convenient, and Verrius' monumental work was ultimately lost. The same fate, or nearly, awaited Festus himself after his own epitome was itself abridged. The text of his Lexicon is preserved in a single manuscript written in the second half of the eleventh century, now in Naples (Bibl. Naz. IV.A.3), and known as the Farnesianus (or F) because it once formed part of the library of Cardinal Ranuccio Farnese (1530-1565). When the manuscript surfaced, some time before the death of the humanist and philosopher Lorenzo Valla (1406-1457), it was already incomplete.6 Antonio Agustin likened the poor Farnesianus to 'a soldier whose comrades have been defeated and massacred, and who creeps along at random with his legs broken, his nose mutilated, one eye gouged out, and one arm broken'.7 In fact only half - or perhaps less survives and nothing at all before the letter M; if there was a preface, that too is lost.8 At some 5 A short biography is provided by Suetonius, De gramm. 17. In what survives of the Lexicon, it is nowhere explicitly described as an epitome of the work of Verrius; we know for certain only that Verrius wrote a book entitled De verborum significatu (Gell., NA 5.17.1,5.18.2), and that Festus made use of Verrius. Nevertheless, it has been recognized since the Renaissance that Festus was the epitomator of Verrius. (A dissenting voice is A. Moscadi, 'Verrio, Festo e Paulo', GIF 31 (1979) 17-36.) 6 For the date, see Lorenzo Valla. Le postille alV'Institutio oratoria' di Quintiliano, eds L. Cesarini Martinelli and A. Perosa (Padua 1996). There had previously been a claim that the MS was found in Dalmatia in the 1470s, by the Greek Manilius Rhallus; it is now evident that this was a mistake. 7 Preface to A. Agustin's 1559 edition of Festus, translated by A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger. A study in the history of classical scholarship I (Oxford 1983) 134, who provides a clear account of the manuscript's vicissitudes. On the history of the Farnesianus, see also K. O. Muller, Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatione quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome (Leipzig 1839) ii-xii; W. M. Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome (Leipzig 1913) xi-xii; W. Bracke, 'La première "édition" humaniste du "De verborum significatione" de Festus (Vat. Lat. 5958)\/?tf725 (1995) 189-215. 8 The Farnesianus originally comprised sixteen quaternions; the first seven were already missing when the manuscript was rediscovered.

INTRODUCTION

3

point before its rediscovery, the outer edges of all the pages had been burned away, so that of the two columns written on each page the inner one is normally complete, the outer reduced to a few letters.9 This means that individual lemmas may be entirely lost, or have large lacunae, and in many cases it is difficult or impossible even to establish where one lemma ends and another begins. Further damage occurred when the manuscript was lent to the humanist scholar Pomponio Leto, who dismantled it and retained the eighth, tenth, and sixteenth quaternions for himself.10 These too are now lost. These dramatic losses can be restored in part from apographs (handwritten copies) of the text produced by humanist scholars in the late fifteenth century, notably Politian (14541494).11 These apographs preserve parts of the missing quaternions removed by Leto, and thus enable the reconstruction of some missing sections, but themselves throw up problems and inconsistencies. For example, they change the order of certain lemmas; they ignore the more damaged parts of the manuscript, and sometimes simply leave lacunae to indicate matter they did not understand or could not read. The text can be further supplemented from the epitome made by the Carolingian cleric and scholar known as PauJjJieJDeacon. Born probably in the late 720s in Forum Iulii (modern Cividale) in Friuli, Northern Italy", Paul spent much of his youth at the courts of Lombard kings, first that of Ratchis, then of Desiderius at Pavia. Desiderius made Paul tutor to his daughter Adalperga, and when she married the Duke of Beneventum, Paul accompanied her south, where he entered the abbey of Monte Cassino; it was there that he died in c. AD 799. Continuing his association with kings, around 781-782 Paul joined the group of international scholars working at the court of Charlemagne. Paul arrived at court ostensibly to plead for the release of his brother, taken prisoner after the Lombard uprising of 776. But perhaps because of the lively scholarly environment, or Charlemagne's insistent patronage, Paul stayed on, valued and respected as a poet, teacher and grammarian. At some point, most probably before he came to court, Paul produced his epitome of Festus' Lexicon, which survives in numerous manuscripts.12 According to the dedicatory letter which accompanied his epitome, Paul composed the work with the intention of adding a little something (aliquid) to Charlemagne's library. In epitomizing Festus, Paul kept the basic order of Festus' entries, but cut those he considered superfluous or unnecessary, and adjusted those he thought obscure. Some he left as they stood. Paul excised quite a large percentage of Festus' entries (particularly in areas such as Roman religion and society), often also omitting the quotations from ancient authors

9 These edges were better preserved in the Renaissance than now; indeed, it is clear from an inspection of the manuscript that the damaged edges have deteriorated even since Thewrewk de Ponor published his facsimile edition in 1893. 10 We know that Leto made good use of Festus: see Bracke, 'La première "édition" humaniste du "De verborum significatione'" (n. 7 above); R. Bianchi, 'Due citazioni attribuite a Festo nel commento a Lucano di Pomponio Leto', AMArc 1A (1980-81) 235-62. 11 P. de Nolhac, 'Le Festus d'Ange Politien', RPh 10 (1886) 145-48. 12 The circumstances surrounding Paul's production of his epitome of Festus' Lexicon have been keenly debated: Woods in this volume summarises the debate, and suggests a new way of reading the scattered details that survive concerning the genesis of Paul's epitome.

4

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

which Festus had used to provide a context for the words discussed.13 He also omits almost entirely the references to scholars and their learned debates that figure so prominently in Festus' version. But for most of Festus, Paul is all that is left. Augustan antiquarian; silver Latin grammarian; Carolingian epitomist: the relationship between the three authors, Verrius, Festus, and Paul, each with their own agenda, requires continued exploration. So too does the manner in which the challenge of the text(s) was taken up by Renaissance and modern scholars making multiple restorations and reconstructions, in part employing deductive brilliance, elsewhere highly speculative. For the Lexicon is not only significant for the study of antiquity. The first edition of Festus' Lexicon appeared at Milan in 1500 (by Giambattista Pio), and many of the subsequent editions were produced by great scholars, honing their craft, from Agustin and Scaliger (whose restorations stand as one of the first examples of modern scholarship) to Orsini and Muller, the latter's edition still widely used to this day).

*** Why Festus? And why now? Festan studies have come a long way since Nettleship derided the Lexicon as 'an affair of scissors and paste, in which conceit and incompetence are perhaps equally blended'.14 Until recently, modern readers have had the use of Lindsay's critical text, published in the early part of the twentieth century,15 but no up-to-date translation or full commentary.16 Many individual entries from the Lexicon have been much debated and play a major role in our understanding of the republican period; but there has been no collection of this bibliography and little attempt to look at the work or the information it provides as a coherent whole. The text itself needs modern re-assessment. This is the aim of the Festus Lexicon Project, housed in the Department of History at University College London, and generously supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

13 However, Paul retains, and shows great interest in, most of Festus' grammatical explanations. 14 H. Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus. Y,AJPh 1.3 (1880) 253-70, at 254 = Lectures and essays on subjects connected with Latin literature and scholarship (Oxford 1885) 201-21, at 201-02. Note that we call the work of Festus, simply, 'the Lexicon'. There has been some debate in recent years as to the original ancient title of the work: see A. Moscadi, 'II titolo dell'opera di Festo', in Vetustatis indagator. Studi offerti a Filippo di Benedetto, eds V. Fera and A. Guida (Messina 1999) 9-15; M.-K. Lhommé, 'Le De verborum significatione, de Verrius Flaccus aux Glossaria Latina de Lindsay: éditions de lacunes, lacunes des éditions', ZvaAntika 51 (2001) 39-62 (also Lhommé, this volume), but we regard this as a minor issue. 15 Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi. Note the marked difference between Lindsay's two editions. The Teubner edition of 1913 (preferred by the Festus Lexicon Project) is more cautious in its restorations. His Glossaria Latina edition of 1930 supplements the text not only with material from the medieval glossaries on which he had worked, but also with many additions by scholars of the Renaissance and later, and includes some notes of comparable material among ancient authors; however it lacks both an apparatus criticus and an index; on Lindsay see Woods, this volume.

16 However, note P. Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus' De significant verborum in den Auszugen von Sextus Pompeius Festus und Paulus Diaconus. Einleitung und Teilkommentar (154,19-186,29 Lindsay). Studien zur Klassischen Philologie 147 (Frankfurt am Main 2004). There is also a French translation of Muller's text of Festus: A. Savagner, Sextus Pompeius Festus, De la signification des mots, 2 vols (Paris 1846); the idiosyncrasy of this work is to prioritise Paul's text over that of Festus.

INTRODUCTION

5

Fortunately, the past decade has seen a worldwide resurgence of interest in the Lexicon. In Italy, France, Germany and the United States, various scholars have produced articles on individual problems within the text of Festus.17 Alessandro Moscadi has published a new transcription of the manuscript of Festus (but for problems with this transcription, note the reviews of Woods and Crawford). 18 A new discussion of Festus' life and work by P. L. Schmidt has appeared.19 One of the contributors to this volume, Marie-Karine Lhommé, has produced a thesis on Festus in the context of antiquarian research on Roman religion during the imperial period;20 another thesis, a partial commentary on the text (covering the lemmas beginning with N) has recently been published by Paolo Pieroni in Germany.21 Forthcoming work includes a detailed commentary by C. Robert Phillips III on lemmata concerning Roman religion in Festus and Paul (for the Clarendon Press, in two volumes). The present volume The present volume is divided into three parts. Part One covers the subject of antiquarian scholarship of the late Republican and early Imperial periods. Part Two illustrates the value of Festus, by looking at how the text has been used by modern scholars working on Roman society. Part Three moves on to the epitomator of Festus, Paul the Deacon, and examines the impact of his work in the early medieval period, outlining and evaluating the text produced by Paul. This section also looks at how the sole surviving manuscript of Festus was used and abused during the Renaissance. Several studies highlight the contribution of major scholars of the Renaissance period and afterwards to the development of a sound text of Festus despite the deficiencies of the manuscript. The first section of the book contains contributions dealing with antiquarian scholarship of the turn of the first centuries BC/AD, and the origins and reception of the text of the Lexicon during the early imperial period. These first chapters examine particular aspects of the Lexicon, as well as the relationship between Verrius, Festus and Paul, using the internal evidence of the text. Both Marie-Karine Lhommé and Fay Glinister discuss the connections between Varro and Verrius, coming to differing conclusions. Both Glinister and Lhommé start from the assumption that Festus preserves, albeit in abbreviated form, the lost encyclopaedia of Verrius; Glinister argues that Verrius had used Varro's De lingua Latina extensively, though only rarely acknowledging this debt. She also argues that the Verrian component of the Lexicon opens a window onto the world of Augustan

17 Note for example the various works of S. Lanciotti and A. Moscadi (see bibliography). 18 A. Moscadi, // Festo farnesiano (Cod. Neapol. IV.A.3). Studi e Testi 19 (Florence 2001). Cf. the reviews by M. H. Crawford in BMCR (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-05-15.html), and by C. Woods in CR 52.1 (2002) 197. 19 P. L. Schmidt, 'Sex. Pompeius Festus', in Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike IV, eds K. Sallmann et al. (Munich 1997) 240-45; cf. ibid., 'Sex. Pompeius Festus', in DerNeue Pauly IV, eds H. Cancik and H. Schneider (Stuttgart 1998) 495-96. 20 Antiquaires et recherches sur la religion romaine à l'époque du Haut Empire: l'exemple du De verborum significatione de Festus (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 2003). 21 n. 16, above.

6

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

antiquarian scholarship, and she uses this opportunity in two ways. First, her paper explores the resources available to scholars in the Augustan age, exploiting what little is left of the antiquarian scholarship of that period to discuss the survival and transmission of early Latin texts. Her paper is food for thought regarding the form in which certain texts and authors now obscure, and available as disjointed fragments if at all - were accessible to scholars like VaiTO, Verrius, and others. Secondly, she considers the career and literary oeuvre of Verrius to assess the purpose of his Lexicon. In its appropriation not just of the Roman past, but also of the pasts of other socio-cultural and ethnic groups within the empire, it might have functioned as a vehicle to promote Roman social cohesion, and construct Roman identity in the present. But, as Glinister's analysis of the arrangement of the Lexicon also demonstrates, the role of the specialist antiquarian also needs careful consideration. Was a scholar like Verrius a straightforward purveyor of knowledge, or should die modern scholar be more alert to the ways in which he shaped, controlled, possibly even restricted the material he preserved? Marie-Karine Lhommé's paper reaches a different conclusion with regard to Verrius' use of Varro. She highlights the fact that, while Varro is frequendy mentioned by many other grammarians and antiquarians (reflecting his dominance over this type of scholarship), he is only rarely cited by Festus. When Verrius does cite Varro, he is often critical; and Lhommé gives examples where Verrius appears to privilege sources other than Varro (as for example in die case of the etymology of miles), possibly in an attempt to distinguish himself from his predecessor. Lhommé goes on to examine the fate of Verrius' work during the revival of interest in antiquarian material of the second century AD, when, it is believed, Festus produced his epitome of the Lexicon. She demonstrates how by this time, although Verrius still had an audience - as Festus' epitome shows - he had definitively lost out to Varro as the authoritative source of antiquarian material: in the Nodes Atticae of Aulus Gellius, Varro is mentioned over 80 times, Verrius just six times (mostly with criticism of one sort or another). And Festus himself is not uncritical of his source. John North surveys the range of attributed quotations extant in the Lexicon to uncover the methodology of its original compiler, Verrius, and scrutinize the resources available to him. It seems likely that Verrius was drawing on earlier collections of quotations, as North demonstrates using instances where Verrius used archaic examples to demonstrate difficult but contemporary terms. This use of earlier authors, North argues, was not because they could furnish the most appropriate examples, but because collections of their quotations were readily available. The extant quotations date predominandy from the third to second centuries BC, and have been extracted mostly from poetic and dramatic works,.barring a sizeable collection of quotations from the elder Cato. North suggests mat the chronological parameters establish a linguistic boundary: words and phrases from before a certain point require explanation for those reading them after it. (The boundary is somewhat fluid, however, admitting a first-century BC author like Lucretius who often used archaic words.) This linguistic explanation for the predominance of earlier authors is borne out by the ways in which quotations typically function in the Lexicon. In most cases, quotations exemplify obsolete words, or furnish comparisons with contemporary usage. However, in a work that is ostensibly an abbreviated version of an earlier compilation, it is not always easy to determine what is meant by 'contemporary'. North exploits this uncertainty to shift attention back onto the grammarians and writers before Verrius who appear to act as intermediaries in

INTRODUCTION

7

the transmission of quotations. The activities of these earlier grammarians, as accessed through what remains of their work in the Lexicon, allow us to appreciate the study of earlier authors and archaic language as a process undertaken for a variety of reasons, and marked by different approaches. It might even be possible to identify the moment or moments in the first century B C when this process began. As N o r t h ' s contribution suggests, the work of earlier grammarians may have had more influence on Augustan antiquarians than previously thought, even to the extent of defining, albeit unofficially, a canon of authors deemed worthy of consultation in the late first century B C . T h e second part of the b o o k turns to the uses which can be made of the work of Festus in analysing R o m a n social history. Philippe M o r e a u discusses a group of entries that provide very precise information on family relationships. H e shows that the bulk of these entries come from Aelius Gallus, a late Republican writer (it is not quite clear whether he was a jurist or a grammarian who studied legal terms), whose fragmentary work is mostly preserved by the L e x i c o n (of the 26 fragments in Funaioli, 21 have Festus as their main source; of the 24 in Bremer, 19). 22 Moreau argues that another 18 entries can be identified in which, even though Gallus' name is not mentioned, we can be sure that his work was the source Verrius used. H e then uses this body of material both to analyze the structure of Gallus' book and also to reconstruct the terminology in which family relationships were being expressed, at a time when a n e w science was being created by the w o r k of the jurists of the late Republic. Rebecca H e m m i n g , in her discussion of the role of women in Roman religion, uses material from F e s t u s and Paul to show how earlier scholars have fundamentally misinterpreted the roles, rights, and responsibilities of women in the religious sphere. Entries in Festus have been used to support the claim that women, apart from certain priestly figures such as the flaminicae, were excluded from taking part in sacrificial rituals. Flemming's paper argues, on the contrary, that the Festan lemmata do not in fact provide evidence for any such exclusion, but s h o w rather that such exclusions were reported as exceptions to normal practice. This result leads to the construction of a more nuanced, inclusive picture of the role of women in the religious sphere. T w o contributors discuss the fate of the Lexicon during the medieval and Renaissance periods. Clare W o o d s concentrates on the career of Paul the Deacon, Festus' Carolingian e p i t o m a t o r - the connection between these two authors is important for under-standing the text itself. 23 W o o d s also provides a handlist of medieval manuscripts containing P a u l ' s e p i t o m e . By looking at the manuscript tradition of the epitome, as well as glossaries which m a y contain Festan material, she traces the afterlife of Festus' text in the early medieval world. A n appendix discusses the edition of Festus which Lindsay brought out in the Glossaria Latina series in 1930, highlighting s o m e of the inconsistencies and mistakes of Lindsay's working method. Above all, her chapter stresses how important it is, in producing a n e w edition of Paul's epitome, to approach the epitome not just as transmitter of ancient

22 G. Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta 1 (Leipzig 1907) 545-53; F. P. Bremer, Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersunt (Leipzig 1896) 000. 23 On Paul's epitome, see especially R. Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo del 'De verborum significatu' di Pompeo Festo. Struttura e metodo (Rome 1978).

8

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

material, but also as a medieval compilation that functioned within a variety of medieval contexts. Giovanna Mancini discusses two humanist manuscripts in the Vatican Library (Vat. Lat. 1549 and 3369). Normally, the order of lemmas in the texts of Festus and of Paul correspond quite closely. Transposed words are fairly rare. Much attention, therefore, has been given to the case of the lemmas 155.7P municipium and 126.16F/117.5P municeps, where the disruption appears to be fairly dramatic. First of all, municeps in Festus and municeps in Paul are far apart; secondly, long after municeps has been dealt with in Paul, the lemma municipium occurs, which appears to have no corresponding entry in Festus.24 There are various possible ways of explaining this, and Mancini's paper navigates a challenging route through this problem. Her chief argument focuses on the possibility that the pages of the Farnesianus (F) were somehow displaced, and thus the order of lemmas muddled. She attempts to determine, on the basis of annotations in Vat. Lat. 1549, Vat. Lat. 3369 as well as Vat. Lat. 3368, the layout of F's lost quaternions. Furthermore, she argues (contrary to the views of many scholars) that notes attached to the Festan text in Vat. Lat. 1549 suggest that the Farnesianus and the copy used by Paul do not derive from the same archetype. Conclusion This colloquium on Festus made at least one thing entirely clear: that collaboration, including collaboration between disciplines, is a prerequisite for exploring and explaining to twenty-first century readers the invaluable body of material contained in the Lexicon. As is evidenced by the diversity of the papers presented in this volume, Festus' text, which we might also reckon to belong, at least in part, to Verrius or to Paul the Deacon, tells us a great deal about early Roman history, religion, language and culture; but it is just as useful for the information it yields on Augustan intellectual - and political - life, on scholarship of the imperial period, and on early medieval appropriation of and attitudes towards classical Latin texts. Humanist interest in and scholarship on the text also constitute an important chapter in the history of its transmission and reception. It is a text, in odier words, that speaks to scholars at work in many different fields, be they ancient, medieval or early modern historians; historians specializing in studies of ancient gender dynamics, or law, or ancient religion in all its complexity. It appeals just as strongly to linguists, and students of Latin literature. Its travails in reaching the modern world necessitate the input of palaeographers, textual critics, and all those interested in the vagaries of textual transmission. In short, in order to explore in full the content of the Lexicon, as well as its different compositional stages, and the history of its reception, the Festus Lexicon Project is heavily dependent on collaboration between specialists in different fields. One of the aspirations of the colloquium from which this volume sprang was to develop contacts with a wider pool of specialists, and to encourage their contribution as the Project develops. That contribution might manifest itself in the form of submitting useful new bibliography to the Project team, or in producing commentary for any entries in the Lexicon that fall especially within a scholar's area of expertise. An important facet of the Project's commentary on the text of Festus and Paul is that it will seek to bring together in one

24 Paul's municipium entry partly repeats the information in municeps, but adds a good deal more detail, as well as mistakes and confusion.

INTRODUCTION

9

searchable resource the full breadth and richness of modern scholarship on the Lexicon and its epitome. The best way, perhaps the only way, to achieve this is through taking a collaborative approach. This colloquium, in one sense, represents a step in the process of encouraging international scholarly interest in, and support for, the Project. Finally, it is a commonplace of introductions like this one to regret the loss of the lively discussion and debate that was generated around these papers at the colloquium itself. Although the conversations that took place are not recorded here, the speakers whose papers appear in this volume have had the opportunity, in preparing their work for publication, to incorporate and adjust their text to reflect the comments of others present at the colloquium tabic, to all of whom we are deeply grateful. The fact that some of our speakers could approach the same material, asking similar questions, yet reach quite different conclusions, is testimony to the difficulty of working with texts that are fragmentary and with debates of which only part of the argument survives. But the progress made by our contributors in this volume illustrates the vigour of modern scholarship in this field and confirms that Festus' Lexicon is a text whose message is still relevant, still vitally important, and still in the process of being assimilated. Fay Gllnister, John North, and Clare Woods

PART 1: LEXICOGRAPHY AND SCHOLARSHIP 1. CONSTRUCTING THE PAST FAY GLINISTER The material contained in the Lexicon of Festus, often uniquely valuable, has long proved a rich source for the political and religious institutions, social customs, language, and topography of ancient Rome. As a result, there has been a strong tendency to break up the text and mine it selectively for its data, looking at it only in its constituent parts. Seldom has it been placed in its specific historical context and assessed as a single, coherent work by an author with an identifiable agenda. Investigations of the text undertaken since the Renaissance have aimed to lay bare its structure and to identify its sources, but have shown relatively little interest in attempting to understand its place within the Augustan-period literary culture which provides the backdrop to its creation. This chapter will consider the background, author and audience of the Lexicon. Its aims are fourfold. First, to look at how the Lexicon was created. Second, to discuss why it was produced, and what its author(s) intended to offer readers with this work. Third, to examine how the work was used, and the purposes for which it was used, in antiquity. Finally, this chapter reflects on what the Lexicon and its creator(s) can tell us about the construction and reconstruction of Rome and its history, and the ways in which ancient authors 'wrote the past'. The making of a lexicon It is generally accepted that the origins of Festus* Lexicon lie in the massive work produced during the Augustan period by Verrius Flaccus.1 Festus certainly had some independent input into the work, and his revisions had some impact on the text. He was, for example, critical of Verrius in places.2 He may have made small additions, notably quotations from Lucan (AD 39-65) (1.449, in the lemma 31.13P bardus) and Martial (c. AD 40-102/4) (1.30.1, in 506.16P vespae et vespillones)? A. Moscadi believes that Festus played a major role in the (re-) organization of the text.4 It is at least possible that he partially reordered the work (we do not 1 Contra, A. Moscadi, 'Verrio, Festo e Paulo', GIF 31 (1979) 17-36. 2 Eg. 218.12F Oscos; 228.25F impetum, 236.4F percunctatio, 408.14F sus Minervam, 476.36F satis. On criticisms by Festus of Verrius, see further Lhommé, chapter 2, below. 3 Unless these are to be attributed to the hand of Paul the Deacon, or were marginalia subsequently incorporated into the text. 4 Moscadi, 'Verrio', (n. 1 above), 25-35; cf. A. Grandazzi, 'Les mots et les choses: la composition du De verborum significatu de Verrius Flaccus', RÉL 69 (1991) 101-23 (110) for a brief discussion of 11

12

VERR1US, FESTUS, AND PAUL

know the extent to which he respected the layout of lemmas in the original). Clearly, however (and more importantly), he omitted or heavily abbreviated many entries, and in this way Festus and not Verrius can be said to have had the defining hand in the extant work. Nevertheless, what survives can by and large be attributed more to the great output of antiquarian scholarship of the last century BC than to archaizing interests of the second century AD. Thus the assumption of this chapter is that the majority of the material in the Lexicon, as well as the order in which it appears, by and large derives from that of Verrius Flaccus' monumental work. One approach towards understanding how the Lexicon was created lies in comparing it with surviving antiquarian texts of the imperial period and beyond, for example the work of Aulus Gellius (second century AD) or Nonius Marcellus (author of the early fourth century De conpendiosa doctrina), and with later glossators. It is especially fruitful, however, to look at the Lexicon in the context of works produced during the height of the 'antiquarian boom' of the late Republic, such as the De lingua Latina of Varro, Verrius' older contemporary (116-27 BC). Early editions of the Lexicon were sometimes printed together with the text of the De lingua Latina. In fact, the connection between Varro and the Lexicon already seems to have been a concern of the humanist Pomponio Leto, who produced the editio princeps of the De lingua Latina (1471), and made use of the Codex Farnesianus in a series of lectures on the De lingua Latina at La Sapienza.5 Later, Joseph Scaliger published an edition of Varro prior to working on one of Festus (1575/6). 6 The two authors again shared an editor in Karl Muller, whose interest in the development of Latin led him to produce an edition of the De lingua Latina in 1833, and of Festus in 1839.7 Perhaps the most significant discussions of the nature of the two texts and the relationship between them are provided by Reitzenstein (1887) and by Kriegshammer (1903); the latter undertook a study comparing Festus with the surviving parts of the De lingua Latina} In more recent times, however, the relationship between Varro and Verrius has been less closely explored.9

nineteenth-century views on Festus' role in the layout of the surviving work. While it is possible that Festus supplemented the text with additional material, either directly from Varro, or from other Verrian works (so Muller, Sexti Pompei Festi xxix), his stated aim of reducing the bulkiness of the original work makes both theories rather unlikely. 5 M. Accame Lanzillotta, 'L'opera di Festo nel "dictatum" varroniano di Pomponio Leto (Vat. Lat. 3415)', GIF 32 (1980) 265-99; A. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger. A study in the history of classical scholarship I (Oxford 1983) 136; A. Moscadi, 'Festo nel corso di Pomponio Leto sul De lingua Latina di Varrone', Prometheus 18 (1992) 75-89. 6 See Grafton, Joseph Scaliger (n. 5, above) 134-60 for Scaliger's interest in Festus. 7 See W. Unte, 'Karl Otfried Muller', in Classical scholarship. A biographical encyclopedia, eds W. W. Briggs, W. M. Calder III (New York-London 1990) 310-20, at 315-16; A. Fraschetti, 'Appunti su Karl Otfried Muller e gU "antiquari"', ASNP 143 (ser. 3) (1984) 1097-127, esp. 1118-123; J. Riipke, 'Karl Otfried Muller als Editor', in Zwischen Rationalismus und Romantik: Karl Otfried Mùller und die antike Kulturt eds W. M. Calder III, R. Schlesier (Hildesheim 1998) 375-96. 8 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen'; Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verriifontibus. 9 But see A. Grandazzi, "'Intermortua iam et sepulta verba" (Festus, 242L). Les mots de la divination chez Verrius Flaccus. Seconde partie. Il vocabulario délia divinazione nel De verborum significatu di Verrio Flacco (II)', RPh 67 (1993) 263-85.

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

13

The close connection between students of the De lingua Latina and of the Lexicon over the centuries does not mean that the two works were considered near relatives. Muller claimed that Verrius had never read the De lingua Latina\ Nettleship argued that it was 'beyond dispute that Verrius Flaccus, though using the same authorities as Varro, was quite independent of him'.10 Kriegshammer strove to deny any connection between the two: comparing the glosses of Verrius with books 5, 6 and 7 of the De lingua Latina, he concluded that while the two authors shared certain common sources (such as Aelius Stilo and Aurelius Opillus), Verrius did not use the De lingua Laiina.u In contrast to the opinion of many, it is the contention of this chapter that there is a close and demonstrable connection between the two works. This thesis will be confirmed by examining references to Varro in the Lexicon of Festus, and exploring selected entries with parallels in the De lingua Latina. Examples will be given of instances where it seems likely that the work of Varro lies behind Lexicon entries. The chapter will then explore how Varro might have been used, adapted and supplemented by Verrius, and will consider how the working methods used by antiquarians in antiquity could affect the nature of the texts they produced. Varro in the Lexicon In the surviving text of Festus, Varro is securely named only nineteen times; there are a further four references to him in Paul (twice where where the corresponding passages of Festus are lost).12 Of these citations, only about three appear to be direct quotations of Varro's words. The following list contains, in order, all the specific references to Varro in the text of the Lexicon (those surviving in Paul appear in bold). 42.9 73.10 126.29 150.36 202.14 274.19 290.16 290.27 332.8 358.30 408.14 434.7 454.1

cuppes et cupedia Erebum multam {'Quaestionum epist. lib. V) murrata potione {'Antiquitatum lib. V) Opima spolia porcas (275.6 porcas) pro censu classis iuniorum CRerum humanarum lib. VF) praerogativae centuriae CRerum humanarum lib. VI') Ruminalem ficum religionis sus Minervam saperda13 sinistrae aves CQuaestionum epist. lib. V )

10 Muller, Sexti Pompei Festi xxix n. 6; H. Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus (I)', AJPh 1 (1880) 253-70 (262) = Lectures and essays on subjects connected with Latin literature and scholarship (Oxford 1885 201-21 (212). il Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verriifontibus 74-83, and 121-22. 12 In addition, Clare Woods informs me that Varro is cited in the lemma 32.5P bellitudinem in a number of humanist copies of Paul, including Duke University Latin MS 49, f. 6rb (other manuscripts give the name as Verrius). 13 The name of Varro is lost here, but can be restored from Nonius 176.20f.

14

464.18 472.9 474.36 478.22 478.34 486.12 494.9 512.15

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL Sabini suffragato (lRerum humanarum lib. VIP) Septimontio CRerurri humanarum lib. VIII') Tauri ludi Talassionem (479.13 Talassionem) Tuscum vicum tutum CEuropa') vapula Papiria14

Citations of Varro do not on the whole comprise obvious groupings, with two major exceptions. One is provided by the two citations from book 6 of the De rerum humanarum: 290.16F pro censu classis iuniorum, and 290.27F praerogativae centuriae. These two entries on Roman political institutions are separated by only one entry, 290.21F procum patricium (445 GRF), which is unsourced, but is on the same theme (the census) and thus almost certainly derives from this same book of Varro.15 The second exception concerns 478.22F Tauri ludi, which is immediately followed by 478.34F Talassionem, both entries on Roman religion (part of a series, as it happens) directly citing the authority of Varro. More usually, however, direct citations of Varro are spread widely across the whole Lexicon (unlike, say, references to Cato or to the Augustan lawyer Antistius Labeo, which often appear in blocks, either with the source repeatedly named, or with 'idem' or 'item' linking one passage to the next).16 Most of the Lexicon's references to Varro do not name a work of origin. Of the sourced citations, one is explicidy said to come from the Europa, two from the Quaestiones epistolicae (books 1 and 5), four from the De rerum humanarum (books 6, 7 and 8), and one from the Antiquitates (book l);17 one we know comes from the Saturae Menippeae1.* It is likely that Verrius Flaccus also used Varro's De vita populi Romani and De gente populi Romani; and perhaps some of his other works, which included books on law, religion, medicine, and architecture. It is also probable that Verrius knew and used Varro's works on literature, such as De poetis and De comoediis Plautinis, but as none of these works is now extant, it is obviously difficult to make comparisons.19 In addition, some entries in the Lexicon 14 As Lhommé points out (below, this volume), amongst late Roman grammarians, citations of Varro far outstrip those of other authors. This stands in marked contrast to the number of citations of Varro in the Lexicon.

15 cf. Varro 32 GRF: proceres qui processerunt ante alius; unde et proceres tigna quae alia tigna p excesserunt (a fragment from the De lingua Latino). 16 Runs of Labeo: 298.8 Puilia, 298.16/?rox, 298.18 Penatis, 298.21 proculiunt, 298.22 Popularia sacra; and 472.15 struppi, 472.19 secespitam, 474.19 scribtum lapidem, 474.31 spurcum vinum, 476.14 sisterefana; 476.18 subigere arietem. 17 Many other entries are believed to derive from - or at least have parallels with - books of the Antiquitates: see e.g. Bona, Opusculum Festinum, for a summary of such attributions. 18 32.4P bellarium et bellaria may also derive from the Saturae Menippeae {cf. Gell., NA 13.6-7). 19 It is worth noting that there are a large number of citations of Plautus in the Lexicon (see North, below). Aside from his De comediiis Plautinis (88 GRF), Varro also produced a work (Quaestiones Plautinae) discussing rare words in Plautus (51-52 GRF).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

15

(e.g. 274.19F porcas) may come from Varro's extant book on agriculture (Res rusticae), although since there is agriculture-related material in his other works, this cannot be demonstrated conclusively. Our understanding of Verrius' view of Varro's opinions is necessarily filtered via Festus and Paul, and is especially hard to follow in Paul's more abbreviated entries. Nevertheless, patterns can be discerned. A negative attitude is rare, although Varro is criticized in sus Minervam, while Verrius is explicitly said to have preferred a different explanation from Varro of the term praerogativae centuriae. In a few entries, Verrius is neutral or noncommital: in Septimontio, Tuscum vicum and vapula Papiria Varro's is one of several competing authorities and theories; similarly, in Talassionem Varro's version is given, but then countered with an alternative explanation. There is also hesitation in accepting Varro's explanation in Ruminalemficum. But in the majority of surviving cases, around ten, citations of Varro are positive. In pro censu classis iuniorum, Varro's statement is accepted completely. In murrata potione, Opima spolia, porcas, saperda, sinisirae aves> Sabini, suffragato, and tulum, Varro is also treated positively. In multam Varro's testimony is accepted as more specific, and confirmed as 'accurate', in comparison to the testimony of other authors. 20 The number of times Varro is named in the Lexicon is not markedly higher than that of other antiquarians, like L. Cincius (named 22 times). Given Varro's importance to the literary and cultural scene of the late Republic, however, the figure seems surprizingly low. Even if we take account of the large portions of text missing from Festus, the paucity and scattered nature of the extant Varronian citations would suggest no more than a doubling of the present figure, to around forty or fifty references. In comparison, we might note that there are just over a hundred secure extant named citations of Cato, in addition to the numerous anonymous, but certainly Catonian entries (presumably the product of Verrius' prior research on Cato). It is precisely the fact that Varro is explicitly cited so little, and in a manner apparently so unsystematic, I would argue, that suggests just how far his work underlies that of Verrius Flaccus. This hypothesis can be confirmed by comparing the lexicon with Varro's major surviving work on Latin grammar, the De lingua Latina, published about 43 BC. This work originally comprised twenty-five books, including chapters on morphology, gender, adjectives, and case-formation. Books 5-10 survive in whole or part, and books 5-7, which are largely complete, deal with etymology - one of the major obsessions of our Lexicon. Although not a single extant citation of Varro in the Lexicon of Festus is attributed to the De lingua Latina, numerous parallels are found when the two works are compared. 21 In many instances Varro and the Lexicon analyze the same word, use the same material, or provide the same information. An example is the way both employ the word casmenae/camenae to illustrate orthographic changes (59.3P dusmo in loco, 222.25F pesnis', compare Varro, LL 7.26-8).

20 Thus the divergences between Varro and Verrius (and criticisms of Varro by Verrius) are, in my opinion, often very slight. For a contrasting viewpoint, see Lhommé (below, this volume). 21 The absence of named quotations from the De lingua Latina is potentially misleading, given how little of the work of Festus, let alone Verrius, survives intact.

16

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

In some instances, the language used in the Lexicon is virtually identical to that of Varro. Unless there is a common source, or Festus is responsible for the removal of Varro's name (unlikely), this must mean that Verrius copied his text directly from Varro, presumably largely without acknowledgement. More specifically, and more importantly for our purposes, Varro and the Lexicon frequently use an identical quotation to illustrate a point, usually (but not always) a point of grammar. The majority of quotations shared by Varro and the Lexicon come from early Latin poets and dramatists such as Ennius, Naevius and Plautus. 22 Some of these quotations have also filtered down into Paul (who in general gives far fewer direct quotations than Festus), for example the same Une of Plautus (Amph. 275) appears in 506.14P vesperugo as in LL 6.6 and 7.50 (the ultimate source may be Aurelius Opillus). In 86.23P grallatores, Paul's discussion of stiltwalkers is actually ampler than that of Varro (LL 7.69); both illustrate the word with a quote from Plautus (Poen. 530). It is likely that Varro (if not Varro alone) mediated the work of some of these early authors. 23 There are many occasions where Varro and Festus employ the same etymology in analyzing a word. Take for example the term rorarius (skirmisher). Varro (LL 7.58), commenting on a passage of Plautus, explains: In Frivolaria: Ubi rorarii estis? En sunt. Ubi sunt accensi? Ecce sunt. Rorarii, dicti ab rore qui bellum committebant, ideo quod ante rorat quam pluit. In the Frivolaria: 'Where are you, rorarii! Look, they're here. Where are the accensi! Here they are'. Rorarii were those who started the battle, named from ros (dew-drops), because it rorat (trickles) before it really rains.24 A similar explanation appears in Paul (323.8P rorarios), although as so often the author's name, and the quotation which inspired the entry, have been excised: Rorarios milites vocabant, qui levi armatura primi proelium committebant, quod, ut ante imbrem fere rorare solet, sic illi ante gravem armaturam quod prodibant, rorari dicti. They used to call soldiers rorarii, who were the first to join battle, lightly armed, because, just as it usually trickled (rorare) before a rainstorm, so they were called rorarii because they went forward in front of the heavily armed infantry.

22 E.g. (amongst many others) 446.2F spicit (cf. LL 6.82) and 484.32F tututum (cf. LL 7.44), both Ennius. An alternative explanation for the material shared by Varro and Verrius is offered by North, below. 23 Of course Varro is not his sole source: he cites other late Republican and early Imperial authors (Cicero, Virgil, Catullus) - but rarely. Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus (I)' (n. 10, above) 261 (also 207, 210, 220) believed that the late material was original to Verrius, but that for early authors, such as Livius Andronicus or Caecilius, he used commentaries or glossaries. Muller, Sexti Pompei Festi believed that Festus derived the Catonian material, as well as quotations from Verrius' contemporaries Veranius and Antistius Labeo, from other works of Verrius, and inserted it into his abridgement (see e.g. xvi, xxix) - but why Festus should endeavour to lengthen the very work he was shortening is beyond me. 24 Compare Varrofrag.215 GRF (DVPR book 3): rorarii appellati quod imbribus fere primum rorare incipit.

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

17

Behind many of the lemmas which survive only in highly attenuated form in Paul the Deacon undoubtedly lurk commentary, etymologies, or quotations derived from Varro. This is particularly likely when we find highly unusual words, cited primarily or only by Varro and the Lexicon. One example of this (among many) is 65.13P, on diabathra (a type of slipper), the Greek name of which is cited only in our two texts.25 Another is the term ciccum, attested only in the Lexicon, in Plautus' Rudens, and in a Plautus fragment preserved by Varro, LL 7.91 : Clccum dicebant membranam tenuem, quae est ut in malo punico discrimen; a quo etiam Plautus dicit: Quod volt demensum, ciccum non interduo. Ciccum is the name which they gave to the thin membrane dividing the sections in, for example, a pomegranate; from which moreover Plautus says: 'As for the fact that he wants his ration, I don't care a bit'. What survives in Paul (37.12P ciccum) is the terse explanation: Ciccum membrana tenuis malorum punicorum. Ciccum: the thin membrane of the pomegranate. Paul has retained the straight definition of ciccum, but suppressed the fact that it meant something of no value. It is highly likely that VeITius, original entry not only included the line of Plautus here quoted by Varro, but also made that further point. All this demonstrates, in my opinion, that the De lingua Latina was a significant source for Verrius' Lexicon. However, it was obviously not Verrius' only source, as the Lexicon, in forty books, was substantially longer than Varro's twenty-five-book grammatical work, and contains much material not found there. Verrius' use of other authors (often cited by name) is also indicated by entries where the information surviving in Festus exceeds that provided by Varro (compare 276.3F Publicius clivus with LL 5.158, or 176.3F nuncupata pecunia with LL 6.60).26 At 446.2F spicit, Festus quotes a line of Ennius in a more complete form than Varro, suggesting that Verrius knew the quotation independently of Varro - not that surprizing, since the works of early authors formed the common currency of antiquarians. (It does not, however, prove that Verrius had consulted the actual text of Ennius; the fuller Ennian line could have been adopted from another intermediary source, such as a commentary.) There are occasions when Verrius does not seem to be following Varro directly. The best example is 484.9F, on the word turma (cavalry squadron), citing Curiatius (frag. 3 GRF): Turmam equitum [ajdictam esse ait Curiatius quase terimam: quod ter déni équités ex tribus tribubus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum fiebant. Itaque primi singularum decuriarum decuriones dicti, qui ex eo in singulis turmis sunt etiam nunc terni.

25 The term diabathrarius, a maker of this kind of slipper, appears in Plautus, AuL 513. Note also that head-words in oblique cases, e.g. ablative or dative, suggest an origin as the gloss of a now-lost line of literature. 26 L. Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae (Warsaw 1932) 41 (with n. 7) disputes some of Kriegshammer's attributions of origin in the De lingua Latina, because of differing elements in the entries of the two authors - but the fact that Verrius has supplementary information does not rule out his using the De lingua Latina.

18

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Curiatius says that a turma (troop) of cavalry was so called as if a terima, because three times ten cavalrymen from the three tribes of the Titienses, Ramnes, and Luceres composed it. Accordingly the leaders of each of the decuriae (companies often) are called decurions; as a result, there are even now three leaders each in individual turmae. The identical quotation occurs in Varro (LL 5.91): Turma terima (E in V abiit), quod ter déni équités ex tribus tribubus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum fîebant. Itaque primi singularum decuriarum decuriones dicti, qui ab eo in singulis turmis sunt etiam nunc terni. Quos hi primo administres ipsi sibi adoptabant, optiones vocari coepti, quos nunc propter ambitionem tribuni faciunt.27 In the De lingua Latina, the quotation is anonymous. Varro usually names his poetical sources, but is not otherwise a great citer of 'authorities', in contrast to the usual practice of the Lexicon. Curiatius is quite unknown, so we cannot tell if he is older than Varro, but his obscurity makes it more plausible to consider him an earlier rather than later author. The inclusion of Curiatius' name at this point in the Lexicon, and twice more (166.7F naccae, and 174.20F nuptias: frags 1-2 GRF), suggests that Verrius made use of this author independently of Varro. 28 Verrius' independence of the Varronian line is also shown by occasions when the Lexicon's interpretation differs from that of Varro. For example, while both agree that strebula is a technical term for part of the meat of a sacrificial animal, Varro (LL 7.67, following Aurelius Opillus frag. 18 GRF) regards it as a Greek word, while in the Lexicon (410.28F/411.10P strebula) it is is described as of Umbrian origin. Both quote Plautus. 29 To summarize. There are occasions when Verrius comes to conclusions different from those of Varro, prefers the explanation offered by yet another author, or includes material not found in surviving Varronian works. None of this proves that Verrius was not drawing widely on the work of Varro, nor does it preclude the likelihood that he made use of the De lingua Latina. At the very least, it seems certain that Verrius was deeply familiar with the De lingua Latina. Given the reputation that Varro enjoyed in the Augustan period, the fact that Verrius certainly used other Varronian works, and the nature of the De lingua Latina itself, it would be highly surprizing if Verrius had ignored the work altogether. His dependence on it is strongly suggested by entries where the language of the Lexicon and of the De lingua Latina is close or identical, and where both employ the same quotations. The user-unfriendly nature of ancient

27 cf. Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verriifontibus 95. 28 It is worth noting that a substantial number of the words which appear in Varro's discussion of military terms (LL 5.87-91 - within which we find his anonymous citation of Curiatius) are also glossed in the Lexicon, with fuller discussion, while Varro's quotation of Plautus' Frivolaria here CAgite nunc, subsidite omnes quasi soient triarii'), also occurs in the Lexicon (398.9F subsidium). 29 Plautus, of course, is supposed to have been of Umbrian origin. Lhommé (below, her Appendix III) similarly has pointed to the different etymologies of miles offered by Varro (LL 5.89) and by the Lexicon (109.22P militem). But Verrius did not have identical aims to Varro. Indeed, if Festus has correctly preserved Verrius' words, there is a significant contrast between his agenda, expressed in 242.19Fporiciam, and Varro's distinction (LL 5.9-10) between verba antiqua and verba oblivia (which he regards as unworthy of systematic treatment).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

19

books m e a n s that identical quotations, in the numbers we have here, could not be found by chance. A l t h o u g h these quotations could derive from a common source or sources (such as commentaries), to attribute them solely to common sources - which are moreover almost entirely lost - is implausible, 3 0 and it seems unlikely that Verrius would bother to use c o m m e n t a t o r s for instances where he was able to draw on Varro's own research. W e may therefore infer that Verrius did use the De lingua Latina, perhaps as a 'springboard', but occasionally chose to stress his independence of Varro by reference to other sources, or by implicitly disagreeing where he thought he had the better explanation {e.g. 478.34F Talassionem).M The working methods of an

antiquarian

T h e possibility that Verrius borrowed much material from a source of which a significant portion is extant may help to throw light on his working methods. W h e n scholars discuss the composition of the Lexicon, they are often interested in little more than discovering from which a u t h o r certain material derives. This usually means exploring the order in which the glosses are arranged, to determine the origin of specific groupings - something of intense interest to scholars over the centuries. Most accept that the Lexicon is divided into two distinct parts. 3 2 Within the first part of each letter, the glosses (with a few exceptions) are grouped in alphabetical order, by first or second letter and sometimes also by third letter (rarely more). The glosses of the second part share the initial letter, but thereafter are grouped by subject or by author. Sometimes a discussion of the same word or theme appears in both first and second parts (but not twice in the first part). Miiller considered that the structure of the s e c o n d parts was the w o r k of Festus, arguing that his abridgement a d d e d to each letter glosses derived from other works of Verrius. 3 3 M o s t scholars, however, follow Reitzenstein in considering that the work as we have it is in the order in which it was left by Verrius. 3 4 T h e first parts, it is thought, represent the unfinished, semi-alphabetical re-elaboration of the

30 Cf. Grandazzi, "'Intermortua iam et sepulta verba"' (n. 9, above) 267. In addition, it would be odd that if Verrius was using commentaries independently of Varro, he should so often choose exactly the same elements to comment on. 31 Similarly, Grandazzi, '"Intermortua iam et sepulta verba"' (n. 9, above) 268-70, argues that the numerous parallels between the De lingua Latina and the Lexicon prove that Verrius used Varro's work. Verrius deliberately omitted Varro's name, citing instead the specialist authors who had compiled material in fields such as ritual, in order to demonstrate his (Verrius') own rigorous scholarship, in an attempt to make of himself a Varro for the new era. 32 The idea was first outlined by Miiller in the preface to his 1839 edition, Sexti Pompei Festi. For further discussion, see (especially) Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' passim; Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae (n. 26, above) 93-103; and Bona, Contributo 165-74. Bona's Opusculum Festinum gathers into table form the results of the various works concerned with elucidating the order of glosses of the 'second parts' of Festus. Note that the letters D and E do not appear to be divided into parts; and that in some letters there are also so-called articuli praemissi, glosses that precede the first parts, but whose structure is similar to that of second. 33 Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi xvi, xxix; cf. Grandazzi, 'Les mots et les choses' (n. 4, above) 110 and n. 61. 34 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 21-22.

20

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

material in the second parts, this latter derived from Verrius' collection of material from his various sources, never fully reorganized and integrated. 33 Here, instead, I would like us to consider just how the material for the Lexicon was obtained. In comparing the De lingua Latina and the Lexicon, we have an excellent opportunity to consider the ways in which one text might be mined for the purposes of creating another, quite differently organized one. Research techniques, physical working methods, the types of source actually accessible at a given time, and other constraints affecting the creation of a written text are all factors which have significant effects on its ultimate character. 36 Assuming that a scholar could even lay hands on a desired work in the first place (papyrus rolls were stored in ways that hindered easy consultation), the nature of ancient texts made it difficult to find specific references. Late Republican papyri provided little in the way of assistance for readers. 37 There were no paragraph or page breaks, indices were unknown, and tables of contents rare. References comprised no more than a generic 'see above', 'see below', or at best, indication of a given chapter. Physical factors affected both the consultation and composition of texts. Books were normally read while standing, sitting, or lying on a couch. 3 8 Two hands were needed to keep rolls open, and working with more than one roll at a time was awkward, hindering note-taking and cross-checking of information. 39 Consequently writers needed assistants, to whom notes or excerpts could be dictated. 40 These difficulties meant that quotations and other material from earlier works frequently depended on memory, rather than actual consultation, while it was more important to get the gist than to find the exact words. 41 Such problems would exist even for someone working from a single text, if it comprised numerous rolls. Such factors explain why Verrius might have used Varro as a source for quotations from early authors. N o t necessarily because the original work was lost, or fragmentary, or unavailable - presumably copies of most major Republican works were still circulating in his 35 A dissenting voice is provided by Moscadi, 'Verrio, Festo e Paulo' (n. 4, above) 24-25, who concludes that the order of glosses within individual letters is completely arbitrary, and that the alphabetical element is no more significant than the association of ideas, argument, and so on. For a thoughtful reinterpretation of the meaning of the 'parts', see Grandazzi, "'Intermortua iam etsepulta verba1" (n. 9, above) 276-79,282, who regards the dual thematic/alphabetical layout as a deliberate and complementary structure, not a sign that the work was unfinished. 36 See J. P. Small, Wax tablets of the mind (London-New York 1997) chapters 12 and 13 on the means of composing a work. 37 E. J. Kenney, 'Books and readers in the Roman world', in The Cambridge history of classical literature II. Latin literature, eds E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen (Cambridge 1982) 3-32, especially 16-17. 38 Small, Wax tablets (n. 36, above) 164-67. 39 It is worth observing that difficulties in reading manuscripts noted by modern scholars may not have been considered so problematic by ancient ones. 40 Such an assistant might be quite learned, capable of translating Latin and Greek, for example (Small, Wax tablets (n. 36, above) 174-75); cf. R. J. Starr, lLectores and Roman reading', The Classical Journal 86(1991)337-43. 41 Small, Wax tablets (n. 36, above) 192 (and see her chapter 12 on memory as "the classical means of cognitively organising and ... retrieving words': 71).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

21

day, and would surely have been available to such a well-connected scholar. Rather, for convenience - it would have been far simpler to adopt Varro's choice of quotation than to search for a different example to back up a point. And it is not that Verrius himself never read and remembered, say, Plautus (his version of a quotation is sometimes superior to Varro's), only that in creating his Lexicon he (or his research assistants) may have found it easier to 'plagiarize' Varro than to consult the original work.42 So Verrius would have had in Varro a convenient supply of data. But how did Verrius select and adapt Varro's thematic entries to create his own, differently organized, work? Given the difficulties that ancient texts posed users, how did he rearrange the material borrowed from Varro? We can only speculate, but one way of considering these points is to look at the sketchy entries for e.g. 41.22P cassabundus, 65.13P diabathra, and 72.17P epicrocum, behind which, I would be willing to bet, lie the Naevius quotations cited by Varro (LL 7.53).43 It looks as if Verrius has pulled these lines apart, and moved the constitutent parts - the words on dress in which he was interested - to the appropriate areas of his own work. One or all of these separate entries may well have cited the lines of Naevius, later to be excised by Festus or, more likely, Paul. Probably Verrius used assistants to take down this material in note form for future reference. However, not only did this style of working require a good deal of effort, it was easy to overlook or forget important material. Problems of 'data retrieval' may therefore explain some peculiarities in the text of the Lexicon, such as discussions forced under quite arbitrary headings. 44 Varro was clearly not Verrius' only source. Certain material was original to Verrius, such as that from Cato (see above) and Virgil (who appears nine times in Festus and seven times in Paul, including one reference which survives in both versions). Also likely to be original to Verrius is material derived from his near contemporaries Catullus (three citations in Festus), Lucretius (twelve citations in Festus, seven in Paul; four references in both), and Cicero (ten references in Festus, three in Paul, all of which also exist in Festus). In other cases, for example in his citations of early poets, Verrius perhaps drew upon commentators or glossaries. He certainly quotes from these kinds of work, but as none is now extant, we cannot be sure of their exact scope and nature.

42 Alternatively, of course, both used (but remembered differently) a common source. Verrius himself would not have seen his 'plagiarism' of Varro's work as shameful - ancient authors gathered and used information in different ways to ourselves. 43 Another example of the 'pulling apart' of a quotation to explain its constituent parts occurs with Naevius, Bell. Pun. 12 (Loeb): Ferunt pulchras creterras, aureas lepistas: 'They carry beautiful bowls and golden goblets'. The term appears in Paul at 46.22P (Creterrae vocabulum trahitur a cratère, quod vas est vini: 'The word creterrae (wine bowl) is derived from crater, which is a vessel for wine') and at 102.14P (Lepista genus vasis aquarii: 'Lepista: a kind of vessel for water'). 44 For example 453.3P sex milium et ducentorum ('of six thousand two hundred') concerns Marius' reforms of the legions; 466.36F summissiorem ('lower down') concerns the positioning of Marius' temple of Honos and Virtus. Entries like this may also have resulted from the unavailability of certain material until a late stage in the composition; alternatively, it could be that Verrius' entries 'were much more extensive [than Festus' abridgement] and focussed on such different aspects of the subjects that they were justifiably separated': L. A. Holland, 'Septimontium or Saeptimontium?', TAPhA 84 (1953) 16-34 (19 n. 9).

22

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

How was Verrius' Lexicon intended to be used? H a v i n g briefly highlighted problems of composition, I would n o w like us to think about audience and readership. H o w was the Lexicon intended to be used, or read (not necessarily the s a m e thing), by whom, and for what purposes? T h e De lingua Latina has a coherent programme (frequently referred to by Varro), and like m a n y ancient works is thematic in approach, even if Varro's choice and progression of themes at times appears as an idiosyncratic and somewhat erratic stream of consciousness. F o r e x a m p l e , his discussion of the gates of the city of Rome is immediately followed by a discussion of types of bed, then mattresses and pillows, then coverings of various kinds, followed by what were used to get into bed (types of step!) (LL 5.163-165). In contrast to this, the L e x i c o n seems (superficially) logical, because its primary organization is not thematic (although there are thematic groupings), but alphabetic. 4 5 For us, the use of an alphabetical s y s t e m in this kind of work is a rational choice, since we are accustomed to looking up meanings of words in alphabetically-arranged dictionaries. (This is no doubt partly why the De verborum significatu is often referred to, somewhat inappropriately, as a dictionary.) 4 6 However, to our eyes the nature of the L e x i c o n ' s alphabetization is idiosyncratic, to say the least. (It certainly puzzled early editors, and Agustin (1559) went so far as to put the glosses into full alphabetical order, not a completely standard organizational tool even in his day.) Apart from the initial letter, the glosses in the Lexicon are not strictly alphabetical (as is the c a s e with m a n y early lexica). It is almost as usual for a group of entries to be linked by a c o m m o n theme or source (see for example the blocks of material derived from Labeo, cited above) as by spelling (see above for the question of division into parts). Runs of glosses m a y b e grouped by a few identical initial letters, but systematization as w e k n o w it is absent. In fact, 'absolute alphabetization', that is alphabetization down to the last letter, is unknown in antiquity. It is not an obviously useful means of arranging data in a world where 'alphabetical order' may fluctuate, where there appears to b e no concept of the alphabet as a distinct entity, and where the idea of 'correct' spelling has a low profile (see, for e x a m p l e , Quintilian 1.7.30, 1.7.33). 47 More usual is a limited form of alphabetization with words roughly grouped by initial syllables, but even this does not predate the third century BC, and it remains a fairly rare organizational technique: it is the Elder Pliny's last choice for categorizing material. 48 If the

45 Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus (I)' (n. 10, above) 257 saw the Lexicon as 'the first attempt in the history of Latin literature at compiling an encyclopaedia of scholarship in the form of a dictionary alphabetically arranged'. On alphabetization see also Woods (below). 46 It is probably misleading to describe the Lexicon either as a dictionary (dictionaries in the modern sense did not exist in antiquity) or as an encyclopaedia. Rather than attempting to analyze the meanings of all words, it is principally interested in exploring rare words, their etymologies, and the debate which surrounded some of them. The Lexicon often steps far beyond the parameters of a modern dictionary, for example exploring myth and history in some detail in its attempts to discern the origins of a word. 47 L. W. Daly, Contributions to a history of alphabétisation in antiquity and the middle ages. Collection Latomus 90 (Brussels 1967) 11-12, Small, Wax tablets (n. 36, above) 64-65. 48 Daly, Contributions to a history of alphabétisation (n. 47, above) 36. Pliny's material on medicinal herbs (NH 27) and types of stone (NH 37), for example, is listed in broadly alphabetical order (usually arranged by first letter only). But, as Small, Wax tablets (n. 36, above) 63 points out, at times Pliny fails to take acount of the varying order of the Greek and Latin alphabets (e.g. NH 37.138 and 37.151-6).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

23

Festine glosses are viewed in terms of syllables rather than individual letters, the order of the text appears more logical, and this supports the idea that the Lexicon was composed as described above - i.e. with the author dictating to assistants. As w e have seen, thematic organization of material was the preferred option in antiquity, so the use of alphabetization (even of an incomplete kind) makes the Lexicon an unusual and distinctive work. In fact, it seems to have been the first Latin work to operate in this way. 49 Yet the reason why Verrius chose to experiment with alphabetization has never been sufficiently emphasized by scholars, who have tended to focus instead on identifying the authors who provided material for the work. Unfortunately, in what survives we have little in the way of discussion of the nature of the work, or the aims and intentions of the author (the best internal evidence is offered by 242.19F poriciam).™ All we can do is make a few educated guesses about what alphabetical organization does and does not imply. First of all, did Verrius turn to alphabetization as a means of making his text easier for future readers or researchers? Did he perhaps have the deliberate aim of creating a 'research tool'? Did he have a specific audience in mind when he chose that form of organization? Given the confusing nature of ancient written texts, it might be thought that alphabetization would help Jhe reader better navigate a text. But the antique form of alphabetical organization actually makes it harder to acquire information from books, in comparison to a thematic layout such as Varro's. Most works (including antiquarian treatises?) were intended to be read aloud, so the thematic approach certainly made for a much better 'read', too. 51 Verrius' alphabetized Lexicon can hardly have made for good dinner- or bed-time reading. On these levels, the work fails for scholars and for casual readers alike. It is not simply the alphabetical organization of the Lexicon which militates against ease of consultation. For example, perverse as Varro may be to discuss the gates of Rome and follow up with an examination of types of bed, at least when one finds the section on gates, one has there a collection of material pertaining to the subject. By contrast, in the Lexicon the gates of Rome are not listed in a group under 'porta', but scattered across the whole work under their proper names (Mugionia, Ratumenna, Sanqualis, Salutaris, Viminalis, etc.). To read up on the city-gates as a category, one would need to know each name, then trawl through entire volumes

49 Although from the fact that many authors or types of work (poetry, oratory, and so on) appeared in groups, Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus (I)' (n. 10, above) 257, 261-62, argued that Verrius had made use of alphabetically-arranged collections of glosses. Glossaries are alluded to by both Varro {LL 7.10: qui glossas scripserunf, cf. LL 7.107: persibus... sub hoc glossema 'callide' subscribunf) and the Lexicon (166.1 IF naucum: glossematorum ... scriptores; 230.9Fpedarrv. in commentariis; 204.24F obscum: ... in omnibus fere antiquis commentariis scribitur), but little is known of them, and no alphabetical arrangement can be proven for works such as the Liber glossematorum of Ateius Philologus, Santra's De verborum antiquitate, or Aelius Gallus' De significatione verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent. 50 On this entry, see further Lhommé (below, this volume). 51 Histories and poetry were frequently read at dinner, but it is hard to know if the same was true of antiquarian works. Pliny the younger reports, however, that his uncle took notes from books read aloud during a meal (Ep. 3.5.11: Post solem plerumque frigida lavabatur, deinde gustabat dormiebatque minimum; mox quasi alio die studebat in cenae tempus. Super hanc liber legebatur adnotabatur, et quidem cursim). Can we imagine the Lexicon being read to an ecstatic audience eating their porridge or their peacock? Did antiquarian works have this audience, or were they intended to be read/used in a different way?

24

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

to find them. One would need to be very sure of what one wanted. It could be argued that this n e w structure, which on the surface appears to provide a democratization of knowledge, offering to its audience a new way of structuring knowledge of their city and its history, is in fact an attempt at control of knowledge by making it arcane, setting it apart for people already 'in the know*. This can be further shown by considering the Augustan background to the creation of the text of the Lexicon. Verrius the 'Augustan

antiquarian'?

It is usual for those studying historians or poets to look at an author within his socio-cultural milieu, and to consider the agenda behind the work, but this is less comprehensively attempted for antiquarian-type literary output. A recent exception which has focussed to some extent on these neglected writers is Raster's edition of the De grammaticis of Suetonius - which itself examines these writers in their social context. 5 2 In fact what little we k n o w of Verrius derives largely from a short biography in this work. T h e Lexicon was written in the period when Augustus was well established in power, and restructuring Rome on an unprecedented scale. 5 3 Such building activity, formerly a factor in aristocratic competition, was now a sign of Augustus' overwhelming dominance of R o m a n society. Superficially the old meaning held; in reality, it was completely subverted. (That this was also true of intellectual activity under Augustus is the argument of Wallace-Hadrill, to which I shall return.) But what was the connection between Verrius and Augustus, and what consequences did that relationship have? Can the work of Verrius be shown to follow any kind of coherent Augustan line? Can he be described as an 'Augustan antiquarian'? T h e loss of the L e x i c o n ' s preface m e a n s that we lack any possible explicit statements c o n c e r n i n g Verrius' involvement with Augustus. Additionally, almost all the surviving lemmas which relate to Augustus and the Julian family exist only in skeletal form, via Paul, whose lack of interest in Augustus is transparent (see the lemma 2.3P Augustus; which in V e r r i u s ' original work must surely have formed part of a much longer entry). If we want to attempt to reconstruct Verrius' motives in writing his Lexicon - to see whether he was trying

52 C. Suetonius Tranquillus De grammaticis et rhetoribus, ed. R. A. Kaster (Oxford 1995). For the 'agenda' of Ovid's Fasti, for example, see A. Barchiesi, The poet and the prince: Ovid and Augustan discourse (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1997). Note also the comments on Verrius' relationship to Augustan 'ideology' by Grandazzi, ltiIntermortua iam etsepulta verba"' (n. 9, above) 283. 53 The period in which the Lexicon was being written can only be roughly dated by internal evidence, but is likely to be after c. 13 BC (and thus quite possibly during his period of imperial employment): 188.17F Octaviae mentions the theatre of Marcellus (begun by Caesar and completed by Augustus in 13 BC), the Porticus Octaviae, dedicated some time after 27 BC, and the Porticus Octavia, built by Cn. Octavius in 168 BC and restored by Augustus in 33 BC (RG 4.3). 370.35F Servilius lacus refers to the setting up of a statue of the Hydra by Marcus Agrippa at the Servilius Lacus (probably in 33 BC), and mentions the Basilica Julia (built by Caesar in 54-48 BC). 142.20F Mutini Titini includes a reference to that deity's shrine on the Velian, which 'had survived from the foundation of the City down to the principale of Augustus' but made way for the baths of the house of Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus (at the start of the Augustan period, according to F. Coarelli, s.v. 'Velia', LTUR V (Rome 1999) 109-12 (112). Virgil's Aeneid (unfinished at the author's death in 19 BC) is quoted several times; the latest author possibly cited by Verrius appears to be Ovid (43 BC-AD 17), at 437.6P Salaciam - but see the comments of North (below, this volume, 50 n. 4).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

25

to preserve the old Rome that had been, or explain the new R o m e that was - we need to r e v i e w his career, and the nature of his works. A c c o r d i n g to Suetonius (De gramm. 17), Verrius was a freedman. W e do not know his manumitter. His teaching methods attracted the attention of Augustus, who chose him as tutor to his grandsons, Gaius (20 B C - A D 4) and Lucius (17 B C - A D 2) (Kaster suggests around 10 B C , but conceivably earlier). Verrius then set up his school on the Palatine, in the famously luxurious house once owned by Lutatius Catulus, and was paid 100,000 sesterces a year. 54 (As Baldwin points out, the emphasis in Suetonius is not so much on Verrius' scholarship as on his 'material successes', unlike most other biographies in the De grammaticis.)55 Verrius' position of trust, and the generous terms of his appointment, would suggest that he enjoyed g o o d personal relations with Augustus. But his status as a freedman, and as an imperial employee, makes Verrius (at least potentially) less independent of authority than someone like Varro, or authors like Ap. Claudius Pulcher, L. Julius Caesar or M . Valerius Messalla, members of the old aristocracy. 5 6 Verrius' work forms part of this Republican tradition, and particularly the tradition represented by Varro and by V a r r o ' s teacher Aelius Stilo, who first defined the study of 'antiquities' in the Roman sphere. 5 7 But he himself belongs to the new world, the world of men rising through merit and imperial favour, rather than inherited status. T h e w o r k of a scholar of elite rank is obviously less likely to be 'controlled' than that of a paid employee, driven by the need to please his patron. Possibly Verrius' hefty salary covered not just his teaching duties but also the publication of antiquarian and other works of a type particularly favoured by the Augustan regime. What follows will show, I think, that there is fairly strong evidence to support this suggestion. M u c h of Verrius' work appears related to Augustus' interests, and to his political agenda. 58 S e v e r a l scholars have suggested a connection between Verrius' study of Cato's use of l a n g u a g e (De obscuris Catonis, which has made a strong mark on our Lexicon), and Augustus' dislike of archaizing speech, reported by Suetonius. 59 T h e Augustan concentration on the revival (real or imagined) of R o m a n religion was no doubt reflected in Verrius' Res Etruscae, which presumably concerned such elements as augury and haruspicy; we also find 54 Presumably in addition to the fees he was already receiving for his existing pupils. For comparison, E. Rawson, Intellectual life in the later Roman republic (London 1985) 67, suggests that the average fee of a teacher was a modest 500 HS per pupil per year, although one L. Appuleius earned 400,000 a year from a rich eques. On the house of Catulus, consul in 102 BC, see Pliny, NH 17.1.2. 55 B. Baldwin, Suetonius (Amsterdam 1983) 439. 56 Rawson, Intellectual life (n. 54, above) 93: Baldwin, Suetonius (n. 55, above) 439-40 observes Suetonius' understanding of the ways in which imperial patronage compromised intellectual activities. 57 See e.g. J. E. G. Zetzel, Latin textual criticism in antiquity (New York 1981) chapter 2; Rawson, Intellectual life (n. 54, above), esp. chapters 8 and 16. 58 B. W. Frier, Libri annales pontificUm maximorum. The origins of the annalistic tradition (Ann Arbor, Michigan 1979, 19992) 37, with n. 18; 199. 59 Suet., Aug. 86.3; Kaster, Suetonius (n. 52, above) 191. Baldwin, Suetonius (n. 55, above) 438 suggests that it may have been Verrius' work on Cato which attracted the attention of Augustus, or that 'it might have been written at an Augustan hint'. It is probable that, as well as the frequent references to Cato, the material on orthography is the result of Verrius' independent work in these areas (although we do not know whether these works were written before or after the creation of the Lexicon).

26

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

a fairly detailed reference in the Lexicon to libri Etruscorum on the ritual foundation of cities (358.21F rituales). Frier and others have drawn attention to the 'Augustan reorganization' of such writings. 60 Furthermore, as B o n a notes, there is a significant emphasis on sacred law in the Lexicon, often derived from the works of late Republican and early imperial scholars such as Ateius Capito, Veranius, Antistius Labeo, and Messalla. 6 1 One work in particular stands out in connection with the 'Augustan programme', and that is Verrius' authorship (confirmed by Suetonius) of the Fasti Praenestini, an annotated calendar of Roman religious festivals into which are neatly slotted events in the career of Augustus {e.g., under 13th January, the statement that Augustus had restored the res publico)?1 One of m a n y painted or inscribed calendars set up in Italy during the Augustan and Tiberian periods, the Fasti Praenestini was erected between c. A D 6-10 at Praeneste in Latium, more than likely Verrius' place of origin. (For what it is worth, a number of Lexicon entries relate to Praeneste - perhaps m o r e than to any other Italian town.) The calendar had a prominent setting in the forum of Praeneste, close to a statue of the author himself; it was Verrius' monimentum in almost every sense of the word. 63 If, as seems likely, the monument was paid for by Verrius and dedicated to Augustus, we have an example of Verrius deliberately associating himself with the emperor and his policies in a way that is 'set in stone'. Comparison of the Fasti Praenestini with the Lexicon reveals no clear points of contact, although that may be chance, given that both are so fragmentary. W e can suppose that Verrius b e c a m e interested in writing about the Fasti during his compilation of the Lexicon, which includes a number of calendrical and festival entries. 64 M o m m s e n , instead, suggested that the Fasti Praenestini was connected with a literary work by Verrius on the Roman calendar. 6 5 There is no evidence for a book, but the genesis of the m o n u m e n t a l Fasti is likely to have b e e n a text of s o m e sort. It is possible that Ovid used such a redaction for his own poetical version of the calendar, which also dates to the first decade of the first century A D ( O v i d ' s

60 Frier, Libri annales (n. 58, above) 37, n. 18; cf. W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford 1971)26-27. 61 Bona, Opusculum Festinum 8. 62 Suet., De gramm. 17.4: Statuam habet Praeneste, in superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat. 63 Note 123.7P: Monimentum est, quod et mortui causa aedificatum est et quicquid ob memoriam alicuius factum est utfana, porticus, scripta et carmina. Sed monimentum quamvis mortui causa sit factum non tamen significat ibi sepultum: 'A monimentum is something which is built for the sake of a dead person and indeed whatever is created on account of the memory of someone, such as shrines or porticoes, or things written and sung. But a monimentum, although it is created for the sake of a dead person, does not however mean that the person is buried there.' 64 E. Fantham, Ovid: Fasti book IV (Cambridge 1998) 29, suggests that Verrius was inspired by Caesar's calendrical reforms. 65 CIL I2 285; A. Degrassi, Inscriptions Italiae XIÏÏ.2 (Rome 1963) 107-45; A. K. Michels, The calendar of the Roman republic (Princeton 1967) 7-9; F. Coarelli, // monumento di Verrio Flacco nelforo di Preneste (Palestrina 1987). Following Mommsen: Kaster, Suetonius (n. 52, above) 196; A. WallaceHadrill, Time for Augustus: Ovid, Augustus and the Fasti', in Homo viator: classical essays for John Bramble, eds M. Whitby, P. Hardie, and Mary Whitby (Bristol 1987) 221-30 (227).

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

27

interest in etymology certainly reflects a major concern of the Lexicon). 66 At any rate, both works demonstrate the strong contemporary appeal of work on the Roman calendar. Similar exercises include the inscribing of the Fasti Capitolini (18-17 BC) and Fasti triumphales, on an arch in the Forum Romanum; the lists of members of priesdy colleges set up near the Arch of Augustus; and the elogia of the Forum of Augustus, completed in 2 BC.67 Such activities (and similarly the Augustan 'restoration' of religious institutions) are likely to have required the touch of an antiquarian or two.68 Crisis, nostalgia and heritage under Augustus: the role of antiquarians in constructing the past and building the future The Augustan 'restoration' involved modifications not only to Roman social and religious institutions, but also to me urban fabric. No one needs reminding that Augustus made strenuous efforts to highlight those aspects of the past which suited his needs - efforts which reached their greatest physical expression with the Forum of Augustus. Displayed in this monumental setting were sculptures of Aeneas escaping from Troy with Ascanius, Anchises and the Penates; the Alban kings; Romulus as the first winner of the spolia Opima; and Republican heroes. Presented alongside them were Augustus' own mythical and human ancestors, and near relations such as his nephew Marcellus. 69 This and the building work undertaken in the heart of Rome (the Basilica Iulia, the Curia, the temple of Divus Iulius, and so on) emphasized the restoration of the old city, even as it transformed it into the new one. These activities are clearly related to a period of intense historical thinking, and as such are frequendy linked to the writing of Livy's history. Feldherr for example compares Augustus' activities with Livy's 'similarly ambitious attempt at creating a unified and comprehensive picture of the totality of the Roman state'. 70 But Livy is an ambiguous figure, and it may be that explicit connections between the history of the city and the cityscape are better seen in the work of antiquarians such as Verrius. In fact, Roman topography forms one of the major categories of material in the Lexicon. In linking specific monuments with the men (usually men) associated with them, interconnecting Rome the city and Roman history, Verrius 66 Cf. H. Winther, De fastis Verrii Flacci ab Ovidio adhibitis (Berlin 1885). The idea is championed by, amongst others, Fantham, Ovid (n. 64, above) 30 (and elsewhere), but disputed by G. HerbertBrown in her BMCR review of Fantham, on the basis of disagreements between the two authors, and the respective dates of their works: 'Ovid's was either written first, or the two calendars were composed concurrently' (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-02-01 .html). 67 Frier, Libri annales (n. 58, above) 199; at 198, he notes that the Fasti Capitolini and Acta Triumphalia 'betray the touch of learned editors, utterly anonymous in history'. 68 Frier, Libri annales (n. 58, above) 199: 'To the antiquarians of Augustus must doubtless be attributed the modes under which obsolete religious and political institutions were progressively recalled to life; the Arval Brethren, reorganized by Augustus as their chief, are the most famous example of this archaism'. 69 On the monumental area: M. Spannagel, Exemplaria principis. Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums (Heidelberg 1999). On the accompanying elogia: A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.3. Elogia (Rome 1937); see now CIL 6.8.3, nos. 40931ff. 70 A. Feldherr, 'Livy's revolution: civic identity and the creation of the respublica\ in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 136-57 (136).

28

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

employs topography as a way of conceptualizing Rome's past.71 Around 150 lemmas relate to buildings or areas of the city of Rome and the myths or historical events connected to them - they are, so to speak, the loci classici of the Roman historical tradition. Not surprizingly, this age of crisis saw a strong interest in origins, and a surge of nostalgia, that is, the idealization and mythologization of the past in contrast to the present. 72 Nostalgia often encourages attempts at appropriating (imitating and redeploying) elements of the past, as with the 'restoration' (often, actually, invention) of 'ancient traditions', to rebuild confidence in the present. In this period of fragile stability, Rome's buildings and monuments, with their durability and sense of place, formed tangible connections with the past. They became (to use Lowenthal's words) 'the chief catalyst of collective historical identity'. 73 Embodying 'social memory' - group experiences, shared conceptions of the past and its relationship with the present - they linked both together, and played a vital role in the creation and maintenance of identity.74 Augustus' management of what would now be called the 'heritage' of Rome involved a programme of restoration and reconstruction that was in reality an appropriation of ancient monuments as part of the affirmation of his political ideologies. In so doing, he helped build new identities for Rome and for tota Italia. Zanker has illustrated the embodiment of the Augustan message in visual imagery; but this was an intellectual enterprise too. 75 The relics 'saved' through antiquarian inquiry enhanced a sense of history, linking past and present. The Augustan period was undoubtedly a period of conflicting emotions and attitudes (relief for some; for others, nervousness and uncertainty). Nostalgia as a result of feelings of doubt about their present period of crisis are exemplified in poets such as Horace, 76 as well as in

71 A majority of these entries relate to the archaic or early Republican period: e.g. 372.8F Sacram viam (the treaty between Romulus and Titus Tatius); 184.19F niger lapis (Romulus' death or disappearance); 380.5F sororium tigillum (the Horatian and Curiatian triplets, and the killing of Horatia by her brother); 168.2F navia (Tarquinius Priscus and the augur Amis Navius); 450.4F Sceleratus vi<cus> (desecration of Servius Tullius' body by his daughter); 486.12F Tuscum vicum (the Vicus Tuscus is named after Etruscans remaining at Rome after Porsenna's departure); 450.8F Scele (the destruction of the Fabian gens at the river Cremera). And so on. Discussion of mid- to late-Republican monuments is lesser, but not lacking, e.g. 354.25F (Hannibal's siege of Rome); 276.3F Publicius clivus (the paving for vehicles of this slope by L. and M. Publicius Malleolus); 270.16 plebeiae pudicitiae (the foundation of the shrine of Plebeian Chastity by Verginia). 72 D. Lowenthal, 'Nostalgia tells it like it wasn't', in The imagined past: history and nostalgia, eds C. Shaw and M. Chase (Manchester 1989) 18-32. As pointed out by M. Chase and C. Shaw, The dimensions of nostalgia', in The imagined past 1-17 (3), nostalgia often derives from a sense of the déficiences of the present. 73 D. Lowenthal, The pastis a foreign country (Cambridge 1985) 389. 74 cf. S. Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek past: landscape, monuments and memories (Cambridge 2002) on how landscapes and monuments (and the histories they acquire as they age, are altered, destroyed, or rebuilt) provide a focus for social memory. 75 P. Zanker, The power of images in the age of Augustus (Ann Arbor, Michigan 1988); Augustus' programme for 'healing' Roman society involved the 'renewal of religion and custom' (101), and an appeal to the past in order to legitimize his authority. 76 Horace, Carm. 3.6 (written in the early 20s BC), famously idealizes the primitive Roman past of hardworking peasant-soldiers, and is fearful of renewed civil wars. Cf. E. Fantham, 'Images of the city:

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

29

Livy's history. Livy desires 'to avert [his] gaze from the troubles which our age has been witnessing', and can do this by being 'absorbed in remembering the good old days' (Praef. 5) (although he contrasts his own nostalgic desires with the attitudes of his readers, who may be keener to read about the recent past: Praef. 4). The interest in looking back encouraged this creation of new identities. A new sense of being Roman, a new sense of civic (and imperial) identity was formed from the gathering and concentration (in some senses the creation) of knowledge about the past fostered by the Augustan regime. But these new forms of identity were not limited to 'Romans of Rome'. Augustus was certainly aware that the support of the peoples of Italy was crucial to his success: his own background, and that of close allies (Maecenas, Agrippa), was in Italy, and the ideology of tota Italia came to be celebrated in art and literature. The importance of Italy is firmly demonstrated by Verrius' work. In most other respects highly Rome-focussed, the Lexicon includes a substantial number of lemmas on the mythology, history, topography and customs of Italian towns and peoples (around 100 surviving entries in Festus and Paul). Momigliano once commented that we need to try to understand 'where and on what occasions and by what kind of people books of history were written and read' - in other words, we need to think about audiences, from those immediately addressed, down to present ones.77 The same is true of antiquarian works. Perhaps Verrius was not intentionally directing his work at a wider Italian audience, but the flood of Italians, and soon others, forming the new imperial elite sought to identify themselves with Rome. One way of achieving this was by familiarization with Rome's cultural and historical heritage, through which their Romanness (and their Italianness?) could be defined, in a socio-cultural environment which still remained highlyfragmented.The work of antiquarians such as Verrius provided a means to this end. It was in a sense a two-way mirror. Through the Lexicon, Italians could acquaint themselves with the historical, cultural and topographical landscape of the Urbs, and see thenown historical and cultural background integrated with it, in a way that - unlike in historical works such as Livy's - did not draw attention to resistance, defeat and conquest, but, rather, implicitly focussed on equality and integration. Antiquarians and the control of knowledge It is unlikely that Augustus actually had pet antiquarians like Verrius write specifically for such purposes. Yet it has been argued that, for the emperor, control of knowledge was crucial at this period. Wallace-Hadrill suggests that Augustus' appropriation of political power coincides with and depends upon codification of knowledge about Rome and her institutions that made this information uniform, capable of dissemination, and independent of the social authority of the nobiles. Antiquarian activity is one area where the model he proposes - the relocation of

Propertius' new-old Rome', in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 122-35 (124): 'the poetic city Propertius creates is a nostalgic counterpart of Augustus' physical creation of the new monuments'. 77 A. Momigliano, 'The historians of the classical world and their audiences: some suggestions', ASNP ser. 3, 8.1 (1978) 59-75 = Sesto contributo alia storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico I (Rome 1980)361-76(376).

30

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

authority from the Republican ruling class to the emperor - appears to fit rather well. 78 Deliberately or not, the employment of antiquarians assists the consolidation of political power. Why antiquarians? Perhaps because these specialists were now becoming the 'guardians and interpreters' of Rome's heritage, capable of providing a guide to past practice, in place of members of the old governing class, which had suffered so heavily in the Civil Wars. The massive turnover of elites (the former bearers of knowledge) meant that, for the maintenance of tradition, some other person or group had to manage the dissemination of knowledge. 79 Perhaps, too, because these new specialists were themselves controllable. As Wallace-Hadrill observes, 'the lowly social status of the academic makes it easier for Augustus to incorporate them within his own household; and in a massive and pervasive "restoration" of tradition defined by antiquarian learning, he associates his authority with theirs'. 80 Centralization of knowledge in the hands of experts was one means of asserting control over the past, and thereby bolstering the power of those who controlled the experts. As Feeney shows (for Roman religion), while knowledge - and the control of knowledge - are 'inextricable elements' of power, each new systematization of knowledge brings 'new configurations', reshaping 'imaginative and intellectual possibilities', and altering forms of behaviour. 81 That is exactly what Verrius helps do, when he breaks with tradition and organizes his Lexicon alphabetically - probably the first Latin work to be arranged in this way. The rise of specialists is not so much a deliberate attempt by Augustus to control information, but part of an ongoing process of social differentiation, one which actually 78 A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Mutatio morum: the idea of a cultural revolution', in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 3-22 (11); cf. 7:~the Augustan restoration 'involves a fundamental relocation and redefinition of authority'. He sees links 'between the refashioning of political authority on the one hand, and the refashioning of moral, social and cultural authority on the other'. 79 Rawson, Intellectual life (n. 54, above) 93: 'Antiquarianism of various kinds, though it had deep roots in grammatica because of the need to understand ancient documents, was also important to members of the governing class, guardians and interpreters of Roman tradition, which they were anxious to explore and sometimes to revive. Sometimes the subject was pursued by lawyers, concerned with legal antiquities, sometimes by priests, concerned with religious ones - and priests, of course, were drawn from the very highest nobility.' Momigliano has pointed to the divergence between men of the elite who dominated intellectual discussion during the Caesarean period, and those who represented the age of Augustus, poets, historians, lawyers and antiquarians: A. Momigliano, The theological efforts of the Roman upper classes in the first century BC\ CP 79 (1984) 199-211, 210-11. 80 Wallace-Hadrill, kMutatio morum' (n. 78, above) 14. 81 D. Feeney, Literature and religion at Rome: cultures, contexts, and beliefs (Cambridge 1998) 137, 142; and quoting J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and change in Roman religion (Oxford 1979) 89: 'the most important long-term effect of the Augustan revival was literary, a reshaping of the religious imagination of the Romans as a result of the religious colouring of Roman literature'. Feeney writes (139): 'religious knowledge had always been the prerogative of the citizenry's elite; now, with a new aristocracy emerging from the hugely expanded citizenry of Italy after the Social War, there was a new market for these prestigious appurtenances of citizenship', and a larger stage for the display of this knowledge. On this new literary output (works on augury, astrology, etc.) see Rawson, Intellectual life (n. 54, above) chapter 20. Frier, Libri annales (n. 58, above) 199 has also noted the interest of the Augustan regime in the control of history, exemplified by what he calls the 'neutralization' of the pontifical chronicle. However, it is important to observe that although interest in writing on Roman religion intensifies towards the end of the Republic, it actually begins during the second century BC.

FAY GLINISTER: CONSTRUCTING THE PAST

31

begins in the late Republic. And it is not so much that the old elite is taking its knowledge to the grave, but that intellectual activities cause new systems of knowledge to e m e r g e , whose makers - such as Varro or Verrius - are enabled to dominate knowledge. 82 V e r r i u s ' use of partial alphabetization certainly does not make life easier for his readers; it is not a democratization of information, but rather, while showing the Lexicon's audience a new way of structuring k n o w l e d g e of their city and its history, it displays and enhances V e r r i u s ' own control of the material. But control of knowledge and the disempowering of non-specialists is the effect of antiquarian work, not its original purpose. As Lowenthal points out, 'any treatment of the past, however circumspect, invariably alters it', even without 'conscious i n t e n t ' . " T h e 'relocation of authority' is as much due to actual antiquarian activities as it is to whatever Augustus might or might not have been trying to achieve through his employment of these experts. And perhaps the real relocation of authority, as with knowledge, is from person to p a g e . W e can return now to Varro and Verrius. In her contribution to this volume, Marie-Karine L h o m m é a r g u e s that Varro is cited so rarely in the Lexicon because Verrius wanted to distinguish himself from his predecessor, the breadth and originality of whose learned works permanently overshadowed that of all later writers. I believe that V a r r o ' s work comprehensively underlies the Lexicon, but that Verrius felt no need to validate his arguments by constantly referencing the great man, because, although working in the Varronian tradition, he had a different agenda, and sought a means of describing Roman culture different from that of the author on whom he so depended. An innovative and distinctive work in its sheer size and comprehensiveness, but above all in its organization, the Lexicon was an enterprise conceptually a n d stylistically so different from the works of Varro, that it immediately set itself and its author apart, creating for both a special niche in the history of scholarship. 8 4 T h e late Republican and Augustan periods saw intense efforts at gathering a n d reorganizing knowledge relating to R o m e ' s society and history. This new spirit called for n e w forms of storage and retrieval of information, to which Verrius responded. But his system actually p r o b l e m a t i z e d the means of obtaining information about the city. In some ways this fits W a l l a c e - H a d r i U ' s cultural revolution, with its 'relocation of authority' from the Republican ruling class to Augustus, by means of appropriation and control of knowledge. Varro was a member of the old elite; Verrius is a freedman with close imperial connections, and perhaps too an imperial agenda. In something so simple as the layout of a work, are we witnessing a seac h a n g e ? D o e s Verrius' Lexicon form part of an attempt to 'specialize' antiquarian learning

82 Feeney, Literature and religion (n. 81, above), 140, citing N. Horsfall, 'Varro', in The Cambridge history of classical literature II. Latin literature, eds E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen (Cambridge 1982)286-90(287). 83 Lowenthal, The past is a foreign country (n. 73, above) 264, 325. 84 'The first systematic attempt... to form an alphabetical encyclopaedia of interpretation, grammar, and antiquities*, in contrast to the more limited work (confined to separate subjects or authors) of earlier writers, according to Nettleship, 'Verrius Flaccus (I)' (n. 10, above) 268; his work 'was never superseded or displaced except by abridgments of itself (269).

32

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

even more strongly than before, to usurp and 'control' tradition?85 Or does it set out, instead, to place what must become the shared culture of the city of Rome (and remember that the focus of the work remains firmly on the city) into the hands of the new Italian and imperial elites? Only by setting the Lexicon and its author(s) into their proper historical context are we are able to understand more fully the dynamics of the text and the rationale behind it. Whether it can be interpreted as a straightforward representation of Augustan ideology, forming part of the 'organization of opinion' (to use Syme's phrase), is debatable, although it can be seen to reflect intense efforts to rethink and rework Rome and Roman culture - what really mattered? what was considered worth thinking about and recording? - and to construct and transmit historical knowledge, as well as shared conceptions of the past, in new forms. This kind of antiquarian scholarship can be understood as one way Romans had of ordering the world around them, and of assimilating the traditions and cultures of other peoples. For antiquarian authors, knowledge of the past played a role in helping them understand and define their social and political identity, as well as defining Roman culture. And it is a definition very much of its time. Verrius' conception of Rome begins with Aeneas, and continues down to and includes the reign of Augustus - there are references to the activities of Octavia and Agrippa as well as Augustus himself.86 At this point, it seems, the material is frozen. Festus and Paul add virtually nothing - their Rome is the Rome of the Augustan Age, past history, past knowledge (even if it is, at least for Festus, still culturally relevant to his own era and being). For Verrius, in contrast, and despite his status as an 'antiquarian' (often taken as a synonym for someone interested only in obscure and out of use material), Augustus forms part of the great continuum, the unbroken chain, of Roman history. Verrius' work encompasses a still-living tradition, a celebration of the places, people and customs which continued to characterize the Rome of his time. Today, we are probably more self-conscious about the past and its difference from the present; but for Verrius, past and present belong together.

85 cf. Wallace-Hadrill, 'Mutatio morutri (n. 78, above) 17, on the Caesarean and Augustan calendar reforms, which placed it in the hands of experts, 'beyond religious and political control'. 86 cf. n. 53, above.

2. VARRON ET VERRIUS AU 2ÈME SIÈCLE APRÈS JÉSUS-CHRIST MARIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ Le De verborum significatu de Verrius Flaccus, œuvre de l'époque augustéenne, ne nous est parvenu que par le résumé qu'en fit Festus, sans doute au 2ème s. apr. J.-C.1 Nous ne pouvons que nous limiter à des hypothèses pour ce qui est de la part d'intervention de Festus sur l'ouvrage de son illustre prédécesseur. En tant qu'abréviateur, il a vraisemblablement éliminé des articles entiers du lexique précédent, et abrégé ceux qu'il a conservés. Et parmi les informations ainsi disparues, il y a de bonnes chances que figurent les sources où Verrius avait puisé ses renseignements, et les exemples littéraires attestant l'utilisation d'un mot rare ou ancien. Festus ne semble pas avoir ajouté beaucoup de citations et tous les noms cités auraient pu l'être déjà par Verrius Flaccus, aux exceptions notables de Martial (506.16P vespae et vespillones), Lucain (31.13P bardas) et Saint Paul (32.14P barbari), qui se trouvent tous trois dans des articles préservés uniquement par le nouveau résumé de Paul Diacre. Même sans oublier les pertes liées à l'entreprise d'abréviation de Festus, certaines statistiques demeurent troublantes. Les divers antiquaires cités ne sont bien souvent connus que par des fragments, dont la moitié au moins provient de Festus (Annexe I). Les Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta de Funaioli montrent clairement cette dépendance.2 Certains auteurs, tel Appius Claudius Pulcher, ne sont même cités que par Festus. Varron occupe une place étonnante dans ces citations: sur les 461 fragments rapportés par Funaioli, seuls 22 sont des citations provenant de Festus. Des auteurs moins prestigieux, tels Aelius Gallus (22 à 36 fois) ou L. Cincius (23 fois) sont cités presque aussi souvent que lui. Le nom de Verrius, probablement mentionné par Festus pour indiquer que son prédécesseur émettait une opinion personnelle, apparaît 49 fois. Or, J. Collart montre par un court tableau que dans Quintilien ou Aulu Gelle, Varron est cité à lui seul autant de fois que tous les autres grammairiens réunis.3 Dans Charisius, il représente le tiers des citations, et dans Priscien, un quart. Dans les recueils de Funaioli et de Mazzarino, Varron arrive largement en tête du

1 Je désignerai par la suite sous le nom de De verborum significatu l'ouvrage original de Verrius Flaccus, d'après le témoignage d'Aulu Gelle, et sous celui de De verborum significatione le résumé de Festus, d'après le manuscrit du Farnesianus et le titre de la plupart des éditions (à l'exception étonnante de celle de Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi). 2 H. Funaioli, Grammaticae RomanaefragmentaI (Leipzig 1907; réimpr. Stuttgart 1969). 3 J. Collart, Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine (Paris 1978) 3. 33

34

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

nombre de fragments cités dans des œuvres grammaticales diverses avec 461 citations.4 Pline l'Ancien n'est cité que 128 fois, Aelius Stilo 78, Nigidius Figulus 47, et Verrius Flaccus 35. Tous ces chiffres montrent la place prépondérante et l'autorité de Vairon dans des ouvrages de grammairiens ou d'antiquaires qui ont suivi son époque, et surtout sa sous-représentation dans Festus et vraisemblablement déjà dans Verrius. Ce constat avait servi de point de départ à une disserîaîio philologica de Robert Kriegshammer,5 qui s'étonnait surtout que le De lingua Latina ne soit pas cité une seule fois.6 Sa dissertation repose sur plusieurs analyses: la comparaison entre les citations que Verrius et Varron font d'une source commune, Aelius Stilo (77-83), le relevé des citations où le nom de Varron apparaît sans titre (83-87), les citations des Aniiquiîaîes rerum humanarum et divinarum que font Varron lui-même (dans le De lingua Latina) et Verrius (87-100), les comparaisons entre les gloses de Verrius et ce qu'il nous reste des livres 5 et 6 du De lingua Latina (100-116), et la même chose pour le livre 7, sur les poètes (116-21). La conclusion de ces recensions et de ces observations (12122) était que Verrius n'avait pas puisé au De lingua Latina, mais que les passages communs provenaient en fait de sources communes, Aelius Stilo, Aurelius Opilus et les Antiquitaîes. À l'occasion d'une étude thématique sur les mots de la divination dans le lexique de Festus, A. Grandazzi souligne les ressemblances entre les informations données par Festus et celles du De lingua Latina sur le même sujet, mais voit dans l'absence de citation nominale de Varron une 'discrétion préméditée' :7 Verrius remonterait plutôt à la source, en citant des 'techniciens', qu'à la synthèse varronienne.8 Les textes du De lingua Latina et des Antiquitaîes sont malheureusement tous deux fragmentaires, tout comme le résumé de Festus. Les comparaisons entre Verrius et Varron vont donc être, par la force des choses, limitées à ce qu'il nous reste de texte chez ces deux auteurs. Le résumé de Paul est particulièrement gênant car son texte supprime presque systématiquement les références de son modèle, et remanie parfois profondément l'original. Lorsque Varron meurt, en 27 av. J.-C, Verrius Flaccus peut déjà avoir commencé sa carrière de grammairien. Selon les dates de naissance communément admises pour Varron et Verrius, 60 ans seulement les sépareraient: les deux hommes sont très rapprochés dans le temps et ont eu chacun l'occasion de proposer leurs services à des hommes importants, tels Pompée, à qui Varron dédie son Eisagogicon, ou Auguste, qui confie l'éducation de ses petits-enfants à Verrius. La renommée de Varron est déjà immense quand Verrius entreprend

4 A. Mazzarino, Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta aetatis caesareae I (Turin 1955, réimpr. Rome 1964). 5 R. Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verrii fontibus (1903). 6 Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verrii fontibus 11. Déjà, dans l'introduction à son édition de Festus, Millier, Sexti Pompei Festi xxix-xxx remarquait l'absence étonnante du De lingua Latina et la préférence donnée aux Antiquitaîes. 7 A. Grandazzi, "'Intermortua iam et sepulta verba" (Festus, 242L). Les mots de la divination chez Verrius Flaccus. Première partie. Il vocabulario délia divinazione nel De verborum signifîcatu di Verrio Flacco', RPh 67 (1993) 57-73; id.t '"Intermortua iam et sepulta verba" (Festus, 242L): Les mots de la divination chez Verrius Flaccus. Seconde partie. Il vocabulario délia divinazione nel De verborum signifîcatu di Verrio Flacco (11)', RPh 67 (1993) 263-85. 8 Grandazzi, '"Intermortua iam et sepulta verba". Seconde partie' (cité, n. 7) 267-70.

MARIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERR1US

35

son De verborum significant, et il convient tout d'abord de voir quelle place il lui réserve dans l'ouvrage. La comparaison entre les prestiges des deux auteurs au 2ùmc s. apr. J.-C. se fera ensuite essentiellement à travers l'exemple d'Aulu Gelle, qui les cite tous deux, pour des ouvrages variés, et, bien sûr, de Festus, qui compile Verrius à la même époque. Varron et Verrius Flaccus à l'époque de Verrius Les citations de Varron sont donc relativement peu nombreuses dans le De verborum significaîu. Elles se trouvent réparties dans les première et deuxième parties des lettres concernées. Les cinq citations des Antiquitates sont toutes dans les deuxièmes parties: 150.36F murrata potione (livre 1); 290.16F pro censu et 290.27F praerogativae centuriae se suivent presque, et se rapportent toutes deux au livre 6 des Antiquitates rerum humanarum', 472.9F suffragato (livre 7) est assez éloigné de 474.36F septimontio (livre 8). Deux autres citations, 478.22F Tauri ludi et 478.34F Talassionem, se suivent dans les praemissae glossae de la lettre T. Malheureusement, donc, ces références sont trop dispersées pour en tirer quelques lois générales. Selon le résumé que fait Bona dans les tableaux de son Opusculum Festinum des recherches de ses prédécesseurs sur les secondes parties de chaque lettre, les citations des Antiquitates - sans mention de la source - seraient nombreuses et disposées régulièrement dans les parties thématiques du lexique: il distingue ainsi des groupes de gloses sur la géographie (Varron, livre 11 des Antiquitates rerum humanarum), sur l'armée (livre indéterminé des Antiquitates rerum humanarum), sur Rome (livre 8 des Antiquitates rerum humanarum), sur les magistrats (livre indéterminé des Antiquitates rerum humanarum), sur les prénoms et les noms (De praenominibus et cognominibus). L'immense majorité des citations de Varron ne pose pas de problèmes particuliers (cf. Annexe II, textes 1, 2, 3). Varron est généralement cité seul, parfois confirmé (texte 4) par d'autres érudits (Sinnius Capito et Cincius). Cependant, deux citations sont nettement critiques. Le texte 5 (290.27F praerogativae centuriae) commence comme d'autres articles où l'opinion de Varron est rapportée, mais Verrius propose ensuite sa propre interprétation comme plus probable (probabilius). Dans le texte 6 (408.14F sus Minervam), les récits de Varron et d'Euhémère (ou de Varron citant Euhémère?) ne sont pas rapportés, mais remis en question. Ces quelques remarques devraient être approfondies par une étude plus systématique des discours de Varron et de Verrius. Le problème est que lorsqu'une notice est particulièrement développée chez l'un, on n'a parfois plus que Paul chez l'autre, et lorsqu'une notice nous intéresse chez Festus, il y dans le De lingua Latina de Varron un renvoi à un développement plus important dans les Antiquitates. Seront donc privilégiés ici quelques articles déjà étudiés par des chercheurs modernes (Annexe III). Parmi ces notices, 222.6F Orcum: Festus fait remarquer à ce propos que Verrius Flaccus n'a pas apporté de preuve d'une ancienne forme Urgum pour confirmer son étymologie (Orcus dérivé dyurgeo). L'étymologie de Varron semblait elle faire appel à moins d'évolutions phonétiques.

36

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Septimontium (Annexe III, texte 2), étudié par Poucet en I960,9 fait ressortir deux listes différentes de montes chez Varron et chez Verrius, qui cite Antistius Labeo. Varron rattache le nom de la fête aux sept collines, faisant de Septimontium un composé du numéral sept. Mais Antistius, cité par Festus (474.36F), ainsi qu'un autre article du De verborum significatione (d'après 459.IP) en mentionnent huit, dont le Capitole, cité pourtant par Varron, ne fait pas partie, et ne proposent pas de semblable tentative étymologique (ou alors à partir de saepti-1). Poucet semblait penser que la version d'Antistius était plus ancienne et plus fiable. Dans le troisième exemple, étudié par J. Loicq,10 tout paraît identique, hormis la forme du nom de la fête; ecurria avec c pour Varron, equirria avec q pour Verrius (71.15P). Loicq y voit la volonté de Varron de donner une forme authentique et ancienne du nom de la fête, alors que Verrius reprend la forme donnée par les calendriers. C'est cette fois Varron qui semble remonter à la forme ancienne. Le quatrième exemple, celui du nom du mois Februarius (75.23P), n'est pas très fiable, car Varron (LL 6.34; cf. 6.13) renvoie à un développement des Antiquitates rerum divinarum que nous ne possédons plus, et que Festus n'est cité que par Paul (75.23P). Mais Varron commence par rapporter l'opinion de ses prédécesseurs, faisant dériver le nom du mois ab diis inferis. Il présente ensuite son opinion (ego), opinion reprise presque mot pour mot chez Paul, sans mention de l'auteur. S'ajoute un développement, chez Paul, sur Junon Februata, déesse mentionnée seulement trois fois chez les anciens. Était-elle citée par ailleurs chez Varron? Le cinquième exemple montre Festus privilégiant l'étymologie d'Aelius Stilo, le maître de Varron, aux dépens de celle de Varron, pour miles (109.22P). Ce raisonnement, bien sûr, ne prend en compte que quelques échantillons. Il est possible que Verrius Flaccus ait eu besoin de se distinguer de son illustre prédécesseur. Il serait intéressant de faire une exploration plus systématique des définitions et etymologies proposées par les deux hommes pour cerner leurs centres d'intérêt, et vérifier si Verrius Flaccus conteste souvent la version varronienne, ou, du moins, s'il s'applique à rapporter d'autres opinions que celles de Varron. c Aux 41 livres des Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum pourraient correspondre les 40 livres au moins du De verborum signification de Verrius Flaccus, sur des sujets parfois voisins. Les ouvrages se distinguent d'abord par leur organisation: les Antiquitates de Varron présentent un classement thématique rigoureux, alors que le De verborum signification a un statut assez incertain, tantôt alphabétique, tantôt thématique. L'ouvrage de Verrius Flaccus, d'après quelques explorations thématiques en matière de religion romaine, est bien occupé par des préoccupations assez récentes, celles de retrouver la forme ancienne de certains cultes, ce qui se voit par exemple dans la fête du Septimontium. Sont mis en valeur des ouvrages d'auteurs contemporains de Verrius, tels Antistius Labeo ou Ateius Capito, dont les noms apparaissent au total 21 fois. Cette exploration pourrait déboucher sur une remise en question de certaines conjectures des éditeurs de Festus: si Verrius Flaccus veut proposer d'autres informations que Varron, mieux vaut peut-être hésiter à vouloir compléter Festus à l'aide de Varron, et en particulier

9 J. Poucet, 'Le Septimontium et la Succusa chez Festus et Varron. Un problème d'histoire et de topographie romaines', BIBR 32 (1960) 25-73. 10 J. Loicq, 'Le témoignage de Varron sur les "Ecurria"', Latomus 23 (1964) 491 -501.

\RIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS

37

à l'aide du De lingua Latina. Verrius Flaccus en tout cas connaît les ouvrages de Varron, qu'il cite à plusieurs reprises, et les connaît peut-être d'autant mieux qu'il cherche à s'en distinguer. Mais Verrius a-t-il réussi à imposer son œuvre au détriment de celle du grand maître Varron? Au 2ùnc s. en effet, un homme qui demeure pour nous un inconnu, Festus, entreprend d'abréger l'immense De verborum significaîu, qui aura la postérité que l'on sait - alors que les Antiquitates sont presque entièrement perdues, sauf par le résumé qu'en fit S. Augustin. Autrement dit: Festus agissait-il à contre-courant en faisant son De verborum significationel Varron et Verrius à l'époque de Festus Un court tableau (Annexe IV) permet de voir où Verrius est cité, à partir de l'époque augustéenne. Les titres soulignés sont ceux qui sont explicitement cités, les autres n'étant que de simples hypothèses lues çà et là dans les ouvrages des chercheurs. On suppose qu'Ovide, pour son poème des Fasti, s'est inspiré des Fastes mentionnés par Suétone. Pline place Verrius au nombre de ses sources, en tête pour le livre 7 de la Naturalis historia. Aulu-Gelle est l'un des rares auteurs, avec Macrobe, plus tardif, à utiliser plusieurs ouvrages de Verrius à la fois. On peut constater, en tout cas, qu'au 2ùme s. apr. J.-C, Verrius n'est cité que par la notice de Suétone (De grammaîicis), Aulu-Gelle, et Festus lui-même. Porphyrion, dont la date est incertaine, donne une seule définition d'après Verrius et Festus. Cette citation se trouve chez Charisius qui cite Porphyrion citant Verrius et Festus, mais qui utilise plutôt par ailleurs, semble-t-il, le De orthographia du savant augustéen. Verrius est mentionné trois fois dans l'œuvre de Suétone. Ce dernier ne remet pas en cause l'autorité de Varron, mais l'évoque peu car son objectif est de parler de grammairiens qui sont des esclaves ou des affranchis. Les hommes libres, Varron, Nigidius, ne trouvent donc pas leur place dans ces notices. Mais on y perçoit l'influence dont a joui Verrius, qui se vit confier la charge des petits-enfants d'Auguste, et qui eut sa statue à Préneste, où il fit graver des Fastes. Suétone mentionne rarement les œuvres des grammairiens qu'il décrit, mais les Fasti ont retenu son attention, sans doute à cause de la statue qui y est liée. Il est également cité dans deux autres biographies de grammairiens, dans celle de Crassicius Pansa, dont la renommée est comparée à celle de Verrius Flaccus, et dans celle d'Aphrodisius, qui a attaqué violemment Verrius, notamment pour ses mœurs. Verrius est mentionné six fois dans les Nodes Atticae\ Varron l'est 84 fois, d'après le relevé de Collart11 - il y a 82 citations d'autres grammairiens que Varron: c'est-à-dire que Verrius est bien loin derrière son prestigieux prédécesseur. Bien plus, lorsqu'Aulu-Gelle cite les plus grands savants de Rome de l'époque de Cicéron et de César, il associe à plusieurs reprises Varron et Nigidius Figulus (par exemple en NA 19.14). Nigidius Figulus, préteur en 59 av. J.-C, ami de Cicéron, exilé par César en 45, est l'auteur de monographies dont les sujets doivent encore une fois recouper les centres d'intérêt de Verrius: De diis, Augurii privati libri, De extis ... Or, dans ce que nous avons conservé du De verborum significaîu, Nigidius n'est jamais nommément cité. Sur les 46 extraits de Funaioli, 27 proviennent d'AuluGelle qui fait de très longues citations. Mais Aulu-Gelle dit également que Nigidius est souvent obscur, alors que les ouvrages de Varron sont familiers et d'usage général (NA 19.14). Il se décrit lui-même comme 'sans cesse plongé dans les livres de M. Varro' (adsiduus 11 Collart, Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine (cité, n. 3).

38

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

in libris Marci Varronis, NA 13.13). Sur les 84 citations qu'il fait de Varron, il semblerait n'y en avoir que deux de critiques. Dans la première, en NA 1.18, Aulu-Gelle cite Varron, qui critique son maître Aelius Stilo à propos de certaines etymologies. Mais au yeux d'AuluGelle, il commet lui-même la même erreur quand il fait venir le nom du voleur (fur) defurvus (noir). Cependant, à la fin du chapitre, Aulu-Gelle trouve quelques excuses à Varron et ne remet pas en question sa valeur. Dans le deuxième exemple, en NA 1. 25, les deux définitions trouvées chez Varron pour le mot indutiae (embûches) sont qualifiées d"astucieuses et heureuses par leur concision plutôt que claires et satisfaisantes' (lepidae magis atque iucundae brevitatis uîraque definitio quam plana aut proba). Un peu plus loin, Aulu-Gelle dit que la tâche de Varron n'était pas de définir 'indutiae' trop scrupuleusement. Or, lorsqu'Aulu-Gelle cite Verrius, il ne prend pas autant de précautions pour le remettre en question. En Annexe V sont reproduits des extraits des six citations de Verrius Flaccus dans les Noctes Atticae. Verrius et Varron ne sont jamais utilisés ensemble. Verrius apparaît, à travers les commentaires qui accompagnent ces citations, comme un auteur toujours prestigieux. Ainsi, dans l'exemple 3, lorsque Domitius le grammairien et Favorinus s'interrogent au sujet des sens de contio, Domitius promet l'envoi d'un livre où Favorinus trouvera ce qu'il cherche. AuluGelle ne connaît pas le titre de l'ouvrage, mais suppose - tout naturellement, semble-t-il - qu'il est de Verrius Flaccus. De même, dans l'exemple 5, lors d'une lecture de Caton, pour éclaircir une expression obscure, on va aussitôt (statim) chercher la monographie de Verrius Flaccus qui y est consacrée. Verrius semble donc proposer des ouvrages de référence, auxquels les personnages mis en scène par Aulu-Gelle ont recours pour avoir une réponse rapide. Mais ce prestige semble un peu remis en cause par des remarques d'Aulu-Gelle. Alors que les passages concernant Varron sont exempts de critique, et cités comme modèles, les opinions de Verrius sont davantage discutées. L'explication d'un proverbe sur les mauvais donneurs de conseil (exemple 2) est ainsi plutôt rapprochée de la traduction d'un vers grec d'Hésiode. Les explications de Verrius sur le terme de contio (exemple 3) ne comportent pas d'exemples, alors qu'il était facile d'en trouver chez Cicéron et des auteurs anciens. Dans l'exemple 4, Verrius rapporte l'opinion de certains au sujet des annales et des histoires et la met en doute, mais Aulu-Gelle rappelle une autre opinion courante qui met en cause la subtile distinction de Verrius Flaccus: sed nos audire soliti sumus. Passons à l'exemple 5 de l'Annexe V: la critique de l'explication du de obscuris Catonis est amenée par une très jolie formule de précaution: 'Mais, si ceux qui sont sous l'emprise de l'autorité de Verrius veulent bien ne pas s'en irriter ni m'en tenir rigueur' (cum pace autem cumque venia istorum, si qui sunt, qui Verrii Flacci auctoritate capiuntur). Vauctoritas de Verrius est soulignée, ce qui montre qu'elle perdure encore au 2ùmc s. Néanmoins, selon AuluGelle, Verrius a tort, et le vrai sens de l'expression catonienne saute aux yeux. Mais comme souvent, la formule finale laisse un faux choix au lecteur entre les deux explications. Pas de précautions en revanche dans le dernier extrait relevé, où une étymologie de festinare est autant critiquée que le rapprochement de Neptunus et de nare que rapportait Cicéron dans h De natura deorum (2.26, 3.24): une seule lettre, fût-elle l'initiale, ne peut servir à rapprocher deux mots.

MARIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS

39

Bref, sur les six citations de Verrius, une seule est de formulation neutre: toutes les autres comportent une critique plus ou moins évidente. L'influence de Verrius est reconnue, mais surtout chez les autres. On peut ajouter que le texte de Verrius ne doit pas être connu en entier et maîtrisé autant que celui de Varron ou de Nigidius. En effet, les deux extraits du De verborum significatione sont deux extraits du même livre, et qui pouvaient se trouver à la suite l'un de l'autre, puisqu'ils se rapportent à deux mots de même initale, atri et annales. De plus, ces deux explications se suivent immédiatement dans les Noctes Atticae: Aulu-Gelle n'a-t-il pu consulter que ce livre de l'immense lexique de Verrius Flaccus? Dans un passage qui s'interroge sur petorritum, Aulu-Gelle (NA 15.30.1) cite Varron (livre 14 des Antiquitates rerum divinarum), qui se réfère à l'origine gauloise du mot, mais dans Verrius Flaccus devait se trouver une notice plus complète, encore rapportée par Festus (226.30F), où le mot peut avoir des origines gauloises, osques ou grecques. Au livre 1 (chapitre 25), Aulu-Gelle donne la définition de Varron pour indutiae, puis énonce sa propre opinion, mais cite aussi l'avis d'Aurelius Opilus pour que personne ne puisse penser que cette notice lui avait échappé. Il veut être exhaustif mais n'estime pas qu'il vaille la peine de citer Verrius Flaccus; ou alors ne connaissait-il pas le texte de Verrius Flaccus à ce sujet? Enfin, il reste le témoin principal de Verrius Flaccus au 2tmc s., à savoir Festus lui-même, qui compose un résumé en 20 livres du De verborum significatione de Verrius Flaccus, dont plusieurs indices nous donnent à penser qu'il comprenait au moins 40 livres, voire beaucoup plus. Ces interventions de Festus ont déjà été souvent étudiées pour tenter de trouver la clé de la composition du De verborum significatione. Elles demeurent relativement rares: environ une vingtaine dans ce que nous avons conservé. La principale, celle du lemme 242.19F poriciam (la plus discutée) indique en effet que les sujets de désaccord seront traités dans un autre ouvrage à venir. Notons déjà que, lorsque Festus corrige ou propose une autre opinion, il cite Cicéron, ou Virgile, mais non Varron, ni d'autres grammairiens. Ces critiques sont de différents ordres: le manque d'exemples ou de garants, qu'avait déjà souligné Aulu-Gelle à propos de contio. Dans Festus, tous les articles ne sont pas systématiquement accompagnés d'exemples, mais on pouvait y voir une marque de l'abréviation de l'original. Le troisième exemple rapporte l'agacement de Festus de trouver dans l'ouvrage qu'il abrège des notices qui n'ont rien à voir avec la signification des mots, mais qui portent sur des sujets variés: le tombeau de Tatius ici, ou 228.10F pictor Zeuxis auparavant. Dans l'exemple 4, Festus regroupe deux interprétations différentes d'une même expression (salva res est dum contât senex), qui se trouvaient à deux endroits différents de l'original. Comme ces deux interpétations diffèrent, Festus y voit une contradiction, qu'il souligne. Les exemples 5 à 9 mettent en doute la valeur de l'explication de Verrius Flaccus. L'exemple 5, en particulier, ne rapporte pas l'étymologie proposée par Verrius pour satis, mais seulement le fait qu'elle était absurde. Enfin, dans l'article 242.19F poriciam Festus explique qu'il ne compte pas allonger inutilement l'ouvrage présent, où il laissera de côté un certain nombre de mots sans garants et qui ne sont plus utilisés. Les critiques existent pourtant, souligne-t-il, et elles pourraient être nombreuses dans bien d'autres cas (in aliis compluribus).

40

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Dans une proportion bien moindre que dans les Noctes Atiicae d'Aulu-Gelle, on trouve donc des critiques de Verrius qui auraient pu être plus importantes si Festus ne s'était pas limité à résumer le lexique en un petit nombre de livres. Les chercheurs modernes, tels Reitzenstein,12 constatent aussi, d'après les interventions de Festus, que ce dernier n'avait peut-être pas les moyens de faire des critiques plus constructives au fil du texte. Mais, malgré ces remarques critiques, Festus a été chargé de faire une version plus facile à manipuler du texte d'un grammairien toujours prestigieux - vraisemblablement un ouvrage de commande, parce que son auteur n'a pas le droit d'intervenir outre mesure. Grâce à AuluGelle, nous pouvons constater qu'il y avait toujours des érudits qui s'en référaient à lui, et qu'il existait donc un public d'érudits potentiel pour un résumé de Verrius.

*** Verrius Flaccus, au 2ùme s. apr. J.-C., est loin d'être un inconnu. Aulu-Gelle, qui fréquente bon nombre d'érudits de la fin de la République, le montre jouissant encore d'un prestige important auprès des intellectuels de son époque. C'est peut-être ce prestige qui a conduit Festus à proposer un abrégé du trop volumineux De verborum significatione. Ce sont les résultats des recherches de l'érudit augustéen qui sont présentées dans cet abrégé, car les désaccords seront réservés pour un autre ouvrage sur la signification des mots anciens (Libri priscorum verborum cum exemplis). Verrius demeure cependant un grammairien de second ordre à côté de Varron, qui est, avec Nigidius, la grande référence depuis le dernier siècle de la République. Sa place réduite dans le dictionnaire de Verrius puis dans celui de Festus n'est absolument pas représentative. Verrius a visiblement privilégié soit d'autres domaines de recherche, soit des érudits proposant d'autres solutions que la solution varronienne. Varron n'est pas ignoré, mais sciemment mis de côté. Il reste bien évidemment à vérifier - quand c'est verifiable, si l'opinion de Varron est présente dans un nombre représentatif d'articles du De verborum significatione, même s'il n'est pas cité nommément, et en particulier si elle ne fournit pas le point de départ d'un certain nombre d'enquêtes plus approfondies sur les mots ou les realia. Note additionnelle: cette enquête préliminaire a été présentée alors que mon travail de thèse n'était pas achevé.13 J'ai eu par la suite l'occasion de comparer quelques extraits du De verborum significatione, du De lingua Latina et des Antiquitates. Le De verborum significatione ne se contente pas de donner les etymologies des mots, comme le traité grammatical de Varron, mais n'imite pas non plus la somme exhaustive des Antiquitates. Il accumule plutôt des notices sur les sujets qui suscitaient encore des débats chez les érudits de l'époque de Verrius Flaccus. D'où une explication possible de la relative absence de Varron: Verrius ne s'est que peu intéressé à ce qui n'avait pas changé depuis les œuvres majeures du Réatin.

12 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 14. 13 La thèse, entreprise sous la direction de John Scheid, avait pour titre: 'Antiquaires et recherches sur la religion romaine à l'époque du Haut Empire: l'exemple du De verborum significatione de Festus' et a été soutenue le 13 décembre 2003 à l'É.P.H.É., section des sciences religieuses (Paris).

\RIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS Annexe I: Quelques antiquaires cités chez Festus

L. Aelius Stilo <18 à 33 fois / 51> - chevalier romain - accompagne Metellus Numidicus en exil en 100 - rencontre Denys le Thrace (fondateur de la science grammaticale au 1er s. av. J.-C.) à Rhodes vers 100 - maître de Vairon et de Cicéron L. Ateius Praetextatus (ou Philologus) <8 /14> - Athénien, né vers 97, mort vers 29 av. J.-C. - arrive à Rome au moment de la prise d'Athènes (86) - affranchi, grammairien et rhéteur. - élève de Gnipho, ouvre une école vers 60 - ami de Salluste et d'Asinius Pollion M. Terentius Varro (116-27) <22 fois / 461> - sabin, de Réate - élève d'Aelius Stilo; en Grèce, élève d'Antiochus d'Ascalon - triumvir capitalis, questeur en 86, préteur en 68 - ami de Pompée, qu'il assiste comme légat en 67 (guerre contre les pirates) - pardonné par César, est chargé d'organiser une bibliothèque - dédie le De lingua Latina à Cicéron (47/45) - obtient la protection du futur Auguste - meurt en 27 L. Cincius <23 fois / 31> -citéparTiteLive (7.3.7) - à ne pas confondre avec l'historien L. Cincius Alimentus

Santra <8 fois/ 15> - un peu plus jeune que Varron et Cincius Appius Claudius Pulcher <3 fois / 3> - augure en 59 (collègue de Marcellus) - consul en 54, meurt en 48 - élève d'Ateius Philologus M. Valerius Messalla Rufus <8 fois / 7(!)> - collègue de Cn. Domitius au cos. en 53 - augure 55 ans Veranius <8 fois / 11> - Veranius Flaccus?

- Discours - Carminum Saliarum explanationis - Indicis Plautini. - Commentarius de proloquiis - un ouvrage de glossographie? - Pinacon (répertoire?) - Liber glossematorum - Breviarum rerum omnium Romanarum (pour Salluste) - Praecepta de ratione scribendi (pour Pollion) - uA.ii (mélange) Ouvrages attestés très nombreux (74 ouvrages, plus de 620 livres au total), dont: - Saturae Menippeae (1 fois) - De bibliothecis - De similitudine verborum - De lingua Latina (25 livres, adressés à Cicéron, epitome en 9 livres) - Libri très rerum rusticarum - Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum (41 livres) (5 fois) - Epistolicae quaestiones (2 fois) - De consulum potestate • De verbis priscis • De comitiis • De fastis • Mystagogicon • De officio iurisconsuUi • Ex libris de re militari - De antiquitate verborum - De Vita Terenti - Ex auguraUs disciplinae libris

- Ex libris de auspiciis

- Ex auspiciorum libris (De comitiis ...) - Ex pontificalium quaestionum libris (De supplicationibus)

41

42

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Aelius Gallus <22 à 36 fois / 26> - préfet d'Egypte en 27, familier de Strabon Verrius Flaccus <49 fois (min.) / 35> - 55 av. J.-C.-20 apr. J.-C? - affranchi - Auguste lui confie l'éducation de ses petitsenfants - école sur le Palatin - a fait graver sur du marbre des Fastes à Préneste, où il a sa statue - mourut très âgé sous Tibère M. Antistius Labeo <13 fois / 25> - élève de Trebatius - préteur en 5 apr. J.-C, meurt avant 22 C. Ateius Capito <7 fois /14> - consul suffect en 5 apr. J.-C, curator aquarum, meurt en 22

- De significatione verborum et vocabulorum quae ad ius civile pertinent - Libri rerum memoria dignarum - Saturnus - De obscuris Catonis - Etruscarum rerum libri - Epistulae - Libri de orthographia - Fasti - De verborum significatu - Ex libris de iure pontificio - Ex libris ad edictum praetoris - Ex posterioribus libris - Ex soniectaneis - Ex libris de iure pontificio

MARIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS

43

Annexe II: Varron dans le De verborum significatione (22 citations au total) 1. 126.29F: Muliam Osce dici putant poenam quidam. M. Varro ait poenam esse, sed pecuniariam, de qua subtil iter in lib. I Quaestionum epist. refert. 2. 150.36F: Murrata potione usos antiquos indicio est, quod etiam nunc aediles per supplicationes dis addunt ad pulvinaria, et quod XII tabulis cavetur, ne mortuo indatur, utait Varro in Antiquitatum lib. I. 3. 290.16F: 'Pro censu classis iuniorurrC Ser. Tullius cum dixit in discriptione centuriarum, accipi debet in censu, ut ait M. Varro in lib. VI Rerum humanarum, sicuti pro aede Castoris, pro tribunali, pro testimonio. 4. 454.1F: Sinistrae aves sinistrumque est sinistimum auspicium, id est quod sinat fieri. Varro lib. V Epistolicarum quaestionum ait: 'A deorum sede cum in meridiem spectes, ad sinistram sunt parte<s> mundi exorientes, ad dexteram occidentes; factum arbitror, ut sinistra meliora auspicia, quam dextra esse existimentur'. Idem fere sentiunt Sinnius Capito et Cincius. 5.290.27F: Praerogativae centuriae dicuntur, ut docet Varro Rerum humanarum lib. VI, quo rustici Romani, qui ignorarent petitores, facilius eos animadvertere possent. Verrius probabilius iudicat esse, et cum essent designati a praerogativis, in sermonem res veniret populi de dignis, indignisve, et fièrent caeteri diligentiores ad suffragia de his ferenda. 6.408.14F: 'Sus MinervarrC in proverbio est, ubi quis id docet alterum, cuius ipse inscius est. Quam rem in medio, quod aiunt, positam Varro et Euhemerus ineptis mythis involvere maluerunt, quam simpliciter referre.

44

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Annexe III: Quelques divergences entre Vairon et Verrais 1. Orcus 222.6F: Orcum quem dicimus, ait Verrius ab antiquis dictum Ur[a]gum, quod et u litterae sonum per V efferebant et per 'c' litterae formam nihilominus 'g' usurpabant. Sed nihil affert exemplorum. ut ita esse credamus: nisi quod is deus nos maxime urgeat. Vairon, LL 5.66 (réflexion sur Diovis): Idem hic Dis Pater dicitur infimus, qui est coniunctus terrae, ubi omnia ut oriuntur ita aboriuntur; quorum quod finis ortuum. Orcus dictus. 2. Septimontium 474.36F: Septimontio, ut ait Antistius Labeo, hisce montibus feriae: Palatio. cui sacrificium quod fit, Palatuar dicitur; Veliae. cui item sacrificium; Faguali. Suburae. Cermalo. Oppio. Caelio monti, Cispio monti. Oppius autem appellatus est, ut ait Varro Rerum humanarum lib. VIII., ab Opitre Oppio Tusculano, qui cum praesidio Tusculanorum missus ad Romam tuendam, dum Tullus Hostilius Veios oppugnaret, consederat in Carinis, et ibi castra habuerat. Similiter Cispium a Laevo Cispio Anagnino, qui eiusdem rei causa earn partem Esquiliarum, quae iacet ad vicum Patricium versus, in qua regione est aedis Mefitis, tuitus est. 458.1F: <Septimontium ap>pellatur mense Fastis Agonalia, ontibus fiunt saagutali, Subura,
UE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS

45

Februatus appellabatur. Quaecumque denique purgamenti causa in quibusque sacrificiis adhibentur, februa appellantur. Id vero, quod purgatur, dicitur februatum. (Iuno Februlis est citée par Festus; Mythographi Romani 111.3; Martianus Capella 2.149) 5. Militem 109.22P: Militem Aelius a mollitia kata antiphrasin dictum putat, eo, quod nihil molle, sed potius asperum quid gerat; sic ludum dicimus, in quo minime luditur. Varron, LL 5.89: Milites, quod trium milium fiebat ac singulae tribus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum milia militum mittebant. Annexe IV: Verrius et Festus: deux rivaux? Les titres soulignés sont les titres cités chez les écrivains concernés. Le plus souvent, on ne fait que supposer l'utilisation de ces ouvrages.

OVIDE (43 av. J.-C.-17ap.J.-C) Fastes PLINE L'ANCIEN (23-79) Historia Naturalis PLUTARQUE (50-120) SUÉTONE (70-122) AULU GELLE (130-180)

POMPEIUS FESTUS (mi 2ômc s.) PORPHYRION (-200) CHARISIUS (-350) MACROBE (-400) Saturnalia SERVIUS

ISIDORE DE SEVILLE

M. VERRIUS FLACCUS - Fasti

- Libri rerum memoria dignarum - De orthographia

- Fasti Praenespini

- Lit>rj rerum memçrjq dianarum I - De verborum significatu IV A - Dej)bscuris Catonis II - De verborum significatu V P

SEX. POMPEIUS FESTUS

- Ex Verrio et Festo

PORPHYRION

- Ex Verrio et Festo

- De orthographia - Ex Verrio et Festo - Libri rerum memoria dignarum - Saturnus -Fasti? - Epistulae - De orthographia (Servius Danielis) - De verborum significatu*!

CHARISIUS

- Ex Verrio et Festo

MACROBE

- De verborum sienificationibus 13

Saturnalia SERVIUS

ISIDORE DE SEVILLE

- De verborum significatu?

- De verborum significatu?

46

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Annexe V: Les mentions de Verrius Flaccus dans Aulu-Gelle 1. Gell. 5.17.1: Verrius Flaccus. in quarto De verborum significatu. dies qui sunt postridie Kalendas, Nonas, Idus, quos vulgus imperite 'nefastos' dicit, propter hanc causam dictos habitosque 'atros' esse scribit... 2. Gell. 4.5.6: Ea historia de aruspicibus ac de versu isto senario scripta est in Annalibus Maximis, libro undecimo, et in Verri Flacci libro primo Rerum memoria dignarum. 4.5.7 Videtur autem versus hic de Graeco illo Hesiodi versu expressus: ... 3. Gell. 18.7.3: ... Mittam autem librum tibi, in quo id reperias, quod quaeris. 18.7.5 Misit autem paulo post Favorino librum, quem promiserat Verri. opinor. Flacci erat. in quo scripta ad hoc genus quaestionis pertinentia haec fuerunt... 18.7.8 ... Exempla in eo libro scripta non erant. Sed nos postea Favorino desideranti harum omnium significationum monumenta et apud Ciceronem, sicut supra scripsi, et apud elegantissimos veterum reperta exhibuimus 4. Gell. 5.18.1: Historiam ab annalibus quidam differre eo putant, quod, cum utrumque sit rerum gestarum narratio, earum tamen proprie rerum sit historia, quibus rebus gerendis interfuerit is qui narret. 5.18.2 Eamque esse opinionem quorundam. Verrius Flaccus refert in libro De significatu verborum quarto. Ac se quidem dubitare super ea re dicit, posse autem videri putat nonnihil esse rationis in ea opinione, quod ioTopia ... a Graece significet rerum cognitionem praesentium. 5.18.3 Sed nos audire soliti sumus 'annales' omnino id esse quod 'historia' sint... 5. Gell. 17.6.2: Quaerebatur, 'servus recepticius' quid esset. Libri statim quaesiti allatique sunt Verrii Flacci De obscuris Catonis. In libro secundo scriptum inventum est 'recepticium servum' dici nequam et nulli pretii, qui, cum venum esset datus, redhibitus ob aliquod vitium receptusque sit. 17.6.4 Cum pace autem cumque venia istorum. si qui sunt, qui Verrii Flacci auctoritate capiuntur. dictum hoc sit. 17.6.5 Recepticius enim servus in ea re quam dicit Cato, aliud omnino est quam Verrius scripsit. 17.6.6 Atque id cuiuis facile intellectu est... 17.6.11 Plura dicere, quibus hoc nostrum tuear, supersedeo: ipsa enim sunt per sese evidentia et quod a Verrio dicitur et quod a nobis; utrum ergo videbitur cuique verius. eo utatur. 6. Gell. 16.14: Quod M. Cato differre dixit 'properare' et 'festinare'; et quam incommode Verrius Flaccus verbi. quod est 'festinat'. œtumon interpretatus sit. 16.14.3 Verrius Flaccus rationem dicere volens differentiae huius: 'Festinat, inquit, a fando dicitur, quoniam isti ignaviores, qui nihil perficere possunt, plus verborum quam operae habent'.

.ARIE-KARINE LHOMMÉ: VARRON ET VERRIUS

47

16.14.4 Sed id nimis coactum atque absurdum videtur. neque tanti momenti esse potest prima in utroque verbo littera, ut propter earn unam tarn diversa verba 'festinare' et 'fari' eadem videri debeant.

Annexe VI: Les critiques de Verrius Flaccus dans Fes tus (extraits) 1. 222.6F Orcum: ... Sed nihil affert exemplorum. ut ita esse credamus: nisi quod is deus nos maxime urgeat. 2. 498.13F tersum diem: Tersum diem pro sereno dictum ab antiquis nee se ha ait. 3. 496.8F Tatium: ... Quod ad significationem verborum non magis pertinet. quam plurima alia, et praeterita iam et deinceps quae referentur. 4. 436.3IF 'salva res <est, dum cantao senex1:... Quam inconstantiam Verrii nostri non sine rubore rettuli... 5.476.36F satis: Satis verbum Verrio melius fuit praeterire. ut mini videtur, quam tarn tabsuri quit opiniones suas de eo trestaret; quas sciens praeteri, tarn hercules, quam de scabro, quod proximum sequebatur. 6. 378.2IF scurrae : Scurrae vocabulum Verrius ineptissime aut ex Graeco tractum ait, quod est OKupftàÇeiv, aut a sequendo, cui magis adsentitur ... 7. 440.5F salicem: Salicem idem (= Verrius) ... ridicule interpretatur dictam, quod ea celeritate crescat, ut salire videatur. 8.470.34F solida sella:... solidum: <... appella>bant, inquit Verrius, quod <solidum idem est quod totum>; absurde, ut mini videtur. <siquidem omne quod> sit totum, ait dictum solidum. 9. 314.7F quatere: Quatere, suspensum et vicinum rei alicuius motum significat, non, ut Verrius putat. ferire ... 10.242.19F poriciam:... cuius opinionem, neque in hoc, neque in aliis compluribus refutare minime necesse est, cum propositum habeam ex tanto librorum eius numéro intermortua iam et sepulta verba atque ipso saepe confitente nullius usus aut auctoritatis praeterire, et reliqua quam brevissime redigere in libros admodum paucos. Ea autem. de quibus dissentio. et aperte et breviter. ut sciero. scribta in fhlis libris meis invenientur. inscribuntur 'priscorum verborum cum exemplis.

3. WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES? J. A. NORTH Quotations in Festus' Lexicon It is Festus' practice, in many of the surviving entries in the Lexicon, to support his argument by selective quotation from a wide range of literary sources. Many of the authors he quotes in this way do not survive today, or do not survive in full, so this habit has the useful effect of preserving for us parts of many texts that would otherwise have been lost completely. There are, however, questions to be asked about Festus' own practice in selecting the passages he does: why did he choose these particular authors and why not others who might have been used for at least some of his purposes? Why, for instance, quote an early author when a contemporary one would have been more to the point? Why does he regularly quote from literary sources, but almost never quote directly from the many antiquarians whose views he mentions and discusses? Are the quotations the result of his own reading, or are they inherited from the tradition of which he forms part? Table 1 Main authors quoted in rough chronological order Authors Leges (XII tab.) Livius A. Naevius Plautus Ennius Pacuvius Caecilius Cato Titinius Terence Afranius Accius C2 orators Lucilius Novius Pomponius Lucretius Cicero Sallust Virgil Totals

Dramatic texts

Other poetical texts

14 24 150 32 50 26

11 8

Prose texts

Total no. of quotations

30

30 25 32 150 140 50 26 110 21 18 33 23 14 55 6 2 15 10 5 15 780

108

110 21 18 33 22

6 2

1 14 55 0 0 15 10 5

398

15 212

170 49

50

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

The figures that go into the construction of Table 1 have been put together for this particular purpose and should not be taken too literally or out of the context of this argument. For one thing, they are based mostly on the section of the full Lexicon that survives; Paul the Deacon in his summaries preserves some quotations (which are included in the list, unless they are also in Festus) but only a small percentage of those that must have been in the full text.1 Secondly, these figures are not intended to reflect the frequency with which authors are alluded to in Festus' entries; so, for example, he frequently mentions the views of antiquarian writers, sometimes of a whole series of them; but he seldom quotes their texts in extenso, so they are not counted in the Table.2 Thirdly, there are many occasions in the fragmentary sections of the text where the name of an author is preserved in whole or in part, but it cannot be certain whether the text was quoted or only mentioned. We have tried to include all cases where it is clear that there was originally a quotation even where the quotation is now completely lost. But there are marginal cases, where the decision is somewhat arbitrary. While the detailed figures are therefore not to be taken too literally, the overall pattern that emerges from this survey is clear enough: chronologically the collection of texts starts with the very earliest Latin literature we know of; the great bulk of the quotations fall between the third century BC and the end of the second century BC, i.e. they stretch from Livius Andronicus at the beginning down to Lucilius and Accius at the end. From that date on, quotations are far less concentrated; there is a scatter of first century BC texts, from Lucretius and even Virgil, but the total numbers are tiny by comparison with the third/second century BC.3 The regular procedure, as every reader knows, throughout the sections of text that survive from Festus, and sometimes even in the summaries of Paul the Deacon, is to quote from Ennius or Plautus, from Pacuvius or Lucilius, but rarely from Cicero, never from Caesar or Ovid.4 Festus himself, and even the earlier sources on whom he commonly draws, must have known far more Latin literature than is ever used in the Lexicon. Even within these tight chronological limits, there is a heavy concentration on certain authors, particularly on the very earliest poets and dramatists Livius, Naevius, Ennius, and Plautus. The only prose author to be quoted with any regularity at all is Cato the elder, mostly from his speeches, but also his works on history (Origines) and on military matters. The i Paul contains approximately 190 quotations altogether, afractionof those that would have been in the original text of Festus. Whenever the extant part of Festus has a long list, Paul preserves only a small selection normally the first or the last, though sometimes both. For analysis of his practice, see Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae 12-16. 2 For an exception to this rule see on Cincius, below. Paul methodically omits any mention of the antiquarians, presumably thinking them of no interest to readers of his time; Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae 11-12. 3 Post-Augustan references are even rarer; but Lucan 1.449 is quoted by Paul 31.13P bardus; Martial 1.30.1 again by Paul at 506.16P vespae et vespillones\ at 194.33F, the Farnesianus has been read as >yginus, often identified as Hyginus, presumed to be the author of the second century Fabulae. However, the readings are uncertain, the context fragmentary and the letters preceding >yginus should be read as: >hr, in which case the reference may not be to an author at all, but a word beginning (e.g.) P>hrygi.... 4 Ovid is named in Paul's summary of the entry 436.14 F/437.6 P Salacia\ but enough survives of the corresponding entry in Festus to make it clear that Paul himself added this quotation, which seems in any case not to be takenfromOvid.

J.,

«ORTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

51

prominence of Cato in the Lexicon makes it all the more remarkable that the rest of secondcentury BC prose literature is almost totally omitted. There is a scattering of other orators from the period of Scipio Aemilianus; but almost all the many orators whose work was available to Cicero when he wrote the Brutus are totally ignored, as are the historians and antiquarians of the period after Cato.5 In a work one of whose central themes is the antiquities of the Romans, this calls for some attention and explanation. The answer seems to lie in a study of the purposes for which the Lexicon employs the quotations. The context of quotation is, in fact, quite consistently to illustrate the usage of words. Perhaps the most common pattern of all is to exemplify obsolete forms: Me pro mihi dicebant antiqui... Early writers used the form 'me' instead of 'mihi1 . . .6 The form in question 'me' as a dative (if indeed it existed at all)7 was out of date and the reader would, therefore, only meet it in the writings of the third or second century BC. There could be two possible reasons for interest in this: one is in the context of studying the history of language and the development of its forms; the other to help those wanting to read the early texts themselves and finding the archaic forms an obstacle.8 The entry under 'me' goes on: . . . ut Ennius cum ait lib. II (Annals 125V3 = 119Sk): 'Si quid me fuerit humanitus, ut teneatis . . .' et Lucilius (1227M = 1251Kr = 1076W = HlOCh): 'Nunc ad te redeo, ut quae res me impendet, agatur'. . . . as Ennius does when he says in book 2: 'If anything happens to me, as is the fate of mortals, in order for you to maintain . . . ' ; and Lucilius: 'Now I return to you, so that the matter that hangs over me may be dealt with'.9

5 For the orators of the mid-century - Scipio Aemilianus and his contemporaries: see 137.3P millus (Aemilianus); 136.11F/137.16P masculino (Gracchus); 210.5F obsidium (Laelius); 218.27F ostentum (Gracchus); 218.32F occisitantur (Gracchus); 277.7P potestur (Aemilianus and Gracchus); 312.26F quatenus (Aemilianus); 334.28F redarguisse (Aemilianus); 362.28F requeapse (Aemilianus); 362.33F respublica (Gracchus); 416.13F satura (Annius Luscus and Laelius). In the entry 196.36F oreae, a fragment is usually attributed to a Coelius, pro se apud populum; the reading of the Farnesianus seems in fact to be A. Laelius, surely to be understood as Laelius. 6 152.16F/153.11P. 7 The theory put here seems a mistake by Festus or his source: the 'me' in Ennius seems to be an ablative as it is in other similar usages (see O. Skutsch, The Annals ofQuintus Ennius (Oxford 1985) 271; cf. 293 discussing 388.4-7F = frag. 137Sk; M. Leumann, J. B. Hoffman and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik1 U = Muller's Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.2 (Munich 1965) 121-22); the me in Lucilius seems to be an accusative (so W. Krenkel, Lucilius Satiren (Leiden 1970) 663). In both cases the idea that a dative would be appropriate here is in itself reasonable; perhaps Verrius was saying that in his day mihi would have been the normal Latin in these contexts. However, the form me can hardly have been a dative. 8 See below, 60-63, for further discussion of these possibilities. 9 The quotation from Ennius is only part of a sentence, but it is an educated guess (not more) that the speaker is King Numa (trad, dates: 715-673 BC) who is urging the retention of his institutions after his death. See Skutsch, Ennius (n. 7, above) 271.

52

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

So, he gives two examples, both drawn from second-century poets. In other entries far more than two examples are sometimes given, either reinforcing the point or in some cases giving a variety of different usages for comparison. In total there were hundreds of texts deployed in this way in the course of the extant part of the whole Lexicon.10 We have no direct way of knowing whether some of the quotations were found or chosen by Festus himself, but the normal assumption is that he drew his material from the work of the antiquarian writings of Verrius Flaccus and it seems at least very probable that the collection of texts in some form derived from earlier works. At least the habit of quoting texts in this way is already found in Varro's De lingua Latina and there are examples where Varro was already using precisely the same examples subsequently used in the Lexicon.11 We do not of course have to think that the collection of quotations was put together as a unity at any special date; it could have grown up over a long period of time and as a result of different writers' work. On the other hand, the process of collection must have started at some particular point. In addition we know of some works, with which Festus himself shows familiarity, that were evidently devoted specifically to the collection of early Latin usages. Thus there was a book on ancient words {De verbis priscis) by L. Cincius the antiquarian,12 who wrote at some time in the first century BC.13 Festus once quotes a passage from him in extenso, which does indeed show Cincius defining a related set of words, some of which may have been obsolete by his time of writing; but for most of the entry he uses the present tense {appellator, dicuntur, dicimus) and only in one element a past tense {iacuit, appellabant with reference to the phrase adrudus). Cincius De verbis priscis (3 GRF) sic ait: 'Quemadmodum omnis fere materia non deformata rudis appellator, sicut vestimentum rude, non perpolitum; sic aes infectum rudusculum. Apud aedem Apollinis aes conflatum iacuit, id ad nidus appellabant. In aestimatione censoria aes infectum nidus appellator. Rudiari ab eodem dicuntur, qui saga nova poliunt. Hominem inperitum rudem dicimus'. Cincius in his On Ancient Words speaks as follows: 'In the same way that almost every material that has not been worked up is called rudis (crude), so a garment is rudis if it has not been finished; in the same way unworked bronze is a rudusculum. In the temple of Apollo there lay a fused mass of bronze; they called it ad rudus. Rudus is the name for unworked bronze in the censorial estimates. From the same origin comes the word rudiarii, meaning those who smooth new cloaks. We call an inexperienced man rudis'.14

10 If there were approximately 700 in the surviving portions, there might have been at least as many again in the rest, and presumably far more than that in the original work of Verrius. il For a clear example, compare Festus 484.32F tutulum with Varro LL1M; in general see Glinister above, chapter 1, and Lhommé above, chapter 2. 12 On whom see E. Rawson, Intellectual life in the late Roman republic (London 1985) 247-48 and below, 58. 13 For his date, see below, 58, n. 30. 14 320.24F rodus (the excerpt cited is located at 322.2-10F).

J. A

RTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

53

Cincius therefore, despite the apparent implications of his title, seems to have placed archaic forms (such as ad rudus) into the context of contemporary usage, which is what Festus so seldom does. But still, as far as the Lexicon is concerned, it seems a reasonable working hypothesis that the body of texts that Festus can deploy had been built up progressively in the course of the first century BC. We need to ask some questions about how this process happened: for what purposes is this body of data employed in the Lexicon? Is it likely that the data was originally collected with the purpose in mind for which it is there employed? If not, what was the original purpose? It should of course not be forgotten that, so long as texts were kept on rolls not in codex form, the checking of passages could never have been easy. Working through a roll and collecting examples must have been the effective way of collecting examples. The obvious hypothesis The obvious explanation of the pattern of quotation under discussion builds on the material already mentioned. In the entry 'me' the key element to note was the word antiqui ('early writers'). Many entries are explicit in using this terminology. A clear example, chosen at random from very many, would be: Nee coniunctionem Grammatici fere dicunt esse disiunctivam, ut nee legit, nee scribit, cum si diligentius inspiciatur, ut fecit Sinnius Capito (8F), intellegi possit, earn positam esse ab antiquis pro non, ut et in XII est (5.7 RS): 'Ast ei custos nee escit'. Item (8.16 RS): 'Si adorât furto, quod nee manifestum erit'. Et aput Plautum in Phasmate (Most. 240): 'Nee recte si illi dixeris ...'. Et Turpilium in Demetrio (24. R3): 'Nee recte dici mini quae i am dudum audio'. Wee' is what the grammarians normally call a 'disjunctive conjunction', as in the case of 'nor does he read' or 'nor does he write'; whereas, if the word is examined more carefully, as it was by Sinnius Capito, it can be understood that the early writers used it in place of 'non' (not). As in the Twelve Tables: 'But if there should not be a trustee for him ... '; and again: 'If he accuses (somebody) of theft that is not manifest ...'. Also Plautus in the Phasma: 'If you have not told him rightly ...' and Turpilius in the Demetrius: 'What I keep on hearing was wrongly said to me'.15 There are two elements here: first, the contemporary practice, as defined by the anonymous grammarians; secondly, the observation (attributed to Sinnius Capito) that in earlier Latin the word could also be used instead of 'non1 as a simple negative, without the force of a conjunction. This out of date locution is then illustrated by a series of texts from the XII Tables, from Plautus and Turpilius. The authority quoted here, Sinnius Capito, was a grammarian, writing probably in the late Republic, perhaps later than Varro.16 It seems quite likely 15 \5S.21Fnec. 16 For Sinnius Capito, see M. Hertz, Sinnius Capito: eine Abhandlung zur Geschichte der rbmischen Grammatik(Berlin 1844); GRF457-66; A. Klotz, s.v. 'Sinnius (2) Capito', REHUl (1927), 246-47; M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der romischen Literature 1 = Muller's Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VIII. 1 (Munich 1927) 2.380-81 (§ 353). On this entry in general, see P. Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus De significatu verbonim in den Auszugen von Sextus Pompeius Festus und Paulus Diaconus (Frankfurt am Main 2004) 56-59.

54

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

that he was in fact also the source for the texts quoted.17 He is mentioned by Festus, but not actually quoted verbatim, on about twenty occasions. It is not only in such explicit cases, however, that we can in fact be certain that this reference to past practice is what is in question. Often it is implicitly clear that past practice is being compared to contemporary Latin usage, without explicit mention being made of the antiqui. For example: Sas Verrius putat significare eas, teste Ennio, qui dicat in lib. I (101V3 = 98Sk): 'Virgines; nam sibi quisque domi Romanus habet sas'; cum suas magis videatur significare. <Sed> uti eiusdem lib. VII (218V3 = 211Sk) fatendum est earn significari, cum ait: 'Nee quisquam [philo]sophiam' (quae doctrina latina lingua no<me>n habet) 'sapientia quae peribetur, in somnis vidit prius, quam sam discere coepit'. Idem, cum ait sapsam pro ipsa nee alia, ponit in lib. XVI (430V3 = 422Sk): 'Quo res sapsa loco sese ostentatque iubetque'. Et Pacuvius in Teucro (324R3 = 372W): 'Nam Teucrum regi sapsa res restibiliet'. Verrius thinks that sas means eas (those), quoting Ennius who says in book 1: '... young women; for in his home each Roman possesses sas\ where sas seems rather to mean suas (his own). But certainly in book 7 of the same poet it should be conceded that earn is the meaning, when he says: 'Nor has anyone seen sophia, which is also sapientia, [in Latin that is 'doctrina'] in his dreams before he has begun to learn it {sam)'. Ennius again uses 'sapsa' instead of 'ipsa nee alia' ('itself and nothing else' or 'the very') when he writes in book 16: 'In the place where the very truth demonstrates itself and issues commands'. Likewise Pacuvius in the Teucer. 'For the very truth will reconcile Teucer to the King'.18 The comment here is evidendy about unfamiliar word-forms in early literature and the meaning that should be attributed to them. Every reader would know that sas was not part of the contemporary language by the late republican period. There was no need to make this explicit by using a specific term for the early writers. The passage also makes it clear that, here as in many places, a debate was in progress and that Festus sees himself as reacting to the earlier views. He is not necessarily in this passage rejecting the view of Verrius completely, but he is offering a different interpretation of the first passage of Ennius cited, while conceding Verrius' case in the second. It is interesting that here and elsewhere he is willing to take a critical stance about Verrius' views, which he must also have been accepting and relying on for much of the time, without crediting him or mentioning his name.19

17 But see below, 62. 18 432.20F sas. For the forms so, sam, sas, sapsa etc., see Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr 1.284; A. Walde and J. B. Hofmann Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch I3 (Heidelberg 1938) 722; Skutsch, Ennius (n. 7, above) 64. For the problems of the three Ennius texts see Skutsch, Ennius 244-45; 375-78; 585. Infrag.98 Sk, Verrius seems to have beenrightas against Festus' criticism on the meaning of sas, but the reading in the MS - virgines - seems unmetrical and this mistake may have misled Festus into taking sas as suas. 19 For examples of Festus' expressing scepticism about the views of Verrius see, e.g., 228.1 OF pictor Zeuxis; 242.19F poriciam; 378.21F scurrae; 436.3 IF salva res', 476.36F satis. For more examples see above, Lhommé, in Chapter 2.

J..

x>IORTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

55

Passages such as these could be multiplied over and over again. The assumption underlying them is that the Latin familiar to 'us today* (but when was today for this purpose?), is quite different from the Latin that was acceptable in the past. This moral sometimes becomes quite explicit: k

Recto fronte ceteros sequi si norit'. Cato in dissertatione consulatus (25 = 47M3 = 37C). Antiquae id consuetudinis fuit, ut cum ait Ennius quoque (Ann. 178V3 = 166Sk): 'A stirpe supremo', et (Ann. 55V3 = 60 Sk): 'Ilia dia nepos', et (Ann. 68V3 = 65Sk): 'Lupus feta', et (trag. 387R3 = 407V3 = 415W): 'Nulla metus'. Etiam in commentariis sacrorum pontificalium frequenter est hic ovis, et haec agnus, ac porcus. Quae non ut vitia, sed ut antiquam consuetudinem testantia, debemus accipere. 'If he knew how to follow the others holding the line (m.)', says Cato in his Consular speech. This was an early usage, as in Ennius too: 'of the supreme clan (m.)'; 'Ilia, grandchild (m.) of the gods'; 'pregnant wolf (m.)'; 'no fear (f.)'. In the Pontifical commentaries on rituals also, 'sheep' is often masculine, 'lamb' feminine and 'pig' like-wise. These are forms that we should treat, not as errors, but as evidence of early speech-habits.20 In each of the cases quoted, the gender of the noun in question was different from that accepted in Festus' time. So this passage is showing explicit awareness that past usage was different from 'ours of today' and that this is not because the early writers had made mistakes in gender, but because they were writing as antiqua consuetudo required them to. This idea runs deeply through the text of the Lexicon, frequently recurring or implied. It expresses a historicist view of the development of language, in which the correct form is not an absolute, but a function of the linguistic situation at the date of the particular text being discussed. The thought does not often become as explicit as in this passage, but that is because it does not need to be made so. Questions that need to be asked In assessing the significance of this type of material in the Lexicon, we need to place it in the context of the Lexicon's broader purposes. The main purpose could be said to be the explanation of difficult, obscure or obsolete usages in Latin; but these include geographic place-names, obscure deities or rituals, obsolete social or political practices and so on; it is only where obsolete words or grammatical forms are concerned that the question of comparison with contemporary usage arises and it is then that the quotations are normally brought out. There are not many entries that define normal current usage, so part of the reason for the rarity of later republican or early imperial citations is that they are not needed; current usage is assumed to be known to the reader and therefore does not need exemplification. Occasionally we do get a term in current use, such as a rhetorical trope, e.g.:

20 364. IF. For Cato's consular speech, see ORF2, frags 21-55; according to P. Fraccaro, 'Le fonti per il consolato di M. Porcio Catone', Studi storici per l'antichità classica 3(1910) 147-54 = Opuscula I (Pavia 1956) 188-93, Cato wrote one speech in defence of himself after his consulship, known by various names, of which this is one. For the context, A. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 60.

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

56

Metonymia est tropos, cum ab eo quod continet, significatur id, quod continetur, aut superior es inferiore, et inferior superiore. Q u a e continet, quod continetur: ut Ennius cum ait (Ann. 310V 3 = 309SK): 'Africa terribili tremis horrida terra tumultu'. Ab eo quod continetur id quod continet; ut cum dicitur: 'Epota amphora vini'. A superiore re inferior, ut Ennius (Ann. 487V 3 = 5 0 9 S K ) : ' C u m magno strepitu Volcanum ventus vegebat'. A b inferiore superior, ut (com. inc. 64R 3 ): 'Persuasit animo vinum, deus qui multo est maximus'. M e t o n y m y is the trope used when what is contained is indicated by that which contains it; or the higher level by the lower or the lower by the higher. What is contained from what contains it, as Ennius when he says: 'Shuddering land of Africa, you tremble with the terrific tumult'. What contains, from what is contained in it: as when it is said: 'after drinking an amphora of w i n e ' . Inferior from superior, as Ennius: 'the wind fostered Vulcan with a great roaring'. Superior from inferior, as 'Wine, far the greatest god, has persuaded m y mind'. 2 1 T h e reason for the entry is presumably that the term was technical and quite difficult 22 and it occurs in a run of entries all apparently concerned with technical rhetorical language; 2 3 but the particular trope is one that you could illustrate from the texts of any period. W h a t is striking here is that all but one of the illustrations should have been taken from early texts. In one sense, any example would do to show what the word means. B u t was no need felt to look for current e x a m p l e s as well as early ones? If not, why not? It seems possible that w e should see the practice of citing ancient not m o d e r n texts in cases like these as a secondary effect of the collection's existence: Le. it might have been brought into existence for one purpose, but then been m a d e available for use for quite different purposes. It was simply quicker for Festus to produce Ennius from the collection already available than to locate contemporary examples. Occasionally again, the Lexicon offers a quite precise reference to a contemporary usage or situation but not normally in order to explain contemporary usage. T h u s for instance: Manticularum usus pauperibus in n u m m i s recondendis etiam nostro saeculo fiiit. Unde manticulari dicebantur, qui furandi gratia manticulas attemtabant. Inde poetae pro dolose quid agendo usi sunt eo verbo. Pacuvius (377R 3 ): 'Ad manticulandum astu adgreditur; scit enim quid promeruerit'. 2 4

21 \3SA3F

metonymia.

22 There are in fact difficulties with the logic of the entry. The definition seems intended to cover four cases: 1) from the container to what it contained and 2) vice versa; and 3) from the upper to the lower and 4) vice versa. The initial sentence (in the form we have it) only lists 1), 3) and 4), but 2) is also seemingly exemplified in what follows. The third example seems not to be a literary text, but perhaps a made-up example. 23 136.23F metaphoram; 138.2F metaplasticos; \3S.1F meta-. 24 118.3F manticularum. The entry continues with a series of (problematic) further quotations, all illustrating the usage of the verb. All four have usually been attributed to Pacuvius; but see the edition of the fragments by G. D'Anna, M. Pacuvii fragmenta (Rome 1967) 473, who argues convincingly that the name of a different poet may have been lost in the lacuna after the word promeruit, in which case the author of the last three quotations should be reckoned as unknown.

J. A.

.tTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

57

The use of manticulae (little purses) by the poor for keeping coins has continued even in our age. Whence manticulari is a term which was applied to those who snatched purses to steal them. Hence the poets used this word for doing anything deceitfully. Pacuvius: 'He approaches people to deceive by trickery; for he knows what his real deserts might be ...' The implication of the first sentence seems to be that the word was still in use in the time of Festus. So why should there be no contemporary illustration? The answer seems to be that the purses still in use by the poor are included only as a casual, introductory reference. The real point of the entry is, as usual, an obscure and out-of date usage of the verb to mean 'acting deceitfully'. 25 Another occasional aberration is the inclusion in a list of antiqui, presented in order to explain an early usage, of one later writer: Obstipum, oblicum. Ennius lib. XVI (420V 3 = 419Sk): 'Montibus obstipis obstantibus, unde oritur nox'; et in lib. VIII (283V 3 = 265Sk): 'Amplius exaugere obstipo lumine solis'. Caecilius in Imbris (99R3 = 90W): 'Resupina obstipo capitulo sibi ventum facere tunicula'. Lucretius (4.519): 'Omnia mendose fieri, atque obstipa necesse est'. Obstipum means slanting. Ennius book 16: 'With the steeply slanting mountains standing in the way, whence rises the night;' and in book 8: 'To hugely increase through the slanting light of the sun'. Caecilius in The Imbrians: 'She was on her back, her little head aslant, using her little vest to fan herself. Lucretius: 'Everything has to be faultily constructed and slanted'. 26 The word obstipus is very rare in any period. Lucretius perhaps earns his place because he had chosen an obscure word for which few examples were available in any authors.27 Perhaps the implication of this one is that the word was not entirely obsolete at the time of writing. uditantes tundentes entes, significare ait Cincius <de verbis priscis. E>nnius lib. II (Ann. 136Sk): 'Haec inter se totum . . . tes\ et Lucretius item lib. II (1142-43): 'Nee rem cessant extrinsecus ullam'. Cincius in his De verbis priscis says that 'tuditantes' means 'battering ahead with the business', that is carrying it through. Ennius book 2: 'battering ahead with these matters amongst themselves for the whole day (?)'; and Lucretius also book two: 'nor do the particles stop battering against everything from outside ... ' ,28

25 For the word (only known from these passages, the glossary definitions and Apuleius, Apoi 55) see TLL 8.333. Apuleius seems to use it in the simple sense of 'to steal'. 26 210.1 I F obstipum. 27 It has been observed since Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 109, that this entry is eccentric in the ordering of the quotations; see Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae 84 n. 4 and below 62-63. 28 480.29F tuditantes.

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

58

Again, it is a surprise that Lucretius should appear in this entry, though, again, he is there in chronological order. In fact, however, there are several puzzles here. It seems an inescapable assumption that the passage of L. Cincius being quoted here was the source not just for the word tuditantes, but also for the two passages that are being discussed. Either Festus or his source Verrius would then have taken them over. The views of Cincius appear quite frequently in Festus' Lexicon, who cites passages from several different works; for the only direct quotation he gives see above on 320.24F rodusP His date, like that of other antiquarians, is uncertain, though he must have lived at some time in the first century BC and has been dated as early as the beginning of the century.30 This passage, however, suggests that Cincius knew Lucretius' poem and therefore cannot have been writing earlier than the 50s BC. 31 This hypothesis does not altogether solve the problem: if, as seems implied, Lucretius and Cincius were more or less contemporaries, why was Cincius quoting lines from a contemporary in a work dealing with ancient words? In another entry the problem of Lucretius' presence seem even more acute: Nictare et oculorum et aliorum membrorum nisu saepe aliquid antiquis, ut Lucretius in lib. m i (in fact, 6.836): 'Hie ubi nari alis'. Caecilius in Hymnide (72R3 = 65W): 'Garruli sine dentés perticis'. Novius in Macco Copone (47R 3 ): 'Actutum scibis, cum

conari, dictum est ab nequeunt insistereque iactent; sine nictentur in nervo nictabere'.

3. nexari F\ nixari Lucretius MSS Nictare is often used by early writers (to mean) to struggle on repeatedly by the exertions of the eyes and of other parts (of the body); as for example Lucretius in book 4: "Here where they cannot struggle on or press down with their wings'. Caecilius in the Hymnis: 'Let the babblers gnash their teeth, let them struggle on with their sticks'. Novius in the Maccus copo: 'You shall know directly, when you are struggling on in prison ...\ 32

29 See above 52. 30 For the early date, J. Heurgon, 4L. Cincius et la loi de "clavus annalis'", Athenaeum 42 (1964) = Studi in onore di E. Malcovati (Pavia 1963) 432-41,434; see also G. Wissowa, s.v. 'L. Cincius (3)', RE 111.2555-56, 2555; Schanz-Hosius 1.175-6; R. Herzog and P. L. Schmidt, Lateinische Literatur der Antikel = M\l\\efsHandbuchderAltertumswissenschaftWm.\ (Munich 2002), §195.4; GRF 371-82. 31 For the date of Lucretius' poem and death, see L. Canfora, Vita di Lucrezio (Palermo 1993). Cicero discusses it with his brother in 54 BC (ad Q. F. 2.10.3 = Letter 14.3 (SB)), speaking as though they were both just reading it; Canfora argues for the possibility that Lucretius was still alive and in touch with them at the time (17-22). Presumably Cincius read it later than this date. 32 182.30F nictare. Texts of Lucretius here read nixari; F does undoubtedly read nexari and Lindsay prints nexari, without any comment. But nexari, even if this form of nexo existed, makes no sense at all. Wherever the corruption has come from, Verrius/Festus must have included the quotation because they believed that nictare, the lemma, occurred in the passage of Lucretius. Moreover, on Festus' definition, nictari makes perfectly good sense: the birds finding themselves in a vacuum try fluttering away without any effect. Contra, Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus (n. 16, above) 155, who would read nixari, arguing that, despite the evident distinction between the two words, '... trug Verrius kein Bedenken ... das Lukrez-Zitatanzufuhren'.

J..

. ORTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

59

The implications of this entry s e e m at first sight to be very clear, whatever the difficulties with the actual quotations. Lucretius is being quoted first in a list of antiqui. It is therefore impossible in this case to argue that the name might be a later addition to a pre-existing list. In this c a s e , as in the others, it might be that Lucretius earns his place among the antiqui because of his habit of using rare and archaic words and forms. But this is not explicitly stated and, to put it at its lowest, the argument about ancient forms is not strengthened by including a 'modern' writer in the list. On o n e o c c a s i o n , Festus seems to betray awareness of his own procedures: Oscos quos dicimus, ait Verrius, Opscos antea dictos, teste Ennio, cum dicat {Ann. 2 9 6 V 3 = 2 9 1 S k ) : ' D e mûris rem gerit Opscus'. Adicit etiam, quod stupra inconcessae libidinis obscena dicantur, ab eius gentis consuetudine inducta. Quod verum esse non satis adducor, c u m apud antiquos omnis fere obscena dicta sint, quae mali ominis habebantur, ut ilia Virgilii testimonio sunt, ut superiorum auctorum exempla referre non sit necesse, c u m ait Harpyias (Aen. 3.241) '... obscenas volucres'. Et (Aen. 3.367): '... obscenamque famem

The people w e call Oscans used to be called Opscans, according to Verrius, citing Ennius w h o says 'The Opscan fought from the walls'. Verrius adds that excesses of forbidden lustfulness are called obscene (obscena) by derivation from the habits o f that race. I am not satisfied that this is true, because whatever was thought to be of evil o m e n could be called o b s c e n e by almost all early writers, as is shown by passages of Virgil, so there is no n e e d to cite the evidence o f previous authors: he calls the Harpies '... obscene birds' and says, '... and obscene hunger ...\ 3 3 This entry raises a different set o f intriguing issues. In this case there is no room for doubt that the quotation from Ennius g o e s back to Verrius, since Festus explicitly says that he based his case o n it, at least in so far as it proved the early spelling. The view that follows, since it is e x p l i c i t l y critical of Verrius' position, is presumably Festus' own, 3 4 though of course he might be following some third authority whose name he does not give. At. any rate, he has his o w n i d e a o f the early meaning o f obscenus, which he believes refutes Verrius' point. The words 'ut superiorum auctorum exempla referre non sit necesse' seem an o b v i o u s allusion to the normal practice of finding authorities contemporary with the period whose usage you wish to demonstrate. S o Festus is here both indicating what the normal rules were and deliberately e x e m p t i n g himself from them on this particular occasion. It is not clear w h y he believes he can so e x e m p t himself at this point: his thought might be that this is a usage that still survives to the time o f Virgil; but that overlooks the possibility that this expanded sense of the word was not an early usage at all, but a later development. It is also interesting that he here departs from his usual practice of quoting w h o l e lines of verse, but quotes simply the two essential words n e e d e d to make his point. Is he here just quoting tags he remembers? 3 5

33 218.12F Oscos. 34 For criticism of Verrius, see n. 18, above. 35 For the punctuation (different from Lindsay's) see L. Havet, Notes critiques sur le texte de Festus (Paris 1914) 5-6; for Festus' normal quotation practice, Skutsch, Ennius (n. 7, above) 35.

60

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

The conclusion of this section of the argument is that the occasional inclusion of later authors and the occasional reference to later periods do not substantially qualify the position as it was first stated: that is, that the chronological boundary of the body of quotations used in Festus calls for some explanation. Is there more than one possible theory as to the best understanding of the practice? Is there an alternative view? The view that has been assumed so far could be summarized as follows. The central purpose of the quotations is to demonstrate early usages of rare or unusual forms, no longer in use at the time of writing, whether that is understood to mean the time of writing of Festus himself or that of his source Verrius Flaccus. It might seem to follow that the collection dates from a period when the body of material to be cited was already perceived as archaic. There is, however, at least one other possibility that should be examined before this view can be regarded as established. It needs to be recognized that there are two possible conceptions of how the list of quotations might have been drawn up. The first conception would be that the list was composed with the purpose in mind for which it is regularly used in the Festus entries we have been considering: Le. the focus of interest was a particular word or form, in search of which the researcher checked a range of texts, or more probably, a well-stocked memory. He then recorded (or had his slaves record) under the heading of the word in question the examples he found or thought up. The whole collection would then always have been built up and organized in terms of particular words or phrases seen as important examples of the variability of early Latin. The second possibility is that the original motivation for making the collection was the methodical study of individual authors or texts and the list of quotations was intended to clarify problems in the interpretation of those texts. Thus for instance we know of studies devoted to particular authors or their texts, such as the work of Aelius Stilo on the plays of Plautus36 or, later on, of Verrius himself on Cato (De obscuris Catonis)?1 It seems much easier to conceive of the work beginning in this way, with the enquiry focused on the individual early writer, rather than the study of general issues based on the whole body of texts together. This approach might be strengthened by the well-established phenomenon of the clustering in the Lexicon of particular authors or types of entries. In each letter of the alphabet, the entries can be divided into two sections: the first section is alphabetized up to the second or third letter; in the second section alphabetization beyond the initial letter is abandoned and we find runs of entries in which all or nearly all derive from a single source of material. The original example of this was provided by the runs of quotations from Cato found at 280-3 L (under the letter P) and 140-4 L (under the letter M); but in fact the phenomenon is also found in the structure of all the other letters of the alphabet.38 That this is an important clue to the method of the Lexicon's production has been agreed at least since the pioneering work of 36 Gell., NA 3.3.1; 11; cf. 512.15F vapula Papiria. Schanz-Hosius, 1.233. 37 Gell., NA 17.6.2 Schanz-Hosius, 2.367. 38 An introduction to the issues is offered by R. Kaster, C. Suetonius Tranquillus De grammaticis et rhetoribus (Oxford 1995) 190-92.

J. A.

*TH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

61

Miiller's edition of 1839,39 as developed particularly by Reitzenstein's 'Verrianische Forschungen', published in 1887. If this phenomenon were found only in one or two letters, that would seem to be a clue to the method of working i.e. that the entries were first of all collected under the names of individual authors and then distributed into the alphabetical order in which we find them in the MS of Festus. We would then surely say that in these particular cases, but not in all the rest, the process had never been completed and the entries not yet integrated into the alphabetical sequence were left together unsorted. However, it defies any logic that this should have happened more than a handful of times. Miiller's original idea was that the well alphabetized sections derived from Verrius and that the clusters represented the contribution made by Festus himself, adding entries on the basis of his own research, but not bothering to alphabetize his additions beyond the first letter; but later work made this explanation untenable and it is now accepted as overwhelmingly probable that the whole of Festus derives from Verrius' work.40 The fullest analysis of the overall pattern of the entries of the second, less alphabetized, type was made by Ferdinando Bona;41 he published a synoptic view of the entries of this type under all letters and was hence able to show that the identifiable clusters appear in the same order under the various letters where they appear.42 The implication of this work is that entries were being added from particular sources, placed under the appropriate letter but not yet fully fitted into the alphabetical system. Presumably a second stage of work was conceived in which these clusters would have been broken up by appropriate distribution through the first part.43 Some of these clusters are definitely taken from a named single source (Cato or Plautus); others are linked only by theme, but presumably these too came from a single source.44 This explanation seems highly plausible, but in any case the existence of clusters derived from a single author cannot be denied and there seems to be no possible explanation of them except that the analysis of the texts from which they are derived was at least in part carried out by studying the work of an individual author. Various references in Festus imply strongly that the alphabetization of the Lexicon went back to Verrius and was not an innovation by Festus himself.45 He is capable of criticizing the inclusion of particular items and the location

39 Miiller's views are in the preface to his 1839 edition, Sexti Pompei Festi xvi-xxxi. 40 For later discussions: Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae; Bona, Contribute; A. Grandazzi, 'Les mots et les choses: la composition du De verborum significatu de Verrius Flaccus', RÉL 69 (1991) 101 -23. 41 Bona, Opusculum Festinum. 42 Bona, Opusculum Festinum 9-30. 43 It should, however, be noted that they are not drafted with an eye to redistribution because they sometimes assume the present order, by referring to the author or text (Le. as the same as in the previous entry). Thus, 476.18F 'subigere arietem in eodem libro Antistius esse ait' is referring back to the previous entry 476.14F, which quotes 'Antistius Labeo in commentario X V . 44 Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae 43-63; Bona, Opusculum Festinum, passim. 45 See, e.g., 476.36F satis, where, near the end of the S section, Festus announces that he is omitting both Verrius' satis entry and the next one (scabrum), which he disapproves of.

62

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

of particular pieces of information and his main project, as he says himself,46 was to shorten the original work; but we have no reason to beheve that he re-distributed the entries he found on any scale.47 It follows that the clusters occurred already in Verrius and hence may reflect the manner of working from the origins of the alphabetical mode of work. Earlier grammarians as well as contemporaries operated in a different way, collecting only ancient words (like Cincius) 48 or legal terms (like Aelius Gallus)49 or specializing in proverbs (like Sinnius Capito) 50 as well as studying an individual poet.51 Varro too has a different way of working: using a collection of texts that overlaps with Verrius' one, he organizes his material by topics and produces the quotations where they fit with his topic. 52 If, therefore, we can confidently assert that this mode of working was found in Verrius' original Lexicon and was copied directly by Festus into his own shortened version, does that imply that Verrius was working direcdy from literary texts themselves? And would that in turn imply that the lists of quotations were his own contribution? There are two problems here: first, nothing shows whether the material was culled directly from the sources, or rather from a pre-existing collection or collections; secondly, that the clusters consist of entries taken from various authorities, but presumably these entries already included the illustrative material in the way of appropriate quotations. If so, this argument would only apply to the collection of entries, not to the contents of the individual entries themselves. When we turn to the question of the internal structure of entries and the disposition of the quotations within them, the fundamental observation was made by Strzelecki. In the Festus entries that contain more than one quotation, they are regularly arranged in a fixed order, which is neither chronological nor alphabetical. Where several quotations are taken from the same work, these appear in the order of the books into which the work was divided. Almost the only occasions on which this standard order is not used, are when different senses or usages are being distinguished so that each forms a sub-set within the entry. 53 It seems once more to be a possibility that this practice directly reflects the working methods of Verrius himself; but again there can be no certainty, because they might only reflect the organization of a pre-existing collection of texts, whose order Verrius regularly respected. It does at least 46 242.19F poriciam: '... cum propositum habeam ex tanto librorum eius numéro intermortua iam et sepulta verba atque ipso saepe confitente nullius usus aut auctoritatis praeterire, et reliqua quam brevissime redigere in libros admodum paucos' (... since my plan is to omit from his large number of books the words that are half dead and buried, and such as he himself often admits have no use or authority, and to collect the rest as concisely as possible into just a few books). 47 For a much-discussed exception, see Mancini below. For a less familiar example, see 470.5F senacula, where, at this point in his text, Paul has no corresponding entry, whereas at 455.17P, he does have a brief entry senaculum, but in a section where the text of Festus is missing. 48 See above, 57-58. 49 For his work De signifleatione verborum quae as ius civile pertinent, see GRF 545-54. 50 The suggestion that he wrote a book specifically on proverbs was made by M. Hertz, 'Die Sprichwortsammlung des Sinnius Capito', Philologus 1 (1846) 610-14. 51 See n. 36, above. 52 See above, Glinister, e.g. 21-22. 53 Quaestiones Verrianae 82-87.

J. A

RTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

63

p r o v i d e a very strong argument that the w o r k was carried out by the analysis of particular texts in a fixed succession, followed by the distribution of the results across the alphabetical heads of the L e x i c o n .

Variations in treatment between different 'antiqui' The question now arises whether it is possible to detect the date at which the collecting process occurred from the attitudes adopted towards the various authorities from whom quotations are selected. Are the different authorities treated differently? and, in particular, are later sources handled in a different way from the very earliest writers? It is a characteristic of the Lexicon that some entries contain a whole series of examples drawn from literary texts. A classic example would be the entry 482.7F topper,54 which contains in all at least nine quotations from seven different authors, divided between various theories, which they are devised to illustrate and arguing for the word being used in very different senses. It is, however, an usually complex example because it also argues for a change of meaning after a certain date. In considering the quotations taken from any individual author there is a balance to be assessed between those entries in which they appear as such an example of ancient usage and those in which the emphasis is on the explication of a problem text of their own. Plautus, for instance, provides some quite clear cases: Persicum portum Plautus (Amph. 404, 412, 823) cum ait, mare Euboicum videtur significare, quod in eo classis Persarum dicitur stetisse, non procul a Thebis. When Plautus says 'the Persian port', he seems to mean the Euboean sea, because the Persian fleet is said to have been stationed in it, not far from Thebes.55 Nassa est piscatorii vasi genus, quo cum intravit piscis, exire non potest. Plautus {Mil. 581): 'Numquam hercule ex ista nassa hodie ego escam petam'. A nassa is a kind offishingpot, from which, after it enters, a fish cannot escape. Plautus: 'By Hercules, I would never try today to take the bait from your trap'.56 Here, there can hardly be much doubt that the purpose was to explain these passages. There is obviously an element of uncertainty about the identification of more cases like these; the form of the lemma does not necessarily give away the intention of the author. But, however these decisions are made, there is no doubt that the majority of the lemmata involving Plautus are not of this type. In the great majority of instances he appears either in a list of authorities as e.g. 344.15F remeligines, which has two Plautine quotations, one from Afranius and one from Lucilius; 394.6F superescit, which has again two from Plautus, one each from Ennius,

54 On which see now the discussion in I. Livingston, A linguistic commentary on Livius (New York and London 2004) 17-22.

Andronicus

55 238.9F; for the intended reference, see D. J. Blackman, 'Plautus and Greek topography', TAPhA 100 (1969) 11-22, at 21-22. 56 168.23F. See Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus (n. 16, above) 99.

64

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Accius, Pacuvius, Cato, and Afranius; or else in a shorter list, but with the clear intention of illustrating a usage, not discussing a problem, e.g.: Suasum colos appellatur, qui fit ex <s>tillicidio fumoso in vestimento albo. Plautus {True. 271): 'Quia tibi suaso infecisti propudiosa pallulanV. Quidam autem legunt insuaso; nee desunt, qui dicant, omnem colorem qui fiat inficiendo, suasum vocari, quod quasi persuadetur in alium ex albo transire. The colour which is made from dripping smoky water onto a white garment is called suasum. Plautus: 'Because you have dyed your little cloak with smoke-dye, you shameless woman . . . ' . B u t certain people read insuasum; nor are there lacking those who say that every colour which is made by dyeing is called suasum, because as it were it is 'persuaded' to turn from white into another colour. 57 M u c h the same analysis would apply to the entries where Livius Andronicus is quoted. Again, a few cases can be identified where it is plausible that a particular usage is being explained: Nequinont, pro nequeunt, ut solinunt, ferinunt, pro soient, et feriunt dicebant antiqui. Livius in Odissia (14R 3 = 15W): 'Partim errant, nequinnt Graeciam redire'. Early writers used to say nequinont instead of nequeunt (they cannot), like solinunt for soient (they are accustomed) and ferinunt for feriunt (they strike). Livius (Andronicus) in The Odyssey: 'In part they wander, they cannot return to Greece ...\ 58 Or, again, in some cases a word is illustrated only by examples taken from Livius: Ocrem antiqui, ut Ateius Philologus in libro Glosematorum refert, montem confragosum vocabant, ut aput Livium (trag. 31R 3 = 32W): 'Sed qui sunt hi, qui ascendunt altum ocrim?' Et (trag. 32-3R 3 = 3 3 - 4 W ) : 'Celsosque ocris arvaque putria, et mare magnum'. <Et (trag. 34R 3 = 35W)>: 'Namque Taenari celsos ocris'. Et (trag. 35R 3 = 3 0 W ) : 'Haut ut quern Chiro in Pelio docuit ocri'. Unde fortasse etiam ocreae sint dictae inaequaliter tuberatae. Early writers, as Ateius Philologus mentions in his book On obscure words,59 used to call a rough mountain ocris (rugged), as in Livius (Andronicus): 'But who are these, who ascend the high rugged mountain?' And: 'Both the high rugged mountains, and the soft cultivated lands, and the mighty sea'. And: 'For the high rugged mountains of Taenarus'. And: 'Not at all like the man whom Chiron taught on Pelion the rugged mountain'. From which perhaps derives the word for greaves (ocreae) unevenly covered with knobs. (192.1F) 57 392.25F. The process described for dyeing and the colour produced are both quite mysterious. OLD suggests 'dirty grey', but it seems unlikely that a shameless woman would go to so much trouble, unless for a more positive effect. R. J. Forbes, Studies in ancient technology IV (Leiden 1956) 98-148, esp. 126-35. 58 160.3F. See Pieroni, Marcus Verrius Flaccus (n. 16, above) 59. 59 On Ateius Philologus, see Schanz-Hosius 1.580-81; G. Goetz, s.v. 'Ateius (11). L. Ateius Praetextatus', REY1.2 (Stuttgart 1896) 1910-11; GRF 13641; Kaster, Suetonius (n. 38, above) 138-39.

J. A.

*TH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

65

Far more typically, however, Livius, like Plautus, appears essentially exemplifying an outof-date usage, frequently in lists of parallel quotations. 60 The case of Lucilius Lucilius may seem a good example of the later end of the spectrum. There certainly are some cases where Lucilius is quoted in exactly the same way as Plautus or Livius, that is, as an authority for the verbal habits of the early Latin writers. A clear example would be: Suppum antiqui dicebant, quern nunc supinum dicimus ex Graeco, videlicet pro adspiratione ponentes <S> litteram, ut cum idem hylas dicunt, et nos silvas; item hex sex, et hepta septem. Eius vocabuli meminit etiam Luci

us (1297M = 1313Kr = H66Ch): 'Si vero das quod rogat, et si suggeri<s> suppus ...'. Early writers used to call suppus what we now call supinus (lying back), from the Greek, clearly using the letter S in place of aspiration, as when likewise they say uA,ccç and we say silvae (woods); likewise êÇ is sex (six), and èmà is septem (seven). Lucilius also makes mention of that word: 'But if you give her what she is asking for, and provide her with it while lying on your back, . . .'. 61 There is no reason to doubt here that Lucilius is just being picked on as an example of an early usage. Sometimes too, Lucilius is added as one of a list of ancient authorities.62 But the typical Lucilius entry is not of this type: very frequendy the wording of these entries suggests that the underlying question on which they are formed is not the search for discontinued usages, but rather the explication of difficult texts. Thus, for instance: 'Nequam aurum est, auris quo vis vehementius ambit'; hoc versu Lucilium (1220M = 1244Kr = 1193W = H37Ch) significare ait Sinnius Capito (21H = 15F), nequam esse aurum quod auris laedat; vel pondère inaurium, cum mollissima pars auris inciditur; vel ex auro intellegi pecuniam, cuius respectu, et nimia cupiditate homines ad peccandum adduci. quodvis F\ quovis Baehrens 'Gold is a worthless thing, it bombards the ear more eagerly than anything'. Sinnius Capito says that in this verse Lucilius means that gold is bad, because it may hurt the ears; either by the weight of the earrings, when the softest part of the ear is pierced; or else by 'gold' 'money' is understood, with regard to which, and from excessive greed, men are led to wrong-doing. 63

60 As in e.g. 156.26F nefrendes; 182.12F nobilem; 230.18Fpedibus obsitum; 408.25F struices; 412.13F stirpem. 61 370.20F; for comment: Krenkel, Lucilius (n. 7, above) 693; F. Charpin, Satires: Lucilius III (Paris 1991) 275. The Greek word is clearly imô. 62 e.g. 230.18F pedibus obsitum; 290.35F puelli; 334.19F redantruare\ 344.15F remeligines. 63 160.23F; Krenkel, Lucilius (n. 7, above) 659. Taking the reading quodvis the meaning would presumably be 'gold ... in whatever form' ; so understood by Charpin, Satires (n. 61, above) III. 111 ; 263.

66

VERR1US, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Here surely the concern both of Festus himself, and of the point being made by Sinnius Capito, is with the interpretation of the verse itself. There is nothing archaic about the language and no particular learned reference that needs to be explained. But obviously, any commentator seeking to help the interpretation of the verse would need to take note of the (presumably deliberate) ambiguity. 64 Pedarium senatorem . . . significat Lucilius cum ait (1102M = 1113Kr = 1134W = H 1 0 3 C h ) : . . . 'agipes vocem mittere coepit'; qui ita appellatur, quia tacitus transeundo ad eum, cuius sententiam probat, quid sentiat, indicat. Lucilius means a pedarius (foot-vote) senator . . . when he says: T h e agipes begins to utter a word'; the man is so called, because he makes known what he thinks by crossing over, without speaking, to the man whose opinion he approves. 65 The word agipes here is a hapax, and presumably a comic invention of Lucilius' own. Festus' note simply defines what the word means i.e. that it is equivalent to pedarius senator. In Gellius' discussion (NA 3.18) of the meaning of the term (about which there was evidently uncertainty by his time) the theory given here is the first quoted {NA 3.18.1), but anonymously and soon to be rejected.66 'Rhondes Icadionque' cum dixit Lucilius (1292M = 1308Kr = 197W = H79Ch), duo nomina piratarum posuit, tarn infestum sibi corpus et valitudinem referens, quam saluti navigantium. When Lucilius said 'Rhondes and Icadion', he used the names of two pirates, implying that his body and his state of health were as dangerous to him, as the pirates would have been to the safety of seafarers. 67 When Lucilius wrote the lines, it was presumably a recognizable allusion to contemporary or notorious characters. But such allusions date very quickly and it might not be long before an explanation might be needed.

64 The interpretation of the verb 'ambire' is crucial: it means either to surround/encircle, or else to solicit as for votes or favours. Capito's two theories (literal or metaphorical gold) apparently correspond to these two senses of the word. Possibly Lucilius intended the metaphoral sense, but left Sinnius uncertain. More probably, the ambiguity of the phrase was precisely Lucilius' point. Note that Sinnius uses vel ... vel ... not aut ... aut .... thus leaving the combination of the two interpretations as a possibility. 65 232.6F. 66 For the role ofpedarii, Gell., NA 3.18; on senatorial procedure: M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Sénat de la République romaine: de la guerre d'Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques délibératives et prises de decision (Rome 1989) 655-82; on this verse, 672-73. Charpin, Satires (n. 61, above) 3.287; for the idea that thefragmentbelongs to the assembly of the gods in Book 1, see N. Terzaghi, Lucilio (Turin 1934) 261,410. 67 332.25F. The MS reads 'quam levis sed saluti' which makes no sense; 'illi essent' is the emendation of Scaliger. The force of the entry seems clear, whatever the original reading.

J.

IORTH: WHY DOES FESTUS QUOTE WHAT HE QUOTES?

67

Tagax furunculus a tagendo; cuius vocabuli Lucilius meminit (1031M = 1096Kr = 1067W = 30.23Ch): 'et muttonis manum perscribere posse t a g < a o e m \ Tagax means thief, being derived from tangere (to touch); Lucilius uses the word: 'and to be able to write a full account of the thieving hand of Mutto'. 6 8 Here again the whole point of the entry is to explain the word tagax and there seems to be no suggestion that the word is archaic, though it is very rare. In this case, however, it seems almost certain that Festus was wrong in his interpretation of the word and that Lucilius had a very different activity in mind. 69 That is no reason, however, to doubt that the explanation of an obscurity lay behind the original entry. The conclusion is therefore reasonable that a high percentage of the work on Lucilius as it appears in the Lexicon was originally focused on the elucidation of his text and its problems rather than on collecting examples of early usages. 70 In this respect there is a contrast between this pattern and that in the quotations of authors from the century or more before Lucilius* time. Is this pattern a clue to the date that the material was being collected? Implications A possible hypothesis, therefore, which needs to be at least considered here, is that the pattern of quotations in Festus has the particular shape it does, not because of a conscious decision to concentrate on earlier rather than on contemporary works, but because the list of quotations substantially took its shape in the early part of the first century, when poetry from Livius to Lucilius and Accius constituted the body of Latin literature. Later generations of grammarians would then have added a sprinkling of later texts, sometimes for identifiable reasons, but in essence they used and re-used an already established store of quotations. We can at least say that the process of accumulation is quite likely to have started with the earliest grammarian we know of, L. Aelius Stilo, who was born in about 150 B C and lived into the 90s BC. 7 1 His views are reported at least eighteen times in the extant portions of Festus. 72 This must remain a theoretical possibility. However, there are reasonable objections to it. In the first place, while the treatment of Lucilius is striking, and might indeed reflect the attitude of near-contemporaries, who had a quite different attitude towards Lucilius from that towards writers of a century earlier, this same argument cannot be made for any other author.

68 492.4F. 69 Festus is almost certainly wrong here: tagax should mean 'given to touching', on the analogy of rapax, fugax, etc. (so Krenkel, Lucilius (n. 7, above) 587), mutto a crude word for penis (J. Adams, The Latin sexual vocabulary (London 1982) 62-63). A likelier translation of Lucilius would be: '... and that the hand that fumbles for a prick should be able to write a full account of (life's rich tapestry?)'. But this was evidently not how Festus understood it. 70 Of the entries in Festus, which (a) include a quotation from Lucilius and (b) survive complete, or near enough complete, more than half are of the former type; fewer than a fifth of the latter, while others are too incomplete to judge. 71 For whom see G. Goetz, s.v. 'Aelius (144). L. Aelius Stilo Praeconinus)', RE 1.1 (Stuttgart 1893) 532-33, 532; Schanz-Hosius 1.232-4; Herzog-Schmidt §192. 72 At 226.26F peteuristas, Stilo is quoted apparently commenting on a line of Lucilius.

68

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Accius, for example, who was still writing in the nineties BC, occurs predominantly in lists, just like Plautus and Livius, designed to illustrate out-of-date forms. On the other hand, Cato writing in the middle of the period is quite often quoted on his own.73 Secondly, while it is certainly true, as argued above, that first-century BC literature is very thinly represented among the range of Festus' quotations, the really surprizing omissions are from prose authors, not from poets. If the formation of the list belongs to the period of Varro and Verrius, then it is amongst the orators and historians of the period between 80 BC and 50 BC that copious quotations to illustrate usage could have been found. Even Cicero is only quoted ten times in all, mostly from speeches, but also from philosophical and rhetorical works. It may be, therefore, that one should suspect, not so much a reluctance to use later sources, as a reluctance to use prose sources at all. Among earlier authors, prose is represented only by Cato, as already mentioned.74 The conclusion of this discussion must therefore be that in so far as Lucilius is treated rather differently from other authors, it was precisely because his texts soon raised difficulties of interpretation, no doubt because of their contemporary allusions and racy style. If this idea is to be rejected, the balance of probabilities is that the establishment of the collection of quotations in Festus belongs to the late first century BC, when second and third century BC literature was already seen as in an out-dated form of the language and hence as an object of study in itself. It was the work of the generation of Varro and Verrius, not that of Aelius Stilo. At the same time, the other side of the argument should not simply be forgotten. It was no doubt Verrius who contributed the idea of an alphabetical organization of the material, but he was working within a well-established tradition of the discussion of selected texts, going back many decades before the time at which he was working. These texts had themselves been selected by the double process of studying individual texts and contributing to debates about old-fashioned usages, forms and verbal habits. This process had in some sense established a canon of authors who were to be consulted; by Verrius' time, that canon seems to have been more or less closed. The reason ought to be that by that date it had become closely associated with the study of the early stages of the literary language.

73 He is exceptional, in any case, as the only prose-writer regularly quoted in the Lexicon and also as the subject of one of Verrius' own works. See n. 37, above. 74 Above, 50-51.

PART 2: FESTUS AND ROMAN SOCIETY 4. LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS TÉMOIN DE LA NAISSANCE D'UNE SCIENCE DE LA PARENTÉ À ROME PHILIPPE MOREAU L'objet de ces pages est de présenter brièvement les gloses consacrées auxjejrmes_de parejnté que nous pouvons lire dans les textes de Festus et de Paul tels que nous les possédons, et d'examiner ce que ces gloses nous apprennent d'une science romaine de la parenté, science dont on saisit les premières manifestations à la fin de la République, dans la littérature juridique et dans la littérature lexicographique.1 Terme de parenté' sera pris au sens le plus étroit, c'est-à-dire: terme définissant la position généalogique d'un individu par rapport à un autre, en laissant de côté pour l'essentiel les termes correspondant à la privation ou à la possession d'une relation de parenté ou aux particularités biologiques de la naissance,2 dont Fexplication est parfois associée chez les lexicographes à celle des termes de parenté proprement dits,3 mais qui étaient plus souvent traités en tant que praenomina ou cognomina.4 On ne traitera pas non plus les termes désignant une catégorie de parenté ou un groupe de parents,5 qui posent d'autres problèmes. Si on limite ainsi la définition, on arrive à un total de vingt-neuf gloses de Festus ou de Paul, parfois de Festus et de Paul.6 1 Un traitement plus développé sera donné dans P. Moreau, Gradus. Les représentations romaines de la parenté, à paraître. 2 Ne seront pas traitées ici les gloses: 26.17P adoptaticius; 50.7P caesar et 50.6P caeso\ 113.5P matrimes ac patrimes; 182.4F nothus; 201.17P opiten 194.18F orba; 266.22F pater patrimus; 251.14P proculus. 3 Non. XX De propinquitate p. 894 Lindsay: caesares, agrippae, vopiscus, puis glos, laevir, amitini, fratriae, amitini, patrueles, . 4Auct. depraenom. 4, p. 589 Kempf: opiter, vopiscus; 6, p. 590 Kempf: caesones, spurii. 5 10.15P adfînes; 16.21? familia; 83.20P gentilis\ 158.19F necessarius; 412.13F stir.

6 Liste alphabétique: 12.28P abavus; 13.8P amita; 11.20P attam\ 13.1P attavus; 13.3P avunculus; 12.21P avus\ 80A\?fraten 80.8P fratria\ 87.16P glos; 102.22P levin 113.25P magnam socrum; 113.25P magnum socerum; 121.13? maior amita; 121.12P maior avunculus; 121.1 IP maior patruus; 121.14P maior socer; 121.15P maior socrus; 121.9P matertera; 121.10P matertera patris; 162.17F ; 163.9? nepos; 180.3F <noverca>; 181.3P noverca; 247.1 IP parens; 137.16P masculino génère (glosant parens); 252.24P privignus; 256.2F <progenerum>; 251.2? progenerum; 250.21P 69

70

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Un premier examen de cette liste permet de se représenter les conséquences qu'a pu avoir, dans ce domaine, l'intervention de Paul sur le texte de Festus: s'agissant d'un lexique technique et complexe, du fait de la multiplicité des termes suffixes et des syntagmes ayant pour base un petit nombre de termes simples, elle a été marquée par une certaine incompréhension. Paul a ainsi conservé, groupées (121L), plusieurs notices concernant des collatéraux des ascendants: maior patruus, maior avunculus, maior amita (dans cet ordre), cognats du 5e degré, mais il n'a pas repris maior matertera, qui, logiquement, devait compléter la série, puisque la terminologie latine, de type 'bifurcate collateral', distinguait, en fonction de la ligne paternelle ou maternelle et du sexe, quatre collatéraux. En revanche, il donne (12IL toujours) avant les trois termes précédents et après mention de la matertera, une glose matertera magna, cognate du 4e degré, sans donner les trois termes symétriques attendus: amita magna, avunculus magnus, patruus magnus, attestés dans les traités de gradibus cognationis de juristes, et, pour avunculus magnus, dans la langue commune (à cause de la parenté de César et d'Auguste, souvent mentionnée).7 On a donc l'impression qu'à partir de huit termes, il en a gardé quatre, en créant une série hétérogène: trois termes en maior, correspondant à des collatéraux de degré 5, un terme en magnus, correspondant à une collatérale de degré 4, sans comprendre que la langue commune (ou les doctes) avait élaboré pour désigner les collatéraux des ascendants, à côté d'un système de composition par préfixes (patruus, propatruus, abpatruus, etc.), un système de syntagmes utilisant les degrés de comparaison de l'adjectif magnus? les deux systèmes étant souvent mêlés dans une série hétérogène: patruus, patruus magnus, propatruus, etc.9 Il est assez probable que Verrius Flaccus, et peut-être encore Festus, ait donné une liste de quatre collatéraux en maximus, pour le degré 6 (patruus maximus, etc.), mais Paul n'en conserve rien. L'intervention du dernier auteur de la chaîne de réélaborations a été assez brutale et maladroite, et nous prive certainement d'une partie importante du matériel que devait donner Verrius Flaccus. Les procédés d'analyse et de présentation des termes de parenté employés par Festus Le lexique tel que nous le possédons nous permet en revanche d'avoir une idée assez nette des concepts et procédés de présentation et d'analyse utilisés par Festus et les lexicographes ses prédécesseurs. Le premier est l'emploi de gradus, au sens de gradus cognationis, 'degré de parenté', concept qui permettait la mesure de la parenté, en particulier la mesure comparative de la parenté en ligne directe et de la parenté en ligne collatérale. Cet instrument conceptuel, sans parallèle dans le monde grec, est une invention romaine et, comme on sait, les généalogistes, les juristes et les anthropologues contemporains l'utilisent encore de nos jours. Dans les traités du vocabulaire de la parenté dus à des juristes que nous avons conservés, c'est ce concept qui

pronurus; 260.25F propius sobrino; 261.7P propius sobrino\ 379.6F sobrinus; 379.10P sobrinus; 414.14F strit\ 415.IP strittavum. 7 J. Scheid, 'Scribonia Caesaris et les Julio-Claudiens. Problèmes de vocabulaire de la parenté', MEFRA 87 (1975) 349-54. 8 Paul, Liber singularis de gradibus et adfinibus et nominibus eorum, Dig. 38.10.10.15-17. 9 Ainsi, Gaius, 8 ad edictum provinciale, Dig. 38.10.1.6-7 et 3, pr.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

71

est utilisé pour structurer le tableau d'ensemble de la parentèle théorique d'un individu, dont les membres sont présentés par ordre croissant de degré.10 Bien entendu, la nature alphabétique de l'ouvrage de Festus interdisait que le gradus joue ce rôle de classement et d'organisation de la matière, mais le lexicographe connaissait cette notion, comme on le constate en lisant 379.6F (sobrinus ... idem gradus in sobrina quoque sunt), où le mot a pris par métonymie le sens de 'type de parent, position généalogique', qu'il a aussi dans certains textes juridiques. Il est possible que Festus, et avant lui Verrius Flaccus, aient employé plus largement le terme gradus: on constate en effet que Paul, dans l'abrégé qu'il donne de la notice de Festus (379.10P), a supprimé la phrase qui contenait le terme gradus: il a pu le faire également dans d'autres passages. Il ne faudrait cependant pas surestimer la familiarité de Verrius Raccus avec ce comput des degrés: quand il expliquait les termes 13.8P amita et 13.3P avunculus, il utilisait un comput qui n'a rien à voir avec celui des juristes romains: ainsi pour Y amita: amita patris mei soror. Quia similiter tenia a me sit atque avia. Mais si V amita est bien au degré 3 en comput romain, Y avia est au degré 2. On constate la même erreur à propos de Y avunculus.11 On en retire donc l'impression que Verrius Flaccus connaissait le terme gradus, associé au système de comput des juristes, mais qu'il ne maîtrisait pas parfaitement le comput lui-même, ou qu'il était prêt à l'oublier quand il avait besoin d'un autre mode de décompte pour justifier une etymologic L'objectif de ce concept et du mode de comput qui lui était lié, pour les juristes, à savoir la détermination de la proximité relative des parentés en contexte principalement successoral, était sans intérêt pour lui: seule comptait aux yeux d'un lexicographe l'explication immédiate et limitée du sens littéral des termes. Festus connaît également la notion de persona, 'type de parent', et l'emploie dans le sens technique que lui avaient donné les juristes spécialistes de la parenté, à propos des 'sœurs' et des 'frères' abstraits, indépendamment de toute spécification individuelle: 13.8P (amita ... nam plus sorores afratribus quamfratres diligi soient, videlicet propter dissimilitudinem personarum, quae ideo minus habent dissensionis quo minus aemulationis). Dans les traités De gradibus cognationis, le terme persona, souvent employé par les juristes dans d'autres contextes pour désigner des individus théoriques, celui ou celle qui peut être sujet d'un droit, sujet actif ou passif d'une action, avait reçu une valeur particulière: il désigne un 'type de parent' purement théorique dont l'existence est postulée uniquement pour entourer un individu, également théorique, de la parentèle la plus complète possible, composée de tous les types de parent susceptibles d'exister, à un seul exemplaire pour chaque type de parent. Cette persona est définie par son degré, sa ligne, son sexe et le terme ou le syntagme qui la désigne. Chaque position généalogique théoriquement possible est donc occupée par deux personae, l'une masculine, l'autre féminine, et deux seulement: en supposer davantage serait inutile puisqu'il s'agit d'illustrer le plus économiquement possible une série d'éventualités.

10 Définitions de gradus et présentations du mode de comput: De gradibus cognationum 1, in Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersunt II, eds E. Seckel et B. Kiibler (Leipzig 19276) 183: gradus cognationum appellantur ab eo quod personae cognatorum aliae proximiore, aliae longiore gradu s et ob id quasi gradatim altera alteram antecedit, 'les degrés de parenté tirent leur nom du fait que les types de parents sont situés à un degré plus ou moins éloigné et que, pour cette raison, ils se succèdent pour ainsi dire de manière échelonnée'; Paul, Dig. 38.10.10.9; Inst. 3.6.7; Moreau, Gradus (cité, n. 1).

1 ] 13.8P amita] 13.3P: avunculus matris meaefrater, traxit appellationem ab eo quod aeque tertius me, ut avus est, sed non eiusdem iuris. U avunculus est aussi au degré 3, et Vavus au degré 2.

72

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

On relève cet emploi par exemple dans le traité anonyme De gradibus cognationum.I2 Festus utilise tout à fait correctement le terme, puisque pour lui les fratres et les sorores, qui occupent le même degré généalogique, constituent des personae différentes, étant de sexe différent et portant des noms différents. Les juristes auteurs de traités de gradibus avaient distingué uns persona très particulière, celle qui constituait le centre de la parentèle théorique qu'ils analysaient. Il était en effet indispensable de spécifier la personne dont on présentait la parentèle idéale, puisqu'un terme de parenté sans référence n'a pas de signification: il faut un pivot au système, un point auquel toutes les personae se rattachent. Et cette persona, ils la désignaient par Ego. Cette première personne du singulier ne désigne évidemment pas l'auteur du traité, c'est une personne théorique, que l'on peut appeller 'Ego abstrait', un pur point de référence, un simple support d'énonciation d'une relation. On peut se demander quelle est l'origine de cet emploi curieux d'Ego abstrait. Une hypothèse est qu'il s'agit d'un emploi issu de la situation de dialogue entre un iuris consultus et le client qui le consultait, ou entre ce iuris consultus et un élève: le iuris consultus prenant pendant un instant sa propre personne, et, réciproquement, celle de son interlocuteur, comme supports exemplaires de la relation de parenté qu'il voulait ^expliciter, tout en les abstrayant de leur propre individualité.13 Le fait significatif est que Festus utilise cet Ego abstrait pour servir de point de référence aux relations de parenté qu'il explique, exactement comme le font les juristes. On trouve cet emploi par exemple en 13.8P (amita patris mei soror, quia similiter tenia a me sit atque avid), où l'on a l'adjectif possessif et le pronom personnel de la première personne du singulier, et au total à huit reprises. Il s'agit donc bien chez Festus d'un emploi systématique, d'un procédé constant.14 On sait ce que Verrius Flaccus devait à ses sources juridiques,15 mais les points que l'on vient de relever permettent d'affirmer qu'il avait connaissance (ou que ses sources avaient connaissance) des procédés d'analyse de la parenté et des concepts élaborés par les juristes, que nous repérons dans des traités de gradibus cognationis, dont il y a tout lieu de supposer

12 De gradibus cognationum (cité, n. 10) 2 omnes personae cognatorum aut supra numerantur aut infra aut ex transverso sive a latere. 13 Le point est développé dans Moreau, Gradus (cité, n. 1). 14 Voir encore 13.3P avunculus; 102.22P levir; 121.14P maiorsocer, 121.15P maior socrus; 121.10P matertera patris; 260.25F propius sobrino; 379.6F sobrinus. 15 Sur les sources juridiques de l'ouvrage de Festus, on se contentera de renvoyer à Bona, Opusculum Festinum, qui synthétise les travaux de Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi, Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen', Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae, et Bona lui-même, Contributo 33-36 (sources n°. 5, 14, 26, 28, 43,44, 48 f., 48 m.).

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

73

qu'ils existaient déjà à la fin de la République:16 c'est sans doute à l'un de ces traités qu'il doit ses définitions et son mode d'analyse des termes de parenté. Aelius Gallus, source de Verrius Flaccus Le lexique de Festus cite nommément ce qui est sans doute la principale source 17 de Verrius Flaccus pour les termes de parenté: Aelius Gallus, mais il faut tenter d'apprécier l'étendue de la dette de Verrius Flaccus à son égard. Reitzenstein constatait qu'une seule glose est attribuée expressément à Aelius Gallus, 379.6F (sobrinus est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, patris mei consobrini filius, et matris meae consobrinae filius). Il y ajoutait 260.25F (propius sobrino mini est consobrini meifilius et consobrinae meae filius et patris mei consobrinus et matris meae consobrinus), pour deux raisons: la ressemblance interne dans le mode de définition, et le fait que la glose propius sobrino soit immédiatement suivie, p. 260, par la glose possessio, attribuée à Aelius Gallus. 18 Reitzenstein attribuait également à Aelius Gallus les gloses 121.14P maior socer, 121.15P maior socrus, et 121.10P materterapatris, parce qu'elles emploient la première personne du singulier, Ego abstrait, comme les gloses sobrinus et propius sobrino. Et comme les sept gloses de la p. 121 constituent nettement un groupe, 19 Reitzenstein les attribue aussi à Aelius Gallus, ainsi que la glose 102.22P levir, à cause de l'emploi de Ego abstrait. 20 H semble raisonnable d'ajouter à cette liste 80.8P (fratria uxorfratris), et 87.16P (glos viri soror, a Graeco yaAocoç), à cause de la proximité de ces trois termes d'adfinitas désignant des alliés de même génération, qui ne sont plus à l'époque d'Auguste que des mots de glossaire disparus de la langue parlée, et que les lexicographes (Nonius, Isidore) et les juristes (Modestinus) traitent généralement ensemble. 21 On peut également attribuer à Aelius Gallus les gloses 113.25P (magnam socrum vir uxoris suae aviam), et 113.25P {magnum socerum appellat vir uxoris suae avum), qui semblent inséparables de 121.14P {maior socer uxoris meae proavus), et 121.15P {maior socrus uxoris meae proavus), malgré la différence du mode de définition, en raison du type d'adfines concernés. 16 On a supposé depuis longtemps que le De gradibus de Varron, connu par Serv., Aen. 5.412, était un traité des degrés de parenté, mais cette opinion n'est pas unanimement reçue; voir dans ce sens, parmi une abondante bibliographie, F. D. Sanio, Varroniana in der Schriften der rômischen Juristen (Leipzig 1867) 235, et L. Wenger, Die Quellen des rômischen Rechts (Vienne 1952) 209. On peut aussi, en se fondant sur les citations de Paul, Dig. 38.10.10.15 et 18, avancer l'idée que C. Trebatius Testa avait rédigé un De gradibus cognationis, voir Moreau, Gradus (cité, n. 1). Si ces deux hypothèses sont recevables, on aurait, à la fin de la République, un traité de lexicographe et un traité de juriste consacrés à la terminologie de parenté. 17 D'autres sont citées: L. Cincius, 83.20P gentilis; Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, Cornificius Longus, Hygin, 194.18F orba; on peut y ajouter P. Nigidius Figulus, si on rapproche Paul 80.1 \Y frater, de Gell., NA 13.10.4, et de Non., p. 51L. 18 260.28F possessio est, ut définit Gallus Aelius ... Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 26, 82, et 85. 19 121.13P maior amita, 121.12P maior avunculus, 121.11P maior patruus, 121.14P maior socer, 121.15P maior socrus, 121.9P matertera, 121.10P matertera patris. 20 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 26-27. 21 Non., p. 894L; Isid., Orig. 9.7.17 (forme fratrissa); Modest., Dig. 38.10.4.6.

74

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Si on accepte, avec Reitzenstein, que la glose définissant le terme composé matertera magna (121.1 OP matertera patris) remonte à Aelius Gallus, on peut supposer que la glose c o n c e r n a n t le terme simple, 121.9P matertera, a la même origine, et on peut faire le m ê m e raisonnement pour les gloses 13.8P amita, 13.3P avunculus, en se fondant sur 121.13P maior amita et sur 121.12P maior avunculus, qui appartiennent à un groupe de cinq gloses que Reitzenstein attribuait à Aelius Gallus. C o m m e la glose matertera présente une étymologie, Reitzenstein était tenté d'aller plus loin et d'attribuer à Aelius Gallus cinq gloses constituant un groupe, pp. 12-13: 12.21P avus, 12.28P abavus, 13.IP attavus, 13.3? avunculus, 13.8P amita.22 L a question est cependant de savoir si Aelius Gallus donnait effectivement ou n o n des etymologies: Ferdinando Bona le conteste, et note d'autre part que Verrius Flaccus avait l'habitude de fusionner des éléments d'origine diverse, comme on en a la trace dans la glose 1 2 . 2 I P avus, précisément à propos d'etymologies: alii volunt. . . alii putant. . ,23 O n fera simplement remarquer que les gloses 158.22F necessari et 160.32F nexum attestent qu'Aelius recourait au moins à des rapprochements morphologiques, m ê m e si on ne peut les qualifier strictement d'etymologies au sens technique. 2 4 En tout cas, on ne peut pas arriver à une certitude pour ces gloses contenant des etymologies: sans pouvoir assurer qu'elles r e m o n t e n t à Aelius Gallus seul, on peut simplement supposer avec vraisemblance qu'elles r e m o n t e n t partiellement à Aelius Gallus, qui est malgré tout la source principale de Verrius Flaccus pour le vocabulaire de la parenté et de l'alliance. O n arrive d o n c à une liste de dix-neuf gloses attribuables, en tout ou en partie, à Aelius Gallus: 3 7 9 . 6 F sobrinus et 260.25F propius sobrino, les sept notices de la p. 121: 121.13P maior amita, 121.12P maior avunculus, 121.1 IP maior patruus, 121.14P maior socer, 121.15P maior socrus, 121.9P matertera, 121.10P matertera patris, deux notices correspondant à des adfines dont le nom comprend aussi l'adjectif magnus: 113.25P magnam socrum et 113.25P magnum socerum, les trois notices désignant des adfines d e m ê m e génération, 80.8P fratria, 87.16P glos, 102.22P levir, et peut-être les cinq notices des p p . 1213: 12.28P abavus, 13.8P amita, \3.\? attavus, 13.3? avunculus, \2.21? avus. La nature et la structure de Vouvrage d'Aelius

Gallus

Bien que l'entreprise soit très incertaine, puisque l'identification m ê m e des gloses d e Festus r e m o n t a n t à Aelius Gallus n'est pas absolument assurée, on peut cependant essayer de présenter quelques remarques sur la manière dont Aelius Gallus avait organisé son ouvrage, et sur les concepts qu'il utilisait dans ses gloses. On considère généralement que l ' o u v r a g e avait deux livres au moins, peut-être deux livres au total: telle était l'opinion de L a c h m a n n ,

22 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 27 n. 2. 23 F. Bona, 'Alla ricerca del De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione di C. Elio Gallo', BIDR 29 (1987) 119-68 (124 n. 12). 24 158.22F necessari sunt, ut Gallus Aelius ait, qui aut cognati, aut adfines sunt, in quos necessaria officia conferuntur, praeter ceteros; 160.32F nexum est, ut ait Aelius Gallus, quodcumque per aes et libram geritur: id quod necti dicitur.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

75

tandis que Bona semble hésiter entre les deux hypothèses,25 et on a discuté pour savoir si le classement en était alphabétique ou thématique. Selon Schœll, le classement serait alphabétique, puisque les gloses commençant par la lettre P se trouvaient dans le livre 1, les gloses commençant par les lettres RSTV dans le livre 2.20 Une telle division serait surprenante: elle aurait eu pour conséquence un livre 1 deux à trois fois plus volumineux que le livre 2. D'autre part, le Digeste attribue au livre 1 d'Aelius Gallus la glose via, et Schœll devait donc supposer une erreur de référence due aux compilateurs. De même, la glose torrens de Festus, provenant du livre 2 d'Aelius, porte en fait sur le mot flumen, comme l'avait vu Reitzenstein.27 Enfin, selon la juste remarque de Funaioli,28 Aelius discutait ensemble les notions de religiosus, sacer et sanctum, ce qui, vu les initiales de ces mots, ne fournit évidemment pas un argument définitif, mais plaide toutefois plutôt pour un classement par matière. Cette opinion de Reitzenstein et Funaioli a été confortée par une analyse minutieuse de Bona, approfondissant l'exégèse de la glose 348.22F religiosus de Festus et reconstituant à partir d'autres gloses la doctrine d'Aelius Gallus sur les notions de religiosus, sacer et sanctus.29 Le plus probable est que les deux livres d'Aelius avaient un classement thématique, et donc que les termes de parenté y étaient présentés en groupe. C'est ce que semble confirmer l'analyse de la glose sobrinus de Festus: Aelius Gallus traitait ensemble frater, frater patruelis, consobrinus, propius sobrino et sobrinus. Quel qu'ait été son titre, De significatione verborum quae ad ius ou plus probablement ad ius civile pertinent™ l'œuvre débordait à coup sûr les catégories du droit civil au sens strict, puisqu'elle mentionnait plusieurs notions étrangères au ius civile, comme l'avait déjà relevé Schœll. On citera ainsi la reciperatio envisagée comme procédure internationale et la relegatio, quasi-peine ordonnée par un magistrat ou un sénatus-consulte.31 Aelius citait d'autre part une clause édictale, l'interdit uti possidetis?2 ce qui a pour nous l'intérêt d'attester qu'il connaissait l'édit du préteur, lequel était l'objet de commentaires depuis la fin de la République. On peut donc avancer l'hypothèse suivante: c'était soit l'ordre des matières dans Vedictum perpetuum du préteur urbain, soit plutôt dans l'œuvre d'un juriste commentant l'édit qui a fourni son plan à Aelius Gallus. Il faut à ce propos remarquer que le premier commentaire édictal, celui de Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, était organisé précisément en deux

25 K. Lachmann, 'Kritische Bemerkungen liber einige Bruchstticke Rômischer Juristen', ZGR 11 (1842) 110-18(117); Bona, 'Alla ricerca del De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione' (cité, n. 23) 119 et 126. 26 R. Schoell, Legis XII tabularum reliquiae (Leipzig 1866) 28 n. 2. 27 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 85; 482.30F torrens: flumen recte dici ait Gallus l. II quae ad ius pertinent. 28 H. Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta I (Leipzig 1907) 544. 29 Bona, 'Alla ricerca del De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione' (cité, n. 23) 129-44. 30 Bona, 'Alla ricerca del De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione' (cité, n. 23) 119 n. 2. 31 342.9F reciperatio et 348.18F relegati; Schoell, Legis XII tabularum reliquiae (cité, n. 26) 27-28. 32 260.28F possessio.

76

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

livres:33 peut-être y a-t-il là plus qu'une coïncidence, et la marque d'une dépendance d'Aelius Gallus envers cet ouvrage de Servius. En tout cas, on ne relève aucune glose d'Aelius Gallus qui ne puisse être tirée d'une clause édictale ou du commentaire de celle-ci par un juriste. Pour ce qui est des termes de parenté, Aelius pouvait, dans cette hypothèse, expliquer les termes de parenté apparaissant dans la clause qui nisi pro certis personis ne postulent, qui citait entre autres des adfines, ou des clauses réglant les bonorum possessiones contra tabulas ou sine tabulis, qui ne concernaient que des cognati. Deux gloses, qui ne concernent pas des termes de parenté au sens strict, mais sont liées à la parenté, étaient probablement présentées à propos du système successoral civil, tel qu'il était complété par l'édit du préteur: stirps, à propos de la représentation des agnati décédés par leur postérité, et necessari, à propos de la notion &hères necessarius.34 On peut d'autre part tenter de raisonner sur les principes de classement de l'ouvrage d'Aelius Gallus: la glose 158.22F necessari, expressément attribuée par Festus à Aelius, distingue cognati et adfines: peut-être cette distinction fournissait-elle un cadre de classement, comme le note ajuste titre Bona. Aucunfragmentconservé ne permet, en revanche, d'affirmer qu'Aehus ait utilisé la notion d'agnati, ce qui, si l'argument a silentio est ici recevable, serait symptomatique d'une vision de la parenté plus proche de celle qui avait cours dans le système prétorien que de celle des XII Tables, selon une autre remarque de Bona.35 H faut à présent envisager la question de l'emploi par Aelius Gallus des outils conceptuels attestés chez Festus: gradus, persona, Ego abstrait. L'emploi d'Ego, lié à celui de est, apparaît à deux reprises dans la seule glose invoquant le nom d'Aelius, la glose sobrinus, précisément dans le membre de phrase qui le cite: il est donc raisonnable de le lui attribuer. On sait d'ailleurs qu'Aelius employait fréquemment une formule du type N est. Le terme persona est employé dans la glose 13.8P amita de Paul, sans indication de provenance, liée à la seconde étymologie proposée pour ce terme, laquelle peut ne pas remonter à Aelius, source du début de la glose. L'attribution à Aelius est donc fort incertaine. Le concept de gradus, qui apparaît à la fin de la glose 379.6F sobrinus, a-t-il été emprunté à Aelius? Les avis divergent sur ce point. L'emploi de gradus par un auteur augustéen est possible: on sait qu'à cette époque le concept était déjà sorti des milieux de juristes pour entrer dans la langue commune. Un rhéteur de la fin de la République et de l'époque augustéenne, Marullus, maître de Sénèque le Rhéteur et de Porcius Latro, emploie l'expression gradus cognationis, et plusieurs passages d'Ovide attestent que le mot et le mécanisme de mesure auquel il était associé lui étaient familiers.36 D'ailleurs, Bona a relevé divers principes d'organisation qui se combinent dans le groupe de sept gloses à la p. 121,37 gloses qui appartiennent à la 'première partie' de la 33 F. P. Bremer, Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersunt 1 (Leipzig 1896) 230-37, citant entre autres Cic, Leg. 1.5.17. 34 412.13F stirp<em>: quam Gallu<s Aelius sic dofinit: 'Stirp<s> est geni< ...> qui a quoque est progna<...>\ 158.22F: necessari sunt, ut Gallus Aelius ait, qui aut cognati, aut adfines sunt, in quos necessaria officia conferuntur, praeter ceteros. 35 Bona, 'Allaricercadel De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significationé' (cité, n. 23) 150 n. 74. 36 Marullus ap. Sen., Contr. 1.1.12; Ovide, Fast. 2.621-622, 4.27-30; Her. 3.27-28; Met. 13.141-145. 37 Voir n. 19, ci-dessus.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

77

lettre M, qui n'ont pas un ordre rigoureusement alphabétique et qui permettent donc de remonter à l'ordre de la source de Verrius Flaccus: les cognati (materîera, maîertera maior, maior patruus, maior avunculus, maior amita) sont mentionnés avant les adfines (maior socer, maior soc rus), les termes masculins sont mentionnés avant les termes féminins (maior patruus et maior avunculus avant maior amita; maior socer avant maior socrus)\ les parents patrilatéraux sont mentionnés avant les parents matrilatéraux (maior patruus avant maior avunculus). Mais surtout, le classement est fait par degré croissant, du 3 e (matertera) au 4 e (maîertera magna) et au 5 e (maior patruus, maior avunculus, maior amita)?* On peut donc conclure que la notion de gradus devait être un des principes d'organisation d'Aelius Gallus dans son exposé des termes de parenté. Le sens de Jemina isdem de causis appellat' dans 379.6F 'sobrinus' On doit en outre envisager ce qui pourrait apparaître comme un point de détail, mais qui est en fait important pour la compréhension des procédés d'analyse et des modes de raisonnement des lexicographes qui ont traité du vocabulaire latin de la parenté, ainsi que pour la simple compréhension littérale d'une glose de Festus. Après avoir défini le sobrinus, collatéral du 6 e degré, que l'on appelle en français 'cousin issu de germain' et en anglais 'second cousin', Aelius Gallus ajoute: femina isdem de causis appellat fratrem etfraîrem patruelem et consobrinum et propius sobrino et sobrinum. Ce texte avait été expliqué rapidement par J. André, qui écrivait: 'C. Aelius Gallus ... ajoute que les femmes usent de la même terminologie que les hommes', comprenant donc qu'il s'agissait d'une question de sexe du locuteur.39 Or, cette interprétation a été contredite par un savant italien spécialiste de la parenté romaine, Maurizio Bettini, pour qui Aelius Gallus ferait référence à une antique tradition selon laquelle les femmes romaines auraient appelé frater, en s'adressant à eux, plusieurs de leurs collatéraux, cousins des 4 e , 5e et 6 degrés, cette appellation étant liée d'après M. Bettini aux prohibitions matrimoniales: les femmes romaines auraient appelé frater tous les hommes de leur parenté qu'elles ne pouvaient pas épouser et qu'elles saluaient, quand elles les rencontraient, d'un osculum, en les embrassant sur la bouche. Cette idée ne me semble pas convaincante, pour plusieurs raisons: la première est que la liste d'Aelius Gallus ne recouvre pas tous les consanguins concernés par les prohibitions matrimoniales à date ancienne et par l'usage de Vosculum de salutation, puisqu'aucun des ascendants, descendants, ni surtout collatéraux hétérostathmiques au sens d'E. Benveniste (oncles, grands-oncles, etc.), concernés par les règles du mariage et de la salutation, n'y est mentionné. D'autre part, M. Bettini considère que appellare est employé par Aelius Gallus pour renvoyer aux termes d'adresse. On sait que des termes d'adresse et des termes de référence différents peuvent être employés pour le même parent, et cette question des termes d'adresse et de référence était effectivement connue de Festus: il note que l'on utilisait atta, qui en tant que terme de référence désigne le grand-père, pour tous les hommes âgés, donc des non-parents. 40 Mais on ne peut pas dire que Festus utilisait appellare uniquement pour les 38 Bona, 'Allaricercadel De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione' (cité, n. 23) 150 n. 74. 39 J. André, *Le nom du collatéral au 5e degré', RPh 42 (1968) 42-48 (42). 40 11.20P: attampro reverentia seni cuilibet dicimus, quasi eum avi nomine appellemus.

78

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

termes d'adresse. On remarque déjà que dans la même glose, dicere est employé avec le même sens que appellare, ce qui est déjà un argument contre l'idée d'une spécialisation, d'un sens technique de appellare. Festus utilise d'autre part appellare ou appellatio à deux reprises à propos de termes de référence. 41 Toutefois, la question est avant tout d'ordre syntaxique: comment comprendre la construction de appellat dans la glose sobrinusl M. Bettini fait de fratrem patruelem, consobrinum, propius sobrino et sobrinum les objets directs de appellat, et de fratrem le seul attribut de l'objet. On pourrait penser, vu le système de coordination, qu'il est plus naturel de faire des cinq termes des objets directs de appellat, sur le même plan syntaxique. C'est ici qu'il faut faire intervenir une autre source, qui est elle aussi un témoin de la science romaine de la terminologie de parenté, texte peu connu, presque oublié, que l'on trouve, parfois sous forme figurée, dans les manuscrits de la lex Romana Visigothorum (Breviarium Alarici). Il avait été publié et étudié par Gustav Haenel, qui lui avait donné le nom de forma sexta, dans sa typologie des diagrammes représentant des parentèles théoriques. 42 On peut le définir comme un petit traité tardo-antique ou du haut moyen âge, mais qui contient encore une doctrine juridique classique. 43 Son auteur connaît la notion de gradus, utilise Ego abstrait comme point de référence des parentés et pratique également l'étymologie. L'objet du traité de la forma sexta est d'expliquer les termes de parenté et le classement qu'il a adopté est pour partie celui des gradus, exprimé par le chiffre qui précède chaque phrase. On constate qu'il ne prend en compte que les ascendants et descendants: le traité est donc incomplet, puisqu'il ignore les collatéraux, mais il ordonne correctement les termes degré par degré (ascendant, descendant). On doit d'abord relever que Ego, dans ce texte, désigne toujours une personne de sexe masculin. C'est d'ailleurs un usage constant de tous les traités des termes de parenté de prendre pour point de référence des parentés un Ego masculin: il n'y a rien là d'étonnant, le biais masculin allant de soi dans le monde romain. L'intérêt de ce traité pour la compréhension du texte de Festus est qu'à quatre reprises, l'auteur anonyme conclut par la phrase: femina isdem de causis appellat patrem, avum, proavum, abavum, atavum, tritavum, dans laquelle on retrouve l'expression de Festus, en particulier un emploi caractéristique de causa. L'interprétation du texte de Festus par M. Bettini ne peut s'appliquer ici, puisqu'il n'est guère vraisemblable que la formule implique qu'une femme désigne également du nom de pater, comme terme d'adresse, non seulement son avus et son proavus, mais aussi des ascendants plus éloignés: on a peu de chance d'adresser la parole à son tritavus. Ce que voulait exprimer l'auteur du traité, c'est qu'une femme emploie pour désigner ses ascendants les mêmes termes qu'un homme. Cette question est celle que les anthropologues de la parenté appellent celle de 'male speaking' ou 'female speaking': est-ce que le sexe du locuteur change le terme de référence d'un parent de même 41 13.3P (glose peut-être attribuable à Aelius): avunculus matris meaefrater, traxit appellationem .... Sive avunculus appellatur quod avi locum optineat...; 113.25P (dont la source est sûrement Aelius): magnum socerum appellat vir uxoris suae avum. 42 G. Haenel, Lex Romana Visigothorum (Leipzig 1859) 458. On trouvera une nouvelle édition de ce texte, fondée sur un nombre plus important de manuscrits, et une analyse dans Moreau, Gradus (cité, n. 1). 43 Au § 2, l'auteur distingue correctement adoptio et adrogatio, agnatio et cognatio, et sait rattacher Vagnatio hlapotestas.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

79

degré généalogique? Cette question n'était pas complètement vide de sens à Rome. Pour la quasi-totalité des termes, hommes et femmes employaient les mêmes termes (comme nous le faisons dans les langues modernes). Mais les lexicographes connaissaient des termes â'adfinitas qui ne pouvaient être employés que par un locuteur féminin: seule une femme pouvait faire référence à son levir ou à sa glos. C'est ce qu'indique Festus lui-même, dans des gloses dont on a supposé ici qu'elles avaient Aelius Gallus pour source.44 De même, les lexicographes et les juristes savaient que les Grecs distinguaient éKupdç, 'beau-père, fatherin-law', au sens de 'père de l'époux', et irevûepôç, 'beau-père, father-in-law', au sens de 'père de l'épouse', alors que les Latins disaient indifféremment dans les deux cas: socer.45 Pour en revenir à Festus on constate qu'il est sensible à la question du sexe du locuteur ou du personnage dont on étudie la parenté: il relève qu'un homme emploie les termes magnus socer et magna socrus, ce qu'il note par vir appellat.46 C'est là que se trouve la solution: Festus, et avant lui dans la glose sobrinus, sa source Aelius Gallus, signalait d'abord les termes employés du point de vue d'un homme, et il précisait que ces termes étaient ou non utilisés du point de vue d'une femme, en signalant: femina appellat. Il n'y a donc pas, malgré la savante et subtile argumentation de M. Bettini, à chercher dans cette glose la trace d'une 'archéologie' de la terminologie de la parenté et des usages sociaux liés aux prohibitions matrimoniales qui serait due à Aelius Gallus. Une telle attitude archéologique serait d'ailleurs surprenante chez un lexicographe qui n'avait rien d'un antiquaire à la Varron. On sait en outre qu'Aelius Gallus avait rédigé toutes ses notices au présent, même quand elles auraient pu donner lieu à une démarche de type historique ou antiquaire, par exemple la glose nexum.41 On peut donc tirer de la glose sobrinus telle qu'elle se présente à nous dans le lexique de Festus48 la conclusion qu'Aelius Gallus avait étudié, outre le terme sobrinus, les termes frater, frater patruelis, consobrinus, propius sobrino, en les présentant du point de vue d'un locuteur homme, puisqu'il concluait son développement en indiquant qu'une femme utilisait aussi ces termes. Nous avons d'ailleurs conservé la glose propius sobrino49 qui a donc été reclassée

44 102.22P levir est uxori meae frater meus (un homme ne pouvait donc pas dire levir meus); même remarque également pour 87.16P: glos viri soror, a Graeco ydAoax;. Un anthropologue dirait que levir et glos sont des termes 'female speaking', en adresse ou en référence. 45 Modest., Dig. 10.10.4.4. 46 113.25P: magnam socrum vir uxoris suae aviam, et 113.25P: magnum socerum appellat vir uxoris suae avum. On peut encore attribuer ces deux gloses à Aelius Gallus. 47 160.32F nexum (cité, n. 24). 48 On propose la traduction suivante de 379.6F: sobrinus est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, patris mei consobrini filius, et matris meae consobrinaefilius.Femina isdem de causis appellat fratrem etfratrem patruelem et consobrinum et propius sobrino et sobrinum. Idem gradus in sobrina quo que sunt, 'le sobrinus (cousin issu de germain) est, comme le dit Aelius Gallus, le fils du cousin germain de mon père et le fils de la cousine germaine de ma mère. S'agissant des mêmes relations, une femme emploie les termes de: frater (frère), frater patruelis (cousin germain parallèle patrilatéral), consobrinus (cousin germain), propius sobrino (cousin qui a le germain sur elle) et sobrinus (cousin issu de germain). Les mêmes types de parenté existent également dans le cas de la sobrina (cousine issue de germain)'. 49 260.25F propius sobrino, et 261.7P propius sobrino.

80

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

alphabétiquement par Verrius Flaccus,50 mais nous ne possédons pas, en toute certitude, les notices d'Aelius Gallus pour frater, frater patruelis ni consobrinus. On a seulement une notice frater chez Paul, dont l'origine est inconnue.51 Festus, les règles du deuil et la mesure de la parenté Pour terminer cette présentation de l'apport du lexique de Festus à notre connaissance de la science de la parenté à Rome, on s'intéressera à une règle connue uniquement, semble-t-il, par son ouvrage, règle concernant le deuil des personnes privées et qui est d'une grande importance pour la compréhension de la manière dont les Romains traitaient les relations de parenté, en particulier, de la manière dont ils mesuraient celles-ci, ou plus exactement dont ils évaluaient la plus ou moins grande proximité de deux relations de parenté. Il se trouve que ce texte, malgré son intérêt, n'a pas retenu jusqu'à présent l'attention des spécialistes de la parenté à Rome: il s'agit de la glose 144.3F minuitur populo luctus: 'le deuil du peuple est abrégé par la dédicace d'un sanctuaire, quand les censeurs ont achevé les opérations du recensement, quand on s'acquitte d'un vœu contracté à titre public; pour ce qui est du deuil des simples particuliers, il est abrégé quand il naît des descendants légitimes, quand une magistrature entre dans la famille, quand un ascendant, un descendant légitime, un époux ou un frère prisonnier de guerre revient à la maison, quand une jeune fille est fiancée, en cas de naissance d'un parent plus proche que ne l'était celui dont on porte le deuil, quand on se trouve en période d'observance pour Cérès, et par toute occasion de réjouissance'.52 Cette glose est attribuée depuis Strzelecki au groupe des 'gloses nuptiales', tirées par Verrius Flaccus du De iure pontificio d'Ateius Capito.53 Cette attribution possède une certaine vraisemblance, puisqu'il est question de sponsalia, mais on est tout de même obligé de constater que le lien avec les rites du mariage est secondaire et que le point central de la glose est le luctus. Festus indique tout d'abord les motifs de type public, civique, qui conduisent les particuliers à minuere leur deuil, ce qu'il faut plutôt comprendre comme un abrègement que comme une atténuation des marques de ce deuil. Dans un deuxième temps, il énumère les motifs privés de minutio: il s'agit globalement d'occasions de réjouissance (gratulatio) touchant la composition de \àfamilia, plus précisément quand elle connaît un accroissement numérique, ou retrouve son effectif antérieur qu'une soustraction avait affaibli: en cas de naissance, de réintégration d'un membre de la famille qui en était éloigné spatialement, mais qui en était aussi exclu juridiquement par la captivité, en cas de fiançailles d'une fille: cum

50 Cette division d'une glose initalement unitaire avait été bien vue par Lindsay, Glossaria Latina 338. 51 80.1 IP frater. 52 144.3F: minuitur populo luctus aedis dedicatione, cum censores lustrum condiderunt, cum votum publice susceptum solvitur; privatis autem, cum liberi nati sunt, cum honos infamilia<m> venit, cum parens aut liberi, aut vir, aut frater ab hoste captus domum redit, cum desponsa est, cum prop[r]iore quis cognatione quam is qui lugeturnatus est, cum in casto Cereris est, omnique gratulalione. 53 L. Strzelecki, 'De Ateio Capitone nuptialium caerimoniarum interprète', Travaux de la Société des sciences et des lettres de Wroclaw, série A.9 (Warsaw 1947) 5-7, cf. tableau p. 9; voir aussi L. Strzelecki, C. Ateii Capitonis fragmenta (Leipzig 1967) 42 n° 41.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

81

desponsa est, dans le texte de Lindsay. On aimerait savoir s'il s'agit des fiançailles d ' u n e fille de la familia, qui est d o n c destinée à en sortir, et on aurait là un affaiblissement numérique de la. familia (c'est ce q u e comprenait Reitzenstein, qui restituait non pas pue lia, c o m m e le fait Lindsay d'après Paul, mais filia)? ou bien des fiançailles d ' u n e j e u n e fille d ' u n e autre maisonnée à un h o m m e de la familia, ce qui correspondrait alors à un accroissement du groupe. On doit reconnaître que la question reste ouverte, et que l'on risque l'imputation de raisonnement circulaire si on observe que la logique interne du texte favorise la seconde hypothèse. La condition qui nous concerne ici est celle de la m o r t d'un membre de la familia c o m p e n s é e par une naissance, et plus précisément lorsque le nouveau-né était pour chaque individu composant la familia un plus proche parent que ne l'était le défunt. La logique sousjacente n'est plus seulement celle de la réduction, de la stabilité ou de l'expansion numérique du groupe, comme dans les cas vus précédemment. Ce qui justifie la minutio du deuil est un lien de parenté considéré c o m m e plus étroit avec le vivant q u ' a v e c le mort. On est toujours d a n s une sorte d'arithmétique, mais il ne s'agit plus seulement de compter, il s'agit de mesurer. L'application de cette règle posait un problème pratique: comment chaque m e m b r e de la familia pouvait-il apprécier la proximité relative de sa parenté avec le défunt et avec le n o u v e a u - n é ? C'est bien toute la question de la mesure d e la parenté qui est posée par le comparatif propior. Festus ne donne aucune indication quant à la manière d o n t on pouvait résoudre ce type de problème. Mais nous pouvons imaginer dans quel cadre d e s solutions ont été élaborées. On sait que, selon une tradition rapportée par Plutarque, c ' e s t à une 'loi royale' de N u m a , le créateur des collèges sacerdotaux et le prototype des pontifes, que l'on attribuait l'origine des règles du deuil, en particulier celles qui concernaient sa durée. 5 5 Et on attribue en général aux pontifes l'origine m ê m e de ces règles du deuil. 56 C'était en tout cas aux pontifes qu'il appartenait de contrôler a posteriori l'application de ces règles, ou de conseiller a priori les citoyens soucieux de ne pas commettre de faute cultuelle, d ' a u t a n t que ces règles avaient été pour partie prises en compte dans l'édit du préteur, assorties de sanctions: l'incapacité à représenter autrui ou à être représenté par autrui dans le procès civil. 57 M ê m e si nous ne connaissons probablement q u ' u n e partie de ces normes, 5 8 il demeure en tout cas que l'application des règles du luctus pouvait constituer un enjeu non seulement cultuel, mais judiciaire, pour les particuliers. T o u t ceci rend après tout acceptable l'attribution faite par Strzelecki au De iure pontifieio d'Ateius Capito de l'origine de cette glose, mais peut-être plutôt dans une section consacrée aux règles pontificales concernant le luctus.

54 Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen' 44. 55 Plut., Numa 12. 56 Voir entre autres K. Latte, Rômische Religionsgeschichte

(Munich 1960) § 69.

57 Voir parmi une abondante bibliographie, O. Lenel, Essai de reconstitution de l'édit perpétuel (Paris 1901) 86-90 et 97-104; E. Volterra, 'Osservazioni sull'obbligo del lutto nell'editto pretorio', RISG 8 (1933) 171-98, repris dans Scritti giuridici I. Famiglia e successioni (Naples 1991) 449-76; M. Humbert, Le remariage à Rome (Milan 1972) 124-25. 58 B. Albanese, Le persone nel diritto romano (Palerme 1979) 412 n. 303, et 413 n. 307.

82

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

On a là, dans un contexte cultuel certainement ancien, une problématique de la mesure de la proximité de la parenté, parallèle à une autre problématique bien connue, beaucoup plus généralement mentionnée, qui est celle de la succession aux biens ab intestato. Dès les XII Tables, la vocation successorale de Vagnatus proximus imposait aussi une procédure permettant de déterminer, précisément, qui était proximus, expression qui rappelle bien sûr propiore quis cognatione chez Festus.59 On sait quelle technique de mesure les juristes ont peu à peu élaborée, le système des gradus, déjà mentionné ici en tant que cadre d'exposition des relations et des termes de parenté dans la littérature technique des juristes et des lexicographes, et qui a sans doute été inventé pour résoudre des problèmes d'attribution d'une succession ab intestato, ou (cas voisin) d'une tutelle. Ce système avait fini par devenir le cadre de perception essentiel de l'ensemble des phénomènes de parenté à Rome, et non plus seulement des affaires de succession ab intestato.™ Ce que nous a conservé Festus dans sa glose 144.3F minuitur populo luctus, c'est, à mon sens, la connaissance d'une pratique cultuelle qui, tout comme leurs règles successorales, a obligé les Romains à réfléchir sur les faits de parenté, à concevoir leur parentèle comme un ensemble de relations entre individus qui pouvaient, et parfois devaient, être comparées les unes aux autres, susceptibles de relever d'une mesure objective au moyen de procédures et de concepts spécifiques. II ne me paraît pas déraisonnable de supposer que, parallèlement aux règles successorales des XII Tables, la règle de minutio du deuil a pu jouer un rôle dans l'élaboration du comput des gradus. L'ouvrage de Festus témoigne donc, malgré le brouillage opéré par les interventions successives de ses réélaborateurs, Paul au premier chef, du haut degré de conceptualisation et d'abstraction atteint à l'époque d'Auguste par les juristes et, dans la dépendance de ceux-ci, par des lexicographes comme Aelius Gallus dans le traitement des faits de parenté, saisis principalement, ce qui ne surprendra pas, à travers la terminologie. Mais il nous permet aussi de remonter plus haut, et d'atteindre une des motivations de ce savoir abstrait concernant la parenté: à côté de l'enjeu, central à Rome, de la succession aux biens (et de la question parallèle de la collation des tutelles), les contraintes cultuelles imposées par le respect des règles du luctus. Dans les deux cas, qu'il s'agisse des règles du ius civile complétées par l'activité du préteur ou du contrôle de la religion familiale, c'est en dernière analyse, eu égard au recrutement des iuris prudentes à date ancienne, à l'activité jurisprudentielle des pontifes et à la saisie intellectuelle des faits sociaux qu'ils opéraient que nous renvoient les gloses de parenté du De verborum significatu.6*

59 XII Tables, table 5.4: agnatus proximus familiam? pecuniamque? habeto, voir M. H. Crawford, in Roman Statutes II. BICS Supplement 64, éd. M. H. Crawford (Londres 1996) 640-42. 60 Sur le lien entre système successoral ab intestato et comput en gradus, voir Paul, Liber singularis de gradibus etadfinibus et nominibus eorum, Dig. 38.10.10, pr.; cf. Y. Thomas, 'Le droit romain. Le traité des computs du juriste Paul', in Leçons IV, suite. Le dossier occidental de la parenté, éd. P. Legendre (Paris 1988) 27-119,30 et 81-82; Moreau, Gradus (cité, n. 1). 61 Je remercie les participants du 'Festus Workshop' de leurs remarques et suggestions, en particulier le professeur Carlotta Dionisotti.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

83

Appendice 12.28P: Abavus dicitur, quia abest ab avo et est avus avi. Uabavus (trisaïeul) est ainsi appelé parce qu'il est plus éloigné de Y avus (aïeul) et qu'il est l'aïeul de l'aïeul. 13.8P: Amita patris mei soror, quia similiter tertia a me sit atque avia, videri potest dicta ex eo, quod ab antiquioribus avita sit vocitata. Sive amita dicta est, quia a pâtre meo amata est. Nam plus sorores a fratribus, quam fratres diligi soient, videlicet propter dissimilitudinem personarum, quae ideo minus habent dissensionis, quo minus aemulationis. Vamita (tante paternelle) est la sœur de mon père. Parce qu'elle est en troisième position par rapport à moi, comme Y avia (aïeule), elle peut apparemment porter ce nom en raison du fait qu'elle aurait été appelée avita par les Anciens. Ou bien elle a été appelée amita parce qu'elle est aimée {amata) par mon père. En effet les frères ont généralement plus d'affection pour leurs sœurs que pour leurs frères, sans doute à cause de la différence qui existe entre ces types de parents, qui ont d'autant moins de conflits qu'ils sont moins en compétition. 11.20P: Attam pro reverentia seni cuilibet dicimus, quasi eum avi nomine appellemus. Nous disons atta par respect à tous les vieillards, comme si nous leur donnions le nom de grand-père. 13. IP: At[t]avus, quia atta est avi, id est pater, ut pueri usurpare soient. Atavus (quadrisaïeul), parce qu'il est Y atta (c'est-à-dire le père, ainsi qui le désignent habituellement les enfants) de l'aïeul. 13.3P: Avunculus, marris meae frater, traxit appellationem ab eo, quod aeque tertius a me, ut avus, est, sed non eiusdem iuris; ideoque vocabuli facta deminutio est. Sive avunculus appellatur, quod avi locum optineat et proximitate tueatur sororis filiam. Vavunculus (oncle maternel), frère de ma mère, a tiré son nom du fait qu'il est en troisième position par rapport à moi, comme Y avus (grand-père), mais de statut différent, c'est pourquoi le terme a reçu un diminutif. Ou bien Y avunculus est ainsi appelé parce qu'il tient lieu d'avus et, en raison de leur proche parenté, prend soin de la fille de sa sœur. 12.21P: Avus, patris matrisque pater, dictus a Graeco vocabulo, quod est apud eos TiàrcTioç, mutatis quibusdam litteris. Alii volunt, quod ex ea voce appelletur, quod apud eosdem Graecos aiSoç appellatur, significatque magnum, quoniam veluti magnus pater sit avus. Alii putant avum dictum esse quia ad duos attineat, quasi adduum vel quia ad patrem sit additus. Uavus (grand-père) est le père du père ou de la mère, ainsi appelé à partir de son nom grec, qui est dans leur langue TTCCTITIOÇ, avec changement de certaines lettres. D'autres veulent qu'il soit désigné de ce terme parce qu'il est appelé auoç dans cette même langue grecque, et que cela signifie grand, puisque le grand-père est comme un grand père. D'autres pensent qu'il a été appelé avus parce qu'il est en relation avec deux personnes, comme si on disait adduus, ou parce qu'il est ajouté au père.

84

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

80.1 IP: Frater a Graeco dictus est (ppfjipT), vel quod sit fere alter. Le/rater (frère) tire ce nom du grec cppr^xpri, ou bien du fait qu'il est presque un autre. 80.8P: Fratria, uxor fratris. Fratria (belle-sœur), épouse du frère. 87.16P: Glos, viri soror, a Graeco yctAocoç. Glos (belle-sœur), sœur du mari, vient du grec yotAocoç. 102.22P: Levir est uxori meae frater meus. Pour mon épouse, mon frère est un levir (beau-frère). 113.25P: Magnum socerum appellat vir uxoris suae avum. Un homme appelle le grand-père de sa femme magnus socer (grand-beau-père). 113.25P: Magnam socrum vir uxoris suae aviam. Un homme (appelle) la grand-mère de sa femme magna soc rus (grande-belle-mère). 121.13P: Maior amita avi et aviae amita. La maior amita (arrière-grand-tante paternelle) est la tante paternelle du grand-père et de la grand-mère. 121.12P: Maior avunculus avi et aviae avunculus. Le maior avunculus (arrière-grand-oncle maternel) est l'oncle maternel du grand-père et de la grand^mère. 121.1 IP: Maior patruus avi et aviae patruus. Le maior patruus (arrière-grand-oncle paternel) est l'oncle paternel du grand-père et de la grand-mère. 121.14P: Maior socer uxoris meae proavus. Le maior socer est le bisaïeul de ma femme. 121.15P: Maior socrus uxoris meae proavia. La maior socrus est la bisaïeule de ma femme. 121.9P: Matertera marris soror, quasi mater altera. La matertera (tante maternelle) est la sœur de la mère, pour ainsi dire la 'seconde mère'. 121.10P: Matertera patris et marris mini magna matertera est. La tante maternelle du père ou de la mère est pour moi une magna matertera (grand-tante maternelle). 137.16P: Masculino génère parentem appellabant antiqui etiam matrem. Les Anciens utilisaient le mot parens (parent) au genre masculin pour désigner également la mère.

PHILIPPE MOREAU: LE LEXIQUE DE FESTUS

85

162.17F: ... Quod <nomen ductumab eo quod natus post patri> sit, quam fil ... chus interpre<s Homeri> ... <xeoîoi ve>7toôeaoiv <èT0iuT|> ... Nepos (petit-fils) ... et ce nom vient de ce que pour le père, il est né après le fils. ... Aristarque, le commentateur d'Homère ... 'à la disposition de tes descendants'. 163.6P: Nepotes luxuriosae vitae homines appellati, quod non magis his rei suae familiaris cura est, quam is, quibus pater avusque vivunt. On a appelé nepotes les individus menant une vie déréglée, parce qu'ils ne se soucient pas plus de leur patrimoine que les gens dont le père et le grand-père sont en vie. 180.3F: tis, novam gratia, id est, coer ... On appelle noverca (marâtre) une femme que l'on prend pour nouvelle épouse, après avoir eu une postérité légitime, pour tenir à distance sa famille, c'est-à-dire pour exercer sur elle une contrainte. 181.3P: Noverca dicitur, quam quis liberis sublatis novam uxorem ducit arcendae familiae gratia. On appelle noverca (marâtre) une femme que l'on prend pour nouvelle épouse, après avoir eu une postérité légitime, pour tenir à distance sa famille. 247.1 IP: Parens vulgo pater aut mater appellatur, sed iuris prudentes avos et proavos, avias et proavias parentum nomine appellari dicunt. Dans la langue courante, on appelle parens (parent) le père ou la mère, mais les juristes disent que l'on appelle du nom de parents les grands-pères et bisaïeuls, les grand-mères et bisaïeules. 252.24P: Privignus dictus, quod, ante quam mater secundo nuberet, est progenitus. Pri enim antiqui pro prae dixerunt. Le privignus (beau-fils) est ainsi appelé parce qu'il a été engendré avant le second mariage de sa mère. En effet, les Anciens disaient pri au lieu de prae (avant). 256.2F: app<ellat avus neptis suae virum.> Le grand-père appelle progêner (petit-gendre) l'époux de sa petite-fille. 257.2P: Progenerum appellat avus neptis suae virum. Le grand-père appelle progener (petit-gendre) l'époux de sa petite-fille.

86

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

250.2IP: Pronurus nepotis uxor. Pronurus (petite-bru), épouse du petit-fils. 260.25F: Propius sobrino mihi est consobrini mei filius et consobrinae meae filius et patris mei consobrinus et matris meae consobrinus. Le fils de mon cousin germain, le fils de ma cousine germaine, le cousin germain de mon père et le cousin germain de ma mère sont pour moi des propius sobrino (cousins qui ont le germain sur moi). 261.7P: Propius sobrino mihi est consobrini mei filius et patris mei consobrinus. Le fils de mon cousin germain et le cousin germain de mon père sont pour moi des propius sobrino (cousins qui ont le germain sur moi). 379.6F: Sobrinus est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, patris mei consobrini filius, et matris meae consobrinae filius. Femina isdem de causis appellat fratrem, et fratrem patruelem, et consobrinum, et propius [con]sobrino et sobrina. Idem gradus in sobrina quoque sunt. Le sobrinus (cousin issu de germain) est, comme le dit Aelius Gallus, le fils du cousin germain de mon père et le fils de la cousine germaine de ma mère. S'agissant des mêmes relations, une femme emploie les termes de:frater (frère), jrater patruelis (cousin germain parallèle patrilatéral), consobrinus (cousin germain), propius sobrino (cousin qui a le germain sur elle) et sobrinus (cousin issu de germain). Les mêmes types de parenté existent également dans le cas de la sobrina (cousine issue de germain). 379.10P: Sobrinus est patris mei consobrini filius et matris meae consobrinae filius. Le sobrinus est le fils du cousin germain de mon père et le fils de la cousine germaine de ma mère. 414.14F: Sîrit<îavum antiqui diceb>ant pro tritaavi et ataviae ... Les Anciens disaient stritîavus au lieu de îriîavus (quintisaïeul), qui est le père du quadrisaïeul et de la quadrisaïeule. 415.IP: Stritîavum antiqui dicebant pro tritavo. Les Anciens disaient stritîavus au lieu de tritavus (quintisaïeul).

5. FESTUS AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION1 REBECCA FLEMMING In his magisterial summary of 'the religious roles of Roman women', J. Scheid argues that these roles were essentially marginal to the religious life of the city.2 Roman women were characterized by a series of religious incapacities and disabilities which forced them to the edges of Roman religious practices: into subordinate ritual functions and a kind of sacred 'passivity', or into 'suburban sanctuaries and the temples of foreign gods', and even into 'deviant' religious activity and thought. It was not that they failed to participate in religious affairs, indeed some women, especially those in priestly offices, participated very fully; but that, in general, their participation itself played out their incapacity. It confirmed their subordination and constructed, through ritual, an image of what threatened male citizens at the boundaries of the Roman order, while the ritual itself helped manage that threat, maintain the order. At the centre of this picture is a woman's 'sacrificial incapacity' (incapacité sacrificielle), her exclusion from the main elements of sacrificial ritual - the slaughter, butchering, and distribution of the meat -as well as various associated activities. Scheid claims to establish this principle at the outset, with the help of the ancient authors Festus and Plutarch, together with some of their modern interpreters, in particular O. de Cazanove; though M. Détienne's (controversial) arguments about the exclusion of women from sacrifice in classical Greece also lurk in the background.3 This female incapacity then provides the basic framework for the rest of the article. So, those women who did perform a sacrificial role are seen as the exceptions that prove the rule, as either crossing into 'male' territory (like the Vestal Virgins, and, rather differentiy, the regina sacrorum and flaminicae), or as officiating in naturalized, 'foreign' cults (such as the cult of Ceres or Isis). The major matronal festivals, such as the Matralia, it is pointed out, generally did not involve blood sacrifice, and, again, exceptions such as the festivities surrounding the cult of Fortuna Muliebris, the Bona Dea, and, indeed, 1 My thanks to Fay Glinister for giving me the opportunity to present my views on these matters (long held!) at the Festus Colloquium, and to all the participants for their helpful contributions. 2 J. Scheid, 'The religious roles of Roman women', in A history of women in the west I. From ancient goddesses to Christian saints, ed. P. Schmitt Pantel, trans. A. Goldhammer (Cambridge Mass. 1992) 377^408. French original published as 'D'indispensables "étrangères": les roles religieux des femmes à Rome', in Histoire des femmes en occident I, ed. P. Schmitt Pantel (Paris 1991) 406-37; cf. J. Scheid, Religion et piété à Rome (Paris 2001) 33-34. 3 O. de Cazanove, 'Exesto: L'incapacité sacrificielle des femmes à Rome (à propos de Plutarque Quaest. Rom 85)', Phoenix 41 (1987) 159-73; M. Détienne, J.-P. Vernant et ai, The cuisine of sacrifice, trans. P. Wissing (Chicago 1989). See R. Osborne, 'Women and sacrifice in classical Greece', CQ 43 (1993) 392-405 for the counter-argument in respect to Classical Greek sacrifice. 87

88

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

the Secular Games, should be understood as either encroaching on male roles, or marginalized by the site and modes of their performance, or foreign; and, of course, women's conduct during the Bacchanalian scandal exemplifies deviant religious activity. The secondary role of women, below that of the paterfamilias, is also manifest in more everyday religious behaviour, completing this picture of female subordination and disability. Women's sacrificial incapacity thus becomes the organizing principle around and through which all female religious activity at Rome can be arranged and understood. This picture of the restricted and marginal role of women in Roman religion has become widely accepted, though there is some hesitation on the detail. In their authoritative Religions of Rome, for example, M. Beard, J. North and S. Price speak of the 'limited role' of women in Roman state cult, and emphasize that the paterfamilias 'always' took the lead in family religious action.4 Women passively attended, but had little opportunity to take an active part in, public religious events, and: much more fundamentally (though the evidence is not entirely clear), they may have been banned - in theory, at any rate - from carrying out animal sacrifice; and so prohibited from any officiating role in the central defining ritual of civic religious activity.5 There is, moreover, no reason to be surprised that such a strongly patriarchal society as Rome, and one that so closely entangled notions of religious and political power, should exhibit such clear inequalities in the ritual sphere. As Scheid points out, civic sacrifices were performed on behalf of, in the name of, the whole community, and to have a woman representing Rome in its relations with the gods in this way, would clearly contravene the general Roman principle that only men have this representational capacity.6 There are, however, a number of problems with this picture of the role of women in Roman religion, especially in its strongest formulations. As Beard herself has pointed out in the 'affectionate critique' she has since offered of her classic article on 'The sexual status of Vestal Virgins', it is a mistake to treat gender categories as 'givens', and, in particular, as constructed entirely outside the operations of religion in any society, when in fact religion regularly acts as a 'privileged space' for the definition of gender roles.7 The project she undertook in her earlier essay, of identifying the 'matronal', 'virginal', and 'male' elements that were combined in the figure of the Roman Vestal (and, of course, revelling in rather than attempting to reconcile those contradictions and ambiguities) was, therefore, misleadingly narrow, and needs to be widened out to include an enquiry into what the Vestals themselves contributed to Roman notions of virginity, marriage, and motherhood, to relations between men and women more broadly. Scheid should take this criticism into account, especially since he relies on Beard's ambiguity thesis (or at least his version of it) to help make the case for counting the Vestals' sacrificial responsibilities among their 'male' attributes. But why should 4 M. Beard, J. A. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome 1 (Cambridge 1998) 71. 5 Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome (n. 4, above) 297. 6 Scheid, 'Religious roles' (n. 2, above) 406. 7 M. Beard, 'Re-reading (Vestal) virginity', in Women in antiquity: new assessments, eds R. Hawley and B. Levick (London 1995) 166-77, at 169-70. The original article: M. Beard, 'The sexual status of Vestal virgins', JRS 70 (1980) 12-27.

REBECCA F

MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION 89

the female holders of priestly positions in Rome who acted in a sacrificial capacity be understood as crossing into 'male' territory, rather than as serving to expand the female realm? After all, it is only by these kinds of policing measures that the masculinity of sacrifice can be maintained, through, that is, an essentially circular form of argument. Similar objections have also been raised with respect to other parts of the marginality model - that pre-existing assumptions about women's position within the Roman state and society have over-determined views of her religious roles.8 It is therefore assumed that those cults and rites in which women actively participated must, a priori, have been marginal, because of that very participation. There are also acute empirical difficulties with the more limited interpretations of female religious activity at Rome, especially with the case for female sacrificial incapacity so central to the arguments and overall conclusions of De Cazanove and Scheid. It is these, rather than the broader theoretical issues, that this paper will focus on, contending that the ancient evidence cannot support even uncertainty about Roman women's participation in the main elements of sacrificial ritual. The Lexicon of Festus, in particular, not only explicitly contradicts any notions of general female exclusion from sacrifice, but also offers numerous indications of women's wider religious activities as an integral part of the Roman religious landscape. Though the main drive of this essay is refutational, therefore, it is none the less intended to contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way too, and to offer some suggestions of how the religious roles of Roman women might be more helpfully refigured. Festus, Plutarch, and female sacrificial activities Scheid opens his argument for female sacrificial incapacity in ancient Rome with a passage from Paul's abridgement of Festus: Exesto, extra esto. Sic enim lictor in quibusdam sacris clamitabat: hostis, vinctus, mulier, virgo exesto; scilicet intéresse prohibebatur. Exesto: be away! Thus the lictor used to shout out in certain religious rituals - 'Away with the foreigner, prisoner, woman, girl!' - obviously prohibiting them from being present.9 The excerpt is an intriguing one, particularly in its coupling of hostis and vinctus with mulier and virgo as if the two pairings were in some way equivalent; however, rather than supporting the case that, 'women ... were forbidden to participate in sacrificial rituals', it clearly suggests the exact opposite.10 The 'quibusdam', is surely pivotal here, so it is only in certain rituals that the lictor bans women, girls, enemies and prisoners. In general they are present. The shout of 'exesto' is the exception not the rule: it requires a special effort to preclude women from participating in religious activities, and so also a special lexical explanation. 8 See e.g. A. Staples, From good goddess to Vestal virgins: sex and category in Roman religion (London 1998) esp. 1-8; and now also C. E. Schultz, Women's religious activity in the Roman Republic (Chapel Hill NC 2006). 9 72.1 OP exesto', it may also be that a third pairing has been lost in the process of abridgement. 10 Scheid, 4Religious roles' (n. 2, above) 379.

90

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

That still leaves, however, the question of which sacra women found themselves excluded from, and their significance. For even if the general presence of women is thus established, the exceptions might none the less tell against their religious position. The list is, however, far from impressive. There is, of course, the male exclusivity of the cult of Mithras, but apart from that only the prohibition of female participation in the rites of Hercules performed at the Ara Maxima (in the Forum Boarium), and a ban on female attendance at a sacrifice made to Mars-Silvanus for the well-being of a farm's cattle herd, stand any scrutiny." Both of these instances are, moreover, exceptions in their own terms. Despite various claims to the contrary, in general women actively worshipped both Hercules and Silvanus, including participation in the sacrificial rituals involved, as C. Schultz and P. Dorcey have, respectively, shown.12 Indeed, the ancient source that provides the most detail about women's exclusion from rites at the Ara Maxima serves to prove the general point. In Plutarch's Quaestiones Romanae, a text that, like Festus' Lexicon, seeks to explain selected aspects of Roman culture and religion, history and tradition, one of the questions asked is (60): Àià Ti, ÔDOÎV Po)(iô)v 'HpaKÀéouç ÔVTCOV, oô ueTodajjpâvouai yuvaÎKeç oûôè yeuovxai TGÛV ÉTÙ TOO ueiÇovoç ûuouévcov; Why, there being two altars of Hercules, do women neither participate in, nor receive taste of, the sacrifices offered on the Greater one? It is then clear that women were completely excluded from the sacrificial events, from both the actual offering and the banquet that follows; but only at one altar. A contrast is drawn here between procedures at the two sites dedicated to Hercules, and the question only makes sense if women did honour the god, in the same manner, at the smaller altar. Nor is this the only altar to link women with Hercules: one of the inscriptions to which Schultz has recently drawn attention as evidence of female adherence to this deity records the restoration of an altar sacred to Hercules carried out (along with the building of a temple to the god) by one Publicia, daughter of Lucius Publicius and wife of Gnaeus Cornelius (who also contributed financially to the project).13 In the case of Silvanus also, study of the corpus of inscriptions dedicated to the god has helped to dispel previous assumptions about his male orientation. As Dorcey concludes, 'nothing in the epigraphic record suggests that women acted any differently from men in cult worship', and the group of female dedications includes again a (slave)woman who records her reconstruction of an Ostian shrine to Silvanus.14 Returning to the domain of civic religion, however, it is also worth drawing attention to various echoes of the Hercules pattern which are to be found in the cult of the Bona Dea. Her December rites certainly and very famously 11 Ara Maxima: Prop. 4.9, Macrob., Sat. 1.12.28 and Plut., QR 60; sacrifice 'pro bubus': Cato, Agr. 83. 12 C. Schultz, 'Modern prejudice and ancient praxis: female worship of Hercules at Rome', ZPE 133 (2000) 291-97; and P. Dorcey, 'The role of women in the cult of Silvanus', Numen 36 (1989) 143-55. 13 CIL 6.30899, and see Schultz, 'Modern prejudice' (n. 12, above) 294-95. 14 Dorcey, 'The role of women' (n. 12, above) 149; and see for discussion of men's cult activities his book, The cult of Silvanus: a study in Roman folk religion (Leiden 1992). The inscription recording the slavewoman Theodora's reconstruction is CIL 14.4327.

REBECCA FL> .MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION

91

excluded men, but inscriptions attest to male worship of this 'women's goddess', just as much as to women's involvement with the quintessentially 'masculine' Hercules and Silvanus. 15 Both instances of exclusivity also have their special position emphasized further by the multiple aetiological speculations that surround them, some of which explicitly link the two rituals. So, the prohibition of women from the sacrifice at the Ara Maxima is figured by both Propertius and Macrobius as an intentional response to men's prohibition from the festivities of the Bona Dea.16 Hercules, tired and thirsty after his epic battle with the (Italian based) monster Cacus, was, on account of his maleness, refused water by women celebrating the rites of the Bona Dea. Enraged, the hero forcibly took the water, and banned women from the cult he instituted to commemorate his famous victory. In recognition of its 'foreign' origin, however archaic and distinguished, the cult continued to be celebrated in the Greek style. 17 It would seem, therefore, that the rituals at the Ara Maxima were marked out as exceptional in similar ways to those of the Bona Dea; their exceptionality being a function of sexual exclusivity per se, rather than depending on which sex was excluded. However, it is now time to turn to the other sources that Scheid adduces to support his view of female sacrificial incapacity, material concerned with the 'cuisine of sacrifice', which he thinks can be used to widen the scope of the lictor's 'exesto' to establish a general rule. The second ancient witness called is, again, Plutarch, and another of his Quaestiones Romanae (85): Àià xi Tàç yuvcÛKaç OUT' àÀeîv eïoov OUT' ôi(;o7ioieîv TÔ TiaÀaiov; Why, in ancient times, were wives not allowed to grind or cook? As so often in this treatise Plutarch turns to the beginnings of Rome, and material he had collected for his parallel lives, to provide an answer. He suggests that this was part of the peace deal negotiated after the rape of the Sabine women and the ensuing conflict with the Sabine men. The obvious way to understand the passage, and one made explicit in Plutarch's coverage of the same events in his life of Romulus, is that this is a move to mollify the Sabine men by lightening the domestic load of their daughters.18 De Cazanove, however, argues that, in fact, this aspect of the treaty excluded Roman women from the sacrificial scene, since grinding grain and preparing meat are key elements of the sacrificial process, relating to the production of mola salsa (the mixture of emmer flour and salt which is sprinkled on all offerings to the gods), and the butchery of the sacrificial victim respectively.19

15 On men's attachment to the Bona Dea see H. Brouwer, Bona Dea: the sources and a description of the cult (Leiden-New York 1989) 254-96. It also seems to me that the very slender evidence (Ovid, Ars 3.637-38) about the May festivities involving her temple on the Aventine is less clear on its female exclusivity than most (including Brouwer) suppose. 16 Prop. 4.9, Macrob., Sat. 1.12.27-28; the connection is discussed more fully (indeed too fully) in Staples, From good goddess (n. 8, above) 13-36. For other aetiologies of the Bona Dea see Brouwer, Bona Dea (n. 15, above) 324-27. 17 Varro, LL 6.15, Dion. Hal. 1.40; Macrob., Sat. 3.12.2. i8Plut.,tfom. 15.4 and 19.7. 19 Cazanove, 'Exesto* (n. 3, above) esp. 162-68.

92

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

The attempted translation of these events from their explicitly domestic setting into the religious sphere, fails, however, on a number of fronts. Firstly it demands that, rather than negotiating household benefits for their daughters, the Sabine leaders are to be understood to have negotiated their systematic ritual exclusion. Moreover, it implies a structural contradiction between women's religious and domestic activities that is very hard to believe. It is more usual to suggest the reverse; to align, for example, the Vestal Virgins' responsibilities for the tending of the fire in the public hearth in the temple of Vesta, for cleaning the temple, and for the preparation of the mola salsa, precisely with (to quote Beard), 'the domestic role of the early Roman Hausfrau\2i) Secondly, this move is not in any sense philologically compelled, or even encouraged. Alein is a general term for the grinding of grain, not a technical, ritual one, and, though in his answer Plutarch does use the verb mageirein, which is used of butchery in a sacrificial context as well as possessing a general culinary frame of reference, the word that appears in his question (opsopoiein) has no such religious connotations, usually referring to fancy cooking. 21 Finally, there is the problem of 'to palaion\ the fact that Plutarch is not talking about the Roman present, but about a distant, mythic, Roman past. Scheid suggests that, though the interdiction on women performing these domestic chores was short lived, it is thanks to the survival of the sacrificial prohibition that this story was worth telling, that it served an aetiological function. 22 It would, of course, then have to be a hidden aetiology, since that is not what Plutarch says he is explaining, nor has the need for any such explanation yet been established. As already noted, Plutarch does provide possible origins for the specific exclusion of women from sacrifices at the Ara Maxima, but, again, they would be rendered nonsensical if there had been a blanket ban in operation. If Plutarch's inclusion of this particular question does need justification then it is more plausibly sought in his desire to re-use his Romulean material rather than anything much more profound. Wine, women, and the gods The third and final plank in the argument for Roman women's sacrificial disabilities concerns their troubled relationship with wine. Here the various stories about wine being forbidden to women in early Rome are mobilized to try to demonstrate a further way in which women were excluded from the sacrificial ritual. This mobilization is a complex one, and proceeds in two main stages. The first is the assertion that what was prohibited to women was not wine in general, but 'pure', 'unadulterated', wine in particular, this being what is signified by the term 'temeturt which appears in some of the accounts of the early ban; and that it was precisely this 'pure' wine which had to be given to the gods, nothing else would do. This symmetry is particularly emphasized by De Cazanove: what is forbidden for women is mandated for the gods, in respect not only to wine but also other aspects of sacrificial offerings.23 The second stage is to move from this interdiction on women drinking the specific kind of wine that was

20 Beard, 'Sexual status' (n. 7, above) 13. 21 The definition of opsopoieô in LSJ9 is 'to dress food (esp. fish) nicely' (1283). 22 Scheid, 'Religious roles' (n. 2, above) 380. 23 Cazanove, 'Exesto' (n. 3, above).

REBECCA Fi

MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION

93

divinely ordained to claiming that they were, therefore, prevented from using this wine in any sacrificial procedures; they could not, as Virgil has Dido, pour the wine on the victim's head before it was killed, nor could they pour libations of wine, and so on.24 The exception to this rule was, again, the cult of the Bona Dea. Unfortunately, neither part of the argument withstands scrutiny. To start, however, with what can be reasonably securely established (before moving on to the shakier parts of the reasoning), it does seem that, in a Roman religious context, only 'pure' wine could be offered to the gods. At least that looks like the best way to understand the rather syntactically challenging entry in the Lexicon of Festus on spurcum vinum (474.3 IF): Spur cum vinum est, quod sacris adhiberi non licet, ut ait Labeo Antistius lib. X commentari iuris pontifici, cui aqua admixta est defru[c]tumve, aut igne tactum est, mus turn ve antequam defervescat. Spurcum vinum is wine that is not allowed to be used in religious rituals, so says Labeo Antistius in book 10 of his Commentary on pontifical law; wine to which water has been added, or defrutum, or wine that has been touched by fire, or mustum before it has finished fermenting.25 Taken in the context both of information about Roman wine-making and about Festus' work as an epitomator of the larger Lexicon of Verrius Flaccus, it seems reasonable to think that this passage derives from a fuller listing of pontifically forbidden deviations from the basic wine production process. Religious law required that wine offered to the gods be based on good quality, pure mustum (freshly pressed grape juice), not mustum that had been cut with water, nor cut with, or indeed replaced by, defrutum (grape juice boiled down to increase its sugar content).26 It should be fermented in normal, stable, climatic conditions, not using heat artificially to assist the process, and the fermentation must have reached completion. That is, pontifical law prohibits deviations from the basic procedure by which a good quality wine would be produced, a wine which, in Columella's phrase, 'gives pleasure by its natural qualities' (quod suapte natura placere), or in Pliny's, 'is a product of grape and soil' (uva terraque constant).71 In other words, wines are judged suitable for ritual purposes in the same way that sacrificial victims are; they must be fine, unblemished specimens of their species. 28 The quality and purity of the wine to be offered to the gods is then reasonably clear. What is much less clear is that the reverse was true for women: that they were forbidden exactly what was divinely mandated. Of all the sources that refer to the ancient ban on female wine consumption it is perhaps Aulus Gellius (NA 10.23) who comes closest to providing support

24 Scheid, 'Religious roles' (n. 2, above) 405-06; Virg., ken. 4.60-61. 25 My thanks to my colleagues Roland Mayer and Carlotta Dionisotti for help with this passage. 26 As Pliny indicates (NH 14.119), this ruled out Greek wines, which were customarily made from a mixture of mustum and water (most famously sea-water, as in the Coan wines). For a full account of Roman wine-making see Columella 12.18-45. 27 Columella 12.19.2; Pliny, NH 14.80. 28 There are also, according to Pliny, rules about the vine from which the grapes are taken to produce a wine that is 'fas', and also about their pressing (NH 14.119).

94

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

for this view, but not close enough. Gellius begins his discourse on this topic by repeating what others have written about the temperate lives led by w o m e n in early R o m e and Latium; that they completely abstained from wine {yinum, 'which was called temetum in the old l a n g u a g e ' , quod temetum prisca lingua appellatur), an abstention that was policed by the customary kissing amongst kinfolk. That is he begins by claiming a total prohibition of female wine drinking, a claim that is echoed in the other texts also, as is the point that temetum is simply the archaic word for 'wine'. 2 9 Gellius then offers a possible qualification to this blanket ban, or at least to its implementation. According to the writers he is following, archaic women did customarily drink a set of wine-related, or wine-based drinks - lorea (a thin, after-wine, m a d e from a second pressing or dregs), passum (raisin-wine), murrina (myrrh-wine), and dulcia (sweetened wine drinks) - and there are other indications that passum continued to be the quintessential w o m e n ' s drink. Of these, only the lorea direcdy corresponds to what Festus outlaws for divine offerings, though their general inappropriateness as sacrificial material can presumably be deduced from the fact that all involve deviating from the basic wine production process. T h e m i s m a t c h between spurcum vinum and Gellius' female tipples is significant, however, as it establishes a category of wines (and related drinks) that were not acceptable to either the gods or women, and so rather confounds (or at least weakens) the argument for exclusive symmetry in this respect - that exactly what was prohibited to w o m e n was prescribed for the gods. Gellius also fails to make the status of the exceptions he mentions clear in the way that D e Cazanove and those that follow his line require. They need something more than simple leniency in the application of an overall interdiction, something m o r e than a pragmatic acceptance that women have got to drink something, and it might as well be thin, sweet and spiced wines. They need this pattern to b e formed by explicit exceptions being m a d e to a general rule, exceptions based on consideration of something like the pontifical regulations on purity. Indeed, it is not just that Gellius fails to make this clear, he actually suggests an alternative interpretation, one that has provided the dominant way of understanding this material. The centrepiece of Gellius* discussion is his citation of Cato, stating that the p u n i s h m e n t for women drinking wine was 'no less than' (non minus quam) that for adultery; a point that is picked up by other ancient authors, such as Valerius M a x i m u s (6.3.9) w h o asserts that excessive drinking impairs moral judgement and leads w o m e n into all sorts of vices. This then is all part of a wider discourse about female morality and wifely good conduct, about the ethical exemplarity of a perhaps mythical Roman past. It is doubtful whether there was ever an actual rule or ' l a w ' about women and wine, but rather a deep-seated expectation, or custom, of female moderation in this respect; an expectation that was enforceable within the workings of the R o m a n family and state, and was, so the sources claim, actually enforced. The case m o s t often quoted in this context is that of the wife of Egnatius M a e t e n n u s , w h o m he clubbed to death for drinking wine wholesale (e dolio)\ he was then acquitted of the murder by Romulus. 3 0 Other stories involve a family who starved to death a matrona w h o stole the keys to the wine cellar; and a wife who was found guilty of drinking more wine than necessary for her health without her husband's knowledge and fined a sum equivalent to her dowry

29 See Pliny, NH 14.89-91; Val. Max. 6.3.9, and Dion. Hal. 2.25.6-7; see also Festus 500.9F temetum. 30 Pliny, NH 14.89; Val. Max. 6.3.9 (who names him Mecennius).

REBECCA F

1MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION

95

(Pliny, NH 14.89). These instances are all, therefore, about excessive drinking, drinking that is out of the husband's control; while the drinks that Aulus Gellius lists as customary for women can be seen as falling on the other side of expectations about moderation. Female indulgence in a bit of raisin wine now and then does not challenge male control of the wine cellar, of household resources, nor lead to adultery. It is, then, not a woman's relations with the gods at stake here, but her conduct as a wife. The dominant, moralizing, interpretation of these passages has, however, been challenged by G. Piccaluga who argues that several of the customary female tipples in Aulus Gellius are actually more potent than 'pure wine', that they are effectively fortified wines, with a high alcohol content, and, therefore, more dangerous to women's sobriety and chastity than the ordinary stuff.11 So, an alternative explanation of this prohibitive and permissive pattern is necessary, which is where the gods might enter the picture, and an exclusive symmetry with women come in to play. Piccaluga has a point, but not a very convincing one, for though passum and various sweetened wines, could be pretty strong, they could also be very weak, made with a lot of water, or with second pressings, for example.32 Moreover, women were hardly going to be drinking these wines neat, and presumably the more powerful the concoction the more it was watered. This, it should be stressed, was the general practice only barbarians drank their wine unmixed - and, if as various ancient sources (and modern scholars) suggest, the Roman gods took their wine un-watered (at least on occasion) then that would serve to distinguish them from both Roman women and men.33 So, while Piccaluga may have cast further light on women's drinking habits, she has not provided compelling reasons to dislodge the ancient discussions of the subject from their moralizing context. These texts seek to establish sets of expectations about, and ideals of, wifely conduct, to conjure up past standards of Roman austerity as exemplary tools; they do not serve to exclude women from sacrificial ritual, to make 'pure' wine into something shared only by men and gods. Women's use of wine in a sacral (not to mention secular) context can also be demonstrated in a more positive manner, through a range of ancient evidence which simply assumes that women offered wine to the gods like everybody else. Plutarch's Quaestiones Romanae can once more be pressed into service. He asks, for example (57): Ala Ti TT) Touuivr] ûuouoai yccAa KotTaaTtevoouoi râv iepcôv, olvov ô' où îrpoocpépoixjiv; Why do women sacrificing to Rumina pour libations of milk during the rites, but make no use of wine?34

31 G. Piccaluga, 'Bona Dea: due contribua" all'interpretazione del suo culto', SMSR 35 (1964) 195-237. 32 See e.g. Pliny, NH 14.82 for poor quality raisin wines. 33 The view that unmixed wine (merum) was offered to the gods is not specifically supported, however, by the excerpt of Festus under discussion here, which prohibits only the introduction of water during the wine production process (as confirmed by Pliny), and the introduction of the term 'undiluted' into the English translation of Scheid's article in this respect is unfortunate and misleading. It is suggested, however, by e.g. Ovid, Am 3.10.47 and Plut., QR 57, both passages being discussed below. 34 cf. Plut., Rom. 4. The use of milk in this cult is also confirmed in Varro, RR 2.11.5 and Nonius 167L.

96

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

This question, once again, only makes sense if this was an exception, if women generally did pour libations of wine to the gods; and it is answered without any reference to the sex of the sacrificiants. The response revolves entirely around the character of the goddess Rumina whose role as divine wet-nurse makes wine an inappropriate and milk a most appropriate offering in her particular case. It should also be noted that milk is offered to a number of other deities also, by both men and women, in what are generally considered to be a set of especially rustic and archaic rites.35 Festus, at least as excerpted by Paul, takes the religious relationship between women and wine a step further. He offers the following definition (455.14P): Simpulum vas parvulum non dissimile cyatho, quo vinum in sacrifices libabatur; unde et mulieres rebus divinis deditae simpulatrices. A simpulum is a small vessel, not dissimilar to a cyathus, from which wine used to be poured out as an offering in sacrifices; from which, also, women devoted to divine matters are called simpulatrices. For these women to have taken their namefromthis vessel, or indeed for this derivation to have entered the Latin etymological tradition, they must have surely been using it to pour libations in regular ritual settings. Nor, it should be stressed, is the simpulum a marginal or arcane religious artefact, quite the reverse. It appears in the Uterary sources as a symbol of traditional Roman austerity and piety, retaining its plain earthenware construction and religious centrality, while all around it objects were becoming over elaborate and corrupt.36 As Varro explains (LL 5.124), while the sophisticated Greek cyathus replaced the simpulum as the dipping ladle of choice at banquets, its rough Roman simplicity persisted in a sacrificial context. The numismatic record similarly displays the simpulum as a symbol of religious authority, and indeed of priestly office. This item is a mainstay of Roman coinage, from that of M. Aemilius Lepidus in 61 BC to the emperor Decius in AD 250, and including almost everybody in between, appearing usually in conjunction with other priestly items and sacrificial implements - such as the lituus (priestly wand) and hat, or the secesipita (sacrifical knife) and axe.37 The naming of a group of women 'dedicated to divine matters' after such a key symbol of Roman religious tradition and authority, one indissolubly linked with wine, thus challenges many of the restrictions that have been placed on female religious activities at Rome. Before examining the figure of the simpulatrix (and her associates) in more detail, however, one last point of problematic intersection between women, wine, and public cult needs to be dealt with. This concerns the worship of Ceres at Rome, the changing pattern of which initially seems to fit Scheid's model especially well; in the third century BC, a new 'Greek' version of her cult was introduced to Rome which, as H. Le Bonniec has suggested (in the most 35 Milk is, for example, offered to Pales in the Parilia (see e.g. Ovid, Fast. 4.745-6; Tib. 1.1.36), and to Silvanus (Hor., Epist. 2.1.144) and Priapus (Virg., Eel. 7.3.3). Pliny claims it is Romulean rites that preserve this ancient practice (NH 14.88). 36 See e.g. Pliny, NH 35.158 and Juv. 6.343. 37 For examples of these early and later coinages see e.g. RRC 419 (M. Lepidus); HCC III p. 249 (Decius).

REBECCA FL

.MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION

97

substantial treatment of the subject to date), included amongst its distinctive features both a prominent role for women and a prohibition on the use of wine.38 On closer scrutiny, however, the picture becomes more complicated, though enlightening none the less. In particular, developments surrounding Ceres serve to put the spotlight on the part of Scheid's argument that depends on the 'foreignness' of various cults in which women officiated (including at sacrifices) to protect his rule of female sacrificial incapacity. 'Foreign' status - the fact that though formally adopted into the religious programme of the Roman state these cults remained distinct, retaining the mark of their non-Roman origins, and thus providing a contrast with 'indigenous' religious practices - preserves the exceptionality of their sacrificing women, their reversal of 'normality'. But does it? Greeks and women: the cult of Ceres at Rome Paul's abridgement of Festus is certainly typical in emphasizing the Greek (in the broadest sense of the word) origins of a particular set of female festivities for Ceres: Graeca Sacra festa Cereris ex Graecia translata, quae ob inventionem Proserpinae matronae colebant. Quae sacra, dum non essent matronae, quae facerent propter cladem Cannensem et frequentiam lugentium, institutum est, ne amplius centum diebus lugeretur. The Greek festive rites of Ceres, which matronae celebrated on account of the finding of Proserpina, were brought over from (Magna) Graecia. Since there were no matronae to celebrate these rites because of the slaughter at Cannae and the great number of mourners, it was decreed that mourning should not last more than a hundred days.39 It is also from this story about the special measures taken in relation to these matronal rites in 216 BC, a story variously recounted by Livy, Valerius Maximus, and Plutarch, that this Greek import is dated.40 This is the first appearance in the historical record of such sacra, and a passage from Arnobius {Adv. Nat 2.7.3) indicates that in 216 BC not much time had elapsed since their introduction. Prior to this Ceres had (often together with Tellus) been involved in a range of rustic religious practices in Rome and its environs, as well as occupying an important place - together with Liber and Libera - in Roman state cult. A temple to this divine triad had, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, been vowed, built, and finally dedicated (following consultation of the Sibylline Books) in the first decade of the fifth century BC, and became associated with the festival of the Cerialia on April 19.41 These rituals (and perhaps others glimpsed in the sources too), provide the implicitly Roman point of contrast with the distinctively Graeca sacra of Paul and Festus. However, their Romanness

38 H. Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès à Rome: des origines à la fin de la république (Paris 1958); see also B. S. Spaeth, The Roman goddess Ceres (Austin TX 1996). 39 86.7-1 IP; cf. 268.27Fperegrina sacra. That 'Graecia' (literally, 'lands lived in by Greeks') should be understood in this Italian (and Sicilian) way, will become increasingly clear. 40 Livy 22.56.4-5 and 34.6.15; Val. Max. 1.1.15; Plut., Fab. Max. 18.1-2. The accounts vary both on the question of whether the rituals were in fact celebrated in 216, and on the number of days to which mourning was henceforth limited. 41 Dion. Hal. 6.17.2-4 and 6.94.3; and see also Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès (n. 38, above) 213-378.

98

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

may actually have been constructed through this contrast, and the matter of simple historical precedence, as much as anything else, since 'Hellenizing' elements are also discernible in the temple of Ceres, Liber, and Libera, and in aspects of its associated cult (as the Sibylline connection would also suggest). 4 2 The other point of distinction is the exclusively female character of the new sacra, a point that is underlined by references in a number of literary sources and inscriptions c o m m e m o r a t i n g female officiants - sacerdotes - w h o led the matronae in their sacred activities. 4 3 This broke with the previously inclusive nature of Ceres' main cult practices, conducted under the male auspices of the flamen Cerialis and plebeian aediles. It should be noted, however, that there is some evidence suggesting the presence of all-female 'mysteries' of Ceres at an earlier (as well as later) date, and it is also worth emphasizing that a number of other ritual activities - mainly expiatory - involving Ceres, Proserpina, and groups of women appear on the Roman religious scene not long after the matronal sacra.44 T h e picture is a little more complicated, then, but still basically contrasting. What Paul's excerpt m a k e s no mention of, though, is any prohibition of wine in these new Greek rites, and this is perhaps the weakest part of Le B o n n i e c ' s argument in this respect, as he tries to reconcile the conflicting and confused ancient evidence about the place of wine in the worship of Ceres by proposing that its interdiction was another particularity of the Graeca sacra which contrasted with practices in other areas of her cult. The ancient debate about the propriety of offering wine to Ceres is best illustrated by Servius who, in his commentary on the Georgics (1.344), sharply criticizes those who have accused Virgil of contravening religion by suggesting in the first p o e m that the seasonal libations to Ceres should include wine. And this accusation is, indeed, levelled at Virgil, in almost precisely these terms, by one of M a c r o b i u s ' symposiasts in his Saturnalia (3.11). Servius retorts, however, that 'the pontifical b o o k s make no such prohibition' (pontificales namque hoc non vêtant librï), nor can a line from Plautus' Aulularia, in which the absence of wine from the p l a y ' s w e d d i n g preparations p r o d u c e protests that the event is turning into a 'marriage of Ceres' (Cererin ... nuptias) be used to prove the point. 45 T h e sacrum of Ceres, Servius asserts, is not the same as her marriage, which is properly called the 'wedding of Orcus' (Orci nuptiae) and solemnly celebrated by the pontifices in a ritual without wine. The clear implication here is that this ban was unique, in all other aspects of C e r e s ' cult the wine flowed freely. L e Bonniec, however, wants to extend this interdiction beyond the rather enigmatic Orci nuptiae to encompass the more important matronal rites, while concurring with Servius (not to mention

42 See e.g. Pliny, NH 35.154 for the Greek elements of the temple. 43 See e.g. C i c , Balb. 55; Val. Max. 1.1.1; CIL 6.2181 and 2182. 44 On these mysteries see H. Wagenvoort, 'The goddess Ceres and her Roman mysteries', in his collection Pietas: selected studies in Roman religion (Leiden 1980) 114-46, which revises the conclusions of his * Initia Cereris', the English version of which is in his Studies in Roman literature, culture and society (Leiden 1956) 150-68. On the expiations see the summary in B. MacBain, Prodigy and expiation: a study in religion and politics in republican Rome (Brussels 1982) 127-35. 45 Plaut., Aul. 354, which is indeed cited by Macrobius' symposiast {Sat. 3.11.2).

REBECCA FL

MING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION

99

Virgil and many other Latin writers) about the general presence of wine in Ceres' cult activities at Rome.46 He relies on two pieces of evidence to support this view. The first comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In his attempt to provide mythic Arcadian origins for all Roman institutions, the historian credits Evander and his heroic band of early settlers with the foundation of a temple to Demeter on what would become the Palatine, together with nêphalia (wineless or sober sacrifices, generally based on honey) performed by women according to the Greek custom, which, he claims, remained unchanged in his own (Augustan) times.47 There are several aspects of Dionysius' testimony that fail to inspire historical confidence, even putting aside his Arcadian agenda. No temple of Demeter has ever been associated with the Palatine, for example, nor was the conjunction of women and nêphalia characteristic of Greek cults of the goddess. The most famous and wide-spread allfemale ritual of Demeter was the Thesmophoria; but, though (at least in its Attic form) this incorporated a day of general fasting, of abstention from all food and drink, including wine (before the great feast that followed!), there is no suggestion that this latter was particularly prohibited, nor that wine offerings to the goddess were banned.48 Conversely, while no wine was to be poured on the altar of the Despoinae (the Mistresses - Demeter and Persephone) at Olympia, for example, it was both men and women who were so enjoined, and a similar inclusiveness characterizes other instances of this rule, whether in relation to Demeter or other deities. 49 Despite all these problems, Le Bonniec assumes that Dionysius is inventing an Arcadian aetiology for an actually existing, and accurately described, Augustan practice, and identifies the contemporary ceremony as Ceres' Graeca sacra festa, so adding sobriety to its other features.50 Even if the assumption of Augustan ritual realism is accepted, however, it is still not clear that the matronal sacra provide the best fit. H. Wagenvoort has suggested, for example, that it is in fact the Orel nuptiae which are referred to here - known to be wineless, though not exclusively female - or at least that this passage should be taken as supporting the long-term existence of a distinct set of female mysteries of Ceres which meet all of Dionysius' criteria.51 Another possibility would be to cross-reference his statement with the only other specific appearance of nêphalia offered to Demeter at Rome in the ancient sources - that is in the first Sibylline Oracle preserved by Phlegon of Tralles.52 The text is a very troubled one, but it 46 Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès (n. 38, above) 416-17 and 438-41. 47 Dion. Hal. 1.33.1; and see e.g. Plut., Quaest. Conv. 4.6.2 for a discussion of the nature of nêphalia. 48 On the Thesmophoria see e.g. W. Burkert, Greek religion: archaic and classical, trans. J. Raffan (Oxford 1985) 242-46. The smuggling of the wineskin into the festival in Aristophanes' play (Thesm. 733-64), only goes to demonstrate the point. It is the general rule of fasting that is broken, and in such a way as to emphasize one of the female vices under discussion - drunkenness. It seems likely that a similar day was included in other Greek Thesmophoria, though definite references are lacking. 49 On Olympia (where wine is additionally not to be poured on the altar of the Nymphs and of all the Gods) see Paus. 5.15.10; and a similar prohibition appears in the same work at e.g. 1.26.5 (referring to the Athenian altar of Zeus Hypatos). 50 Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès (n. 38, above) 416. 51 Wagenvoort, 'The goddess Ceres' (n. 44, above) esp. 136-41. 52 Phleg., Mir. 10; my thanks to John North for bringing the relevance of this text to my attention.

100

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

details a complex set of expiatory rites to be used in response to the birth of a hermaphrodite.53 Amongst otherrituals(such as the presentation of a treasury and the sacrifice of oxen) performed by different groups of women to Demeter, Persephone, Pluto, Hera (and possibly Zeus), they seem to include wineless libations poured onto the fire by sacrificially knowledgeable old women.54 Though a group of youths make a late appearance in proceedings, it does seem that women, sobriety, and Greekness are conjoined here, but without the implicit regularity of Dionysius' delineation. The safest conclusion to draw from this plethora of possibilities and from the problems inherent in Dionysius' testimony is simply that it cannot be used to support the view that wine was prohibited from the Graeca sacra of Ceres referred to by Paul and others. Moreover, the two clear cases of rituals without wine seem to stand firmly on either side of the key distinctions that Le Bonniec and others understand to be at work here. The Orci nuptiae look to belong to the earlier 'Roman' (or at least more naturalized) and inclusive (or, more precisely, male-led) layers of Ceres' cult, while the expiatory rituals of the Sibylline Oracle are later, 'Greek' introductions, and female dominated. Nor has an investigation into the alleged Greek roots of Dionysius' nêphalia helped the cause. It is useful, however, in clarifying the meaning of sober offerings and their place in the repertory of classical sacrifice more generally. Orcus' Wedding and the Sibylline procedures may not be located similarly in relation to women's participation, but they do share a certain chthonic orientation, which can also be discerned in a number of other Greek cult practices in which wineless libations feature. The chmonic theme is not, it should be stressed, a universal one in such cases. Nêphalia fit into a far more complex pattern than that; a complexity that is underlined by the way in which they are often combined with other sacrificial elements and events, not just various blood sacrifices, but also libations of wine. So, for example, in the epigraphically preserved sacrificial calendar from the Attic deme of Erchia, nêphalia appear several times, linked in particular to holocausts and to Zeus Meilichios.55 The rites for this deity are particularly complicated in their specification of the wine and wineless offerings that are to accompany the different stages of the sacrifice - wine was not to be used until the victim had been killed, dismembered, and was being partially offered to the gods, partially consumed by the worshippers, when wine became an important part of proceedings.56 It is erroneous, therefore, not only to suggest that the requirement of sober offerings is sexually determined, but also to think in terms of a blanket ban, a general interdiction on wine, in this context. Nêphalia seem more of a positive choice, selected to give special emphasis to a ritual action 53 The best edition to date is that of H. Diels, Sibyllische Blatter (Berlin 1890). The dating of this oracle is controversial: Phlegon places it in 125 BC, but Diels wants to backdate it to the first two androgyne prodigies referred to in the historical sources (207 and 200 BC). The matter is also helpfully discussed in MacBain, Prodigy and expiation (n. 44, above) 127-35, where 133 BC is preferred. 54 Phleg., Mir. 10 (Diels, lines 22-23): Tpiç zôoa, vfjcpaÀa Ttàvxa, Tiupôç, \xaXepolo TIÛÉVTCOV / " O o a o a i é7iioTauévo)ç ô u o i a v y p a î a i n p o T i û e v i a i ; cf. e.g. C i c , Verr. 2.4.99. 55 LSCG 18. Nêphalia appear in lines B.16-20, T.20-35, A.20-23, E.12-15 (holocausts); A.40-43 (Zeus Meilichios); and T.48-53, A.41-46 and E.60-64. 56 The procedure is helpfully discussed in M. Jameson, 'Notes on the sacrificial calendar from Erchia', BCH 89 (1965) 158-72, esp. 162-65; where he also draws parallels with a complex sacrifice for Zeus Poheus on Cos.

REBECCA FLF

ING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION 101

or sequence, and often operating within a broader overall package that may indeed include wine. So, sex may not be the issue here; but given that, as Paul states, the Graeca sacra of Ceres were celebrated, 'on account of the finding of Proserpina', thus establishing a chthonic connection of some sort, it is entirely possible that nêphalia were offered during these festivities, which would help Dionysius but not Le Bonniec, who wants a complete prohibition on wine in these proceedings. However, it is now time to admit Le Bonniec's second witness, Ovid, who provides one of the few contemporary references to the actual contents of these sacra, though, as is to be expected, it is very far from a straightforward description of events. In his Amores, the poet complains about the effects of the annual rite of Ceres on his sex-life, picking up on the aspect of these festivities that seem to have received the most attention: the sexual abstinence required of its female participants.57 As the ritual demands, his girlfriend sleeps alone, and Ovid laments the separation, arguing that the festival should celebrate the goddess' generosity, fecundity, and capacity for love, not her misery. It should mark her joy at finding her daughter, not the loneliness of her loss. His entreaties culminate in the proclamation that (Ovid, Am. 3.10.47-48): Festa dies Veneremque vocat cantusque merumque; haec decet ad dominos munera ferre deos. A festive day calls for sex, singing, and unmixed wine, These gifts are fitting offerings to the gods, our masters. For Le Bonniec, the meaning of this text is clear: Ovid reproaches the goddess for proscribing wine just as she proscribes love, forbidding wine from being both consumed and offered by those celebrating her rites.58 There is, however, little to suggest that this couplet should be taken in anything other than a general sense, as a statement of the poet's idea of a good time, of the principle that festivals dedicated to the divinities should be fun, that fun consisting in the proverbial wine, women, and song. And it should be noted that Le Bonniec is, given his interpretative approach, presumably committed to Ceres' Graeca sacra being marked also by silence, or at least a ban on singing. The implausibility of this point perhaps explains his failure to mention it. Ovid, like Dionysius, is not really up to the task Le Bonniec sets him. It remains possible either that, as in the Thesmophoria, elements of abstention from food and drink as well as sex were involved in the Graeca sacra at Rome, or that nêphalia were implicated at some point (or indeed both). But neither should be mistaken for a complete prohibition on wine, or linked to the exclusively female nature of the rites. This latter aspect now requires some more focused attention, particularly (to return to Scheid's arguments) the question of how the issues of female religious authority or representivity, and Greekness, interrelate. 57 Ovid, Am. 3.10; and see also his Met. 10.431-36, which, though ostensibly located in Cyprus, certainly has some Roman roots. Festus also makes reference to the 'castus Cereris' as a time during which private mourning is remitted (144.3F minuitur populo luctus; see also Moreau, this volume), which is most likely a reference to the Graeca sacra (and there is an inscription very dubiously restored [C]ereres ca[stu]: CIL l2 331). Ceres and chastity are also connected more widely. 58 Le Bonniec, Le culte de Cérès (n. 38, above) 416.

102

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

As already mentioned, despite considerable uncertainty about what actually went on in the rituals of Ceres' Graeca sacra, it is clear that they were all female, both officiated and participated in by women alone.59 The fullest account of these female officials - sacerdotes - is provided by Cicero in his defence of L. Cornelius Balbus. 'Our forefathers' (nostri maiores), Cicero explains, introduced these priestesses from Greece along with the rites themselves, to ensure their proper and pious performance in their new home (Balb. 55): Sed cum illam, quae Graecum illud sacrum monstraret et faceret, ex Graecia deligerent, tamen sacra pro civibus civem facere voluerunt, ut deos immortales scientia peregrina et externa, mente domestica et civili precaretur. has sacerdotes video fere aut Neapolitanas aut Velienses fuisse, foederatarum sine dubio civitatum. But, though they selected the woman who was to teach and conduct this Greek rite from Graecia, they still wanted her to conduct the rites for the citizens as a citizen, so that she might supplicate the immortal gods with foreign and outside knowledge, but a domestic and civic mind. I understand that these priestesses were, in general, either Neapolitans or Velians, certainly women of federated cities. Cicero then cites the case of one such - Calliphana - a Velian who was made a citizen by the senate and people of Rome in 93 BC.60 Both aspects - that the women were drawn from Magna Graecia and performed their ritual function 'on behalf of the Roman people', as Roman citizens - are confirmed elsewhere, by other literary sources and epigraphy. Two funerary inscriptions from Rome commemorate Casponia and Favonia, both public priestesses of Ceres (sacerdotes Cereris publicae populi Romani), and both the daughters of Roman citizens, with the former also a Sicilian.61 Plenty more public priestesses of Ceres can be found in the epigraphy of various Italian cities south of Rome, indicating the pool from which Rome could draw.62 It is also clear, again despite the uncertainty of detail, that these women were sacrificing on behalf of the Roman people. What kind of sacrifices were offered - whether indeed blood sacrifice was included or not - remains debatable; but both the patterns of the Greek Thesmophoria and Roman references (not to mention general ritual practice) indicate the sacrificial, and probably bloody, content of these ceremonies.63 So here, undoubtedly, are women exercising religious authority, interceding with the gods on behalf of the whole community of Rome, representing 'the citizens as a 59 Though how seriously the usual specification of the participants as matronae - the wives or widows of citizens - should be taken is more debatable. As Spaeth points out {Roman goddess Ceres (n. 38, above) 108-10), Valerius Maximus' formulations (1.1.15) certainly suggest that young, unmarried, women also participated; as they seem to have done also in the cult of Demeter at Catena in Sicily (Cic, Verr. 2.4.99). More information about festivals to Demeter and Persephone (Thesmophoria) in Magna Graecia would, of course, help considerably with interpreting the Roman activités, but is unfortunately not forthcoming (Strabo 5.4.4, for example, is hopelessly vague). 60 The same story is told, somewhat confusedly, by Valerius Maximus (1.1.1). 6i CIL 6.2181 and 2182. 62 CIL 9.4200 (Amiternum?); 10.812 and 1074 (Pompeii); 10.4793 and 4794 (Teanum Sidicinum). 63 Livy 34.6.15 refers to Ceres' sacrificium rather than sacra, for example, and see also Plut., Fab. Max. 18.1 -2 in which sacrifices and a procession (also mentioned e.g. by Ovid, Met. 10.431 -36) are specified.

REBECCA \

MMING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION 103

citizen', but also marked out as Greek, in possession of 'outside knowledge'. The question is, however, the way in which the relationship between two of these elements - the foreign and the female - is to be understood in respect to their authority and sacrificial activity. For Cicero, certainly, sex is not an issue. The priestesses come simply as part of the ritual package. As Festus outlines in his definition of peregrina sacra, these are cults, such as that of the Magna Mater brought from Phrygia, Ceres from Graecia, and Aesculapius from Epidaurus, which have been settled in Rome either through evocatio, in the context of war, or on account of certain religious considerations in peacetime, and 'which are celebrated according to the customs of the peoples from whom they were received' (quae coluntur eorum more a quitus sunt accepta)!* This means that they come with their own officials, of whatever sex or gender, so that the mos of the providing people may be properly followed. In the case of Ceres, the problem, as Cicero sees it, is the integration of that package into the Roman religious landscape given that the senate wanted to locate it in the public sphere, to make this Greek cult into a state cult in the fullest sense. Its officiants needed to be citizens, and so these they became. It is then on this basis - on the basis of the constitutional procedure used to bring the cult over and place it at Rome (properly carried out) and the citizenship of its officiants (properly granted or inherited) - that these women are entitled to communicate with the gods on behalf of the whole Roman community. They have been aligned, therefore, with the other women in a similar position at Rome - primarily the Vestals, but also the regina sacrorum and the flaminicae - and distinguished from the priesthoods (male and female) of other imported cults, such as those of Aesculapius and the Magna Mater, who do not attain this kind of status. They do indeed tread the boundary between Roman and nonRoman, a boundary which they effectively straddle, becoming Roman but retaining their Greek knowledge; but the boundary between men and women, either in a religious or any other sense, is not in the frame at all, not even implicitly. The contrast with the fate of the cult of the Magna Mater, a fellow peregrina sacra after all, is particularly instructive in this respect. It demonstrates how, if the relationship between gender and religious authority or practice in the Graeca sacra of Ceres had been considered a contradictory or transgressive one, the Roman state would have taken action, would not have just let the matter lie. For here it seems that the Phrygian mos was problematic, including (or perhaps especially) as it related to the Roman gender system, so Roman citizens were kept separate from the Phrygian rites of the goddess. 65 These were left to a Phrygian priest and priestess together with their non-Roman followers (the Galli), while Roman citizens participated only in the Megalensian Games, held in honour of the Magna Mater, but presided over by the praetors. Nor can it be argued that Cicero's focus is simply a product of the particularities of the case: that he is hardly going to raise problems of women's religious role in his defence of Balbus' Roman citizenship. 66 For surely, if Ceres' priestesses did present

64 268.27F peregrina sacra; see also J. Scheid, 'Graeco ritu: a typically Roman way of honoring the gods', HSPh 97 (1995) 15-31 for more discussion of the peregrina sacra within the broader context of 'foreign' cults. 65 Dion. Hal. 2.19.3-5. 66 Balbus' citizenship, granted to him by Pompey in his native Spain, and ratified by the lex Gellia Cornelia in 72 BC, was legally challenged by his political enemies in 56, without success.

104

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

these kind of difficulties, if they did strike at the heart of a fundamental tenet of Roman religious practice - female sacrificial incapacity - protected only by their G r e e k n e s s , then it seems unlikely that Cicero would have recruited them to B a l b u s ' cause in the first place. His precise formulations and the emphasis they tacitly (but tantalizingly) put on the rights of w o m e n as citizens, the content and importance implicitly given to female citizenship, must be treated with caution; but Cicero's willingness (indeed keenness) to align Calliphana and Balbus, his assumption that their respective femaleness and maleness is irrelevant, should be taken seriously. It would seem, therefore, that the sacerdos Cereris addressed the gods on exacdy the same basis as any other public religious official, her authority came from her own, properly arrived at, position in the R o m a n constitution; but she communicated in, as it were, a different language, in the Greek mode rather than the R o m a n one. So, in the end, Ceres' new, Greek, cult speaks rather positively of w o m e n ' s religious roles at Rome, at least from the third century B C onwards, and tells against notions of prohibition, incapacity, and marginality. It is time now to collect together some of these m o r e positive signs - the women who have been found to play a more active part in R o m a n cult and ritual - to bring this discussion to a close. Some (more constructive)

conclusions

Before reaching the conclusions proper there is one m o r e piece of ancient evidence concerning R o m a n women and sacrifice that needs to be discussed. This is a sentence from V a r r o ' s De lingua Latina (another work that relates closely to Festus' L e x i c o n ) , which appears in a sequence dealing with the terminology of clothing: Sic rica ab ritu, quod Romano ritu sacrificium feminae c u m faciunt, capita vêlant. Thus rica (a small veil or mandet) from *ritus\ because in the Roman rite, w h e n w o m e n sacrifice they cover their heads. 67 At first glance this etymology, however mistaken, seems to seal the case: R o m a n women did sacrifice R o m a n style, with their heads covered like their men-folk, but with a special garment not just a fold of the toga. 68 It might be possible, however, to interpret this statement m o r e narrowly: to understand feminae y not as all women, or w o m e n in general, but as only those women who did sacrifice, according to the Roman rite, and who covered their heads in this way. This m o r e restrictive reading would seem, certainly, to be s u p p o r t e d by the descriptions of the rica contained in the remains of Festus' Lexicon. Rather confusingly this item of clothing appears twice in the surviving text. First in the plural, and together with riculae, both names for small ricinia (or recinia\ 'that is a m a n d e t made for use on the head' (ut palliola ad usum capitis facta).69 T h e entry continues with a more specific definition 67 Varro, LL 5.130; and on relations between Festus and Varro see the contributions of Glinister and Lhommé, this volume. 68 So this passage is interpreted, for example, by Staples, From good goddess (n. 8, above) 186 n. 93. 69 342.27F ricae. The recinium is defined just above (342.20F), as a four-cornered, toga-like garment of considerable antiquity; and see also the further discussion in J. L. Sebesta, 'Symbolism in the costume of the Roman woman', in The world of Roman costume, eds J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (Madison WI 1994) 46-53 (50).

REBECCA FLEÎ

SG: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION 105

borrowed from Granius: the rica is a female head-binding worn by the flaminica in place of the vitta (woollen bands used to bind the hair). 70 The second occurrence of the rica, this time singular and alone, provides a still more elaborate and specific description (even as abbreviated by Paul): Rica est vestimentum quadratum, fimbriatum, purpureum, quo flaminicae pro palliolo utebantur. Alii dicunt, quod ex lana fiat sucida alba, quod conficiunt virgines ingenuae, patrimae, matrimae, cives, et inficiatur caeruleo colore. The rica is a four-cornered garment, fringed and purple, which flaminicae are accustomed to use in place of a mantlet. Others say that it comes from fresh, white wool, that freeborn citizen girls, with both father and mother living, manufacture it, and it is then dyed with azure dye.71 Varro's sacrificing feminae would, therefore, seem to be the flaminicae, already known to sacrifice, Roman style. The issue is somewhat confused by the fact that Festus, mostly via Paul, is à key informant about another item of clothing characteristic of the flaminica: the flammeum, a bright yellow garment also described (like the rica) as a 'veil', especially when covering the head of its other wearer - the Roman bride.72 And yet another item of female sacrificial headgear is variously mentioned by other authors. Or, perhaps items, as the description of the arculum provided by Servius (Aen. 4.137) - that it is a switch from a pomegranate tree, bent round, with the ends tied together with white woollen bindings, to form something like a crown, and worn on the head by the regina (sacrorum) 'in certain sacrifices' (in sacrifiais certis), while the flaminica Dialis has to use it 'in all sacrifices' (omni sacrificatione) - seems to be divided between two terms by Paul, and is only lightly alluded to by Aulus Gellius. The arculum, according to Paul, is a circlet placed round the head in order, conveniendy, to hold upright the vessels which are carried on that part of the body 'in public rituals' (adpublicas sacras) (though by whom is unclear); while the 'inarculum' is a pomegranate switch bent round and worn on the head of the sacrificing regina sacrorum.13 Gellius simply refers briefly, in his listing of the various ritual prohibitions and compulsions that bound thtflamen and flaminica Dialis, to the latter wearing a twig from a fruitful tree in her rica (NA 10.15.28). If the line of Boels is followed, and all these switches and twigs are the same, and the flammeum is considered an essentially non-sacrificial garment; then it would seem that the flaminica Dialis always wore both veil and crown when sacrificing (presumably carrying vessels on her head), while the regina sacrorum sometimes wore the crown (and presumably covered her head with some item of clothing also, though the rica is never specifically named in conjunction with

70 342.28F ricae; the vitta is also discussed by Sebesta, 4Symbolism' (n. 69, above) 49. 71 369. IP rica, cf. the Festan fragments at 368.3F rica. The flaminicae themselves, of course, were subject to similar qualifications. 72 On the flammeum, including the Festus/Paul references, see L. La Follette, The costume of the Roman bride', in The world of Roman costume (n. 69 above) 54-64. Paul specifies the flaminica Dialis, but in such a way as to raise doubts as to whether Festus did. 73 15.6P arculum and 101.5P inarculum respectively.

106

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

her). 7 4 It is then also worth noting that the Vestal Virgins were marked b y different headgear again; and, 'when they sacrifice' (cum sacrificanf) wear the suffibulum - white with a purple border, four-cornered and not long - on their heads, fastened with a. fibula.15 S o , either V a r r o ' s etymology is supposed to derive from the sacrificial activities of only s o m e of the women who sacrifice, or, in an attempt to return to a m o r e generalized interpretation of Varro, rica could be used as the m o r e inclusive category - encompassing all kinds of female sacrificial headgear. Certainly that would be the easiest way to read the antiquarian's formulation - that all sacrificial head coverings worn by w o m e n can be called 'rica' from 'ritus' - which would again extend w o m e n ' s ritual possibilities. Festus (and Paul) would, however, tend to refocus matters on established figures of female religious authority especially the flaminicae - though also highlighting their sacrificial function. So, while Varro has again added to the richness of Roman religious activity for women, has o p e n e d up, indeed, a whole sacrificial typology according to what is worn on the head - he d o e s not himself, it must b e admitted, deliver the knock-out blow to the notion of female sacrificial incapacity. Fortunately there is no need. This notion is already down and out, repeatedly contradicted by the sources, including Festus, whose Lexicon has helped broaden, in a range of ways, the s c o p e of female religious activity at Rome. Despite its problematic preservation, this text supports a more positive understanding of w o m e n ' s ritual roles, including in sacrifice, and it is worth revisiting, briefly, some of the female religious figures who have emerged from under the s h a d o w of the major players - such as the Vestals, flaminicae, and sacerdotes Cereris by way of real conclusion. That is, most particularly, the simpulatrices - ' w o m e n devoted to divine matters' - named, so Paul claimed, from the simpulum, that ongoing symbol of Roman piety and priestly function. For these women appear (or at least lead) elsewhere in the Lexicon too, in a context which aligns them with other groups of ritually active, a n d qualified, women. Another female sacerdos mentioned by Festus is the piatrix, 'who was accustomed to perform e x p i a t i o n s ' {quae expiare erat solita), and was also called, by some, simulatrix, by others, saga or expiatrix.76 Whether or not the first alternative should be a m e n d e d to 'simpulatrbC (as the earlier editor Muller did, but not Lindsay), the location of these w o m e n in the realm of expiation is a resonant one. 77 A considerable number of expiatory rituals involving women h a v e , after all, been encountered in the course of this discussion (and t h e r e are more in the R o m a n repertory). These rituals would generally have been conducted under the auspices of the decemviri the k e e p e r s of the Sibylline Books - though other priestly colleges m a y also have been

74 N. Boels, 'Le statut religieux de la "Flaminica Dialis"\ RÉL51 (1973) 77-100, esp. 82-86. 75 474.3F suffibulum, and see also La Follette, 'Costume' (n. 72, above) 57-60. 76 232.33F piatrix; other sacred women mentioned in Festus' Lexicon but not discussed here include the enigmatic (but definitely sacrificing) Salian Virgins (439.18F saliae); the flaminia (the sacerdotula who assists the flaminica Dialis: $2.23? flaminia); and the damiatrix (priestess of the Bona Dea: 60. IP damium). il The word simulatrix is applied to Circe by Statius [Theb. 5.551), bringing with it notions of both transformation and deceit, and making it, in my view, less likely than simpulatrix but (given the negative connotations that can be placed on saga) not impossible.

REBECCA

.MMING: FESTUS & THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN ROMAN RELIGION 107

involved. 78 However, as well as the various female groupings called into ritual action, as such - as a group of 2 7 virgins, for e x a m p l e - the Sibyl, at least, specifies p r o c e d u r e s to be performed by female religious experts: 'sacrificially knowledgeable old w o m e n ' to be precise. 79 W h i c h would tie in most closely with the saga, also defined separately by Paul as 'a woman experienced in sacred m a t t e r s ' (mulier perita sacrorum).m For, though these old women did p o u r libations, given their G r e e k connections and the wineless nature of the offerings, they are unlikely to have d o n e so from a simpulum\ quite apart from the problems of etymology and spelling. A n u m b e r of loose-ends and uncertainties remain, therefore, but it is clear that there were groups of female religious experts - sacerdotes even - associated with rituals of expiation, and w h o serve, like the female worshippers of Hercules and Silvanus, like the women pouring libations of milk to R u m i n a and all the rest, to expand w o m e n ' s role in R o m a n religion well b e y o n d its presently accepted boundaries. This expansion certainly has limits, though, since so m u c h has been omitted from this discussion - both in terms of female festivals and in terms of developments outside the scope of Festus' antiquarian interests - they h a v e not yet been reached. None the less, this essay does not form part of an argument for religious equality at R o m e ; rather it has attempted to clear the space for a better understanding of w o m e n ' s subordination in the religious sphere, both quantitatively and qualitatively. A view of the religious roles of the R o m a n w o m a n that is dominated by her imagined sacrificial incapacity - that takes her alleged exclusion from the main elements of sacrificial ritual as its starting point, as its main interpretative matrix - must now be replaced, perhaps not by its inverse, by a view that is dominated by female sacrificial capacity and inclusion, but certainly by a view that incorporates these incontrovertible features of the R o m a n religious l a n d s c a p e . And that does actually indicate a surprisingly egalitarian substratum to R o m a n religion. T h e underlying assumption in R o m a n cosmology does seem to b e that everybody c o u l d address the gods, everybody could sacrifice, that the relation with the divine, at a basic level, was a universal; but this primordial, fundamental, evenness, was overlaid by the formation of human societies, particular p e o p l e s (like the Romans), who organized themselves and their collective relations with the gods in particular, interconnected, ways. Despite all the differentiation that occurred, however, the order that was brought to R o m e ' s communal relations with the divine, a principle of inclusion was maintained, along with a presumption of religious capacity. Exclusion and incapacity had to be actively imposed - the lictor had to shout 'exesto' at certain rituals; and Cato (Agr. 143.1), to prohibit unauthorized religious activity by the vilica of his estate, had to incapacitate her - they did not c o m e naturally. Moreover, though the communal religious authority exercised by women was restricted in that it did not extend into the m o r e strictly political and military realms, but stayed close to the dedicatedly sacred rhythms of the city, that authority was still exercised on the s a m e basis as that of men. That common basis was constitutionality - that the proper procedures had been

78 The haruspices were, of course, responsible for actually getting rid of the monstrum, and the curule aediles and pontiffs, as well as the decemviri (and the senate), all appear, for example, in Livy's account of the androgyne prodigy of 207 BC (27.37.4-15). 79 Phleg., Mir. 10.22-23 (Diels) (n. 53, above). 80 427.3P saga; cf. the Festan fragments at 426.14-18F.

108

VERRÏUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

followed in the acquisition of that authority, and that they continued to be followed in the performance of that role. It is not that these women have crossed into the male domain, but that the Roman constitution was as capable of placing women in positions of religious power as men, as capable of making women religious representatives of the community as men (and that they are essentially sacrificing representatives has been underlined by almost every reference to priestesses in Festus). So, also, what is crucial in this respect about the sacerdos Cereris is not that she is foreign, but that she is a Roman citizen. Her foreignness, like the femaleness of the Vestals, may well be linked to the detailed content of her role and function; but her authority and representational qualities are grounded elsewhere, in the very heart of the Roman system itself.

PART 3: THE TRANSMISSION OF FESTUS AND POST-CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP 6. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE KING'S LIBRARY: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME AND ITS CAROLINGIAN CONTEXT1 CLARE WOODS Of all the works Paul the Deacon produced in the course of his life, whether at Charlemagne's court or elsewhere, it is probably fair to say that his epitome of Festus' De verborum significant did not constitute his greatest claim to fame. Indeed, if one were to rely solely on Lindsay's 1913 edition of Festus with Paul's epitome for information on the transmission of the epitome, it would be tempting to conclude that its presentation to Charlemagne occasioned little interest among Paul's contemporaries, and attracted few readers in subsequent generations. This chapter's primary intention is to provide a more up-to-date handlist of medieval manuscripts containing Paul's epitome than that offered in Lindsay's edition, and to explore what this handlist can tell us about the medieval transmission of the epitome.2 But the handlist also becomes a point of departure for exploring other issues. This paper reconsiders the question of where Paul composed the epitome; also, as part of the process of mapping the availability of Festus in the medieval world it reexamines (in Appendix II) the role of glossaries as transmitters of Festan material. Finally, the epitome might not be Paul's most famous work, yet the production of it coincided with an important moment in Paul's career. No doubt he intended it to be a contribution to intellectual culture at Charlemagne's court, but, as will be explored further below, I believe the epitome also had a role to play in negotiating Paul's relationship with Charlemagne. Witnesses, new and old Information on manuscripts containing Paul's epitome is most readily available in Lindsay's 1913 edition, where very brief descriptions are provided of twelve manuscripts, three of which contain only fragments of Paul's text.3 In the decades since Lindsay published his edition, advances in the field of Latin palaeography have contributed to a better understanding of the 1 This paper has been through many transformations. I would like to thank Carlotta Dionisotti, Janet Nelson and Francis Newton for reading through versions of it. Their suggestions were enormously helpful. Any new errors or lingering misjudgements are entirely my own. 2 The handlist is presented as Appendix I, below. 3 Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi xix-xx. Lindsay's sigla are indicated in the handlist. 109

110

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

development of script in the early medieval period, and of the house style and scholarly interests of individual scriptoria and monasteries. Given that Caroline minuscule is notoriously difficult to date, Lindsay was no doubt being conservative in dating all of his early witnesses to the tenth or eleventh centuries, but clearly the manuscript descriptions he provided now need revision. Bischoff, who performed precisely this service for Lindsay's edition of Nonius, 4 although generally not concerned with Paul's epitome per se, was instrumental in the course of a number of studies in refining our knowledge of when and where some of the earliest manuscript witnesses to contain Paul's text were probably copied. Now that two volumes of his Katalog der festldndischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts are available, the picture is becoming clearer still. Nine out of the eleven early medieval witnesses (including the fragments) used by Lindsay should now be placed securely in the ninth century.5 For Lindsay's R, we should note its correct shelf mark: Leiden B.P.L. 135, not Voss. 135. Paul's epitome is contained in the first part of this composite manuscript. Carey had suggested a date of 882-900 for this part, but Bischoff preferred a date in the second quarter of the ninth century, and suggested an original in north-eastern Francia.6 It is also worth clarifying here the location of one further witness used by Lindsay. Lindsay's P, copied in the eleventh century, once formed part of the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps; it was acquired by the University of Texas at Austin and now resides in their Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center.7 Lindsay was also aware of the tenth-century codex, Vienna Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 142, but did not consider it important for his edition, as it is a copy of Wolfenbuttel Aug. 4°. 10. 3. 8 Its text may offer nothing new to an editor, but its existence is valuable evidence of early medieval interest in Paul's text. A 'new' witness, unknown to Lindsay, is the fragment of Paul's epitome found in Vatican BAV Reg. Lat. 314. The scraps of text are preserved on fly-leaves rescued from a ninth- to tenth-century French manuscript which had contained Tarcionarius et Donatus maior'.9

4 B. Bischoff, 'Palaeography and the transmission of classical texts in the early middle ages', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 115-33(128). 5 Lindsay's E, G, /, L, M, Rt T, Basil, and the fragmentfromWurzburg (Wirceb.). See Appendix I for complete callmarks. A ninth-century date for T was suggested already by A. Harmand in his Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements II (Paris 1855) 937. 6 F. M. Carey, 'The scriptorium of Reims during the Archbishopric of Hincmar (845-882 AD)', in Classical and medieval studies in honor ofE. K. Rand, ed. L. W. Jones (New York 1938) 41-60 (60); also J. Chittenden (ed.), Donatus Ortigraphus. Ars grammatica, CCCM 40D (Turnhout 1982) xxvii. But now see B. Bischoff, Katalog der festldndischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen) Teil II: Laon-Paderbom (Wiesbaden 2004) 44. 7 P. O. Kristeller, Iterltalicum V (London 1993) 205, where the work is referred to as Excerptum Bede de naturali historia Plinii\ C. Carl-Mitchell, 'Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts at the HRHRC, Libr. Chron. Univ. Tex. n. s. 35 (1986) 88-105 (91-92, 104); C. Carl-Mitchell and K. Gould, 'A list of HRHRC Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts', Libr. Chron. Univ. Tex. n.s. 35 (1986) 106-13 (110-11). 8 Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi xx. 9 E. Pellegrin et ai, Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane II.I. Fonds Patetta et fonds de la Reine (Paris 1978) 63-65 (64).

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

111

In selecting manuscripts for his edition, Lindsay dismissed any witness to Paul's text copied later than the eleventh century, stating, 'Recentiores, quasi détériores, nolo enumerare'.10 It is not surprising, therefore, that he omits to mention Cambridge Trinity College Library 1315, a twelfth-century manuscript that seems to have escaped the notice of scholars. Earlier editors of Festus and Paul, Lindemann and Miiller, were not so squeamish about consulting later witnesses, and collated two further manuscripts, one housed in a Berlin collection, the second in Leipzig.11 For neither of these did they provide details as to library or shelf mark. Thewrewk in turn gave notice of certain Paris manuscripts, the only pre-humanist one being the thirteenth-century Paris BN Lat. 10295.12 The identity of Lindemann and Mûller's Leipzig codex remains a mystery, but the callmark of their Berlin witness (which eluded Moscadi)13 can, on the basis of its further content, probably be identified as Berlin Staatsbibliothek 1021. This witness is in part palimpsest, the lower layer apparently containing fragments of Paul's epitome and Aulus Gellius. Lindemann inspected it, and described it as thirteenth century, a dating accepted subsequently by Miiller.14 Moscadi, on the other hand, attributes it to the fourteenth century, presumably following the Berlin library catalogue, which suggests this date for the lower script. This manuscript is included in my preliminary handlist, but on the understanding that its status as pre-humanist witness needs verification. Similarly tentative is the inclusion in the handlist of a clutch of fourteenth-century manuscripts: El Escorial g.m.9;15 San Gimignano, Biblioteca Comunale 43,16 and BAV Vat. Lat. 273 3.171 plan to discuss these further in a future study on humanist interest in Paul. One further category of witness is included in this handlist: entries in medieval library catalogues and booklists that might refer to the epitome. These have been placed in the handlist according to the date of the medieval catalogue or booklist, with the proviso that it is impossible to assign more than a terminus post quern non date to the manuscripts referred to in these lists. With often only a vague title to work from we cannot even be certain of what

10 Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi xx. 11 This Leipzig manuscript and the Berlin codex already discussed were two of five used in Corpus grammaticorum Latinorum veterum H, éd. F. Lindemann (Leipzig 1832), and by Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi. The other three were Munich elm 14734, and two Wolfenbuttel MSS: Aug. 4° 10. 3 (which Lindemann used as his base text), and the humanist copy Wolfenbuttel Gud. 287. 12 Thewrewk, Sexti Pompei Festi. 13 A. Moscadi, Troblemifilologicinell'epitome di Paolo Diacono del De verborum significationibus di Sesto Pompeo Festo', in La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo I. Atti del convegno tenuto a Roma, Consiglio nazionale dellericerche,dal 12 al 16 novembre 1979 1 (Rome 1981) 467-74 (468 n. 6). 14 Description in V. Rose, Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin II (Berlin 1905) 1313. Lindemann, CGLVII xiii; Mûller, Sexti Pompei Festi x. 15 I. R. Fernandez, Manuscritos clasicos latinos en Espana (Madrid 1984) no. 107. A fourteenthcentury date is suggested, but no information is offered as to place of origin or provenance. 16 Copied in two columns, on paper in a late Gothic hand: G. Garosi, Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d'ltalia 88 (Florence 1972) 177. 17 Written in Italy in a round Gothic hand according to E. Pellegrin et ai, Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane III.I. Fonds Vatican Latin 224-2900 (Paris 1991) 574.

112

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

exactly these manuscripts contained. Glosae Pauli Diaconi and Excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi (from the Lorsch and Montier-en-Der booklists respectively) seem likely to point to Paul's epitome. The identity of the Glosae ex libro Pompei in a tenth-century book list from Lobbes is less certain. Does this refer to Paul's text, or could the manuscript in question have contained material drawn from the grammarian Pompeius' commentary on the Ars Donatil No surviving witness to Pompeius' treatise, whether excerpted or not, uses the term glosae in reference to its Pompeian content, and on balance it seems more likely that the Lobbes glosae refer to Paul and not Pompeius, but it is difficult to be certain.18 The fact that Paul's name does not feature in the rubric matters little: it is worth noting that in many extant medieval witnesses Paul's text is described as Excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi de signification verborum, with no mention made of Paul. If Paul's responsibility for the excerpted text is not evident in many manuscripts, why should we assume, as Manitius has done, that the Liber Festi Pompei ad Arcorium Rufum, and the Liber Pompei de significacione verborum. [sic] legibilis referred to in later medieval booklists from Cluny and Glastonbury respectively should be interpreted as pointing to copies of Festus' original text? The Cluny catalogue entry alone appears to preserve the name of Festus' dedicatee, and this information is apparently corroborated by Narbonnese inscriptions linking the Pompeii with the Artorii. 19 But no matter what we make of this, there can be no certainty as to what Cluny actually owned. If anything, the reference in both the Cluny and Glastonbury lists to a single 'Liber' ought to give us pause: Festus certainly divided his work into separate books; Paul's epitome, on the other hand, was organized as one book, which better fits the designation in the Cluny and Glastonbury booklists. Text and transmission The chronological arrangement of the handlist as presented in Appendix I allows the shape of the transmission to come into clearer focus. Ten of the extant medieval witnesses were copied in the ninth century; there would be eleven if we include the Lorsch manuscript signalled in a medieval booklist, which Bischoff suggested might well have been copied from the court exemplar. 20 Less than half this number can be harvested from the tenth century, 21 and

18 For the transmission of Pompeius' commentary on Donatus, and a description of its surviving witnesses, see L. Holtz, 'Tradition et diffusion de l'oeuvre grammaticale de Pompée, commentateur de Donat', RPh45(\91l) 48-83. 19 For the most recent discussion, and further bibliography, see P. L. Schmidt, 'Sex. Pompeius Festus', in Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur derAntike IV, eds K. Sallmann et ai (Munich 1997) 240-45. 20 G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn 1885, repr. Hildesheim 1973) 113, cat. 37 no. 492; B. Bischoff, 'The court library of Charlemagne', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 56-75 (64-65). 21 When the final volume of Bischoff s Katalog appears, the date of these two MSS may also need revision. However, although it is difficult to know what to make of him, we should consider Lindsay's tenth-century pedant, 'Regulus', and his dismay at receiving a manuscript of Plato rather than Plautus. (His letter is preserved in Bamberg Class. 18 (M.V.I5), s. X, Italy). Both Lindsay and Bischoff thought that Regulus' desire for more Plautus could only have been piqued by reading Festus, but in a version more complete than either the Farnesianus or Paul's epitome. W. M. Lindsay, 'New light on Festus', CQ 26 (1932) 193-94; B. Bischoff, 'Zu Plautus und Festus', Philologus 87 (1932) 114-17 = Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewàhlte Aufsàtze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte I (Stuttgart 1966) 141-44. But is Festus really the only candidate for a source that mentions a range of Plautus' plays?

ARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

113

from then on the transmission becomes spottier still. We have one manuscript each from the eleventh and twelfth centuries;22 and only one manuscript securely datable to the thirteenth: Paris BN Lat. 10295. Leiden BPL 191 is difficult to date with any certainty, but was copied no earlier than the late thirteenth century, and Lapidge may well be right in assigning it a fourteenth-century date.23 The same might be said of Berlin Staatsbibliothek 1021, while no firm conclusion can be drawn with regard to our lost Leipzig codex.24 From this evidence, it seems impossible not to conclude that interest in Paul's epitome, already considerably less keen in the tenth century than in the ninth, tails off in the eleventh century, and remains at a low ebb until the fourteenth. This lack of interest might well be inferred too from the reuse of manuscripts containing the epitome in the thirteenth century as material for binding other volumes: the fate of our Wiirzburg and Vatican fragments, and possibly the Basel fragment also. And yet, although the popularity of the epitome appears to decline from the tenth century onwards, the text evolves nevertheless in the hands of its copyists. Most of the later medieval witnesses contain an epitome that has either been alphabetized or interpolated.25 The earliest medieval witness containing an interpolated epitome is the late thirteenth/fourteenth-century Leiden BPL 191. The compiler has effectively interwoven Paul's text with another Latin glossary, the latter being itself an amalgamation of the Abba glossary and material derived from elsewhere.26 And yet the integrity of Paul's text - its stability, if you like - is maintained. For each letter of the alphabet Paul's lemmata are listed followed by a separate list of lemmata from the interpolated Abba. The first lemma in each list is distinguished by means of an enlarged initial letter, further confirming the compiler's intention to keep his two sources distinct. Neither sequence is further alphabetized (although the text of the epitome has been cut and/or rearranged slightly in places). Paul's epitome concludes with lemmata for the letter 221 will, although with reservations, reproduce Lindsay's tenth- to eleventh-century dating of the Paul fragment in the composite Paris BN Lat. 7575. The eighteenth-century catalogue suggested that it was saeculo duodecimo, ut videtur, exaratum - Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae regiae IÏÏ.IV (Paris 1744). If we accept Lindsay's dating of the Paris fragment, Cambridge TCL 1315 would constitute the only extant glimmer of twelfth-century interest in Paul's text. The date of the copy of Paul/Festus mentioned in the Cluny booklist cannot now be ascertained, and we should not assume it represents recent (i.e. eleventh- or twelfth-century) interest in the text. 23 M. Lapidge, 'The school of Theodore and Hadrian', ASE 15 (1986) 45-72 (69). I would like to thank Francis Newton for looking at this manuscript with me. 24 Lindemann, CGLV U xiii described it as recentissimae aetatis, which probably indicates a late fifteenth or sixteenth century date. 25 This phenomenon appears, at least in part, to be what Savagner was referring to when he divided the manuscripts into two classes. His remarks are worth reproducing, if only for the rather entertaining idea that there are only two types of scribe: those more ignorant than a work's author, and those who believe themselves to be cleverer '...la première [classe] comprend ceux qui reproduisent le texte même de cet auteur, plus défiguré déjà par les fautes propres aux copistes, mais n'offrant aucune correction, parce qu'ils ont été copiés par des moines plus ignorants encore que l'auteur; la seconde classe comprend les manuscrits où le texte est corrigé ou interpolé, parce qu'ils ont été écrits par des individus qui avaient des prétentions à la critique, et qui étaient, ou du moins se croyaient, moins ignorants que Paul Diacre' : A. Savagner, Sextus Pompeius Festus, De la signification des mots (Paris 1846) vii. 26 Corpus glossariorum Latinorum IV, éd. G. Goetz (Leipzig 1889) xvii.

114

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

V, but BPL 191 also contains entries for the letters X to Z, arranged in the same dual scheme. Either the compiler wished to create the impression that both his sources contained lemmata for X to Z, or the compiler/a copyist has split the remaining lemmata from the second glossary into two lists simply to replicate the arrangement in the rest of the text. Given the hybrid nature of this lexicon, it is perhaps not surprising to find that it lacks identifying rubrics.27 The first surviving example of an attempt to alphabetize Paul's epitome occurs two centuries earlier in the eleventh-century Phillipps/Austin manuscript. Lindsay noted that its scribe Ellinger, abbot of St. Quirinus at Tegernsee, as well as being a careless copyist, also 'altered the sequence of the L-, M-, N- and 0 - lemmas in order to give these sections a still more strictly alphabetical order'.28 From the later medieval period, three further witnesses display an even more thoroughly alphabetized text. Moscadi posited a link between two of them - Paris B.N. Lat. 10295 and Oxford Balliol College 155.29 He did not know about the twelfth-century Cambridge TCL copy of Paul's epitome, whose lemmata also run from Abacta to Vrbanas, but which is earlier than both the other witnesses and originated probably in Canterbury.30 In our Austin manuscript we see the beginnings of an urge to alphabetize the epitome on the continent;31 but did the first fully alphabetically-ordered epitome see the light of day in England in the twelfth century - a century in which, at least to judge from surviving evidence, continental interest in Paul's text had reached its nadir? Given the downturn in interest in the epitome certainly after the ninth century, it is all the more remarkable that time and effort were expended to alphabetize it, regardless of how many copies resulted. An explanation can perhaps be found if we look more broadly at twelfth-century scholarly trends.

27 The fifteenth-century manuscript, Perugia Biblioteca Comunale Augusta 569 (H. 54) appears to contain an epitome interpolated along similar lines, offering lemmata from Augustus to Zorastes. 28 W. M. Lindsay, 'The Cheltenham MS of Paulus' epitome of Festus', CQ 6 (1912) 91-99 (92). 29 Of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries respectively. For Balliol College 155, Moscadi, 'Problemi filologici' (n. 13, above) 469, n. 10 provided (without explanation) a fifteenth-century date. Mynors' 1963 catalogue, on the other hand, ascribed this codex to the fourteenth century, describing its script as a 'large bookhand, perhaps German': R. A. B. Mynors, Catalogue of the manuscripts of Balliol College (Oxford 1968) 140. 30 M. R. James, The western manuscripts in the library of Trinity College Cambridge. A descriptive catalogue (Cambridge 1902) 335-37. Incidentally the similarity between the further content of Cambridge TCL 1315 (0.5.34), and Oxford Balliol College 155 is striking (see Appendix I). 31 If the eleventh century produced the first attempt to alphabetize Paul's epitome, perhaps the activity of Papias, whose dictionary in ABC order was completed by around 1053, proved inspirational. However, alphabetized glossaries were certainly not news at this date: the large Latin-Greek dictionary attributed to Ps.-Cyril, and extant in a small number of Carolingian copies, was alphabetized to six letters probably in Byzantine Italy. Carolingian alphabetizing activity is attested in the Liber glossarum, compiled in the late eighth century, which boasted, if not exact, certainly advanced alphabetization. The Abavus glossary, also 'very highly alphabetized', appears from the number of surviving manuscripts to have been popular in the early ninth century; see A. C. Dionisotti, 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries', in Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l'antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen âge. Actes du colloque international organisé par le 'Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture' Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994, éd. J. Hamesse (Louvain-la-Neuve 1996) 205-52 (236).

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

115

The decline in popularity of Paul's epitome from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries seems to have coincided with the rise of interest in lexicography, which, for the twelfth and thirteenth centuries especially, Bertini has described as one of the most important elements in scholastic and cultural education.32 Paul's epitome does in fact contribute to the new works produced, we simply need to dig a little deeper to find it - and credit perhaps once again twelfth-century English interest in Paul's text. Osbern, a monk of Gloucester, composed in the third quarter of the twelfth century a Liber derivationum which drew especially on Priscian, but also included material from Paul's epitome, and from Isidore, amongst other sources." Osbern's work seems to have had a relatively wide distribution, and was in turn used by later lexicographers, such as Hugutio of Pisa in the late twelfth century.34 The drastic reduction in numbers of copies of Paul's epitome from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries might well be due to the popularity of contemporary lexicons, which seem to have removed the need for scholars to consult the texts from which they were derived. What little interest there was in Paul's text in the twelfth century - an interest primarily concerned to alphabetize it, as discussed above - probably arose in conjunction with, and with the intention to facilitate, contemporary interest in lexicography. Returning to our survey of the transmission of Paul's epitome, we encounter in the fourteenth century a trickle of copies, which will swell to a sudden flood in the fifteenth century.35 To date there appear to be well over a hundred humanist copies of Paul's epitome, all but a tiny fraction of which seem to have been produced in Italy. That there cannot have been many manuscripts of the epitome in circulation before the early fifteenth century can be deduced from the remarks of Poggio's fellow manuscript-hunter Bartolomeo di Montepulciano, who, writing to Ambrogio Traversari from St. Gall in the January of 1417 or 1418, says that he 'entered a prison of ancient codices', and (besides finding and copying Flavius Vegetius Renatus) he 'found an ancient book containing a selection on the meaning

32 F. Bertini, 'La tradizione lessicografica fra tardo antico e alto medioevo', in La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo (n. 13, above), 397-409 (397). 33 Bertini, 'La tradizione lessicografica' (n. 32, above) 403. Osbern may have included more material from the epitome than is at first apparent from the new Italian edition: P. Busdraghi et ai, eds, Osberno, Derivazioni. Biblioteca di 'Medioevo Latino' 16 (2 vols, Spoleto 1996). The index lists only seven examples as derived from the epitome; more borrowings are probable, if hard to detect given editorial policy to provide ultimate sources whereever possible, despite the likelihood that many citations quoted by Osbern probably enjoyed an indirect transmission. 34 Hunt noted, for instance that it 'is one of the few works written in the twelfth century by a Benedictine monk belonging to one of the older monasteries in England which circulated on the Continent, and which, through the use made of it by Hugutio of Pisa in his Derivationes, entered into the main current of European learning' : R. W. Hunt, 'The "lost" preface to the Liber derivationum of Osbern of Gloucester', Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958) 267-82 (267). Twenty-seven witnesses contain all or most of the text; eight further witnesses are more fragmentary - see F. Bertini, 'Osberno di Gloucester', in Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l'antiquité tardive à lafindu moyen âge, (n. 3 1 , above) 283-97 (296-97). 35 Although, as noted above, we ought to be aware that humanist interest in Paul's text may begin in the latter part of the fourteenth century.

116

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

of words from the text of Pompeius Festus, useful to students and of remarkable genius'. 36 Sabbadini notes that these pioneering humanists often had trouble distinguishing known from unknown authors. 37 Yet even if there had been a slow reawakening of interest in Paul's epitome in the fourteenth century, it is not impossible that Bartolomeo and Poggio might have considered an old copy of the epitome to be rare, useful and worth rescuing. We might suppose - although this remains to be investigated - that some of the many humanist copies are descended from the text copied by Bartolomeo. 3 * The epitome in its Carolingian

context

The early medieval locus of interest in Paul's text is immediately evident from the handlist. The majority of manuscripts produced in the ninth century originated within the Frankish heartland. This is perhaps not surprising, since the dedication of the epitome to Charlemagne would place its emergence or first 'publication' within Francia, and probably in a court milieu. We can assume a court copy which, as has already been noted, Bischoff was keen to identify as the exemplar of some of the codices in our handlist.39 But did Paul necessarily carry out the task of epitomizing Festus at court? It is important to reconsider this question, since scholarly opinion seems still to be divided between two possible options. Either Paul composed the epitome at court - which might then imply the existence of a complete Festus in Carolingian Francia; 40 or - and this is usually how the second option is phrased - the epitome was put together after Paul had returned to Monte Cassino in 786. 41

36 'Intravi postea carcerem Codicum vetustorum: inter quos offendi Flavium Vegetium Renatum virum illustrem de veteri disciplina rei militaris ... Item vetustum codicem de significatione verborum exscerptum ex libris Pompeii Festi non inutilem studiosis, miro quidem ingenio adeptus sum'. (Book 24, Letter 9) Ambrosii Traversarii generalis Camaldulensium aliorumque ad ipsum; et ad alios de eodem Ambrosio Latinae epistolae, a Domno Petro Canneto abbate Camaldulensi in libros XXV tributae variorum opera distinctae, et observationibus illustratae II (2 vols, Florence 1759) col. 984. Translation from P. G. W. Gordan, Two renaissance book hunters. The letters ofPoggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis (New York 1974) 209. 37 R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne' secoli XIVe XV1 (Florence 1905, repr. 1967)

80n.35. 38 Incidentally, it is interesting that within the circle of patrons encouraging Poggio and Bartolomeo was Gasparino Barzizza, whose own work on orthography is preserved alongside a copy of Paul's epitome in Duke University's manuscript collection (Latin MS 49). 39 He suggests this specifically for Escorial O.III.31, Wolfenbiittel Aug. 4° 10.3, and for the manuscript mentioned in the medieval booklist from Lorsch. It may be true also - directly or indirectly - of Voss. Lat. Q 116, which Bischoff reckoned was acquired by Reims in the time of Hincmar. 40 Particularly influential with regard to this view is Manitius, who mentions the epitome at the end of a list of compositions made before Paul returned to Monte Cassino: M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters I (Munich 1911) 258. Also Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo: her conclusion will be discussed further below. More recently we find, for example, M. Garrison listing the epitome amongst the works Paul composed at the court, in T h e emergence of Carolingian Latin literature and the court of Charlemagne (780-814)', in Carolingian culture: emulation and innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1994) 111-40 (118). 4i Those in favour of composition at Monte Cassino include K. Neff, Die Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus (Munich 1908) 123; H. Bloch, 'Monte Cassino's teachers and library in the high middle

LARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

117

For the question of whether there existed a 'Frankish' Festus before Paul arrived at court, it is worth considering Charlemagne's own activity - or at least that of his scholarly advisors - in promoting educational reform, and encouraging an accumulation of literary wealth at the court. The importance of Charlemagne's victory over the Lombards for the development and enrichment of his own cultural programme has already been recognized. Giles Brown noted, for example, that 'the development of Charlemagne's court as a centre of learning seems to postdate the annexation of the Lombard kingdom in 7 7 4 , and the two events are commonly linked'. 4 2 Charlemagne was attracting scholars into his entourage from the mid-770s onwards Paulinus of Aquileia, and a small^army of Peters to name just the better known Italians. 43 Of these Paul the Deacon is usually considered the last to arrive, in 781 or 782, a good seven to eight years after the fall of the Lombard kingdom. 4 4 From around 780 - if we are to trust B i s c h o f f s interpretation of verses from Wigbod's dedicatory poem to his (now lost) commentary on the Octateuch - Charlemagne had been broadcasting his desire to receive rare and ancient books, 45 and it is not impossible that by the time Paul arrived at court, a copy of Festus existed in Charlemagne's library. However, careful reading of the epitome's dedicatory letter should encourage caution here. I reproduce part of the letter, with translation below:

ages', Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 19. La scuola ne 11'occidente latino dell'alto medioevo II (Spoleto 1972) 563-605 (569f.); G. Cavallo, 'La trasmissione dei testi nell'area beneventano-cassinese', Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 22. La cultura antica nelV occidente latino dal VII all'XI secolo (Spoleto 1975) 357-414 (362). Bischoff, 'The court library of Charlemagne' (n. 20, above) 58 notes that the epitome was 'sent to Charlemagne after 786'. And see also D. A. Bullough, 'Aula renovata: the court before the Aachen Palace', Carolingian renewal: sources and heritage (Manchester 1991) 123-60 (137). 42 G. Brown, 'Introduction: the Carolingian renaissance', in Carolingian culture: emulation and innovation (n. 40, above) 1-51 (28). Similarly Garrison, 'The emergence of Carolingian Latin literature' (n. 40, above) 116, has suggested that 'in the decade following Charlemagne's conquest of the Lombard kingdom ... poetry for entertainment and display is associated with the Carolingian court for the first time'. 43 Italians seem to have dominated Charlemagne's scholarly entourage, in fact, until at least 780. Of the Peters, perhaps the best known is Peter of Pisa, but two further Peters, 'both Italians and presumably valued for their learning' were later awarded the bishoprics of Pavia and Verdun. See Brown, 'Introduction' (n. 42, above) 29. We can add to these the Italian bishop, George of Ostia, and possibly Willichar, formerly bishop of Nomentana, whose name suggests he was either a Lombard or a Frank. See Bullough, 'Aula renovataJ (n. 41, above) 130-31. 44 Although see R. McKitterick, 'Paul the Deacon and the Franks', EME 8 (1999) 319-40 (323): 'there seems to be no clear indication that Paul was not at the Frankish court from 776 with Paulinus, for in that year Paul's own brother Arichis had been taken prisoner...'. 45 Wigbod: Quis saltern poterit seriem enumerare librorum, / quos tua de multis copulat sententia terris? Bischoff, 'The court library of Charlemagne' (n. 20, above) 61, considered the king's sententia to have been 'a missing circular letter from approximately the year 780 which called for the consignment of copies of remarkable, rare books and whose echo we have heard in some of the donations already discussed'. Amongst the donations discussed, Bischoff (60) included Paul's epitome.

118

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Cupiens aliquid vestris bibliothecis addere, quia ex proprio perparum valeo, necessario ex alieno mutuavi. ... Quod exiguitatis meae munusculum si sagax et subtilissimum vestrum ingenium non usque quaque reppulerit, tenuitatem meam vita comité ad potiora excitabit. Wishing to add something to your book collections, I have of necessity borrowed from another's work, because I am not very proficient with regard to my own. ... If your wise and most subtle intellect does not entirely reject this little gift from someone small like me, it will spur on my insignificance, while I have life for companion, to better things. Paul intended his epitome to be an addition to the library. If Charlemagne already possessed a complete text of Festus, would the epitome, in any real sense, have constituted an addition? It seems unlikely that a copy of Festus in any form was already available at the court. Further to this, other literary novelties supplied by Paul support the likelihood that he alone might have been responsible for introducing Festus to Francia, albeit in abbreviated form. When Paul arrived at court, his status as 'new kid on the block' was celebrated in an exchange of poetic correspondence between Peter of Pisa (writing as Charlemagne) and Paul the Deacon, the former teasing Paul for his knowledge of Greek, and implying that he will be a rare and special bird at court. Paul is modest in his reply, but famously attaches what might be his own translation of a short poem from the Palatine anthology. 46 If nothing else, this episode suggests that Paul introduced different expertise (Greek) and new texts to the Carolingian arena. Although Paul with stylish modesty denied any knowledge of Greek in his reply to Charlemagne/Peter, 47 it seems clear that, at least sometimes, he transliterated the Greek words in Festus for his Frankish audience. Lindsay's edition of Festus and Paul obscures this detail by rendering all Greek words in the epitome in Greek characters, but the fact that all the medieval manuscript witnesses offer transliterated Greek suggests to me that Paul used his expertise to make the epitome as accessible as possible for non-Graecophone Francia. As for other n e w texts, Manitius credited Paul with introducing Calpurnius and Nemesianus to the Carolingian world; 48 Lapidge made a similar claim with regard to the sixth-century poet Ennodius. 4 9 W e might agree that Paul introduced new texts to Francia, including an abbreviated Festus, but where did he find them? This is not the place to address the question of whether all these new texts were sourced at Monte Cassino. Paul had spent time in other Italian centres with notable libraries, Pavia for one. The difficulty with Monte Cassino is that it is practically

46 Neff, Gedichte (n. 41, above) 59-62 and 64-68. For translation and commentary see P. Godman, Poetry of the Carolingian renaissance (London 1985) 82-89. As Godman notes (89), 'even if Paul did not compose these lines he is at least aware that they are a translation from a Greek source - as is his intended audience'. 47 Graeciam nescio loquellam, ignoror Hebraicam ...Si non amplius in ilia regione clerici / Graecae profèrent loquellae quam a me didicerint / vestri, mutis similati deridentur statuis. Godman, Poetry (n. 46, above)86-89. 48 Geschichte 210-1 \ n. 5; and see Bischoff, 'The court library of Charlemagne' (n. 20, above) 57. 49 M. Lapidge, The authorship of the Adonic verses "ad Fidolium" attributed to Columbanus', StudMed ser. 3, 18 (1977) 815-80 (823).

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

119

impossible to determine how rich its library might have been in the earlier middle ages. Bullough was undoubtedly correct in stating that in 782 Monte Cassino was 'not yet the major library it was subsequently to become', 50 but the eighth-century library cannot be explored or explained through comparison with what had been built up by the end of the eleventh. Monte Cassino's early history is fractured, the community subjected to a series of displacements. After the destruction of the monastery in 577, the monks fled to Rome; one of many refugee communities to seek sanctuary there in the closing decades of the sixth century. Monte Cassino was not refounded until 718. What had the monks managed to save when they fled in 577? (Presumably at least a copy of Benedict's Rule, later believed to be the autograph itself.)51 How strong was the tradition of literary culture in their period of exile? Pope Pelagius housed the community near the Lateran where they remained throughout the seventh century. What access did they have to Roman libraries? What sort of role did the community play in the intellectual life of seventh-century Rome? In returning to Monte Cassino, what did the monks bring with them from Rome; how important was the library in the newly refounded abbey? There are no ready answers to these questions, and the fact that the monastery was destroyed again by Saracens in 883 further problematizes any attempt to reconstruct its early history. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that its refounding in 718 enjoyed papal support from the start. Assistance was also received from the neighbouring monastery of San Vincenzo al Volturno, and from the Anglo-Saxons Willibald and Wynnebald, with all that that might imply in terms of literary donations. By the 740s, according to Bloch's interpretation, such was Monte Cassino's prestige that Boniface was keen to establish close links between the abbey and his own newly founded Fulda. 52 In addition, a number of aristocrats - Frankish and Lombard were professed there in the course of the eighth century, and might have added to its literary wealth. Some certainly found much to covet in the library's holdings before 774: Anselm of Nonantola, brother-in-law to Desiderius' predecessor, Aistulf, and in exile at Monte Cassino from 756 to 774, is said to have acquired many manuscripts there. 53 If all this is taken into account, how realistic can it be to credit Paul the Deacon with the initiative of building the library at Monte Cassino, as some scholars have done? 54 It seems likely that Monte Cassino already had a notable collection of books before Paul entered it. In fact Paul the Deacon provides a very good example of just how patchy our knowledge is of Monte Cassino's library in the early Middle Ages. To judge purely from surviving manuscripts, Monte Cassino would appear never to have possessed a complete run of Paul's own works. Not one copy of his epitome; not a single copy of his Historia Langobardorum.

50 "Aula renovata* (n. 41, above) 136. 51 Returned to Monte Cassino by Pope Zacharias around the middle of the eighth century. See P. Meyvaert, 'Problems concerning the "autograph" manuscript of Saint Benedict's Rule', RBen 69 (1959)3-21. 52 Bloch, 'Monte Cassino's teachers and library' (n. 41, above) 566. 53 'et multos codices adquisivit': Catalogi abbatum Nonantulanorum, SS. rer. Langob., 571, 23; see also Bloch, 'Monte Cassino's teachers and library' (n. 41, above) 569 for further bibliography. 54 For example, G. Cavallo, 'Dallo "scriptorium" senza biblioteca alia biblioteca senza "scriptorium"', in Dall'eremo al cenobio: la civiltà monastica in Italia dalle origini all'eta di Dante, ed G. Pugliese Caratelli (Milan 1987) 331-422 (360-61).

120

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

I n d e e d , the apparent lack of medieval Italian witnesses has helped confirm the views of scholars such as Roberta Cervani that Paul c o m p o s e d his epitome during his time in F r a n c i a at C h a r l e m a g n e ' s court. 5 5 A n d yet gaps in the transmission of other texts c o m p o s e d by Paul h a v e not, indeed cannot, reasonably allow similar conclusions. Consider a text like the Scholia Vallicelliana, an annotated copy of Isidore's Etymologiae, w h o s e annotations - a notebook in effect - have now convincingly been attributed to Paul by Claudia Villa. She believes he gathered these notes at least in part from texts at M o n t e Cassino, i n c l u d i n g Festus and H y g i n u s ' Fabulae. T h e regional flavour of the glosses - in terms of m o r p h o l o g y , and dialect words - is also predominantly southern rather than northern Italian according to Villa. 5 6 Despite the part apparently played by M o n t e Cassino in providing s o m e of the information they contain, these scholia survive not in a Cassinese copy, but in a tenthcentury manuscript m a d e in Ceneda in north-east Italy - n o w R o m e Biblioteca Vallicelliana A 18; transalpine, German monasteries may also have aided their survival, as Villa has hinted. 5 7 P a u l ' s history of the Lombards was a much more popular and widely disseminated text and yet, although it survives in over one hundred manuscripts, there are no extant central-south Italian witnesses. Should this exclude M o n t e Cassino or the Beneventan area as P a u l ' s base when he c o m p o s e d it? 5 8 It seems more realistic to take into account other sorts of e v i d e n c e , as W a l t e r Pohl has d o n e . H e points out, for instance, that [the Historia Langobardorum] is used in all the Beneventan manuscripts that represent the specific southern Italian blend of ethnic and monastic m e m o r y ; it appears in library catalogues; and we e v e n know that a renegade monk of San V i n c e n z o stole it from his monastery. 5 9 P o h l interprets the lack of central-south Italian witnesses as symptomatic of m o r e recent losses and concludes, 'it thus seems obvious that both the surviving manuscripts and medieval library catalogues represent only a small percentage of what was originally there'. 6 0 55 In the final paragraph of her detailed study, L 'epitome diPaolo, Cervani states (157): Tassenzainfine di codici dell'epitome di Paolo a Cassino ed addirittura in tutta 1'Italia, contrasta notevolmente con la diffusione della stessa opera nelle zone influenzate dalla cultura carolingia. L'opera non è stata scritta, a mio avviso, a Monte Cassino, ma in terra franca, prima che Paolo tornasse in Italia; se infatti Topera fosse stata composta in Italia, vi sarebbe rimasta almeno una qualche traccia nella tradizione dell' epitome'. 56 C. Villa, 'Uno schedario di Paolo Diacono, Festo e Grauso di Ceneda', IMU 27 (1984) 56-80. Ibid. 64-65 on Festus and Hyginus: 'sorprende osservare che con Pompeo Festo, la cui tradizione ci appare, alio stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze e con la vistosa eccezione degli scoli che ora pongo in discussione, tutta méridionale e cassinese, siano state impiegate anche le Fabulae di Igino, la cui conservazione esclusiva è dovuta allé cure dei monaci dell'archicenobio benedettino'. 57 Villa, 'Uno schedario di Paolo Diacono' (n. 56, above) 79. For connections between Benevento and Reichenau, see H. Houben, 'Benevent und Reichenau: Siiditalienisch-Alemannische Kontakte in der Karolingerzeit', QFIAB 63 (1983) 1-19 (5 and 7). 58 Suggested by McKitterick, 'Paul the Deacon and the Franks' (n. 44, above) esp. 326-27 and 334-35. 59 W. Pohl, 'Memory, identity and power in Lombard Italy', in The uses of the past in the early middle ages, eds Y. Hen and M. Innés (Cambridge 2000) 9-28 (25). 60 Pohl, 'Memory, identity and power' (n. 59, above) 25.

ARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

121

As for Paul's epitome, we might follow Pohl's lead and look for traces of its use in centralsouth Italy. These can be found in at least two manuscripts, Monte Cassino MS 90 and Vat. Lat. 1469. The precise place of origin of Cas. 90 is uncertain, but it was copied in Beneventan script of the second half of the eleventh century. According to Lindsay it offers 'many Festus items which come, word for word, from the epitome and which do not appear in the other Italian collections'. 61 Vat. Lat. 1469, copied in a romanesca hand (Le. a form of Italian Caroline minuscule) of the late eleventh century, also contains many glosses from Paul's epitome, according to Goetz. 62 As with Pohl's list quoted above of indirect witnesses to the Historia Langobardorum, these two witnesses suggest at least the existence of a copy of Paul's epitome in central-south Italy. As I hope these examples have demonstrated, apparent gaps in the pattern of transmission of a text can be misleading. These shreds of central-south Italian evidence - for the epitome and for other texts composed by Paul - do not of course constitute certain proof that Paul composed the epitome at Monte Cassino, but they should at least remove the temptation to argue for court composition of the epitome solely from Italian silence. Monte Cassino features little in the tradition of Paul's epitome, but can the same be said of Paul's source, Festus' De verborum significant Festus' original text was always a rare bird, it seems. The only surviving witness to it is the fire-damaged Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale IV.A.3 (F), copied in a romanesca hand in the eleventh century. It was written somewhere in central-south Italy, probably Rome, although in the light of recent work by Virginia Brown and Francis Newton on Beneventan manuscripts copied in Aicw-Beneventan script, it would be interesting to explore the possibility of its having originated at Monte Cassino. 63 F would once have had a squarish, two-column format, but the codex was already in a mutilated state, with the outer columns half burnt away, when it turned up in fifteenth-century Italy. It has deteriorated since with folios missing now that were once available to humanist scholars. Its text, riddled with lacunae as one would expect, contains lemmata from M to T. More of the lexicon than now survives in F was available in the early middle ages in the same locale. Two glossaries with Festan content, the so called Absirusa-Abolita and Aa, were almost certainly compiled in central-south Italy, drawing on resources available there. Their dates of compilation are difficult to determine, but seventh to early eighth century might not be far off the mark for either of them. (See Appendix II for a more detailed discussion of these glossaries and their relationship with Festus).

61 W. M. Lindsay, The Festus glosses in a Monte Cassino MS (no. 90)', CR 31 (1917) 131-32. For manuscript details see now V. Brown, "'Where have all the grammars gone?" The survival of grammatical texts in Beneventan script', in Manuscripts and tradition of grammatical texts from antiquity to the renaissance. Proceedings of a conference held at Erice, 16-23 October 1997, as the 11th Course of international school for the study of written records, eds M. De Nonno, P. De Paolis, and L. Holtz (Cassino 2000) 389-414 (412). B. M. Tarquini, / codici grammaticali in scrittura beneventana (Montecassino 2002) 30-31 has since suggested a date in the first half of the eleventh century, and thinks it was probably copied at Monte Cassino. 62 Corpus glossariorum Latinorum I, ed. G. Goetz (Leipzig and Berlin 1923) 165-66. For further discussion of this manuscript see also G. Cavallo, 'La trasmissione dei testi' (n. 41, above) 362-64 n. 35. 63 See esp. Brown, 'Where have all the grammars gone?' (n. 61, above) 389-414; and my review of De Nonno et al.y Manuscripts and tradition of grammatical texts, in CR 55.1 (2005) 165-67 (167).

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

122

For these earlier medieval glossaries and for F itself, the geographical constant is centralsouth Italy. Paul's works attest to a personal interest in Festus that clearly survived his work on the epitome - in addition to the Scholia Vallicelliana and the Historia Langobardorum, Paul also d r e w on Festus for his c o m m e n t a r y on the Rule of Benedict. 6 4 W h a t is significant, however, is that Paul's interest in Festus does not appear to predate his association with Monte Cassino. Paul travelled; he picked up interesting texts in a variety of places; 6 5 he carried some manuscripts around with him - his c o p y of Isidore's Etymologiae for example. W a s his copy of the De verborum significatu itinerant also? If so, it was a very well-kept secret: there appears to be no Carolingian use of Festus apart from Paul's own. Given this, and the fact that Paul is likely to have been at Monte C a s s i n o when he c o m p o s e d the bulk of the Historia Langobardorum and the commentary on Benedict's Rule, but particularly if we consider that Festus apparently entered Paul's life only after Paul entered Monte Cassino, the likeliest scenario is that M o n t e Cassino o w n e d that important copy of Festus' lexicon. A contribution

and a calling

card?

Without wishing to reopen the case for court composition of the epitome, I would nevertheless like to revisit Cervani's arguably m o s t intriguing reason in favour of it. She claimed to have detected a certain 'frettolosita' in P a u l ' s work which, she asserts, would be inexplicable if it had b e e n p u t together in the calm of M o n t e Cassino. 6 6 W h e t h e r or not we agree that such hastiness is detectable - and this is not the place for a minute reconsideration of P a u l ' s style and any supposed defects in his e p i t o m e - Cervani's observation provides food for thought in the light of Goffart's reexamination of Paul's activities in the early 780s. 6 7 Goffart was particularly critical of N e f f s biography of Paul, and suggested, given what little e v i d e n c e we have, that other chronologies and readings are m o r e likely, or at least equally possible. Particularly relevant for this study is his analysis of Charlemagne's - and Paul's m o v e m e n t s with regard to R o m e in the early 780s. H e considered it likely that Paul encountered the king in Italy, approaching him in Rome in 7 8 1 , before he journeyed to Francia to plead for his brother's release. 6 8 W i t h this in mind, a new question arises: not where Paul c o m p o s e d the epitome, but when; in addition, we might then consider why he 'sells' the epitome the way he does. Paul's dedicatory letter once again provides significant clues. First, his choice of language when describing the dedication: Paul writes, hoc vestrae celsitudini legendum conpendium optuli ('I offered this abridgment to be read by your highness'), without any indication that

64 See Bloch, 'Monte Cassino's teachers and library' (n. 41 above) 570 n. 19. 65 For example, Paul probably found the mix of texts he melded together for his Ars Donati at the Carolingian court. See V. Law, T h e sources of the Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus exposuit', Filologia mediolatina 1 (1994) 71-80. 66 Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 157. 67 W. Goffart, The narrators of barbarian history AD 550-800. Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon (Princeton 1988) esp. 34If.; idem., 'Paul the Deacon's Gesta episcoporum Mettensium and the early design of Charlemagne's succession', Traditio 42 (1986) 59-94. 68 Goffart, Narrators (n. 67, above) 341.

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

123

he is responding to a request or whim of Charlemagne's; 6 9 more tellingly, perhaps, in the final sentence of the dedication, quoted above, he refers to the epitome as a munusculum (a 'little gift'). Such language suggests a speculative dedication, rather than a fulfilled commission. 7 0 The letter's opening words (cupiens aliquid vestris bibliothecis addere) which immediately foreground P a u l ' s motivation, appear to support this. Secondly, in the closing words of this dedicatory letter Paul is effectively saying: if this gift pleases you, it will encourage m e to go on and produce better things. Of all the texts Paul made for Charlemagne, could this have been one of the first? Furthermore, if Goffart is correct in thinking that Paul and Charlemagne met when the latter travelled to R o m e in 781 for the anointing of his sons, then P a u l ' s decision to emphasize the e p i t o m e ' s R o m a n content in the dedicatory letter makes perfect sense. He informs Charlemagne that, 'if he condescends to go and read the work, he will find, not inconveniently, information on grammar [and] etymology, and more particularly he will encounter discussions of words relating to his Romulean city, its gates, streets, hills, places and tribes ... ,71 W h a t better celebration of a king's Roman visit could a grammarian c o n c o c t than a gift containing words such as these? This sketchily drawn table of contents is not inaccurate, as anyone who has used the epitome can attest. On R o m a n topography there are over 130 entries that offer information on gates, hills, streets, other loci, but also buildings, towers, sacred spaces, and open fields (campi), funerary monuments, forests, springs and so on. 72 The problem for a reader interested in Roman topics lies m o r e in the degree of effort required to recover relevant entries. Paul has not improved the navigability of Festus' text: there is no thematic arrangement; alphabetization runs at most to three letters, but entries are mostly arranged in A B or even just A order. N o full 69 Compare this, for example, with the dedicatory letter concerning the Historia Romana addressed to the Lombard Adelperga (MGHEp. IV, 506). We find a similar phrase, legendam tibi Eutropii historiam tripudians optuliy but Paul then details Adelperga's part in the genesis of his project; consequently his desire in this case is to respond to her commands {At ego, qui semper tuis venerandis imperiis parère desidero, utinam tarn efficaciter imperata facturus quam libenter arripui: 'And I, who always wish to obey your venerable commands, if only I could have matched efficiency in carrying out your orders, with the gladness (I felt) in taking them upon myself.'). 70 Pace Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 155, who viewed the composition of the epitome as a task or duty: Paul would have been obliged to do it as a 'dotto' with good knowledge of the Latin language. 71 The list concludes: 'besides these [there are entries on] pagan rites and customs, also various words familiar to poets and historiographers, that occurred frequently in their works' (in cuius série, si tamen ledum ire non dedignabimini, quae dam secundum artem, quaedam iuxta ethimologiam posita non inconvenienter invenietis, et praecipue civitatis vestrae Romuleae, portarum, viarum, montium, locorum tribuumque vocabula diserta repperietis; ritus praeterea gentilium et consuetudines, varias dictiones quoque poetis et historiographis familiares, quas in suis opusculis frequentius posuere): Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi 1. 72 It would certainly be interesting to explore the extent to which Paul's epitome influenced medieval notions of Roman topography. Paul's Piacularis porta (235. IP), a misunderstanding of Festus' piacularis porca (234.2F), is not otherwise attested; his Collatina porta (33.18P) may be the result of confusing the Via Collatina with the Porta Collina. Master Gregory in his Mirabilia urbis Romae also refers to the Porta Collina as the Collatina: see G. McN. Rushforth, 'Magister Gregorius de mirabilibus urbis Romae: A new description of Rome in the twelfth century', JRS 9 (1919) 14-58 (46). This may have been a common source of confusion by the twelfth or thirteenth century, but had Paul helped to spread it?

124

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

appreciation of what the epitome contains can be achieved without reading through it, entry by entry, cover to cover. Paul could only hope that Charlemagne would condescend to do this. Incidentally, what Charlemagne could not have known is that Paul did not include all the information on Rome that he might have done. Some omissions are understandable, perhaps - the Niger lapis (184.19F) was probably no longer visible by the eighth century, and certainly nothing remained ofthe piscina publico. (232.12F) since this had vanished by Festus' own day. Harder to understand - given that they are still standing today - is the lack of entries corresponding to Festus' on the Pons Sublicius (374.25F) and the Porticus Octaviae (188.17F); hardest of all, perhaps, the drastic reduction of Festus' entry on Rome itself (326.28F), slashed from over 1000 words in Festus' original, to a mere nineteen in the epitome. Paul clearly reckoned it best to stick with the Romulean foundation story; any other R(h)omi or Rhomai could safely be pruned out. More significant than the actual representation of Roman topics in the epitome, however, is the fact that Paul singled out this particular theme in his prefatory letter as one that would appeal especially to Charlemagne.73 Charlemagne also visited Rome in 786, but the wording of the dedication offers nothing to suggest an already established relationship between Paul and the Frankish king.74 Rather than assume, therefore, that Paul composed the epitome after his return to Monte Cassino (some time after 784), alternative scenarios seem possible. Either Paul presented the epitome to Charlemagne in Italy in 781, or he brought it with him when he arrived at court ready to plead for his brother's cause. Contreni, in interpreting the concern shown in the Epistola de litteris colendis over sermones inculti (uncouth speech), errores verborum (verbal mistakes), and lingua inerudita (unskilled language), concluded that, 'these elements of the reform programme went beyond the correct pronunciation of words to focus attention on the proper meaning and use of words'. 7 5 If Paul had reached a similar interpretation,76 then he had every right to hope that his own literary gift, an abbreviation of Festus - however hastily prepared - would constitute an important and welcome contribution to Charlemagne's library.

73 On the other hand, Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 148-52, explained the lack of correspondence between the material promised in the dedicatory letter and that actually delivered in the text as a feature of Paul's reliance on Festus' original preface or dedication. She considered Paul's reference to vestrae Romuleae civitatis 'una adulazione esagerata' in a text composed before 800. 74 We see an established relationship in Paul's letter to Adelperga, as shown above; compare also Paul's letter to Adalhard of Corbie {MGH Ep. IV, 509). This also begins with a desire of Paul's (cupieram, dilecte mi, aestate praeterita videre faciem tuam, 'I had desired, my dear one, to see your face last summer'), which immediately conjures up the warm friendship between them; when Paul gets down to business, it is transparently clear that he is responding to a request of Adalhard's: volueram equidem tuis imperiis iam ante parerey and, after mustering various excuses, suscipe tamen quamvis sero epistolas qua s desiderasti ('truly I had wanted to obey your commands long before now . . . receive, nevertheless, however late, the letters you desired'). 75 J. J. Contreni, 'The Carolingian renaissance: education and literary culture', in The new Cambridge medieval history II, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1995) 709-57 (725). 76 Whether through the Epistola, or not; Adalhard of Corbie, Charlemagne's cousin, visited Monte Cassino some time before 780, and might have alerted the community to Charlemagne's literary interests. Note too that Charlemagne's journey to Rome had been planned as early as 778 (see MGH Ep. Ill 586, lines 24-36), and Adalhard might well have provided news of Charlemagne's forthcoming visit.

C

RE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

125

Appendix I Preliminary handlist of manuscripts containing Paul the Deacon's epitome: The medieval witnesses s. EX (Bischoff, Katalog numbers given in square brackets) Leiden B.P.L. 135 (R), composite in 3 parts (parts 2 and 3 are s. IX1/4 and s. IX274 respectively; they also contain grammatical material. See Bischoff, Katalog 2155-6). Part 1: s. IX274, probably NE Francia, fol. 64, 230 x 148mm, in 2 cols. (f. 2r-65r) Paul the Deacon's epitome; also contains Aldhelm, Epistola adAcircium. Apes Ambizant [= Voces Animalium]; poem (Anthol. Lat. 393). [2154] Basel, Universitatsbibliothek N I 1 Nr. 9a (Basil.), s. IX274, probably West Germany, fol. 2, 218 x 188mm, in 2 cols. Fragment of Paul the Deacon's epitome (letters Q and S). [288] Escorial, Real Biblioteca 0. in:31 (E), s. IX 23/3 , West France, fol. 124, 205 x 190mm, in 2 cols. (f. 2r-l 16v) Paul the Deacon's epitome with dedicatory letter; also contains Fulgentius, Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum', medical recipes. [1198] Wolfenbiittel, Herzog-August Bibliothek Aug. 4° 10. 3 (G), s. IX"1™*, NE Francia, fol. 89, 235 x 160mm, in 2 cols. Cicero, Differentiae (frag.); (f. 4-86) Paul the Deacon's epitome; Aldhelm (?) Voces animalium; OHG glosses on plant and animal names. Wurzburg, Universitatsbibliothek M. p. misc. f. 23 (Wirceb.), s. IX3/4, E. or N. Francia; fragment, about three-quarters of a double folio (205 x 100-200mm), of a codex (probably s. x m ) from St. Matthew, Trier. Paul the Deacon's epitome Leiden Voss. lat. Q. 116 (I), s. IX3/4, Reims, fol. 109, 220 x 190mm, in 2 cols. f. lr-46v: Paul the Deacon's epitome (with further glosses supplied in later hand on fol. 46v); also contains Nonius Marcellus, De Compendiosa Doctrina; De Diebus Aegyptiacis; prayers; Audax, Ars Grammatica; Bede, Hist. Eccl. IV, 18 - Hymnus de Etheldrida Regina. [2238] Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek elm 14734 (M), s. Xm, possibly S. Germany, fol. 113, in 4°. Paul the Deacon's epitome. [3253] Leiden Voss. Lat. O. 37 (/), composite in 2 parts (part 1 was copied at Reims, s. IXex, see Bischoff, Katalog 2246). Part 2: s. EXex, copied partly at Reims (prov. Fleury), fol. 115, 205 x 145mm. Consentius, Ars de Nomine et Verbo\ Sergius, Commentarius de Litteris\ Ps.-Marius Victorinus, Ars Grammaticae; Flavius Sosipater Chansius, Ars Grammaticae\ Commentarius

126

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

in Donatum (frag.); (f. 76r-142r) Paul the Deacon's epitome with dedicatory letter; Servatus Lupus, De Tribus Quaestionibus Libellus. [2247] Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale 2291 (T), s. IX, (Prov. Collège de l'Oratoire de Troyes), fol. 127, written in long lines. Paul the Deacon's epitome (letters Q, T, V missing; only one lemma for R). Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Reg. lat. 314, composite in nine parts. Part 7: s. IX-X, French, fol. 2 (f. 117-118), 276 x 179mm, written in 2 cols. Prognostica? Lunarium, Epistula, Formulae; (f. 117v-l 18v) Paul the Deacon's epitome (frag.). Used as flyleaves in a thirteenth-century manuscript with content Parcionarius et Donatus Maior. Medieval Library Catalogue: Lorsch Glosae Pauli Diaconi (G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui [Bonn 1885] 113; M. Manitius, Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen (Leipzig 1935) 79. 351; B. Bischoff, 'Libraries and schools in the Carolingian revival of learning', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 95. s.X Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 142, s. X, fol. 104. Paul the Deacon's epitome. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 7575 {Paris.), composite (items 2-6 and 8 are s. XIV, item 7 is s. XV). Part 1: s. X-XI (Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi xx), or s. XII (Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae IU.iv, Paris 1744) fol. 3 Fragment of Paul the Deacon's epitome. Medieval Library Catalogues: Lobbes, s. X Glosae ex libro Pompei (Manitius, Handschriften 351) Montier-en-Der, s. X Excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi (Becker 41, 23; Manitius, Handschriften 79. 352) s.XI Austin, University of Texas, HRHRC, Parsons Collection HkC 29 (Phillipps 816) (/>), s. XTn, Germany (prov. Tegernsee), fol. 103, 220 x 164mm. Bede, De natura rerum\ Plato, Timaeus\ Hyginus; (f. 32-100) Paul the Deacon's epitome; Jerome (letter), (fol. 103v) Abbas indignus ego Ellinger peccator istam glosam scripsi dum essem in Alta Hengi (?) monasterio. s.XII Cambridge, Trinity College Library 1315 (O. 5. 34), s. XIIin, origin/prov. Canterbury?, fol. 199, c. 328 x 243mm, written in 2 and 4 cols.

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

127

Jerome, Prologus in libro glosarum; Hermeneumata; Epitome libri gbssarum. A littera in omnibus gentibus...\ (f. 166r-198v) Paul the Deacon's epitome with dedicatory letter (alphabetised: inc. Abacti. magistratum)\ Elucidatio obscurarum partium in quinque libris Moysi. Medieval Library Catalogue: Cluny, s. XII (1158-1161) Et liber Festi Pompeii ad Arcorium Rufum (Delisle 2, 459ff; Manitius, Handschriften 79) s. XIII Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale N lat. 10295, s. XIII. Paul the Deacon's epitome (alphabetised). Possibly s. XIQ Leipzig, s. XIII (or later?), paper: Paul the Deacon's epitome; also contains Varro, De lingua Latina. (Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi x: codex ...formae maximae, recentissimae aetatis) Leiden B.P.L. 191, s. XIII/s. XT/, fol. 128, 130-150 x 115mm, written in 2 cols. Glossarium Latinum. inc.: Abicier, (f. 19r-107r) Paul the Deacon's epitome (interpolated); Glossarium biblicum Latinum. inc.: Alleluya in Latinum. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 1021 (lat. 8° 10), palimpsest, s. XIII/s. XT/ and s. XVI, parchment and paper, Italy, fol. 89 (fols. 85-89 paper), 350 x 200mm. (f. l-89r) Paul the Deacon's epitome; also contains fragment of Aulus Gellius, Nodes Atticae. Medieval Library Catalogue: Glastonbury, s. XEQ (1247) Liber Pompei de significacione verborum. legibilis. (Manitius, Handschriften 79) S.XIV Escorial g. III. 9, paper and parchment, s. XTV, fol. 124,240 x 175mm. (fol. 1-61 v) Paul the Deacon's epitome; also contains Proba, Cento. Oxford, Balliol College 155, s. XIV (or s. XV), Germany?, fol. 203, 393 x 288mm, in 2 cols. Jerome, Liber glosarum; Hermeneutica; wordlist of rhetorical terms with Latin equivalents; Epitome Libri glossarum\ (f. 174r-203v) Paul the Deacon's epitome with dedicatory letter (glosses rearranged in alphabetical order). San Gimignano, Biblioteca Comunale 43, fol. i + 79, 270 x 190mm, composite (Part 2 also s.XIV). . (Part 1) (fol. 1-6) paper, s. XTV, written in 2 cols, late Gothic hand: Paul the Deacon's epitome (frag.) Vatican City, Vat. Lat. 2733, parchment, s. XIV, Italy, round Gothic hand, fol. ii + 89 (f. 89v blank), 205x 145mm; owner's note on f. ii, dated 1384. (f. 1 -89) Paul the Deacon's epitome.

128

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

A p p e n d i x II: Festus and other

glossaries

The key witness in any assessment of Festus' impact on the medieval glossary tradition is the glossary referred to as Abstrusa-Abolita. A s the name allotted it suggests, this collection of glosses has been interpreted as an amalgamation of two glossaries: Abstrusa, more recent, and relatively less interesting in terms of the material it preserves; and Abolita, so-called* from the first lemma thought to belong to it in its earliest witness. T h e importance of so-called Abolita for this discussion is that it contains Festan lemmata. T w o pioneers in the field of glossary scholarship - W . M . Lindsay and Georg G o e t z - both believed that the extra 'Abolita' entries formed a separate collection that had enjoyed an independent existence prior to their marriage to Abstrusa. Further, Lindsay assumed that the Abolita portions were the meagre remnants of a much larger Ur-Abolita - a great store-house glossary that, along with the Latin-Greek Ps.Philoxenus, had supplied Festan material to practically every other medieval glossary. So, for example, the Festan material in the Cyrillus glossary came from Ps.Philoxenus; and any Festan content in a whole host of Latin glossaries -Aa, Affatim, Abavus, Abba (aka Sangallensis), and the related Asbestos Corpus and the Liber glossarum - derived ultimately from an Ur-text of Abolita. H e believed that since these glossaries had drawn on Festus - whether directly or indirectly - the text of Festus could be restored using these glossaries. Lindsay's theory was put into practice for his 1930 edition of Festus with P a u l ' s epitome. 7 7 Where Lindsay could confidently identify a correspondence between the epitome a n d a gloss in so-called Abolita (or in another glossary via Abolita), he not infrequently e m e n d e d Festus' text as preserved by Paul, or suggested supplements to it. T w o examples can serve to illustrate the process (30.17P), bidental, and (45.18P), chalcidicum. Bidental dicebant q u o d d a m templum <extra p o r t a m C a p e n a m > quod in e o bidentibus hostiis sacrificaretur. Bidentes autem sunt oves duos dentés longiores ceteris habentes. The text in bold has been supplied from the Abolita gloss Bidental: extra portam Capenam.™ It is important to realize, however, that the form of the gloss as given in GL 4 is L i n d s a y ' s emended version of it. In the only two reliable witnesses to contain this so-called Abolita gloss, the text actually reads: Bident adextra porta capent.79 Chalcidicum genus aedificii ab urbe Chalcidica dictum

<.. fori déambula to rium.x Here the text in bold h a s been supplied from an entry in the Liber glossarum, derived from Abolita according to Lindsay: Caldicum: fori deambulatorium.m W e might note here the different headword in the Liber glossarum version. There will be further discussion of these lemmata below.

77 Lindsay, Glossaria Latina. This volume also contains J. W. Pirie's edition of Placidus. 78 Lindsay, Glossaria Latina 133. 79 Goetz, CGL IV (n. 26, above) 25. The two manuscripts are Vat. Lat. 3321 and Monte Cassino, Archivio dell' Abbazia 439. They will be discussed in more detail below. 80 Lindsay, Glossaria Latina 157.

,RE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

129

For letters A to C of the epitome, I have calculated that Lindsay was confident of a correspondence between the epitome and Ur-Abolita in about 11% of entries. If the criteria are relaxed and entries are taken into account for which Linday suggested - rather than asserted - a link with other glossaries, then the amount of Festan material in Ur-Abolita might be closer to 16%. (This is without counting the supplementary entries, culled from other glossaries, that Lindsay appends to each letter of Paul's epitome.) Any hesitancy in identifying text derived from Festus might be put down to the difficulty of working with the epitome, already at one remove from Festus' text. It might be reasonable, therefore, to expect more certainty from Lindsay in the matter of glossary borrowings when we turn to that portion of the text for which Festus' original is extant, but this turns out not to be the case. In reality, out of around 1250 surviving Festus entries (including the very fragmentary ones) fewer than 100 contain material that Lindsay could confidently claim to be the source for entries in other glossaries - i.e. around 8%. On closer examination, however, it becomes apparent that of these hundred Festus entries only around forty - in my opinion at least - contain textual parallels with glossaries substantial enough to suggest a possible relationship between them. By far the majority of these parallels occur with so-called Abolita and Aa (18 and 11 examples respectively). 81 Rather than assume that Lindsay miscalculated the extent to which glossaries derived material from Festus, these statistics illustrate the sort of difficulty inherent in trying to identify borrowed or derived text. Glossary material is particularly slippery since its function is generally to transmit meaning without regard to precise literary form: in other words, the same meaning can be conveyed in a variety of ways, and those responsible for producing collections of glosses were clearly not restricted to the wording found in their sources. Indeed, the changes Paul made to Festus' text neatly exemplify the sorts of problems encountered. The following examples illustrate the difference simply between headwords of corresponding Festus and Paul entries: (236.4F) percunctatio becomes (237.2P) percontatio', (236.10F) perfugam, (237.5P) perfuga; (254.12F) propter viam, (255.6P) profecturi viam\ prodegeris, prodigere. Prodegeris/prodigere is in fact a particularly good example of how substantial the difference can be between Festus' original text and Paul's abbreviation of it: Prodegeris, consumpseris, perdideris, ut Caecilius in Hymni<de> (74): 'Prodigere est, cum nihil habeas, te inrid[er]ier'. Et Plautus in Nervolaria (97): Troducte prodigum esse amatorem addecet'. (254.19F) Prodigere est consumere, unde et prodigus fit. (255.7P) We happen to know that Paul's text is derived from Festus, but had we been presented with prodigere in isolation, how certain would we have been of that derivation? Argued like this, spotting a relationship between one gloss and another becomes perhaps a matter of faith, hope

8i The remainder are to be found in Corpus (6), Abba (4), Abavus (3) and Affatim (1), although Lindsay suggested parallels with glossaries other than these also. We need to remember, of course, that Lindsay believed glossaries such as Aa, Corpus, Abba, Abavus and Affatim derived their Festan material from an Ur-Abolita. Hence any Festan material he detects in, say, Abba, counted to him as further information about Abolita in its original form.

130

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

and instinct. Perhaps Lindsay's instincts were keener than most; perhaps not. What is clear is that any study of the transmission of glossary material is severely problematized by the unstable nature of glossary entries. To further complicate matters, glossaries can metamorphose in terms of content from one manifestation to the next: lemmata can be added, moved, split or excluded altogether. Such tendencies render extremely hazardous any attempt to reconstruct a glossary's sources. Lindsay's methodology in establishing his Glossaria Latina editions has been questioned before, but the flaws in his approach are still not widely recognized. Years before the 1930 Festus-Paul edition came out, scholars like Paul Wessner, on the basis of articles Lindsay had published by 1923, severely criticized Lindsay's methodology in meticulous detail. His verdict, expressed in Latin, is printed towards the end of CGL I.82 As for contemporary reaction to the edition itself, the scholar perhaps best equipped to assess the work was Goetz, whose review was published posthumously in GnomonP The review was never likely to be glowing: Lindsay and Goetz approached the task of editing glossary material very differently, and had locked horns on the topic on numerous occasions.84 One would not expect Goetz to have produced an uncritical review, and it is tempting to draw the conclusion that it had little impact outside of Goetz's own circle.85 Goetz did in fact recognize the value of assembling and analyzing glosses with similar content from a variety of sources, but remained deeply critical of the way Lindsay had used them, and of the way he had manipulated Paul's epitome, in his reconstruction of Festus. His criticism is worth reiterating here: Die neue Fassung, die erreicht wird, kann mit ausreichender Sicherheit weder fur Festus noch fur Paulus gelten. Sie ist eine Zwitterfassung, deren Existenzberechtigung zum mindesten zweifelhaft ist.86 Goetz selected around a dozen lemmata for which he disagreed with Lindsay's emendations and suggested other possibilities. Rather than retread his ground, but at the risk, nevertheless,

82 P. Wessner, 'De Lindsayi eiusque discipulorum studiis glossographicis', in CGL 1 (n. 62, above) 30991 ; see especially 'De glossis Festinis' 342-69. 83 G. Goetz, 'Glossaria Latina iussu academiae Britannicae édita vol. IV (Placidus Festus). Placidi Glossae ediderunt J. W. Pirie, W. M. Lindsay. Festus ed. W. M. Lindsay. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1930', Gnomon 8 (1932) 258-65 (258-63). 84 For a fuller account of their scholarly relationship, see Dionsotti, 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries' (n. 3 1 , above), especially 242-47. 85 1 have only been able to track down two reviews other than Goetz's. The first, a paragraph offered by W. Kroll in the Sprachgeschichte portion of the Lateinisch section of the 'Literaturbericht' for 1930 in Glotta 21 (1933) 209-10, is concerned more to describe the project than provide a critical evaluation of it; however, Kroll concludes by directing the reader to Goetz's 'instructive' review. The second appeared in RPh ser. 3, 6 (1932) 182. This reviewer, A. Ernout, greeted the new edition with more enthusiasm, but this warmer reception may not be unconnected with the fact that Les belles lettres had taken on the publication of Glossaria Latina. Further, Ernout's academic field was linguistics. He would undoubtedly have found the text itself fascinating without necessarily spotting the dangers in Lindsay's method of establishing it. 86 Goetz (n. 83, above) 262.

JLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

131

of earning the label nouvelle Ritscheliana, I would prefer to make a number of different observations. The two examples I cited above - bidental and chalcidicum - will serve as useful starting points. Bidental occurs in a batch of Abolita entries that contains, although not arranged contiguously, other glosses that look Festan, or at any rate bear a resemblance to material in Paul: bias (cf. 31.8P), blatterat (cf. 30.27P and 63.13P), bigenes (30.23). 87 In the case of bidental, no matter how mangled the Abolita version might be, or how much ingenuity is needed to decipher it, it is perhaps justifiable to note the information as possibly Festan. In fact, though, not all the entries Lindsay identifies as Festan in Abolita are necessarily so. Blatterat is suspicious, largely because it is in the third person singular where Paul offers an infinitive, although of course there is no telling whether Abolita's text here more closely echoes Festus' original than does Paul's epitome. But compare prodegeris, for which Festus' and Paul's texts have been quoted above. The corresponding gloss in Vat. Lat. 3321, the oldest extant witness of so-called Abstrusa-Abolita reads: Prodigit consumpsit vel de prodigium. 88 Lindsay's version of this Abolita entry, cited in the apparatus to his 1930 edition has been emended thus: Prodegit: consumpsit; unde prodig[i]um. 89 Paul greatly simplified the entry, and rendered once again the headword in the infinitive; Abolita, on the other hand, has used the perfect tense, not Festus' future perfect or perfect subjunctive. Could the origin of Abolita's gloss lie in a different ancient source? Many more examples could be given of assumed Festan derivation where other sources might be responsible, but one further case must suffice. Lindsay asserted a connection between an Abolita gloss and Festus 406.25 <sutelae dolosae> astutiae, a similictae sunt. (The supplied text has come from Paul's entry, identical to the reconstructed Festus but for the omission of final 'sunt'.) The Abolita gloss in question reads, in Vat. Lat. 3321: subtiles subrectionibus (subreptionibus in Cas. 439) etfraudibus. Lindsay emended this to Sutelis: subreptionibus et fraudibus. The emendation from Subtiles to Sutelis may be sensible, but no other part of the gloss corresponds closely to Festus' entry. Need this be derived from Festus? Glosses that exist in surviving copies of so-called Abolita are one matter, and perhaps Lindsay might be allowed some leeway, but cases like chalcidicum are much more doubtful. Here Lindsay supplied extra material from a similar gloss in the Liber glossarum, but is it really safe to assume that the Liber glossarum entry came ultimately from Festus and not from some other source? The most banal example of this sort of assumption is the Liber glossarum gloss

87 Lindsay also tagged bidubium (= bividuam) as Festan, but there is no trace of this in Paul. 88 Monte Cassino, Archivio dell' Abbazia 439 - the only other reliable witness to so-called AbstrusaAbolita - reads consumit for consumpsit. 89 Note that in Lindsay's earlier edition of the Abolita Glossary, published in Glossaria Latina III, eds W. M. Lindsay and H. J. Thomson (Paris 1926), he seems to have preferred a text closer to that in Cas. 439: prodigit: consumit; unde prodigium (-gus).

132

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

prex, a prece, which Lindsay claims was derived from Ur-Abolita, but cannot decide if it came ultimately from Festus 280.24 praecem singulariter idem in ea, quae est De coniuratione.90 Surely a gloss like this could have come from the head of just about any grammarian! But the problem with Lindsay's treatment of a gloss like chalcidicum runs much deeper even than Goetz might have suspected. The problem lies with the nature of the so-called Abolita itself, and consequently the nature of its relationship with other glossaries. Until relatively recently it would have been hard to venture into the field of scholarship on glossaries without owing a great deal to pioneers like Goetz and Lindsay. Carlotta Dionisotti has stressed the importance and continuing usefulness of Goetz's work,91 but no-one has done as much to advance the field in recent years as she has. Two of her findings are particularly relevant to the present discussion. First, she has questioned Lindsay's stemma of glossaries: her analysis of the relationship between the Arma glossary and Abstrusa-Abolita is instructive, and should suffice to demonstrate just how precarious Lindsay's stemma was. Lindsay believed that Arma was derived from an early version of the combined Abstrusa-Abolita (i.e. presumably an ancestor of the collection as it stands in Vat. Lat. 3321), but this theory is implausible given that, on the evidence of Vat. Lat. 3321, Abstrusa must already have been alphabetized to AB and in places ABC order before batches of so-called Abolita were added. Arma, on the other hand, is organized in a very primitive A order. It cannot be derived from Abstrusa-Abolita, but resembles more the sort of glossary that might have acted as one of its sources. Secondly, and more damaging still for Lindsay's stemma, and for his 1930 edition of Festus, are Dionisotti's observations on so-called Abolita itself. Goetz, in volumes I and IV of CGL, described the glossary in Vat. Lat. 3321 as an amalgamation of two glossaries, and distinguishes those lemmata he thought belonged to a second (older, better) glossary by placing them in square brackets. As Dionisotti points out, however, there is actually no evidence to support the notion that Abolita ever existed as a separate glossary.92 A different way of interpreting its composite nature would be to view Vat. Lat. 3321 as simply an interpolated Abstrusa. The sequences of lemmata inserted into its text - lemmata predominantly from Virgil and Terence, but with material also from Apuleius and Festus, all, for the most part, still in their original batches - need not be derived from a single glossary, but might have been collected from different, individual sources. This different understanding of the Abolita phenomenon is important to our discussion of Festus in the Beneventan area, because it blows apart Lindsay's stemma of glossaries, and forces us to reconsider how glosses with apparently Festan content relate to Festus' original, and to one another. Only two manuscripts preserve the interpolated Abstrusa in any usable form: Vat. Lat. 3321 (CLA I, 15), the earliest and only witness to preserve so-called Abstrusa-Abolita in distinct

90 Glossaria Latina 348: 'Nescio an hue redeat Gloss. Ansil. (= Abol.) PR 6 Prex, a prece'. 91 Goetz's CGLI (n. 62, above) is 'still the best book about glossaries': Dionisotti, 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries' (n. 31, above) 217. 92 'In fact it is arguable that the glossary called Abolita was invented by Lindsay and first saw the light in 1926': Dionisotti, 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries' (n. 31, above) 223.

VRE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

133

'Abstruse? and 'Aboiita* blocks; and Monte Cassino, Archivio dell'abbazia 439. 93 The origin of neither can be determined with any certainty, but for Vat. Lat. 3321, Lowe thought probable an origin in central-south Italy, shortly before the mid-eighth century.94 Cas. 439 according to Virginia Brown is probably mid-tenth century and was copied in the Beneventan area, although she cannot be certain of its exact place of origin. Monte Cassino or Benevento are possibilities. 95 Cas. 439 contains by and large the same lemmata as Vat. Lat. 3321, but differently alphabetized - not by first initial and first consonant, but by first initial and first vowel.96 Perusal of the text offered by each - as Goetz presents it - gives rise to the following observations. Despite my doubts, expressed earlier, about the Festan origin of certain Aboiita entries, many others seem likely to own Festus as their ultimate source. Consider, for example, the consecutive Aboiita entries that correspond to two parts of Festus 160.3: 160.3F: Nequinont, pro nequeunt, ut solinunt, ferinunt, pro soient, et feriunt dicebant antiqui. Livius in Odissia (14): Tartim errant, nequinunt Graeciam redire'. 161.3P: Nequinont nequeunt. Vat. Lat. 3321 (Goetz): Nequinunt pronequeunt uasolent / Nequeunt greciaredirent. Cas. 439 (Goetz): Nequinunt pronequeunt utsolent / Nequiunt greciam redire. What is interesting here is that the text of Vat. Lat. 3321 is quite corrupt, the text of Cas. 439 less so. Both share an omission of solinunt - pro (possible eye-skip?); 97 both render nequinunt from the Livius citation without the second *n\ but Cas. 439 has fewer errors overall. This observation could be repeated for many entries, but in the interests of brevity, let us consider one further example here:

93 The following manuscripts contain material that looks at first sight to be a mix of Abstrusa and socalled Aboiita, but on closer examination, their non-Abstrusa entries are either contaminated or of uncertain origin: theTegernsee fragments in Munich elm 4719m (s. VI1I/IX) and elm 29670 (1: s X) see Dionisotti, 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries' (n. 31, above) 224 n. 44; Leiden BPL 67 E (s. IX) - see Goetz, CGL IV (n. 26, above) x-xi; Madrid BN Reserv. 4.7. The Madrid MS has proved difficult to track down; from Goetz's bibliography (ibid, ix), it would appear to have been copied in Laon in 1086. A closer look at its B lemmata, as printed by Goetz, suggests to me the possibility that the compiler had an Abstrusa manuscript - probably, given the extra material common to each, one similar to Paris 2341 - and added batches of glosses to it, only some of which resemble glosses in socalled Aboiita. Finally, Vat Lat 6018 (s. IX):fromletter I onwards in the glossary contained on fol. 3ra50vb the text corresponds to the interpolated Abstrusa; for letters A-F it serves as a witness to 'pure' Abstrusa, although not terribly reliable. As a witness to so-called Aboiita, Goetz considered it either badly contaminated or too freely paraphrased to be reliable - CGL IV (n. 26, above) x. 94 E. A. Lowe, 'On the oldest extant MS of the combined Abstrusa and Aboiita glossaries', CQ 15 (1921) 189-91. 95 V. Brown, 'Where have all the grammars gone?' (n. 61, above) 412. Tarquini, / codici grammaticali (n. 61, above) 49-50 suggests an origin in Puglia (Siponto?). 96 CGL IV (n. 26, above) ix. 97 Restored by Lindsay, using Festus, in his edition of Aboiita, Glossaria Latina III (n. 89, above) 149: Aboi. NE 22 Nequinunt: pro nequeunt, ut <solinunt pro> soient; nequiunt Graeciam redire.

134

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

334.25F: Redivivum est ex vetusto renovatum. Cicero lib. I in Verrem (147): 'Utrum existimatis minus opens esse unam columnam efficere ab integro novam nullo lapide redivivo?' 335.8P: Redivivum est ex vetusto renovatum. Vat. Lat. 3321 Redibibum abetustaterreno Cas. 439 Redivivum avetustate renovatum. Cas. 439 is not rendering V as 'b\ nor has its copyist run into difficulties with the final word of the interpretamentum. The orthographical variants in Vat. Lat. 3321 are numerous and interesting. The confusions of b/v, c/g and i/e can probably be put down to scribal pronunciation, but the confusion of a/t and c/p suggest the possibility of an encounter with some form of cursive.98 The compiler of Cas. 439 either coped better with the script in the same exemplar, or was fortunate to work from a better copy of it than that in Vat. Lat. 3321. Whatever the situation, Cas. 439 has certainly not arrived at better text by consulting a copy of Festus' lexicon. Even if we could be sure that it had been copied at Monte Cassino, this manuscript tells us nothing about the availability of Festus there, despite lemmata that might have derived ultimately from Festus. What it does is confirm the location of Vat. Lat. 3321, or something related to it, in the Beneventan area: it helps to anchor this interpolated Abstrusa in central-south Italy. But now that Lindsay's stemma of glossaries has been dismantled, other glossaries with Festan content can be accorded more prominence as independent witnesses to the availability and use of Festus in the early middle ages. The most significant of these for our discussion is the Aa glossary. For his 1930 edition, the Aa glossary proved almost as fruitful as manuscripts containing 'Abolita' in providing scraps of Festus. Without Ur-Abolita to explain their existence, however, what was their source? Aa is an Italian glossary: in fact all surviving witnesses (probably even Vat. Lat. 1471) are from central-south Italy." These witnesses exemplify the tendency for a glossary to mutate. Two Beneventan copies, Vat. Lat. 3320 and Cas. 401, exhibit an augmented form of the text, with Abstrusa-Abolita-type glosses added from what might have been the exemplar of Cas. 439. Vat. Lat. 3320, according to Virginia Brown was copied in the first half of the ninth century, possibly at Benevento; the precise origin of Cas. 401 is uncertain, its date late tenth

98 Many thanks to Francis Newton for discussing these orthographical phenomena with me. 99 For Lindsay one reason sufficed to justify his printing an edition of Aa: Italiae debetur hie liber. Since England had its Corpus glossary, and the French their Liber glossarum, why shouldn't the fifth volume of Glossaria Latina be devoted to Aa, 'which was preserved in three Italian manuscripts, and disseminated from them into other manuscripts of southern Italy (Vat. Lat. 1468 and Cas. 90)?' Indeed the project was itself indicative of that harmony now present among the nations, as Lindsay pointed out to the edition's first readers in 1931, since its Swedish editor (Karl Theander), a man indebted to German scholarship, and funded by the British and the French, had prepared this Italian treasure for the use of all! (Tuque, lector, agnosce indicium concordiae eius quae nunc inter gentes est, quod vir Suecus, Germanorum doctrinae addictus, Francogallorum et Anglorum pecuniis adiutus, Italicum keimelion in usum doctorum omnium qui ubique sunt tarn strenue paravit): Glossaria Latina V, eds M. Inguanez, C. J. Fordyce, and C. Theander (Paris 1931, repr. Hildesheim 1965) 147.

CLARE WOODS: PAUL THE DEACON'S EPITOME

135

century.1110 Vat. Lat. 1471 (s. IX) was thought by Lindsay to contain a version of Aa closest to its original form; Goetz considered it to have descended from the same archetype as Cas. 401. Two further Beneventan witnesses to Aa, Cas. 90 and Vat. Lat. 1468, are related to Vat. Lat. 3320 and Cas. 401 but contain further additions, according to Lindsay.101 With "Aboliîa1 out of the picture as the source of Festan content in the core of Aa, there is no reason why this material should not have come from a copy of Festus itself, as Goetz in fact suggested.102 This re-examination of Lindsay's methodology, and the consequent dismantling of his stemma of glossaries, has helped to redefine the importance of glossaries other than so-called Aboliîa as carriers of Festan text. Interpolated Absîrusa was put together at some point before the mid-eighth century; the earliest surviving witnesses to Aa are ninth century but the glossary may well have been compiled much earlier. Both glossaries - Absîrusa in its interpolated form, and Aa in its different manifestations - appear to have originated in centralsouth Italy, where they continued to interest scholars and the compilers of glossaries in subsequent centuries. The inclusion of Festus glosses as material added to Absîrusa and in the core of Aa suggest that Festus' lexicon was available in central-south Italy decades and probably a full century or more before Paul the Deacon came across a (the?) copy at Monte Cassino.

loo Brown, 'Where have all the grammars gone?' (n. 61, above) 411-12. For Vat. Lat. 3320, following E. A. Lowe's view that the script shows features in common with that of Paris B.N. Lat. 7530 {The Beneventan script. A history of the south Italian minuscule II. Hand-list of Beneventan manuscript ed. V. Brown (Rome 19802) 114-15), Tarquini, / codici grammaticali (n. 61, above) 101-02 would allow a date at the beginning of the ninth century, and an origin in Monte Cassino. For Cas. 401 she suggests a s. X1 date, and an origin probably in Capua {ibid. 42-43). loi Cas. 90 (s. XI2) is of uncertain origin except for two replacement pages that 'exhibit the Montecassino style of Beneventan used at the end of the eleventh century'; Vat. Lat. 1468 was copied in Puglia in s. XI/XII - Brown, 'Where have all the grammars gone?' (n. 61, above) 412-13. On the other hand, Tarquini, / codici grammaticali (n. 61, above) 92-93 suggests for Vat. Lat. 1468 an origin in Lazio or Campania, and an earlier date, s. X exVXI in.

102 CGL I (n. 62, above) 145 ... His accedunt glossae haud paucae Festinae - Festinae enim sunt procul dubio, non Paulinae ...ex quibus Festi nonnulli loci non modo illustrari, sed etiam supple possunt.

7.1 CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369 E LE PAGELLAE PERDUTE DEL CODEX FARNESIANUS GIOVANNA MANCINI Il mio interesse per le vicende del Codex Farnesianus (F) nasce nell'ambito di una ricerca su municipi e cittadinanza nel periodo immediatamente successivo al helium sociale, tema che non poteva non coinvolgere la valutazione di affidabilità della testimonianza paolina relativa al lemma municipium.1 Nelle ricostruzioni operate dalle edizioni critiche sulla base di F, apografi, testo consolidato di Paolo Diacono, i due lemmi che erano oggetto precipuo del mio interesse, 126.16F municepsjz 155/7JP muntàpium, sono collocati il primo nel libro XII, Q. y m il secondo nel luogo corrispondente al Libro XIII, Q. LX.10;2 il Q. IX ci è stato conservato nel F, il Q. VIII ci è invece noto solo attraverso gli apografi, in particolare i codici Vaticani Latini 1549 (X), 3369 (W) e, in parte, 2731. Municipium, però, è riportato nella epitome di Paolo, ma assente non solo nel corrispondente luogo del De verborum significatione festino tramandatoci attraverso il F,3 ma anche negli apografi umanistici dello stesso; mi sembrava dunque necessario verificare se fosse possibile tentare di individuarne

1 Alcuni dei risultati della ricerca sui codici vaticani oggetto di questa relazione sono già apparsi, pur se in forma diversa, nel mio Cives Romani municipes Latini I (Milano 1997). Solo dopo aver svolto questa relazione alla Festus Conference del giugno 2002, un fortunato contatto con il prof. Lanciotti, dovuto alla collega Glinister, mi ha permesso di avere conoscenza di un suo articolo (S. Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369 e le vicende del Festo famesiano', StudUrb n.s. B 62 (1989) 221-51, che riporta gli esiti dell'indagine condotta dall'illustre - e certamente più di me qualificato - collega sul manoscritto vaticano. Gli elementi più rilevanti (i segni di paragrafo, l'infratesto mensa frugibus) valorizzati dall'A. sono gli stessi successivamente, anche se autonomamente, notati da me. Le conclusioni cui giunge sono, però, come si vedrà, differenti. Voglio, intanto,ringraziarloper la cortese attenzione - di cui sono espressione le stesse critiche che su alcuni punti mi ha privatamente indirizzato - con cui ha letto i risultati della ricerca da me svolta, in unarischiosama necessaria digressione da quello che è il mio ambito disciplinare proprio, il diritto romano. 2 Con riferimento alla divisione in due parti delle lettere dell'opera festina proposta dal Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi, municeps si trova nella prima, municipium si troverebbe invece, stando alla collocazione paolina, nella seconda parte. La lettera M, così come è possibilericostruireF dal confronto con l'epitome, si estendeva dal lemma 109. IP magnos ludos, al quale seguono 87 lemmi attestati da Paolo, per tutto il Q. VIE (da 114.5F manubiae a 136.1 IF masculino)finoalla decima colonna del Q. IX (154.14F modo). Conriferimento,invece, ai libri in cui era suddiviso il De verborum significatione, la lettera M si sarebbe estesa da parte del libro XI (109. IP magnos ludos) per tutto il XII (dal lemma 112.6P mensa frugibus, secondo la indicazione contenuta in W f. 119 v.), al lemma 134.6F muli mariani a parte del libro XIII, che inizia con 134.1 IF mulus e termina con la fine della lettera N (186.23F um, Q. IX.27). 3 Per la discussione sull'esatto titolo delle due opere, in particolare di quella di Festo, rinvio alla letteratura già citata in Mancini, Cives Romani (n. 1, sopra) n. 83.

138

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

una diversa collocazione originaria nel testo festino, per recuperare pienamente la possibilità di riferirne impianto e contenuti a Festo/Verrio. A questo fine, dopo aver considerato il modus operandi di Paolo e le modalità di circolazione delle pagellae copiate dagli umanisti, ho sottoposto ad un esame parallelo F, W e X, nonché Vat. Lat. 3368, per cercare di determinare, in base alle annotazioni dei copisti e dei recensori, quali fossero le condizioni dei quaternioni andati perduti del F e se fosse verosimile pensare a una presenza di municipium nel F stesso, in una collocazione diversa da quella data da Paolo. Paolo inserisce infatti municipium verso la fine della lettera 'M' (Q. IX del F), tra 155.4P mendicum e 155.20P Mater Matuta, in una sequenza, dunque, che trova corrispondenza in una pagina ben leggibile del F, nella quale, però, a 154.7F mendicum segue, senza soluzione di continuità se non per uno spazio illeggibile minimo, 154.9F Mater Matuta. La dottrina prevalente vuole, viceversa, che il testimone del De verborum significatone utilizzato da Paolo sia stato se non lo stesso F, 4 altro codice a esso identico o comunque risalente ad archetipo comune; municipium, inoltre, appare essere l'unico lemma presente in Paolo ma non nei testimoni del De verborum significatane festino. La stessa natura lemmatica dell'opera di Festo - che si sarebbe facilmente prestata ad inserzioni successive - rendeva, quindi, necessaria l'esclusione della possibilità che si trattasse non di un semplice spostamento, ma di una intrusione vera e propria, che non fosse consentito ricondurre al De verborum significatione festino come tramandatoci dal F. Tanto più che dubbi sull'attribuzione a Festo del testo del lemma erano stati ventilati da Mùller,5 il quale, in una delle notae alla sua edizione del De verborum significatione, dopo aver indicato in municipium l'unico caso di spostamento di termini sicuramente rilevabile dal riscontro con il F, avanzava l'idea di una sua possibile derivazione non dal De verborum significatione festino ma da altra fonte.6

4 V. per tutti Lindsay, Glossarla Latina 76: 'Quern Festi codicem habuit Paulus, is saepissime cum Farnesiano in mendis consensit... aliquando melior erat... aliquando peior'. 5 Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi, nota a municipium (127 n. 1): 'Miro et inexplicabili, ut videtur, casu factum est, ut Paulus, qui in reliquis excerptis Festum suum presse sequitur, in hoc de municipiis argumento bis eum desereret. Nam primum, qui in Pomponii Laeti schedis legitur locus de municipe p. 169,27. ap. Ursinum, qui schedis in codicis pagellas dispositis incidit in Q. VIII.24, hunc transtulit in superiorem huius libri partem post v. Marnerais p. 96. Deinde ipse, quod nunquam alias fecit, hunc de municipio articulum, nescio unde arreptum, Festo post v. mendicum p. 105 adiecisse videtur, cuius in codice ms. eo loco, id est p. 10 apud Urs. Q. IX. 10, cuius rei nec vola nee vestigium est. Idcirco mini licere putabam, ut hunc locum, qui singularis piane est condicionis, in hac vacua pagella ponerem'. 6 Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi, nota a municipium (127 n. 1): 'Quae Niebuhrius Hist. Rom. T. II p. 64 ann. 109 affirmât nane de municipio disputationem in Festi codice scriptam fuisse in pagella, quam ignis consumpserit, et a Paulo omissam, sed postea a grammatico quodam Romano vel Ravennate, decimo undecimove saeculo, adiectam esse: nine abesse earn a pluribus libris manuscriptis; ubi autem inveniatur, extra ordinem positam esse; denique praestare earn ubertate et concinnitate omnibus articulis a Paulo excerptis; haec omnia, vereor, ne fragili nimis fundamento superstructa sint, ruitura cum id sublatum fuerit. Vellem, vir eximius narrasset qui codd. manuscripti eum locum omittant; ii certe codd., quos Lindemann collates habet, omnes quinque et edd. vett. eum constanter servant Paulus autem quamquam pleraque in brevius contraxit, non caret tamen omnino articulis uberioribus, ut mundus, minuebatur, ipsumque Municeps ostendit, quod Niebuhr 1.1. errât cum dicit a Paulo omissum et a solo Pomp. Laeto servatum esse. Habetur enim apud Paulum translatum in p. 96. (...) Non nego huic de municipio disputationi in Festi codice commodum locum fuisse Q. VIII.22 vel 23, sed utrum ibi olim scriptus

GIG

J W A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

139

Dal confronto delle sequenze di Paolo con quelle di Festo, sono rilevabili, tuttavia, almeno altri otto spostamenti, verificabili dal raffronto col F: 268.25F/273.5P pilâtes,1 460.32F/ 467. IP servorum dies? 380.5F/399.2P sororium iigillum e 468.3F/475.12P sex Vestae sacerdotes, 278.33F/281.4P petreia, 282.16F/283.15Ppronubae, 284.23F/285.14P/7«/j e 300.10F/301.5P/7r/vera l y, cui possono aggiungersi 226.\9¥I2?>5.\ 4P petissere9 e 122.7F/ 125.5P monstrum, la cui collocazione, però, è testimoniata solo dagli apografi.10 Il numero notevole di voci che separa le due posizioni mostra che si tratta di vere e proprie diverse collocazioni, che, almeno per sororium tigillum, sex Vestae sacerdotes, servorum dies e petissere, è arduo spiegare accogliendo l'ipotesi a suo tempo avanzata da un illustre Maestro, purtroppo scomparso, 11 con un intervento consapevole di Paolo che, inizialmente omessi i lemmi, li abbia poi trascritti a pie della pagina o in una pagina immediatamente successiva o - nel caso di una trasposizione recessiva - in testa alla pagina stessa. Essi infatti appaiono inseriti da Paolo dopo, rispettivamente, ben 41,11,10 e 28 lemmi, equivalenti nella scansione festina a 47,26, 19 e 32.12 Qualunque spiegazione di ripensamento del Diacono mi sembra poi assolutamente inapplicabile a municeps, che Paolo colloca 50 lemmi prima della posizione che ha, seguendo gli apografi, nel De verborum significatione. A un intervento di vera e propria rielaborazione del testo da parte di Paolo potrebbero in effetti indurre a pensare i - rarissimi, in verità - casi di trasposizione da lettera ad altra: 181.2P nihili {qui nec hili quidem est) da 90.7P hilum (putant esse, quod grano fabae adhaeret, ex quo nihiletnihilum)\ 391.6Psciscito {sententiamdico)da 184.8Fniquisscivit{centuria est... nam sciscito significat sententiam dicito ac suffragiumferto, unde scita plebis ...), individuati da

fuerit et a Paulo in alium translatus, an ab eodem ex alio scriptore desumptus et Festi copiis additus, quis asseverare audeat? Quod ad argumentum attinet, de quo agitur, praeter Niebuhrium nuper in eo operam collocarunt Io. Nic. Madvig de iure et condicione coloniarum P.R. in Opusculis Acadd. p. 236 (qui non recte dicit locum hunc de municipio esse infragmentisFesti) et Zumptius in dissertatione recitata in consessu Acad. Berolin. MDCCCXXXVm. Martio mense, de municipiis, praefecturis, coloniis, qua tractari accepi Festi articulos v. Municipium et praefecturae: nam ipsam dissertationem oculis nondum usurpavi. Sed Zumptii sententiam in plerisque reddidisse videtur Weiland de bello Marsico p. 5 ssq.\ 7 cf. Bona, Contributo 30-31 e n. 43. Per una verifica delle intere scansioni, con inizio e fine con il primo lemma comune a Festo e a Paolo, rinvio alla Tabella A (87 ss.) di Mancini, Cives Romani (n. 1, sopra). 8 cf. Bona, Contributo n. 39. 9 380.5F/399.2P, 468.3F/475.12P e 226.19F/235.14P già segnalati da Millier, Sexti Pompei Festi, e Bona, Contributo n. 43. io In realtà i casi di spostamento, tutti già segnalati in letteratura (in particolare: Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi xxxiii n. 1, Bona, Contributo nn. 39, 41, 43, nonché Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 117) sono più numerosi, comprendendo anche semplici inversioni di posto, che pure Paolo opera, come nel caso di sanqualis porta-silere, su cui v. le considerazioni di Bona, Contributo 32 n. 44. 11 Così Bona, Contributo 31 n. 43; alla stessa ipotesi rinvia anche, sottolineando nuovamente il limite dell'ipotesi di J. Pinsent, "Municeps, IP, CQ n.s. 7 (1957) 89-97, consistente nel non fornire spiegazioni per gli altri spostamenti, nel più recente F. Bona, 'Il "de verborum significata di Festo e le XII Tavole. 1. Gli "auctores" di Verno Fiacco', Index 20 (1992) 211-28, 220 e n. 75. 12 V. Appendice I.

140

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Miiller.13 Esso, però potrebbe essere solo apparente: i lemmi potrebbero infatti derivare da altri, lì originariamente collocati, ma andati smarriti nella tradizione del testo festino. Un esempio varrà a chiarire. Il lemma 235.5Ppangere (pangerefigere,unde plantae pangi dicuntur, cum in terram demittuntur; inde etiam versus pangi velfigi in cera dicuntur) è presente sia nel De verborum significatione che nell'epitome, nello stesso testo (anche se, negli apografi, solo per la parte iniziale) e nella stessa posizione {cf. le pp. 234 e 235L); il concetto del versus pangi è però anche ripetuto nei distanti lemmi 247.8P (paginae dictae quod in lib ris suam quaeque optineant regionem, ut pagi; vela pangendo, quodillis versis panguntur, idestfiguntur), e 95.28P (impages dicuntur quae a fab ris in tabulis figuntur, quo firmius cohaereant, a pangendo, id estfigere. Unde etpoetae pangere versus dicuntur et agricolae pangere plantas), che appartiene alla lettera T. Se il fuoco non avesse risparmiato, anche se solo parzialmente, il corrispondente testo festino, avremmo potuto ritenere uno dei due lemmi, impages in particolare, come ricavato - ed oggetto di anticipazione - da pangere, inserirlo nell'elenco degli spostamenti tra lettere e ad addebitare eventualmente a Paolo un infelice intervento sul testo. Come conciliare, allora, queste differenze con l'asserita identità dell'archetipo di F e testimone utilizzato da Paolo, quale l'origine delle discrasie tra i due testi? Una riflessione preliminare: la natura dell'opera di Paolo - che non copia, ma continuamente interviene sul testo - e l'esistenza di un unico testimone del De verborum significatone festino, rendono, a mio avviso, estremamente difficile stabilire con certezza, sulla base delle varianti testuali, il rapporto tra l'esemplare del De verborum significatione utilizzato da Paolo ed il F, mentre è la struttura stessa dell'opera di Paolo a poter offrire una traccia a mio parere non sufficientemente valorizzata in questo senso. Mi sono quindi chiesta se le diverse collocazioni rispetto al testo del F fossero tutte dovute all'opera dell'epitomatore, o non potessero invece essere state trasmesse dallo stesso testimone utilizzato da Paolo - il che avrebbe dato ragione dell'assenza del lemma municipium nella parte del F conservataci - e se fosse possibile, attraverso gli apografi ed il F, rinvenire le tracce di una sede dello stesso lemma diversa da quella testimoniata in Paolo, all'interno di una parte del Farnesiano all'epoca disponibile ma non trascritta, perché illeggibile. A questo fine ho esaminato gli apografi umanistici del De verborum signifìcatione conservati nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana e che sono generalmente ricondotti alle schedae Laeti, pubblicate con questa denominazione da Orsini nel 1581 e da quel momento in poi identificate, almeno per la parte che non trova piùriscontronel F, con il testo da questi stabilito.14 Nella sua prefazione, Orsini dichiara che quas autem nos edidimus illae quidem 13 Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi xxxiii n. 1, cui Bona, Contributo 31, aggiunge 185.6P nequam.

14 [F. Orsini,] Sexti Pompeii Festi de verborum signifìcationefragmentum.Ex vetustissimo exemplari Bibliotecae Farnesianae descriptum (Florence 1582), da cui cito. Orsini e Miiller identificano le schedae Laeti con i Q. Vili, X e XVI, mentre T. Mommsen, Testi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum', Philologische und historische Abhandlungen der Kòniglichen Akademie der Wissenschafte zu Berlin 1864 (1865) 57-86 (= Gesammelte Schriften VII. Philologische Schnften (Berlin 1909) 269-79, in particolare 270-71) e quindi prima delritrovamentodell'apografo polizianeo Vat. Lat. 3368 (da parte di P. De Nolhac, 'Le Festus d'Ange Politien', Revue de Philologie 10 (1886) 145-48), avanzava l'ipotesi - sulla sola base delle annotazioni fatte da Vittorio, che aveva acquistato una copia dell'apografo di Poliziano, a margine del Festo pubblicato da Aldo Manunzio a Venezia nel 1513 - che le schedae Laeti non coincidessero con la parte oggi perduta del F, poiché Poliziano non avrebbe avuto a disposizione il Q. Vili.

GIO\ 15

A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

141

16

e chetissimi viri exscriptae chirographo e che si qua praeter haec in vulgaris sint ea plane non esse Festi credendum sit, sed e Pauli epitoma aut aliunde petita)1 Dal Nolhac in poi, si è ritenuto che Orsini abbia utilizzato, quasi certamente, W. 18 1 numerosi errori presenti in X, notati da Miiller e Mommsen e ripresi da Lindsay, hanno ulteriormente confermato la posizione di preminenza di W rispetto all'altro codice vaticano che riporta anch'esso il testo più ampio del De verborum significatane pervenutoci, il X 1 9 Parto anch'io dal presupposto, generalmente accettato, 20 che gli apografi derivino tutti dai quaternioni del F all'epoca in circolazione; 21 nel valutare, però, le testimonianze delle copie umanistiche ho cercato di prescindere dal presunto legame tra schedae Laeti e W, tenendo in maggior conto altri due diversi aspetti della frenetica attività di copiatura della fine del XV secolo, talora lasciati in secondo piano. In primo luogo il fatto che la stesura degli apografi non dipendeva soltanto dalle condizioni di leggibilità del Farnesiano, dall'acribia del restitutor e dall'accuratezza del copista, ma anche dalle modalità di circolazione del codice stesso; in secondo luogo l'atteggiamento stesso che gli umanisti generalmente avevano nei

15 II doctissimus vir sarebbe da identificare, secondo De Nolhac, con lo stesso Leto; contra Mommsen, Testi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum' (n. 14, sopra) 271-73 e Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi vii. 16 Orsini, Sexti Pompei Festi (n. 14, sopra) 4. Sull'interpretazione dell'affermazione di Orsini, si veda Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 242 ss. 17 In verità, da Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi VII in poi la critica ha di molto ridimensionato tale affermazione dell'Orsini. 18 In questo senso, De Nolhac, 'Le Festus d'Ange Politien' (n. 14, sopra) 145; cfr. Yìnscriptio stessa del manoscritto, anche se di altra mano, 'Festus Pompeius epitomato et il fragmente non epitomato Fui. Urs'. Un pur sommario raffronto del testo Orsini con quello di W dovrebbe, però, indurre a una maggiore prudenza. Orsini, Sexti Pompei Festi (n. 14, sopra) 47 fa riferimento, a proposito di 216.1 IF Optima lex, al fatto che nelle schedae 'tantum spatii relictum est quantum ad reponenda duo verba quae in margine notamur'. Se si guarda però il f. 114 di W, in questa voce troviamo non riprodotto uno spazio ma la sola indicazione def Sempre a proposito dello stesso lemma, Orsini annota che delle schedae era presente magistratuum e non magistratorum da lui stesso suggerito e che è pure in W. Analogamente, in relazione al lemma tripudium, Orsini nota come manchi in altre riproduzioni del F\ ciò vale, però, anche per W, f. 155 r. Per quanto riguarda vici, infine, Orsini afferma che 'in schedis integra lectio habetur', mentre in W il testo relativo appare inserito di seguito alle parole Tigillum sororium e addirittura utilizzato a creare un nuovo lemma tannis (su quest'ultimo punto cfr. Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 249 n. 50). 19 Mommsen, 'Festi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum' (n. 14, sopra) passim. 20 Contra A. Moscadi, 'Nuove glosse festine in Festo', Prometheus 7 (1981) 159-76. Contro la teoria di quella generale traslitterazione da maiuscole a minuscole in età carolingia, che avrebbe contribuito alla formazione di un unico archetipo per ogni opera, si veda G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Firenze 1952, rist. Milano 1974) 475 ss., il quale riconduce al passaggio nel III secolo, dal volumen al codex la formazione di una 'minuscola primitiva' che avrebbe reso superfluo un generale lavoro di traslitterazione; nello stesso senso F. Wieacker, Textstufen klassischen Juristen (Gòttingen 1960) 95 ss. Una nuova trascrizione critica del Farnesiano è opera recente di Moscadi, // Festo farnesiano, che traccia anche una breve storia del codice (XIV ss.). 21 Anche se secondo M. Accame Lanzillotta, 'L'opera di Festo nel "dictatum" varroniano di Pomponio Leto (Vat. Lat. 3415)', GIF 32 (n.s. 11) (1980) 265-99, passim, vi sarebbero elementi per affermare che già prima delritrovamentodel F da parte di Manilio, il testo festino fosse noto negli ambienti fiorentini.

142

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

confronti dei manoscritti antichi, il loro considerarli essenzialmente, se non soltanto, 2 2 come 'solo il trasmissore di un testo nuovo', più che come oggetto in sé di studio. C o m e ci informa lo stesso Poliziano, il F circolava sfascicolato e diviso in almeno due parti, 23 entrambe da lui utilizzate: un fragmentum in possesso di Manilio Rallo e nonnullas pagellas ex eodem fragmento conservate da Pomponio Leto. 2 4 Anzi, la stessa stesura dell'apografo polizianeo avrebbe risentito della materiale disponibilità da parte sua delle parti del Codex, tanto che, come è stato supposto, 2 5 l'ordine attuale di Vat. Lat. 3 3 6 8 non sarebbe quello effettivamente seguito nella stesura. 26 In Vat. Lat. 3 3 6 8 sono, inoltre, ancora leggibili due numerazioni: una, più antica, delle pagine da 13 a 2 9 , una seconda, da 1 a 17, che si è sovrapposta successivamente, in sede di rilegatura. Nell'ipotesi che le pagine mancanti - da 1 a 12 - avessero anch'esse contenuto la parte mancante nell'apografo del testo del De verborum signifìcatione, ciò potrebbe comportare, come già suggeriva D e Nolhac, una maggiore ampiezza della copia fatta dal Poliziano e, con essa, una maggiore estensione della

22 Un giudizio nettamente in questi termini in Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (n. 20, sopra) 49 ss. 23 Se non tre parti, in possesso di Manilio Rallo (i Q. XI-XV), di Pomponio Leto (le nonnullae pagellae del Q. XVI) e di un terzo di cui è ignota l'identità (i Q. VIII-X), come ipotizza Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) n. 36. 24 La stessa notizia del rinvenimento del F - ripresa dalle prime edizioni critiche del F - risale allo stesso Poliziano (A. Politian, Opera (Basilea 1553) 284, Miscellanea lxxiii), il quale, intorno al 1489 scrive: 'Ostendit mini Romae abhinc quadriennium Manilius Rallus Graecus homo, sed Latinis litteris adprime excultus, fragmentum quoddam Sex. Pompei Festi (nam ita erat in titulo) sanequam vetustum, sed plerumque mutilatum, praerosumque a muribus. Quod me magnopere tenuit, siquidem reliquiae illae qualescumque ex integro ipso volumine superabant, quod auctor Festus composuerat, non ex hoc autem compendiario, quod nunc in manibus coactum violenter, et decurtatum, scilicet ab ignobili et indocto quodam, nec isto quoque satis bene de Uteris merito. Nonnullas quoque ex eodem fragmento Pomponius Laetus, vir antiquitatis et literarum bonarum consultissimus, sibi pagellas retinuerat, quas itidem legendas mini describendasque dedit'. In base a questa testimonianza e a quella di G. B. Pio, Posteriores annotationes e. 16, in J. Gruter, Lampas, sivefax artium liberalium I (Francoforte 1602) ('codice pervetusto et ob hoc fidelissimo, qui ex Illyrico Pomponio Laeto extra ingenii aleam posito fuerit oblatus'), Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi II, ritiene che a Pomponio Leto fosse stato oblatus tutto il codice e che quindi non ne avesse posseduto solo alcune pagellaey ma tutte, e ne avesse lui stesso dato a Manilio Rallo la maggior parte. Per la identificazione delle nonnullae pagellae cui fa cenno Poliziano con i soli quattro fogli rimasti del Q. XVI, v. Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) n. 36 e la letteratura ivi citata. 25 A. Moscadi, 'Note sull'apografo polizianeo di Festo (cod. Vat. Lat. 3368)', Prometheus 13 (1987) 261-64 e id.j 'Le glosse festine pomponiane fuori Festo', Prometheus 16 (1990) 257-88, che prende spunto da Accame Lanzillotta, 'L'opera di Festo' (n. 21, sopra). Diversamente, Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) n. 36, e R. Bianchi, 'Due citazioni attribuite a Festo nel commento a Lucano di Pomponio Leto', AM Arc 7.4 (1980-81) 235-62, nn. 21, 22, 26. 26 Poliziano avrebbe iniziato dal Q. XIII-XV, per poi copiare, avendone avuta la disponibilità, i Q. XIXII ed infine imperfectum inveni et hoc il XVI (il quale ultimo potrebbe, però, a mio avviso, essere stato trascritto anche in conclusione della prima fase: la sequenza sarebbe quindi: XIII-XVI e XI-XII, il che potrebbe indurre a ripensare la consistenza e la composizione delle schedae Laeti). Vinscriptio principale ('Ex vetustissimo fragmento Sexti Pompei Festi quem Romam descripsi kal. Ian. 1485') si trova infatti non all'inizio del codice (ove è solo 'Ex fragmento Sexti Pompei') ma a f.7 r., dal quale ha inizio, segnalato dal segno -I il Q. XII1.

GIOV

4A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

143

consistenza, all'epoca, dello stesso F. 27 Non è però, allo stato attuale delle nostre conoscenze, possibile far risalire tali supposti blocchi di scrittura alle diverse provenienze dei Q., identificando così la composizione delle schedae Laeti; essa resta pertanto essenzialmente legata alla indicazione come tali fatta da parte di Orsini dei Q. V i l i , X e XVI: 28 l'intera parte posseduta da Pomponio sarebbe dunque andata perduta, mentre si sarebbe interamente conservata quella di Rallo. 29 Una tale identificazione, tuttavia, non implica il dare per scontato che il testo, la struttura, l'estensione dei quaternioni in possesso di Leto fossero esattamente quelli della loro riproduzione in W; che essi dunque iniziassero e finissero con i lemmi oggi a noi da esso tramandati e che contenessero tutti e pressocché soli i lemmi conservatici da tale apografo, attribuendo a priori una posizione di preminenza a W rispetto agli altri apografi anche dal punto di vista della maggiore fedeltà nella riproduzione dell'insieme del codice, che è quella più utile a fornire informazioni sulla struttura e l'organizzazione interna dei quaternioni scomparsi. Partendo da queste premesse, procedendo nell'esame di W e Xy ho notato come in entrambi si trovino spesso oltre al testo festino - segnati a margine o inframmezzati ad esso annotazioni e simboli, introdotti dal copista o da un recensore della copia stessa, che presentano, nei due codici, caratteristiche diverse. 30 Iniziamo con W, il cui esame lascia, a mio avviso, intravedere una vicenda di formazione complessa, articolata in più momenti di rapporto col testo, facenti capo a soggetti diversi. Si nota immediatamente, infatti, come alla predisposizione da parte del copista dell'intero testo latino sia seguita certamente una revisione - che presuppone il rapporto diretto del suo autore con tutto il testimone utilizzato, sia stato esso il F o una copia di esso - che si manifesta attraverso glosse marginali, 31 spessissimo impiegate per completare il testo con le parole greche evidentemente incomprensibili per il copista. C'è da chiedersi quale tipo di attività abbia svolto il secondo soggetto, quale sia stata l'accuratezza della revisione operata, in quali circostanze e con quali finalità. Ancor prima, però, dobbiamo soffermarci sul tipo di attività svolta dallo stesso copista.

27 De Nolhac, 'Le Festus d'Ange Politien' (n. 14, sopra) 148. 28 Orsini, Sexti Pompei Festi (n. 14, sopra), anche se la trascrizione dei soli Q. VITI, X e XVI nella parte dell'edizione in cui sono riportate le schedae Laeti potrebbe essere non necessariamente coincidente con la loro consistenza, ma funzionale alla semplice integrazione di quanto già riprodotto attraverso la lettura diretta del F. Ciò potrebbe spiegare l'esistenza di quel blocco più ampio (Q. Vili, IX, X, XI, XVI) che, si veda più avanti, mi sembra si possa intravedere all'interno dello stesso W e che è presupposto - almeno per il momento in cui viene redatto mensa frugibus - anche da Lanciotti. 29 Dubita Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) n. 36, come già Mommsen, Testi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum' (n. 14, sopra) 270-71. 30 Sulle modalità di formazione di W, sono giunta - dopo ulteriore riflessione - alle conclusioni esposte nel testo, in parte diverse da quelle a suo tempo proposte in Mancini, Cives Romani (n. 1, sopra), che non inficiano però minimamente la valutazione di preferenza allora accordata ed oggi ribadita per X, come copia, tra le due, più in grado di riprodurre le condizioni del testimone. 31 Si vedano iff. 100 r., 101 v., 102 v., 104 r., 117 r., 122 r., 126 r. 129 r., 134 v.

In proposito, notiamo che nel corpo del codice è in alcuni casi presente il segno v :a f.102 r., subito prima di metonymia lo troviamo in alto a sinistra; esso è poi ripetuto a f.l 10 r. (all'interno del l e m m a ordinarium hominem subito prima delle parole et improbum) ed a n c o r a a f.l 19 v. (prima di est cum magistrates della voce pe reme re) ed infine a f.l 53 v. (subito prima di tabem)?2 Il raffronto con il F rivela che il simbolo marca esattamente l'inizio dei Q. IX, X, XI e X V I , anche se nell'ultimo caso il principio del Q. X V I è da collocarsi a l l ' i n t e r n o del lemma precedente. Per tutti gli altri, invece, non viene fornita analoga indicazione. C o m e spiegare questa difformità di comportamento? Se non vogliamo pensare ad una stesura a due mani di W (che n o n avrebbe lasciato altre tracce oltre questa) fatta da due copisti, che peraltro si sarebbero intercalati, uno solo dei quali attento a segnare l'inizio dei quaternioni, d o b b i a m o supporre che il testo di W si sia formato più che attraverso la lettura e copiatura dell'intero codice festino - sia della parte in possesso di Rallo sia di quella in possesso di Leto - attraverso l'utilizzazione di due diverse copie esistenti di due diversi blocchi del F , diligentemente ed esattamente riprodotte d a un terzo a m a n u e n s e ; oppure, in alternativa, pensare all'impiego, accanto alla parte del F eventualmente in possesso dell'estensore di Wy di una copia relativa alla parte a lui mancante (quella relativa ai Q. V m IX, X, XI, X V I o l'altra). Se, infatti, con tale segno, riproducendo direttamente dal F , un copista avesse inteso qui raffigurare - spostandolo in avanti all'inizio del Q. successivo - il simbolo posto in fine ai singoli Q., 33 non avrebbe avuto ragione di limitarsi ai soli IX, X, X I e X V I . Se solo per questi ultimi lo introduce è perché lo trova già nel testo che sta copiando, il che - si veda il Q. I X che non pare recarne traccia - mi sembra faccia escludere che si potesse trattare del Farnesiano. Esiste un'altra possibile spiegazione, avanzata da Lanciotti, 34 il quale riferisce l'inserimento dei segni di paragrafo non al copista, m a al restitutor, riconducendolo alla volontà di questi di 'rappresentare nell'apografo la peculiare suddivisione dell'antigrafo', in un'attività, d u n q u e , che presuppone la disponibilità in atto dell'intero F e che è essa stessa spia di attenzione filologica. Se, però, l'inserimento dei segni fosse stato determinato dall'intento di rappresentare la consistenza delle due parti, nell'ipotesi che esse fossero all'epoca distribuite come rappresenta Orsini (i Q. VIE, X e X V I da un lato e, dall'altro, IX, XI-XV), la marcatura di Q. I X non sarebbe stata funzionale allo scopo; se, invece, i due blocchi circolanti erano relativamente compatti ( V i l i , IX, X e X V I e X I - X V ) sarebbe stato sufficiente indicare inizio e fine della serie VIII-XI e l'inizio del X V I . M i pare, dunque, più verosimile pensare a un esito dovuto alla meccanica copiatura di due parti: la prima delle quali (VIII-XI e X V I ) era non il F ma una sua copia, realizzata adottando il criterio di marcare l'inizio dei Q.; la seconda consistente o nello stesso F o in altra copia fatta da un soggetto diverso da chi aveva riprodotto il primo blocco di testo e non attento a segnalare l'individualità dei singoli quaternioni.

32 La presenza di un analogo segno a f. 156 r. posto a lato del lemma Vidima potrebbe essere spia dell'esistenza di quel XVII fascicolo la cui esistenza è supposta da parte della dottrina: cfr. Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 247 ss. 33 cfr. da ultimo Moscadi, // Festo farnesiano viii. 34 Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 246.

GIO\

SA MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

145

Nel codice vaticano c'è, inoltre, un'altra traccia di una revisione vera e propria del testo effettuata attraverso il raffronto con i fogli all'epoca ancora disponibili del Farnesiano, che lascia ulteriormente intravvedere una vicenda di formazione del testimone complessa, dovuta all'intervento, in tempi successivi, di una pluralità di soggetti. Si tratta di un singolare sommario che è inserito, traperemere e periodos a f.l 19 v. tra il Q. X e l'XI, o meglio dopo la fine del Q. X (che termina all'interno di peremere) e quindi, diremmo, già all'interno del Q. XI, sommario assente nel F così come negli altri apografi. Lo riporto di seguito:

£?> i ii c9t &n n avium s * /r,i< ':'

'

•:•,•/•:.:;

>

" J

[Sexti Pompei Festi lib. xii Mensa frugibus etc. Sexti Pompei Festi lib xiii Aulus etc. N Enia est principium N. litterae Pars secunda N Umam Pomp.] Il testo è interessante sotto vari aspetti. In primo luogo Mensa frugibus, indicato (come mi pare evidente anche per la successiva indicazione relativa al libro XIII)35 come inizio del libro XII,36 è presente solo in Paolo, non negli apografi che hanno inizio almeno 31 lemmi oltre;37 naenia è l'inizio della lettera 'N', ma il lemma (Q. IX. 10) non è riportato nello stesso W, che 35 La mancata menzione dell'inizio del libro XIV, del quale pure fanno parte i due lemmi, può forse avere la sua ragione nel fatto che esso cadeva in una colonna (Q. IX.27, cfr. Thewrewk, Sexti Pompei Festi 192) non trascritta in W e comunque estremamente frammentaria e praticamente illeggibile. Per una ricostruzione del possibile meccanismo di formazione della glossa, oltre che per la sua esegesi, si veda Lanciotti, 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 227 ss. 36 Come iniziale del L.XII è viceversa indicato in tutte le edizioni critiche (Mtiller, Sexti Pompei Festi 129, Thewrewk, Sexti Pompei Festi 92, Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi 114) manare, che si è ipotizzato fosse il primo lemma della colonna 9 dell'VIII Quaternione, nella quale è tradizionalmente collocato manubiae (W)/manibiae {X), col quale hanno inizio gli apografi. 37 Come sappiamo, Paolo opera costantemente soppressioni di voci, per cui il numero di lemmi ricavabile dalla sua epitome costituisce sempre il minimo, non necessariamente la totalità delle voci dell'originale festino.

146

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

passa (f. 104 r.) da maiorem consulem (Q. DC.9) a nemo; analogamente, l'indicazione di inizio del libro XHI pare essere esatta, se si intende la 'M' di <m>ulus erroneamente trascritta con ulus. Per quanto attiene, infine, a 178.19F Numam Pompilium (Q. IX.22), è notevole il fatto che tale lemma, leggibile nel F, è completamente assente in W, non essendo riportato né nella parte in cui riproduce il De verborum significatione di Festo (a f. 107 v. si passa da nundinalem cocum a noxias), né in quella in cui è riportata l'epitome di Paolo (a f.64 si susseguono nuces e nonuncium), anche se è presente in altri testimoni dell'epitome stessa:38 la conoscenza del lemma doveva quindi derivare dal testo testino. Quando, da chi, con quali finalità e in relazione a quale disponibilità dei folia del F è redatto l'indice? L'autore legge senza dubbio il Q. Vili (perché indica mensa frugibus come inizio della M) nella parte precedente manubiae, ma non è la stessa persona che ha trascritto il Q. Vili: avrebbe dovuto, dopo aver fatto oggetto della sua attenzione la pagina del F contenente l'indicazione dell'incipit del libro XDI subito prima di mulus, e correttamente copiato mulus (f. 101 v.), successivamente aver introdotto un improbabile Aulus. Si tratta di un errore che sarebbe comprensibile per la forma della 'm' maiuscola riscontrabile sia nel F (si vedano le iniziali, ben leggibili, in Q. IX, col. 5, di minora tempia, manalisfons, manus etc., nelle quali la 'm' appare formata da due 'a' affiancate, unite in basso) che nello stesso W, ma solo in sede di una copiatura meccanica a cui sia estranea ogni attenzione critica al testo. Chi ha redatto l'infratesto, inoltre, ha certamente a disposizione il Q. IX, perché indica naenia e Numam Pompilium, ma non è, evidentemente, chi ha copiato il Q. IX senza trascriverli. Il Lanciotti ha ipotizzato che si trattasse di un restitutor, che avrebbe letto il Farnesiano e successivamente apposto, direttamente su di esso, una nota (in fine del Q. X) intesa a fissare quelle notizie sul testo che aveva ragione di temere che fossero destinate a perdersi per le cattive condizioni del testimone, nota che il copista avrebbe poi meccanicamente riprodotto ritenendola parte dello stesso Farnesiano.39 All'interno di talericostruzionedella vicenda di intrusione dell'annotazione, lo stesso fatto che solo in W e non negli altri apografi sia riportato l'infratesto potrebbe costituire un serio indizio in favore di una copiatura diretta dal F, almeno per l'VIII Q. Dobbiamo però chiederci se sia possibile che tale restitutor, che certamente opera avendo a disposizione le pagine del F, sia la stessa persona che procede alla revisione finale, dopo la copiatura, di W. Non mi pare, quest'ultima, un'ipotesi praticabile. Riassumiamo quanto sappiamo dell'attività dell'autore di mensa frugibus e del soggetto che ha operato la revisione del nostro apografo. Il primo ha la disponibilità se non di tutto il F, almeno dei Q. VOI (in un'estensione maggiore di quello copiato negli apografi) e IX; annota, forse sullo stesso Farnesiano, le notizie riportate in mensa frugibus. Il secondo, in sede di revisione, non nota l'erronea trascrizione in Aulus, né l'omissione di Numam Pompilium e di naenia, lemmi sui quali tutti si era particolarmente soffermata l'attenzione del primo. Mi pare quindi si possa affermare che non vi sia identità tra i due e che il secondo utilizza un testo revisionato da altri; c'è da chiedersi allora quale sia il testimone utilizzato, se lo stesso Farnesiano o una copia. Se si fosse trattato del F, però, 38 V. Appendice II. 39 Lanciotti, 4 Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369' (n. 1, sopra) 228 ss.

GIO\

MA MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

147

sarebbe necessario spiegare chi abbia introdotto e perché i segni di marcatura degli inizi dei quaternioni di cui ci siamo più sopra occupati, rilevando come essi siano assenti nel Farnesiano stesso. Ai rilievi sopra esposti su questo punto, si aggiunga il fatto che la confusione della 'm' con la 'a' è più comprensibile in rapporto a uno scritto calligrafico, finalizzato alla diffusione, piuttosto che a una nota marginale, che non necessariamente doveva vedere la capitale iniziale di modulo grande vergata come doppia 'a' affiancata. Mi pare dunque più probabile che il testimone utilizzato sia dal copista sia dal revisore non fosse il F, ma una sua copia, realizzata sul testo rivisto dall'ignoto estensore dell'infratesto e non revisionata da quest'ultimo; copia nella quale era marcato l'inizio dei quaternioni, era diligentemente riprodotto mensa frugibus, ma non erano riportati né Numam Pomp ilium né naenia, forse per la frammentarietà del testo leggibile nel Farnesiano. In altri luoghi di W, viceversa, troviamo voci ridotte quasi alla sola indicazione del lemma, come accade, ad esempio, per nequiquam: 'nequiq significari. deficit' (f. 103 v.), che però proviene dal XIIIQ. L'attuale stesura del codice in questione sembrerebbe quindi derivare dalla copiatura (e revisione) almeno in parte, non direttamente dal F , ma da un apografo dello stesso. A conclusioni ben diverse porta, invece, l'esame di X. In primo luogo il suo curatore può essere con quasi certezza individuato: si tratterebbe, secondo E. Pellegrin, del Giuliano Ceci discepolo di Pomponio Leto e canonico del Laterano. 40 Ceci è autore anche di altra copia del De verborum significatione in Vat. Lat. 5958, 41 che riporta la stessa poesia dedicatoria di X f. 96 v., seguita dalle iniziali 'J. C . \ Nel codice troviamo, scritte in rosso, numerose note del curatore, sia a margine che nel corpo del testo. Per quanto attiene, in particolare, le lacune, queste sono segnalate utilizzando due diciture. Accanto a deest, che indica - analogamente a quanto fa W con deficit - la caduta di alcune parole, troviamo anche frag(mentum). Ora, mentre il deest di X corrisponde sostanzialmente al deficit di W nell'indicare la illeggibilità di alcune parole, come è possibile

40 E. Pellegrin et ai, Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane IÏI.I. Fonds Vatican Latin 224-2900 (Paris 1991), sotto X, che rinvia per riscontro a M. Bertola, / due primi registri di prestito della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Codici Vaticani latini 3964, 9966 (Città del Vaticano 1942), che riporta a 17 la trascrizione della dichiarazione di prestito tra il 1479 ed il 1480 a Iulianius Caecius di un'orazione di Cicerone e nella n. 4 della stessa pagina segnala che un Giuliano Ceci è ricordato da M. A. Altieri, Li nuptiali, ed. E. Narducci (Roma 1873) 25 ed è forse il medesimo Giuliano Ceci di cui dà notizia il Galletti nella sua raccolta di canonici lateranensi'. Del Ceci è nota solo la data della morte, il 1513. 41 Si tratta di copia assolutamente inutilizzabile ai nostri fini: parte con la riproposizione dell'epitome di Paolo, depurata però dei lemmi presenti negli apografi o nel F; riproduce poi i lemmi festini, ma con un ordine spesso non coincidente con quello del F e degli apografi, e, per la parte relativa a Paolo, con inversioni per interi blocchi.

148

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

verificare nel confronto dei due codici con il F, 4 2 l'annotazione fragra di X, che non ha riscontro nell'altro codice, trova un uso che ha per noi un particolare interesse. Se (per le parti in cui è possibile farlo e cioè per i Q. IX, XI, XH, XIII, XIV, XV) verifichiamo la condizione del F. nei luoghi corrispondenti a tale indicazione,43 vedremo che, in tutti e 32 i casi, ad essa corrisponde, con una sola eccezione, una lacuna di due colonne nel F). 4 4 La corrispondenza tra ampie lacune nel testo del De verbo rum significatione e la segnalazione di Frag trova inoltre parziale riscontro se si procede ad analogo confronto, avendo come riferimento, per i Q. Vili, X, XVI, 45 i superstiti lemmi di Paolo che, peraltro sono di solito un numero minore di quello originariamente contenuto nel De verborum significatione festino. Se, seguendo il procedimento inverso, partiamo dalle lacune riscontrabili nel F e verifichiamo se esse siano tutte segnalate da X, troviamo ancora una volta una perfetta corrispondenza. 46 Il curatore di X pare quindi, a differenza di quello di W, avere sotto gli occhi non un apografo ma tutte le pagellae originali dei quaternioni perduti sulla base delle quali opera le sue annotazioni. 42 Dal confronto tra W e X emerge quanto segue. L'indicazione deficit in W è inserita in relazione ai seguenti lemmi: mundus, mamphula, Manius egeri, murrinam, manuos, metelli (manum et mentum), Murciae deae, masculina etfemmina, mundus, Manes di, Mamertini, maiorem consulem, nequiquam, nesi, navia, numero, noxia, niger lapis, ocius, opalia, Opima spolia, obiurare, oscillum (oscillantes), Osculana pugna, optima lex, pilare, Picum avem, pangere, resignare. X corrisponde esattamente, con l'indicazione di deest o di uno spazio bianco, a W tranne che nei casi di: murrinam, navia, ocius, Opima spolia, oscillantes, resignare (ove X reca però peròfragm, a segnalare la illeggibilità di due colonne), manuos (X caduta), masculina et foeminina, munduSi Mamertini (ove però X presenta testo più completo), Manes di (ove in X non è neppure segnalata la illeggibilità di IX.6 e IX.7, pur leggendo il copista l'inizio e la fine delle due colonne), numero (X integra con Paolo e non segnala la frammentarietà della pagina), noxia e Picum avem (X non segnala, senza integrare). In due soli casi, opalia e pangere, con deest sembrerebbe essere indicato - considerando comunque la scansione non del F, ma quella di Paolo - non la illeggibilità di poche lettere, ma di intere parti del codice. A prescindere dall'uso di frag, che vedremo più avanti, vi è quindi - con certezza nei casi in cui è possibile il raffronto col F - un pressocché perfetto parallelismo nell'uso dei due simboli nei due codici, essendo riferibili le lievi difformità alla maggiore o minore comprensione e/o integrazione del testo, mentre nei soli due ultimi casi c'è una vera e propria omissione di indicazione in X, come peraltro analogamente accade che X segnali lacune non indicate in W. L'elemento più interessante ai nostri fini è comunque l'omogenea e specifica utilizzazione sia nel corpo del lemma che al suo inizio o fine del deest ad indicare la caduta di una o più parole relative al lemma stesso, mentre frag è usato da X esclusivamente in fine di parola o in margine a blocchi di testo evidenziati. L'esistenza della indicazione 'hiatus tamen plerumque indicans nota deficit vel frag.\ era stata già notata da Mommsen, Testi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum' (n. 14, sopra) 272. 43 Rinvio alla Tabella B di Mancini, Cives Romani (n. 1, sopra) 92 ss. 44 Orata 202 Th. - Q. IX.32, immediatamente seguito, dopo l'indicazione Frag da Orae extremae. È, questo, l'unico caso - inspiegabile - di segnalazione di un'ampia lacuna in realtà inesistente nel F\ esso, però, finisce col confermare un'utilizzazione di fragm a indicare esclusivamente l'illeggibilità non di una o più parole, ma esclusivamente di ampi brani. 45 Mi permetto, ancora una volta, di rinviare a Mancini, Cives Romani (n. 1, sopra) Tabella C, 96-7. 46 In due soli casi, inoltre, una lacuna ampia, desumibile, però, dal raffronto con Paolo è segnalata in X con deesv. opalia e pangere. Non abbiamo, però, la possibilità di raffronto con il F.

GIOV

A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

149

Possiamo dunque ragionevolmente supporre che, anche per la parte del Farnesiano giunta solo attraverso gli apografi, all' indicazione frag di AT corrispondessero fogli in possesso del copista, ma illeggibili presumibilmente almeno le colonne destra del r. e sinistra del v. Il testo del farnesiano doveva dunque contenere ben più lemmi, per noi irrimediabilmente perduti quando non parzialmente ricavabili attraverso il raffronto con l'epitome, di quanto non diano conto le stesse edizioni critiche che, evidenziando le lacune solo in corrispondenza di parallele presenze nell'epitome, possono indurci a ritenere perfettamente rispondente alle pagellae del F in possesso dei copisti rinascimentali, l'elencazione dei lemmi ricavata dagli apografi ed integrata con l'epitome. Gli apografi, viceversa, riproducono solo una parte del testo contenuto nel codice utilizzato per le redigerli. Attraverso le annotazioni del copista di X è in qualche misura possibile, però, intravvedere in filigrana il testimone utilizzato, i punti esatti di illeggibilità più o meno ampia dei folia. Ed è proprio attraverso essi che è possibile avere informazioni sullo stesso testimone utilizzato da Paolo. Prenderemo in esame, a questo fine tre lemmi: municeps, nella versione di Paolo ed in quella di Festo e municipium. I tentativi di spiegazione degli spostamenti dei lemmi li riferiscono, generalmente, a eccezione di Pinsent, all'attività di Paolo e trovano il loro quadro di riferimento nella teoria di Miiller delle due 'parti' del De verborum significatione, teoria alla quale a suo tempo ho anch'io fatto riferimento per sostenere l'originaria collocazione di municipium nell'opera festina. Voglio, però, qui prescinderne per affidarmi al dato testuale che mi pare da solo sufficiente a fondare conclusioni plausibili sulla struttura originale del testo utilizzato da Paolo e su quella delle parti perdute dell'Vin quaternione. La disparità tra De verborum significatione ed epitome in rapporto a municeps non è limitata, infatti, alla posizione dei lemmi cui si è sopra accennato, ma ne investe lo stesso testo, che appare, inusualmente, in Paolo più ampio dell'originale. Né si tratta, a mio avviso, di un errore nostro di prospettiva dovuto alla illegibilità parziale del F che ha determinato l'evidente incompletezza nel punto degli apografi, segnalata dagli stessi copisti. Abbiamo visto come municipium sia apparente oggetto di uno spostamento in avanti (se era contenuto nel testo festino, non poteva che trovarsi neh1' VIE Q., prima della fine della lettera 'M', che costituisce la sua attuale collocazione in Paolo), mentre municeps subisce un'anticipazione di ben 50 lemmi rispetto al testo del De verborum significatione. Nella parte di lettera 'M' andata smarrita ma riprodotta in X, I'indicazione fragm è presente ed è posta in fine dei lemmi: Maius mensis, mola, municeps?1 sarebbe dunque, in 47 'Deest', invece (che però - come si è visto sopra, n. 42 - indica la caduta di alcune parole in principio o in fine di un lemma, non la illegibilità di intere colonne o di parti considerevoli di esse) è posta in fine a mundus, manum et mentum e Murciae deae. Se pure si volesse ipotizzare una utilizzazione inusuale del deest, la posizione di municipium dopo Murciae deae è da ritenersi estremamente improbabile per l'alto numero dei lemmi (quasi sempre inferiore a quelli dell'opera epitomata) riportati da Paolo tra Murciae deae e Maius mensis. Per quantoriguardainvece manum et mentum e mundus, seguiti in Paolo il primo da soli due lemmi ed il secondo da tre, l'esclusione è collegata all'uso normale del deest; il secondo lemma, inoltre, farebbe parte {cfr. Bona, Opusculum Festinum 25) della serie di glosse di Ateio Capitone De iure pontificio. L'uso di deest costituisce viceversa la sola ragione di esclusione - rafforzata dall'ipotesi relativa ai meccanismi che hanno portato allo spostamento, su cui vedi infra - di una collocazione di municipium dopo manum et mentum, lemma che (Bona, Opusculum

150 )

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

astratto, possibile che uno dei lemmi 'fuori posto' in Paolo, municipium, trovasse collocazione in una di queste parti rese illeggibili dal fuoco, normalmente di estensione tale, come si è visto, da poterlo comodamente contenere. Il raffronto tra il testo festino e quello paolino di municeps, in connessione con quello di munieipium, ci consente, però, di passare dal piano dell'astratta possibilità a quello della verisomiglianza. Esaminiamo i due testi. Riproduco la definizione festina di municeps e quella dell'epitome di Paolo, nel testo dell'edizione di Lindsay, staccando le 'parti' cui faccio più avanti riferimento. Questo è il testodiFesto(126.16F): I Municeps est, ut ait Aelius Gallus, qui in municipio liber natus est, item qui ex alio genere hominum munus functus est, item qui in municipio ex servitute se lìberavit a municipe. II At Servius fdius aiebat initio fuisse qui ea conditione cives fuissent, ut semper rem publicam separatim a populo Romano haberent, Cumanos, Acerranos, Atellanos, III qui aeque . Questo è quello corrispondente nell'epitome di Paolo (117.5P): I Municeps, qui in municipio liber natus est. Item, qui ex hominum munus functus est. Item, qui in municipio a servitute se liberavit II Item municipes erant qui ex aliis civitatibus Romam venissent, quibus non stratum capere, sed tantum muneris partem, utfuerunt Cumani, Acerrani, III qui et cives Romani erant, et in legione merebant, sed dignitates non

alio genere a municipe. licebat magiAtellani, capiebant.

L e edizioni critiche del De verborum significatone sono fondate sulla supposizione 4 8 che Paolo abbia, nell'intera seconda parte della sua significatio ( d a item municipes alla fine), parafrasato la definizione di Servius e propongono pertanto la parziale integrazione del testo festino inserendo d o p o aeque la parte finale del lemma paolino: .A9 Festinum 13) farebbe parte delie glosse di Ateio Capitone De iure pontificio, le quali sono però seguite dalle glosse giuridiche di Elio Gallo e Servio Sulpicio Rufo. Una eventuale collocazione in questa sede fornirebbe elementi utili a restringere con certezza il campo della parternità della voce, la ritengo però molto meno probabile di quella indicata nel testo, perché quest'ultima - oltre ad essere congruente con l'uso pressocchè costante del deest - è anche in grado di dare ragione del testo di municeps in Paolo. 48 Presupposto comune anche a buona parte della letteratura che del brano si è occupata: cfr. per tutti M. Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio (Roma 1978) 4 n. 3, che presenta la definizione di Paolo come un 'reflet deforme' di quella di Festo. 49 É la congettura sulla quale per primo fonda la sua edizione Orsini, Sexti Pompei Festi (n. 14, sopra) 169, ripreso da Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi 143 n. 6y il quale inserisce tra '... a municipe' e 'at Servilius ...' la parte finale dell'epitome: 'Item municipes erant, qui ex aliis civitatibus Romam venissent quibus non licebat magistratum capere sed tantum muneris partem' (periodo assente sia in X che in W, ma inserito nelle schedae Laeti dall'Orsini), finendo per far carico al testimone di una confusione che è viceversa ingenerata proprio dall'intervento del precedente editore; Miiller infatti lamenta 'in hoc articulo apparet duo disputationis verrianae capita confusa esse, eo quod item ante Municeps male

GIG

m A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

151

Analizziamo però le 'seconde' e 'terze' parti sopra evidenziate dei due lemmi, rispettivamente da at Servius e da item municipes alla fine. Se tale ipotesi fosse corretta, dovrebbe esserci un perfetto parallelismo tra le due 'seconde' parti e le parti finali dei due lemmi (- qui et... - qui aeque ...). Nella 'seconda' parte di Paolo, invece, appaiono intrusi alcuni elementi, assenti in Festo: la migrazione a Roma, la mancanza dell'elettorato passivo, la partecipazione al munus. In Paolo, inoltre, il riferimento alla mancanza delFelettorato passivo è presente due volte: una nella 'seconda' parte (quibus non licebat magistratum capere), una nella 'terza' (sed dignitates non capiebant). Si potrebbe supporre che Y ex aliis civitatibus Romam venire sia una infelice parafrasi di Paolo del rem publicam separatim habere.50 In Festo/Servio non c'è, però, nulla che possa spiegare l'inserimento degli ultimi due elementi, magistratum capere e muneris partem esse, entrambi contenuti in Paolo in quella che si presenta, a prima vista, come la riproposizione della parte iniziale, precedente gli exempta comuni a Festo e a Paolo, della 'seconda' parte del pensiero serviano. Dobbiamo chiederci da dqyeJPaolo abbia potuto ricavare tali notizie. Mommsen aveva a suo tempo avanzato l'ipotesi che le parole 'qui ex aliis civitatibus1 non fossero state ricavate da Paolo da municeps, ma dalla prima parte del lemma municipium;51 ipotesi suggerita dalla evidente analogia dei due passi, ma che mal si concilia sia col normale modo di procedere del Diacono, sia con i suoi interessi e finalità.52 Quella di Paolo, infatti, si sarebbe in questo caso configurata come una operazione di vero e proprio approfondimento e rielaborazione del testo festino. Egli, infatti, diversamente dagli umanisti e dagli editori moderni, non si trovava nella necessità di integrare un testo reso mutilo dal'attacco delle muffe, dei topi e infine del fuoco, potendo viceversa utilizzare, più di cinque secoli prima, una copia - fosse anche lo stesso Farnesiano - che da quei difetti era

inculcatum est. Nam prior pars condicionem singuli municipis, altera municipiorum statum in universum spectat'. L'edizione del 1913 di Lindsay - così come quella dei Glossario. Latina del 1930 - restituisce il testo degli apografi suggerendo, comunque, l'integrazione della parte perduta di Servio sulla base dell'epitome di Paolo. Il testo così 'integrato' dall'Orsini era stato alla base delle riflessioni di B.G. Niebuhr, Histoire romaine III (Paris 1834) 79 n. 109 che aveva conseguentemente pensato alla presenza di tre disùnte signifìcationes fuse in un unico lemma ('d'abord ... un renseignement tiré d'Aelius Gallus ... viennent ensuite deux définitions du municipium isopolitique, l'une sans nom d'auteur, l'autre de Servius le fils'). 50 Paolo ha in questo caso inteso la autonomia istituzionale affermata da Servio in termini di separatezza fisica della comunità municipale rispetto a quella romana. 51 T. Mommsen, Droit public romain V.I (Paris 1889) 268, dopo aver rilevato che 'le parole Qui ex aliis civitatibus... non sarebbero qui al loro posto, ma sarebbero state tratte dalla glossa municipium' ricostruisce la parte finale del lemma con un supposto 'Qui et cives Romani erant et in legiones merebant, sed quibus non licebat nec magistratum capere nec suffragium ferre'. 52 Sulla cultura e l'opera di Paolo si vedano - oltre alla monografia della Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo, la cui analisi conferma il carattere fortemente conservativo dell'opera di Paolo, ed alcuni spunti già presenti in Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae - i contributi raccolti in Paolo Diacono. Uno scrittore fra tradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Cividale del Friuli-Udine 1999, a cura di P. Chiesa (Udine 2000).

152

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

esente, come dimostrano i moltissimi lemmi presenti nell'epitome e assenti negli apografi. 53 Il suo intervento sarebbe stato invece determinato dalla necessità di chiarire un significato oscuro (il rem publicam separatim habere) attraverso la ricerca nell'opera in Festo di un'altra defmitio che permettesse a lui e quindi ai suoi lettori di intendere il senso delle affermazioni di Servio, ricerca che lo avrebbe portato, presumibilmente sulla base della parziale identità degli exempta, ad istituire un rapporto di identità tra rem publicam separatim habere e Romam venire e ad integrare quindi, nella sua forma attuale la significano festina. È possibile pensare che, dopo aver in questo modo recuperate le notizie contenute nel lemma municipium, non io avrebbe integrato completamente con quello - relativo al medesimo oggetto - che stava componendo, ma ne avrebbe più avanti proposta un'ulteriore completa versione? Contro una tale congettura militano diversi argomenti. L'epitome è un'opera destinata alla scuola, per facilitare la lettura dei classici, nella quale oggetto principale, se non esclusivo, di interesse sono le informazioni di 'di carattere grammaticale, etimologico, di spiegazione di parole o significati e modi di dire ancora in uso'; 54 Paolo opera almeno 700 interventi di adbreviatio e almeno_400 interventi^di soppressione totale del lemma,55 relativi entrambi, nella maggior parte dei casi, 'alla religione romana ... e alla organizzazione politica e civile dell'antica Roma'. 56 Paolo, infine, si muove in un orizzonte culturale al quale è estranea ogni consapevolezza della problematica legata all'acquisto della civitas Romana nell'ambito della organizzazione municipale repubblicana, come dimostra l'assurda parafrasi che propone di municipalia sacra (146.9F),57 nella quale Y ab initio ... ante civitatem Romanam acceptam è da lui interpretato come ante urbem conditam. Perché Paolo, che si prefiggeva il compito non solo di riassumere ma anche di eliminare quanto inutile ai suoi fini, avrebbe dovuto in questo caso non limitarsi a eliminare, semplicemente, quanto non comprendeva e che per lui era privo di ogni interesse?

53 cfr. L. D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and transmission (Oxford 1983) 162-64, il quale richiama B. Bischoff, 'Zu Plautus und Festus', Philologus 87 (1932) 114-17 (=Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewàhlte Aufsàtze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte I (Stuttgart 1966) 141-44) 'for evidence indicating that Italy had a fuller text of Festus in the 10th century'. 54 Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 152. 55 Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 43, 45. 56 Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 85. Il fatto che anche la religione sia tra le materie più colpite dagli interventi di taglio avvalora l'ipotesi che difficilmente il lemma 468.3F sex Vestae sacerdotes possa essere stato recuperato dopo un'iniziale esclusione. 57 Le versioni del F e dell'epitome sono le seguenti: 147.5P: Municipalia sacra vocabantur, quae ante Urbem conditam colebantun 146.9F (=F Q. IX.5): Municipalia sacra vocantur, quae ab initio habuerunt ante civitatem Romanam acceptam; quae observare eos voluerunt pontifices, et eo more facere, quo adsuessent antiquitus. Il lemmarisalirebbead Ateio Capitone, De iure pontificio, cfr. Bona, Opusculum Festinum 25; cfr. Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo 119, che si limita però a segnalare l'intervento di riduzione. Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio (n. 48, sopra) 5 e n. 5, trova argomenti proprio nell'assurdità di questo testo paolino, per affermare che 'les institutions municipales de Rome n'évoquaient rien de precis pour l'abréviateur lombard de la fin du Ville siècle' e che lo stesso non doveva avere idee chiare su che cosa fossero un municeps e un municipium. La constatazione di una tanto profonda quanto comprensibile lacuna in materia di diritto pubblico romano, nulla toglie alla complessità e la rilevanza culturale della personalità di Paolo, negli ultimi tempi giustamente rivalutata (cfr. il bel volume a cura di Chiesa, Paolo Diacono (n. 52, sopra)).

GIOV.

(A MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

153

Restano due possibilità. La prima è che tutte le notizie che Paolo ci riporta, anche quelle presenti due volte, gli derivassero dalla parte per noi perduta della definizione di Servio. Dovremmo in questo caso, però, pensare che Servio facesse - e nella sola 'terza' parte, dopo gli exempta - ben due richiami alla mancanza di elettorato passivo, e riaffermasse, inutilmente, alla fine di una significano la cui struttura logica dichiaratamente aveva fondato proprio sulla identità tra municipes e cives, la condizione di cives Romani dei municipes. La seconda è che, come in altri casi, nello stendere il lemma Paolo non abbia utilizzato una sola signification quella completa di Servio, ma accanto a questa anche un'altra, che era presente nel suo testimone del De verborum significatione ma non negli apografi, perché originariamente contenuta, come la parte finale della definizione serviana, in una parte illeggibile, in corrispondenza della lacuna segnalata dal X. In questa prospettiva, le apparenti ripetizioni non sarebbero da ricondurre al lemma escerpito, ma derivanti dalle informazioni che Paolo avrebbe desunto da due distinte voci, di contenuto analogo, che egli avrebbe frammiste. Si tratta di un'ipotesi - coerente con il normale comportamento di Paolo che, usualmente, opera riduzioni e non aggiunte sui lemmi e che in generale 'seems to have transmitted accurately not only the substance of what he was epitomising, but also very often the actual words' - simile a quella di Pinsent,58 il quale suppone che nel testo festino seguisse in municeps - dopo quella di Elio Gallo e quella di Servio - una ulteriore definizione, completa ed irrimediabilmente perduta, del significato originario del termine municeps e che Paolo l'avrebbe qui riassunta, recuperando, eventualmente, solo gli esempi dalla prima. È però possibile che Paolo avesse davanti non una tale ipotetica terza parte del lemma municeps, ma una parte di altra glossa immediatamente successiva a municeps, che presentasse lo stesso oggetto ed una identità di exempla, sia pur parziale. Ragionamo sul possibile contenuto dell'ulteriore materiale elaborato da Paolo. Se la seconda parte del testo paolino deriva dalla frammistione della parte mancante del pensiero di Servio e di una tale ipotetica ulteriore signification in quali termini è possibile ricostruire entrambe? Partendo dall'ipotesi che le ripetizioni che presenta il testo di Paolo non fossero presenti in Festo/Servio, nella parte perduta di questo poteva essere certamente contenuta la notazione relativa alla mancanza dell'elettorato passivo, ma non il possesso della civitas Romana che era stato già introdotto nella attuale 'seconda' parte, mentre nell'ulteriore significano (fosse essa la terza parte del lemma municeps, come pensa Pinsent, o un distinto lemma) dovevano certamente essere presenti di nuovo il riferimento al possesso della civitas Romana ed alla carenza dell'elettorato passivo. La migratio a Roma, la partecipazione ai munera, e il merere in legione avrebbero potuto - sempre in via ipotetica - trovare invece posto sia nella parte terminale di Servio che nell'ipotizzato altro lemma del De verborum significations Guardando alla struttura della definizione serviana, possiamo, però, ulteriormente precisarne i contenuti. Uaeque che segue gli exempla in Servio può utilmente introdurre notizie aggiuntive, non una nuova puntualizzazione della natura giuridica dei municipes, già fatta peraltro in apertura. L'eventuale elencazione, nel frammento mancante, degli elementi costitutivi della condizione di municeps, non avrebbe comunque mai potuto comprendere^lo ius migrandi, che presuppone il possesso di una cittadinanza diversa Bà~quella romana. In 58 Pinsent, "Municeps, IP (n. 11, sopra) 96.

154

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

;^ Servio, infatti, i municipes sono^in primo luogo, cives Romani che, in quanto tali, possedevano una autonoma res_publiça^_ Gli elementi relativi alla condizione di municeps che troviamo in Paolo non potevano d u n q u e essere disponibili nella definizione serviana; dovevano quindi avere la loro collocazione nell'altra, che d o v e v a essere certamente caratterizzata oltre che dall'elemento presente due volte in Paolo, il riferimento alla civitas Romana, e da quello che per un Romano del I a.C. sarebbe stato incompatibile con la condizione di civis, il richiamo allojMs migrandi, anche da quelli che - se fossero stati indicati d a Servio come elementi costitutivi della condizione di municeps - avrebbero potuto correttamente trovarsi solo nella prima parte della definitio serviana: 5 9 l'assenza di ius honorum e la partecipazione ai munera. C o m e già sottolineava M o m m s e n , 6 0 sono tutti elementi che sono propri della prima parte di quel lemma municipium, c h e appare anch'esso collocato 'fuori posto' nell'epitome paolina. Considerando attendibili le annotazioni frag presenti nel X anche per la parte relativa agli apografi, possiamo allora ipotizzare che nel Farnesiano proprio nel frag segnalato subito dopo municeps fosse contenuta non solo la continuazione di questa signification m a anche lo stesso l e m m a municipium, assente nel Q. IX d e l ^ proprio perché già riprodotto, in questo testimone, nel Q. precedente e che proprio tale collocazione originaria immediatamente successiva a municeps sia stata quella che, per una vicenda di trasmissione testuale, ebbe a determinare la possibilità che Paolo riproducesse due_volte municipium: una prima a integrazione &jimnicepj^\m& seconda come l e m m a a sé stante. L a presenza della parte iniziale di municipium a immediato seguito di municeps spiegherebbe, infatti, il singolare tenore del testo di Paolo, frutto non di una - improbabile soprattutto per i suoi esiti - ricerca di un passo che potesse facilitare la lettura del brano serviano, ma - c o m e nelle sue abitudini - di^un'interpolazione di due testi che, nella loro contiguità, potevano presentarsi ai suoi occhi come due parti della stessa definizione. D o b b i a m o a questo p u n t o chiederci, però, se è possibile ipotizzare un meccanismo che abbia portato alla formazione di una copia del F , quella utilizzata da Paolo, nella quale municipium fosse, tutto o in parte, presente in ben due collocazioni e, soprattutto, se è possibile rinvenirne le tracce. H o già accennato al fatto che nell'epitome di Paolo sono certamente incongruenti con l'ordine attestato dal F non solo municipium e, con riguardo agli apografi, municeps e petissere ma anche sex Vestae sacerdotes, servorum dies e sororium tigillum, mentre 126.1 IF mamphula - che non ha, però, riscontro in Paolo e che precede negli apografi 59 In senso opposto Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio (n. 48, sopra) 8-9, secondo il quale la fine perduta della definizione doveva 'faire allusion sous une forme quelconque ... à l'obligation à laquelle les municipes étaient soumis, celle de supporter des munera envers l'État romain' Servio, infatti, non avrebbe potuto dimenticare, 'quand il faisait l'histoire du municeps', di porre l'accento sull'elemento che è all'origine del nome. A controprova di questo assunto, Humbert (9 n. 13) adduce il fatto che non c'è nessuna definizione di municipium (da Vairone a Isidoro di Siviglia) che non metta l'accento sui munera. 11 punto è però proprio questo: al punto di vista di Servio - per quanto è dato di capire da quello che ci è giunto del suo pensiero - è estranea ogni attenzione etimologica e/o storica: non fa - né intende fare - la storia del termine municeps, ma sottolineare un carattere iniziale della condizione municipale. 60 Sulla corrispondenza 'quasi ad litteram! dei due testi, cfr. anche M. Sordi, / rapporti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio (Roma 1960) 119.

romano-ceriti

GIO\


155

immediatamente municeps - è stata unanimemente ritenuta collocata fuori posto, a l m e n o da quanti condividono la teoria di Mùller delle due parti del De verborum significatione. Sempre nel quadro di tale teoria, deve ritenersi certamente originaria la collocazione che h a nel F sororium tigillum: il l e m m a è infatti inserito, in Paolo, 6 1 all'interno di una serie ininterrotta di 'su'62 che va - nel parallelo testo farnesiano - dal Q. X I V . 8 . 3 0 fino al Q. X I V . 16.25, così c o m e mamphula, in Festo, appare intruso in una serie ininterrotta di 'mw' (tra munus e myoparo). Di converso, in Paolo è municeps a interrompere la continuità dei lemmi in 'ma' tra i quali è inserito, 6 3 circostanza sottolineata e valorizzata dal Pinsent, 64 che l'ha m e s s a in rapporto allo spostamento di altri due lemmi in ' m a ' in Paolo: municipium, appunto, e murricidum,65 ipotizzando uno spostamento materiale di almeno tre fogli (quelli che contenevano i rispettivi lemmi), collocati e copiati in posizione errata. Successivamente, per ristabilire l'ordine alfabetico, il foglio contenente municeps sarebbe stato n u o v a m e n t e spostato, portando con sé mamphula.** L'ipotesi di Pinsent, pur se 'ingegnosa', 6 7 è stata ritenuta non completamente convincente sia perché non spiega gli altri spostamenti, sia perché il processo ipotizzato d a Pinsent presuppone una frequenza relativamente alta di riproduzione del testimone scompaginato e volta a volta diversamente ricomposto.68 Anche l'assunto degli editori del De verborum significatione,69 che F e testo utilizzato da P a o l o risalgano ad uno stesso archetipo, siano identici quanto meno nella successione dei lemmi, non sembra, c o m e abbiamo sopra visto, tuttavia condivisibile; il m e c c a n i s m o dei ripensamenti di Paolo non riesce a dare ragione né della distanza notevole che separa le posizioni di alcuni lemmi in Paolo e in Festo, né, soprattutto, dell'anticipata collocazione di municeps in P a o l o .

61 399L, corrispondente nel F al Q. XIV. 11. 62 Millier, Sexti Pompei Festi xxvii n. 3. 63 Da 112.13P mactus a 123.IP masurium, per ben 99 lemmi testimoniati. Su 126.1 IF mamphula cfr. Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi xxiii n. 6: la serie in 'ma', con inizio a p. 141 M (= 124.17F), lemma munus, termina a p. 146 M (= 130.13F), lemma myoparo. Le intrusioni di maximam multam, Manius, moene e moenia sono apparenti, poiché, come indica lo stesso Miiller nelle note a p. 144, i lemmi originali dovevano essere multam maximam, multi maniae Ariciae, mune e munia. La serie continua di 'mw' è pertanto di 27 lemmi. 64 Pinsent, 'Municeps, II' (n. 11, sopra) passim. 65 112.18P, pure inserito in una serie di 'ma', che non abbiamo, però, preso in considerazione perché è impossibile ogni confronto non solo con il F ma anche con gli apografi. 66 Pinsent, 'Municeps, II' (n. 11, sopra) 93. In questa ricostruzione, la posizione attuale di municeps in Festo non avrebbe ovviamente alcun valore per stabilirne l'originaria posizione dei tre lemmi, anche se Pinsent ritiene che essi, dovendo presumibilmente essere in origine collocati insieme ed iniziando tutti in 'muJ, dovevano appartenere alla prima parte della lettera 4 M \ 67 Così Bona, 'Il "de verborum significatu" di Festo e le XII Tavole' (n. 11, sopra) 227 n. 75. 68 Pinsent, 'Municeps, li' (n. 11, sopra) 93. 69 cfr. passim la prefazione di Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi.

156

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Lo spostamento a chiasmo dei termini nei due testimoni, può però trovare spiegazione all'interno di una ipotesi diversa, che riconduce tutte le traslazioni ad un unico episodio di trascrizione e le spiega tutte: esse potrebbero essere state originate da una riproduzione cojite^tuale_di_£iù esemplari del testo festino, eseguita attraverso lo sfascicol amento del codice e la copia in parallelo delle parti così ottenute. È un'ipotesi che trova conforto nello stesso F, nel quale - a testimonianza dell'esistenza, all'epoca di formazione del F , di una tale prassi - è possibile rinvenire, come ha notato De Nonno, 70 tracce di modalità di copiatura del testo non in continuo ma per fascicoli. In questo procedimento si potrebbe essere realizzato un errore nella sequenza di distribuzione ai diversi copisti, che avrebbe potuto facilmente determinare l'intrusione del lemma iniziale di un fascicolo che non era quello successivo a quello in corso di riproduzione da parte di queiramanuenese: rispettivamente mamphula, nella serie 'mw\ nella copia che avrebbe dato origine al F e municeps, nella serie 'ma', nella copia che avrebbe dato origine al testimone utilizzato da Paolo. L'errore sarebbe stato immediatamente corretto con il recupero delle pagine effettivamente seguenti a quelle fin lì copiate, ma con l'ormai irreversibile inserimento nella sequenza corretta di un - o di più di un - lemma 'fuori posto'. Lo stesso meccanismo avrebbe determinato lo slittamento degli altri lemmi 'fuori posto', che - a causa della maggiore lentezza del copista o di un immediato intervento di correzione - non avrebbe lasciato tracce analoghe alla presenza di mamphula. Se, come abbiamo ipotizzato, municipium si fosse trovato nell'originale a immediato seguito di municeps,Lla sua parte iniziale avrebbe potuto essere^stata^copiata,.insieme a municeps, prima della correzione dell'errore nella sequenza di distribuzione, il che - come abbiamo visto sopra - darebbe ragione del tenore di quest'ultimo lemma in Paolo. Nella copia utilizzata da Paolo, sia municeps sia Municipium non sarebbero stati nuovamente trascritti nella sede propria appunto perché, prima della rettifica dell'errore, l'amanuense aveva già completato la riproduzione del primo ed effettuato in buona parte quella del secondo, mentre l'inserimento del secondo lemma alla fine della lettera ' M ' può essere spiegato con un recupero dello stesso conseguente ad una verifica, resa necessaria proprio dall'errore compiuto, della completezza della riproduzione testuale. La copia del Farnesiano, invece, ristabilito l'ordine con municeps, dopo mamphula, avrebbe conservato municipium nella posizione originale, fino alla distruzione materiale di quella parte di codice. Il F ed il codice utilizzato da Paolo, dunque, pur derivando entrambi dall'archetipo utilizzato per riprodurre le due copie che abbiamo ipotizzato, ne sarebbero testimoni diversi non solo per le differenze testuali rilevate ma anche per il diverso ordine interno. 71

70 M. De Nonno, 'Due note festine', RFIC 120 (1992) 174-82 ha messo in rilievo il fatto che il Q. XIV - ad eccezione della parte iniziale - appare scritto 'da mano diversa, ben distinta da quella, esperta e professionale, cui si deve il resto del manoscritto' (182), ed ha ricondotto la circostanza che nell'ultimo folium del Q. X1II la scrittura si allarghi ed il copista, pur andando a capo ad ogni lemma lasci in bianco le ultime due righe del f. 26, al fatto che - prima di completare la stesura del Q. precedente - 'del quaternione XIV aveva già egli stesso predisposto l'inizio' con il lemma 379.1F secus (183). 71 Si vedano, nelle introduzioni, irilievidi Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi, e Lindsay, nonché le notazioni di Mommsen, Testi codicis quaternionem decimum sextum' (n. 14, sopra) relativi alla ricostruzione filologica dello stemma.

GIOVA

\ MANCINI: I CODICI VATICANI LATINI 1549 E 3369

157

Appendice I - LEMMI IN POSIZIONE DIVERSA IN FESTO E PAOLO Iniziando dal primo e dall'ultimo lemma comune leggibili nel F e in Paolo, le scansioni sono le seguenti. Per sororium tigillum, nel F (Q. XIV. 1): sobrinus, sororium tigillum, sororiare, cui seguono in Festo 40 lemmi (colonne 2-9 del Q. XIV), corrispondenti a 35 in Paolo, quindi, nel Q. XTV.10, su, <supercilia>, <sup>pernati, supp, e, Q. XTV.ll subsidium, subsolaneae, <susilles>, substillum\ nell'epitome: sobrinus, sororiare, seguono i 35 lemmi di cui sopra, quindi supervaganea, supercilia, suppernati, suppremum, subsilles, sororium tigillum, substillum. Questo è il quadro relativo a sex Vestae sacerdotes: nel F (Q. XV.20) serra proeliari, stercus, summissiorem, sex Vestae sacerdotes, salinum, sacramentum, (Q. XV.21) sextantari, septuennio, senacula, scholae, (Q. XV.22) subici, <speciem>, sesterti, solida sella, <silatum>, suffragato, struppi, <septem dies>, <s>ecespitam, secivum, <s>uffimenta, <serpsi>t, <s>uffibulum, <silentio surgere>, (Q. XV.23) <sar>puntur vineae, summanalia, suffuerat, scribtum, se quamque, Sanates, sublucare\ nell'epitome: serra proeliari, sacramentum, scholae, silatum, struppi, secespita, secivum, suffimenta, serpsit, suffibulum, summanalia, Sanates, sex Vestae, sublucare. Per servorum dies, così, infine, il F: Q. XV. 16 (dalla metà) silus, Silvi, sertorem, seges, serilia, (Q. XV. 17) servorum dies, sero sapiunt, Sispitem, sultis, setius, sedum, specus, spondere, (Q. XV. 18) subdit<us>, <Saturno>, <sa>xum Tarpeium, s, Stellatin, Sabatin, Sabini, Sanqualis porta, (Q. XV. 19) silere, sellae curulis, <sontica causa>, <stiricidium>, sacramento; così l'epitome: silus, serilia, sultis, setius, spondere, subditus, Scaptia tribus, Sabatina, Sabini, silere, Sanqualis porta, stiricidium, servorum dies, sacramentum. Più delicato si presenta il raffronto tra epitome e apografi, per i lemmi solo attraverso essi testimoniati, poiché una distanza ridotta può essere solo apparente, derivando dalla illegibilità delle pagellae utilizzate dagli umanisti (si veda il caso degli almeno 18 lemmi non trascritti, ma presenti in Paolo, dopo Maius mensis). La scansione relativa a petissere ricavabile dagli apografi è la seguente. Negli apografi: petissere, petrones, petauristas, petoritum, petimina, pennas, pictor Zeuxis, pietà, (im)petum, Pietati, picum avem, piscatorium aes, pedam, pescia, pestiferum fulgur, Pisalitem, pedibus, pesestas, pedum, pedem struit, pistum, pedarium senatorem, Piscatorii ludi, piscinae publicae, pectenatum tectum, piaricos (piari)y pignosa, pectuscum palati, peculatus, , piacularis porta, pigere, pangere, permissus, permutatur, Piérides musae; nell'epitome: petrones, petoritum, petimina, pietà, Pietatem, pendere poenas, Penetralia, peniculi, penetrare, pennatas, penora, pentathlum, pedam, Pisatilem, pedes, pesestas, pedum, pedem struit, piscatorii ludi, pectenatum tectum, peculatus, piatrix, piacularis porta, pigere, pangere, Pegnides, pipatio, Pepteides, petissere, pitpit, Picena regio, perditum, perbitere, pergere, pergite, pergraecare, Piérides musae.

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

158

Appendice H - LEMMI RIPORTATI IN "MENSA FRUGIBUS" Do un quadro delle scansioni dell'epitome e del testo festino, così come riprodotti in We, per quanto leggibile, nel F: Lemma

\54A9F/\51.5?Naenia

Vat. Lat.3369 (W) Festo Maiorem consulem

F Maiorem consulem Mend Mater Matuta <Modo> Naenia

Nemo

cerim mut Neminis Nemo

Vat. Lat. 3369 (W) Paolo Maior consul Mendicum Municipium Mater Matuta Modo Nenia Neniae deae Navali corona

Nefrendes Nequunt Necerim Nemora Neni Neminis Nemo

Lemma 178.19F/179.10P Numam Pompilium Vat. Lat.3369 (W) Festo Nundinalem cocum

Noxia

F Nundinas Nundinalem cocum Nucu Nuces Numam Pompilium Nonuncium Nomen Noxia

Vat. Lat.3369 (W) Paulo Nundinas Nuculas Nummus Nuntius Nuper Numen Numidas Numella Nuces Nonuncium Nomen Noctua Noneolae Nihili Noverca Novalis Noxia

BIBLIOGRAPHY Frequently cited works Bona, Contributo.

Bona, F. Contributo allo studio de lb composizione del De verborum significatione di Verrio Fiacco (Milan 1964).

Bona, Opusculum Festinum.

Bona, F. Opusculum Festinum (Pavia 1982).

Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo.

Cervani, R. L'epitome di Paolo del 'De verborum significatif di Pompeo Pesto. Struttura e metodo. Università degli studi di Trieste, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia. Istituto di filologia classica 13 (Rome 1978).

Kriegshammer, De Varronis et Verni fontibus. Kriegshammer, R. De Varronis et Verrii fontibus quaestiones selectae (Leipzig 1903). Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi.

Lindsay, W. M. Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significarli quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome (Leipzig 1913).

Lindsay, Glossaria Latina.

Glossaria Latina iussu Academiae Brìtannicae edita IV. Placidi Glossae, ed. J. W. Pine, W. M. Lindsay. Festus, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Paris 1930, repr. Hildesheim 1965) 73-467.

Moscadi, // Festofarnesia.no.

Moscadi, A. // Pesto farnesiano (Cod. Neapol. IV.A.3). Studi e Testi 19 (Florence 2001).

Miiller, Sexti Pompei Festi.

Miiller, K. 0. Sexti Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatione quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome (Leipzig 1839, repr. 1880).

Reitzenstein, 'Verrianische Forschungen'.

Reitzenstein, R. 'Verrianische Forschungen', Breslauer Philologische Abhandlungen L4(Breslau 1887).

Strzelecki, Quaestiones Verrianae. Strzelecki, L. Quaestiones Verrianae (Warsaw 1932).

159

160

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

General bibliography Accame Lanzillotta, M. 'L'opera di Festo nel "dictatum" varroniano di Pomponio Leto (Vat. Lat. 3415)', GIF 32 (n.s. 11) (1980) 265-99. Adams, J. N. The Latin sexual vocabulary (London 1982). Albanese, B. Le persone nel diritto romano (Palermo 1979). Alcock, S. E. Archaeologies of the Greek past: landscape, monuments, and memories (Cambridge 2002). Altieri, M. A. Li nuptiali, ed. E. Narducci (Rome 1873). André, J. 'Le nom du collatéral au 5e degré', RPh 42 (1968) 42-48. Astin, A. Cato the censor (Oxford 1978). Agustin, A., M. Verri Flacci quae extant et Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione lib. XX (Venice 1560). Baldwin, B. Suetonius (Amsterdam 1983). Barchiesi, A. The poet and the prince: Ovid and Augustan discourse (Berkeley-London 1997). Beard, M. 'The sexual status of Vestal virgins', JRS 70 (1980) 12-27. 'Religion', in The Cambridge ancient history IX: the last age of the Roman republic, 146-43 BC, eds J. A. Crook, E. Rawson, and A. Lintott (Cambridge 19942) 729-68. 'Re-reading (Vestal) virginity', in Women in antiquity: new assessments, eds R. Hawley and B. Levick (London 1995) 166-77. Beard, M., J. A. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome I (Cambridge 1998). Becker, G. Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui (Bonn 1885, repr. Hildesheim 1973). Bertini, F. 'La tradizione lessicografica fra tardo antico e alto medioevo', in La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo I. Atti del convegno tenuto a Roma, Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, dal 12 al 16 novembre 1979 (Rome 1981) 397-409. 'Osberno di Gloucester', in Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l'antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen âge. Actes du colloque international organisé par le 'Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture' Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994, éd. J. Hamesse (Louvain-la-Neuve 1996) 283-97. B ertola, M. / due primi registri di prestito della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Codici Vaticani latini 3964, 9966. Pubblicati in fototipia e in trascrizione con note e indici a cura di Maria Bertola (Vatican City 1942). Bettini, M. TI divieto fino al sesto grado incluso nel matrimonio romano', Athenaeum 66 (1988) 69-98. Bianchi, R. 'Due citazioni attribuite a Festo nel commento a Lucano di Pomponio Leto', AMArc 7.4 (1980-81) 235-62. Bischoff, B. 'Zu Plautus und Festus', Philologus 87 (1932) 114-17 = Mittelalterliche Studien. Ausgewàhlte Aufsàtze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte I (Stuttgart 1966) 141-44. 'Libraries and schools in the Carolingian revival of learning', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 93114. 'The court library of Charlemagne', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 56-75.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

'Palaeography and the transmission of classical texts in the early middle ages', in Manuscripts and libraries in the age of Charlemagne, ed. and trans. M. Gorman (Cambridge 1994) 115-33. Blackman, D. J. 'Plautus and Greek topography', TAPhA 100 (1969) 11-22. Bloch, H. 'Monte Cassino's teachers and library in the high middle ages', Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 19. La scuola nell'Occidente latino dell'alto medioevo II (Spoleto 1972) 563-605. Boels, N. 'Le statut religieux de la "fiammica Dialis"\ RÉL5\ (1973) 77-100. Bona, F. Contributo allo studio della composizione del De Verborum Significare di Verrio Fiacco (Milan 1964). Opusculum Festinum (Pavia 1982). 'Allaricercadel De verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent significatione di C. Elio Gallo', BIDR 29 (1987) 119-68. 'Il "de verborum significate" di Festo e le XII Tavole. 1. Gli "auctores" di Verrio Racco', Index 20 (1992) 211-28. Bonnefond-Coudry, M. Le Sénat de la République romaine: de la guerre d'Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques délibératives et prises de decision (Rome 1989). Bracke, W. 'La première "édition" humaniste du "De verborum significatione" de Festus (Vat. Lat. 5958)', RHT25 (1995) 189-215. Bremer, F. P. Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersunt I (Leipzig 1896). Brouwer, H. Bona Dea: the sources and a description of the cult (Leiden & New York 1989). Brown, G. 'Introduction: the Carolingian Renaissance', in Carolingian culture: emulation and innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1994) 1-51. Brown, V. 'Where have all the grammars gone?" The survival of grammatical texts in Beneventan script', in Manuscripts and tradition of grammatical texts from antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a conference held at Erice, 16-23 October 1997, as the 11th course of International School for the Study of Written Records, eds M. De Nonno, P. De Paolis, and L. Holtz (Cassino 2000) 389-414. Bullough, D. A. 'Aula renovata: the court before the Aachen Palace', Proceedings of the British Academy 71 (1985) 267-301 = D. A. Bullough, Carolingian renewal: sources and heritage (Manchester 1991) 123-60. Burkert, W. Greek religion: archaic and classical, trans. J. Raffan (Oxford 1985). Busdraghi, P. et ai, eds, Osberno, Derivazioni. Biblioteca di 'Medioevo Latino' 16. Centro italiano di Studi sull'alto medioevo XXX (2 vols, Spoleto 1996) Canfora, L. Vita di Lucrezio (Palermo 1993). Carey, F. M. The scriptorium of Reims during the Archbishopric of Hincmar (845-882 AD)', in Classical and medieval studies in honor ofE. K. Rand, ed. L. W. Jones (New York 1938)41-60. Carl-Mitchell, C. 'Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts at the HRHRC', The Library Chronicle of the University of Texas at Austin n.s. 35 (1986) 88-105. Carl-Mitchell, C , and K. Gould, 'A list of HRHRC Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts', The Library Chronicle of the University of Texas at Austin n.s. 35 (1986) 106-13.

162

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Cavallo, G. 'La trasmissione dei testi nell'area beneventano-cassinese', in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo 22. La cultura antica nell'occidente latino dal VII all'XI secolo (Spoleto 1975) 357-414. 'Dallo "scriptorium" senza biblioteca alla biblioteca senza "scriptorium"', in Dall'eremo al cenobio: la civiltà monastica in Italia dalle origini all'età di Dante, ed. G. Pugliese Caratelli (Milan 1987) 331-422. Cervani, R. L'epitome di Paolo del 'De verborum significata' di Pompeo Pesto. Struttura e metodo (Rome 1978). Charpin, F. Lucilius: Satires (3 vols, Paris 1978-91). Chase, M., and C. Shaw, The dimensions of nostalgia', in The imagined past: history and nostalgia, eds C. Shaw and M. Chase (Manchester 1989) 1-17. Chiesa, P., ed. Paolo Diacono. Uno scrittorefratradizione longobarda e rinnovamento carolingio. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Cividale del Friuli-Udine 1999 (Udine 2000). Chittenden, J., ed. Donatus Ortigraphus. Ars grammatica. Corpus Christianorum, continuano medievalis 40D: grammatici Hibernici Carolini aevi, pars IV (Turnhout 1982). Coarelli, F. s. v. 'Velia', LTUR V, ed. E. M. Steinby (Rome 1999) 109-12. Collart, J. Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine (Paris 1978). Contreni, J. J. The Carolingian renaissance: education and literary culture', in The new Cambridge medieval history II, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1995) 709-57. Crawford, M. H., ed. Roman statutes. BICS Supplement 64 (London 1996). review of A. Moscadi, // Festo farnesiano (Cod. Neapol. IV.A.3). Studi e testi 19 (Florence 2001), in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.05.15: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-05-15.html. de Cazanove, O. 'Exesto: L'incapacité sacrificielle des femmes à Rome (à propos de Plutarque Quaest. Rom. 85)', Phoenix 41 (1987) 159-73. Daly, L. W. Contributions to a history of alphabétisation in antiquity and the middle ages. Collection Latomus 90 (Brussels 1967). D'Anna, J., ed. M. Pacuvii Fragmenta (Rome 1967). Degrassi, A. Inscriptiones Italiae XIII. Fasti et elogia. Fase. II. Fasti anni Numani et ìuliani (Rome 1963). De Nolhac, P. 'Le Festus d'Ange Politien', RPh 10 (1886) 145-48. De Nonno, M. 'Due note festine', RFIC 120 (1992) 174-82. Détienne, M., J. - P. Vernant et al., The cuisine of sacrifice, trans. P. Wissing (Chicago 1989). Diels, H. Sibyllische Blatter (Berlin 1890). Dihle, A. s. v. 'M. Verrius Flaccus (Verrius no. 2)', RE Vili A2 (1958) 1636-45. Dionisotti, A. C. 'On the nature and transmission of Latin glossaries', in Les manuscrits des lexiques et glossaires de l'antiquité tardive à la fin du moyen âge. Actes du colloque international organisé par le 'Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture' Erice, 23-30 septembre 1994, ed. J. Hamesse (Louvain-la-Neuve 1996) 205-52. Dorcey, P. F. The role of women in the cult of Silvanus', Numen 36 (1989) 143-55. The cult of Silvanus: a study in Roman folk religion (Leiden 1992). Fantham, E. Ovid: Fasti book IV (Cambridge 1998).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

'Images of the city: Propertius' new-old Rome', in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 122-35. 'The Fasti as a source for women's participation in Roman cult', in Ovid's Fasti. Historical readings at its bimillennium, ed. G. Herbert-Brown (Oxford 2002) 23-46. Feeney, D. Literature and religion at Rome: cultures, contexts, and beliefs (Cambridge 1998). Feldherr, A. 'Livy's revolution: civic identity and the creation of the respublica\ in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 136-57. Fernandez, I. R. Manuscritos clasicos latinos en Espana (Madrid 1984). Forbes, R. J. Studies in ancient technology (Leiden 1987). Fraccaro, P. Studi Varroniani De gente populi Romani libri IV (Padua 1907). 'Le fonti per il consolato di M. Porcio Catone', Studi storici per l'antichità classica 3 (1910) 147-54 = Opuscula I (3 vols, Pavia 1956) 188-93. Fraschetti, A. 'Appunti su Karl Otfried Miiller e gli "antiquari"', ASNP 143 (s. 3) (1984) 1097-1127. Frier, B. W. Libri annales pontificum maximorum. The origins of the annalistic tradition (Ann Arbor Michigan 1979, 19992). Funaioli, H. Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta I (Leipzig 1907, repr. Stuttgart 1969). Garrison, M. 'The emergence of Carolingian Latin literature and the court of Charlemagne (780-814)', in Carolingian culture: emulation and innovation, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1994) 111-40. Glossarla Latina III, eds W. M. Lindsay and H. J. Thomson (5 vols, Paris 1926). Glossarla Latina V, eds M. Inguanez, C. J. Fordyce, and C. Theander (5 vols, Paris 1931). Godman, P. Poetry of the Carolingian renaissance (London 1985). Goetz, G. Corpus glossariorum Latinorum I (Leipzig and Berlin 1923). Corpus glossariorum Latinorum IV (Leipzig 1889). Goetz, G., and F. Schoell, M. Terenti Varronis De lingua Latina quae supersunt (Leipzig 1910). Goffart, W. 'Paul the Deacon's Gesta episcoporum Mettensium and the early design of Charlemagne's succession', Traditio 42 (1986) 59-94. The narrators of Barbarian history AD 550-800. Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon (Princeton 1988). Gordan, P. G. W. Two Renaissance book hunters. The letters of Poggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis (New York 1974). Grafton, A. Joseph Scaliger. A study in the history of classical scholarship (Oxford 1983). Grandazzi, A. 'Les mots et les choses: la composition du De verborum significatu de Verrius Flaccus', RÉL 69 (1991), 101-23. '"Intermortua iam et sepulta verba" (Festus, 242L). Les mots de la divination chez Verrius Flaccus. Première partie. Il vocabulario della divinazione nel De verborum significatu di Verno Fiacco', RPh 67 (1993) 57-73. "'Intermortua iam et sepulta verba" (Festus, 242L). Les mots de la divination chez Verrius Flaccus. Seconde partie. Il vocabulario della divinazione nel De Verborum Significatu di Verrio Fiacco (II)', RPh 67 (1993) 263-85. Gruter, J. Lampas, sive fax artium liberalium (7 vols, Frankfurt 1602-1634). Haenel, G. Lex Romana Visigothorum (Leipzig 1859).

164

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Harmand, A. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements II (Paris 1855). Harris, W. V. Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford 1971). Havet, L. Notes critiques sur le texte de Festus (Paris 1914). Hertz, M. Sinnius Capito: eine Abhandlung zur Geschichte der rômischen Grammatik (Berlin 1844). 'Die Sprichwortsammlung des Sinnius Capito', Philologus 1 (1846) 610-14. Heurgon, J. 'L. Cincius et la loi de "clavus annalis'", Athenaeum 42 (1964) = Studi in onore di E. Malcovati (Pavia 1963) 432-41. Holland, L. A. 'Septimontium or Saeptimontium?', TAPhA 84 (1953) 16-34. Holtz, L. Tradition et diffusion de l'oeuvre grammaticale de Pompée, commentateur de Donaf,/?/>A 45 (1971) 48-83. Horsfall, N. 'Varrò', in The Cambridge history of classical literature II. Latin literature, eds E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen (Cambridge 1982) 286-90. Houben, H. 'Benevent und Reichenau: Suditalienisch-Alemannische Kontakte in der Karolingerzeit', QFIAB 63 (1983) 1-19. Humbert, M. Le remariage à Rome (Milan 1972). Municipium et civitas sine suffragio (Rome 1978). Hunt, R. W. The "lost" preface to the Liber derivationum of Osbern of Gloucester', Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958) 267-82. James, M. R. The western manuscripts in the library of Trinity College Cambridge. A descriptive catalogue (Cambridge 1902). Jameson, M. 'Notes on the sacrificial calendar from Erchia', BCH 89 (1965) 158-72. Kaster, R. A. Guardians of language (Berkeley 1988). C. Suetonius Tranquillus De grammaticis et rhetoribus (Oxford 1995). Keil, H. Grammatici Latini I (Leipzig 1857, repr. Hildesheim 1961). Kempf, K. F., ed. Valeri Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem cum incerti auctoris fragmento De praenominibus (Berlin 1854, repr. Hildesheim 1976). Kenney, E. J. 'Books and readers in the Roman world', in The Cambridge history of classical literature II. Latin literature, eds E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen (Cambridge 1982) 3-32. Krenkel, W. Lucilius, Satiren (2 vols, Leiden 1970). Kriegshammer, R. De Varronis et Verrii fontibus quaestiones selectae (Leipzig 1903). Kristeller, P. O. Iterltalicum V (London 1993) (6 vols, 1963-92). Iter Italicum: acceduntalia itinera: a finding list of uncatalogued or incompletely catalogued humanistic manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and other libraries. Compiled by Paul Oskar Kristeller. Volume 5 (Alia Itinera III and Italy III): Sweden to Yugoslavia, Utopia [and] Supplement to Italy (A-F) (London and Leiden 1990). Lachmann, K. 'Kritische Bemerkungen iiber einige Bruchstucke Ròmischer Juristen', ZGR 11(1842)110-18. La Follette, L. The costume of the Roman bride', in The world of Roman costume, eds J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (Madison WI1994) 54-64. Lanciotti, S. 'Una "stranezza" del Vat. Lat. 3369 e le vicende del Festo farnesiano', StudUrb n.s.B 62 (1989) 221-51.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

Lapidge, M. The authorship of the Adonic verses "ad Fidolium" attributed to Columbanus', StudMed ser. 3, 18 (1977) 815-80. The school of Theodore and Hadrian', ASE 15 (1986) 45-72. Latte, K. Ròmische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960). Law, V. The sources of the Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus exposuit\ Filologia mediolatina l (1994)71-80. Le Bonniec, H. Le culte de Cérès à Rome: des origines à lafinde la république (Paris 1958). Lehmann, A. Varron critique littéraire. Regard sur les poets latins archaïques. Collection Latomus 262 (Brussels 2002). Lenel, O. Essai de reconstitution de Védit perpétuel (Paris 1901). Lhommé, M.-K. 'Le De verborum significatione, de Verrius Flaccus aux Glossaria Latina de Lindsay: éditions de lacunes, lacunes des éditions', È iva Antika 51 (2001) 39-62. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Continuity and change in Roman religion (Oxford 1979). Lindemann, F. Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum veterum IL Pauli Diaconi Excerpta ex libris Festi De significatione verborum et Sexti Pompeii Festi fragmenta librorum De significatione verborum/collegit, auxit, recensuitacpotiorem lectionis varietatem adiecit Fridericus Lindemannus sociorum opera adiutus; cum commentariis Antonii Augustini, Fulvii Ursini, Iosephi Scaligeri integris, aliorum exerptis (Leipzig 1832). Lindsay, W. M. Nonius Marcellus' dictionary of republican Latin (Oxford 1901) (repr. Hildesheim 1965). The Cheltenham MS of Paulus' Epitome of Festus', CQ 6 (1912) 91-92. 'The "Abolita" glossary (VaL Lat. 3321)', JPh 34 (1916) 267-82 = Studies in early medieval Latin glossaries, ed. M. Lapidge (Aldershot 1996). 'The Festus glosses in a Monte Cassino MS (no. 90)', CR 31 (1917) 131-32 = Studies in early medieval Latin glossaries, ed. M. Lapidge (Aldershot 1996). 'New light on Festus', CQ 26 (1932) 193-94. Livingston, I. A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus (New York and London 2004). Loicq, J. 'Le témoignage de Varron sur les "Ecurria"', Latomus 23 (1964) 491-501. Lowe, E. A. 'On the oldest extant MS of the combined Abstrusa and Abolita glossaries', CQ 15(1921)189-91. The Beneventan script. A history of the south Italian minuscule II. Hand-list of Beneventan manuscripts, ed. V. Brown (Rome 19802). Lowenthal, D. The past is a foreign country (Cambridge 1985). 'Nostalgia tells it like it wasn't', in The imagined past: history and nostalgia, eds M. Chase and C. Shaw (Manchester 1989) 18-32. MacBain, B. Prodigy and expiation: a study in religion and politics in republican Rome (Brussels 1982). McKitterick, R. 'Paul the Deacon and the Franks', EME 8 (1999) 319-40. Mancini, G. Cives Romani municipes Latini I (Milan 1997). Manitius, M. Geschichte der lateinischen Literaturdes Mittelalters (3 vols, Munich 1911-31). Handschriften antiker Autoren in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen (Leipzig 1935). Mazzarino, A. Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta aetatis caesareae I (Turin 1955, repr. Rome 1964).

166

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Meyvaert, P. 'Problems concerning the "autograph" manuscript of Saint Benedict's Rule', Revue Bénédictine 69 (1959) 3-21. Michels, A. K. The calendar of the Roman republic (Princeton 1967). Mirsch, P. De M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum rerum humanarum libris XXV (Leipzig 1882). Momigliano, A. The historians of the classical world and their audiences: some suggestions', ASNP ser. 3, 8.1 (1978) 59-75 = Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico I (Rome 1980) 361-76. 'The theological efforts of the Roman upper classes in the first century B C , CP 79 (1984)199-211. Mommsen, T. Testi codicis quatemionem decimum sextum', Philologische und historische Abhandlungen der Kôniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1864 (Berlin 1865) 57-86 = Gesammelte Schriften VII. Philologische Schriften (Berlin 1909, repr. Hildesheim 1965, 1996) 269-79. Droit public romain V.I, trans. P. Girard (Paris 1889). Moreau, P. Gradus. Les représentations romaines de la parenté. Collection de l'École française de Rome (forthcoming). Moscadi, A. 'Verrio, Festo e Paulo', GIF i l (1979) 17-36. 'Nuove glosse festine in Festo', Prometheus 7 (1981) 159-76. 'Problemi filologici nell'Epitome di Paolo Diacono del De verborum significationibus di Sesto Pompeo Festo', in La cultura in Italia fra tardo antico e alto medioevo I. Atti del convegno tenuto a Roma, Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, dal 12 al 16 novembre 1979 (2 vols, Rome 1981) 467-74. 'Note sull'apografo polizianeo di Festo (cod. Vat. Lat. 3368)', Prometheus 13 (1987) 261-64. —— 'Le glosse festine pomponiane fuori Festo', Prometheus 16 (1990) 257-68. 'H titolo dell'opera di festo', in Vetustatis indagator. Studi offerti a Filippo di Benedetto, eds V. Fera and A. Guida (Messina 1999) 9-15. // Festo farnesiano (Cod. Neapol. IV. A. 3) (Florence 2001). Murphy, T. Pliny the elder's Natural History: the empire in the encyclopedia (Oxford 2004). Mynors, R. A. B. Catalogue of the manuscripts ofBalliol College (Oxford 1968). Neff, K. Die Gedichte des Paulus Diaconus. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen philologie des Mittelalters (Munich 1908). Nettleship, H. 'Verrius Flaccus (I)', AJPh 1 (1880) 253-70 = Lectures and essays on subjects connected with Latin literature and scholarship (Oxford 1885) 201-21. 'Verrius Flaccus (II)', AJPh 2 (1881) 1-19 = Lectures and essays on subjects connected with Latin literature and scholarship (Oxford 1885) 222-47. Niebuhr, B. G. Histoire romaine HI (Paris 1834); Fr. trans, of Romische Geschichte (3 vols, Berlin 1828-32). [Orsini, F.] Sexti Pompeii Festi de verborum significatione fragmentum. Ex vetustissimo exemplari Bibliotecae Farnesianae descriptum (Florence 1582). Osborne, R. 'Women and sacrifice in classical Greece', CQ 43 (1993) 392-405. Pasquali, G. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo (Florence 19522, Milan 19743).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Pellegrin, E. et ai, Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque VaticaneÏÏ.I.Fonds Patetta et fonds de la Reine (Paris 1978). Les Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane III.I. Fonds Vatican Latin 224-2900 (Paris 1991). Piccaluga, G. 'Bona Dea: due contributi all'interpretazione del suo culto', SMSR 35 (1964) 195-237. Pieroni, P. Marcus Verrius Flaccus' De significatu verborum in den Auszugen von Sextus Pompeius Festus und Paulus Diaconus. Einleitung und Teilkommentar (J54,19-186,29 Lindsay). Studien zur Klassischen Philologie 147 (Frankfurt am Main 2004). Pinsent, J. 'Municeps, II', CQ n.s. 7 (1957) 89-97. Pohl, W. 'Memory, identity and power in Lombard Italy', in The uses of the past in the early middle ages, eds Y. Hen and M. Innés (Cambridge 2000) 9-28. Politian, A. Opera, quae quidem extitere hactenus, omnia, longe emendatius quam usquam antehac expressa: quibus accessit Historia de Conjuratione Pactiana in familiam Medicam, etc. (Basle 1553). Poucet, J. 'Le Septimontium et la Succusa chez Festus et Varron. Un problème d'histoire et de topographie romaines', BIBR 32 (1960) 25-73. Rawson, E. Intellectual life in the late Roman republic (London 1985). Reynolds, L. D., ed. Texts and transmission (Oxford 1983). Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and scholars (Oxford 19913). Rose, V. Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften der Kôniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin U (Berlin 1905). Rouse, R. H., and M. A. Rouse, 'History of alphabetization', in Dictionary of the middle ages I, ed. J. R. Strayer (New York 1982) 204-7. J. Riipke, 'Karl Otfried Miiller als Editor', in Zwischen Rationalismus und Romantik: Karl Otfried Miiller und die antike Kultur, eds W. M. Calder EI and R. Schlesier (Hildesheim 1998) 375-96. Rushfoith, G. McN. 'Magister Gregorius de mirabilibus urbis Romae: A new description of Rome in the twelfth century', JRS 9 (1919) 14-58. Sabbadini, R. Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne' secoli XIVe XVI (Florence 1905, repr. 1967). Savagner, A. Sextus Pompeius Festus, De la signification des mots (2 vols, Paris 1846). Scheid, J. 'Scribonia Caesaris et les Julio-Claudiens. Problèmes de vocabulaire de la parenté', MEFRA 87 (1975) 349-54. 'D'indispensables "étrangères": les roles religieux des femmes à Rome', in Histoire des femmes en occident I, éd. P. Schmitt Pan tel (Paris 1991) 406-37 = 'The religious roles of Roman women', in A history of women in the west I: from ancient goddesses to Christian saints, ed. P. Schmitt Pantel, trans. A. Goldhammer (Cambridge MA 1992) 377-408. 'Graeco ritu: a typically Roman way of honoring the gods', HSPh 97 (1995) 15-31. Religion et piété à Rome (Paris 2001). Schmidt, P. L. 'Sex. Pompeius Festus', in Der Neue Pauly IV, eds H. Cancik and H. Schneider (Stuttgart 1998) 495-96.

168

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

'Sex. Pompeius Festus', in Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike IV, eds K. Sallmann et al. (Munich 1997) 240-45. Sanio, F. D. Varroniana in der Schriften der ròmischen Juristen (Leipzig 1867). Schoell, R. Legis XII tabularum reliquiae (Leipzig 1866). Sebesta, J. L. 'Symbolism in the costume of the Roman woman', in The world of Roman costume, eds J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (Madison WI 1994) 46-53. Schultz, C. 'Modern prejudice and ancient praxis: female worship of Hercules at Rome', ZPE 133(2000)291-97. Seckel, E., and B. Kiibler, lurisprudentiae antehadrianae quae supersuntll (Leipzig 19276). Shaw, C, and M. Chase, The imagined past: history and nostalgia (Manchester 1989) Skutsch, 0. The annals ofQuintus Ennius (Oxford 1985). Small, J. P. Wax tablets of the mind (London and New York 1997). Sordi, M. / rapporti romano-ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio (Rome 1960). Spaeth, B. S. The Roman goddess Ceres (Austin TX 1996). Spannagel, M. Exemplaria principis. Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums (Heidelberg 1999). Staples, A. From good goddess to Vestal virgins: sex and category in Roman religion (London 1998). Starr, R. J. 'Reading aloud: lectores and Roman reading', The Classical Journal 86 (1991) 337-43. Strzelecki, L. 'De Ateio Capitone nuptialium caerimoniarum interprete', Prace Wrochwskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego {Travaux de la Société des sciences et des lettres de Wroclaw), ser. A.9 (Warsaw 1947). C. Ateii Capitonis fragmenta (Leipzig 1967). Tarquini, B. M. / codici grammaticali in scrittura beneventana (Montecassino 2002). Terzaghi, N. Lucilio (Turin 1934). Teuffel, W. S. and L. Schwabe, Teuffel's history of Roman literature, trans. G. C. W. Warr (2 vols, London 1891-92). Teuffel, W. S. Geschichte der ròmischen Literatur, eds. W. Kroll and F. Skutsch (1910-266) (voi. n,7thedn, 1920). Thewrewk de Ponor, E. Sexti Pompei Pesti De verborum signifìcatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, pars I (Budapest 1889). Thomas, Y. 'Le droit romain. Le traité des computs du juriste Paul', in Leçons IV, suite. Le dossier occidental de la parenté, éd. P. Legendre (Paris 1988) 27-119. Unte, W. 'Karl Otfried Millier', in Classical scholarship. A biographical encyclopedia, eds W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder III (New York and London 1990) 310-20. Valla, L. Le postille alV'Institutio oratoria' di Quintiliano, eds L. Cesarmi Martinelli and A. Perosa (Padua 1996). Villa, C. 'Uno schedario di Paolo Diacono, Festo e Grauso di Ceneda', IMU 27 (1984) 56-80. Volterra, E. 'Osservazioni sull'obbligo del lutto nell'editto pretorio', RISG 8 (1933), 171-98 = Scritti giuridici I. Famiglia e successioni (Naples 1991) 449-76. Wagenvoort, H. 'Initia Cereris', in Studies in Roman literature, culture and society (Leiden 1956) 150-68.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

The goddess Ceres and her Roman mysteries', in Pietas: selected studies in Roman religion (Leiden 1980) 114-46. Wallace-Hadrill, A. Time for Augustus: Ovid, Augustus and the Fasti', in Homo viator: classical essays for John Bramble, eds M. Whitby, P. Hardie, and Mary Whitby (Bristol 1987), 221-30. "Mutatio morum: the idea of a cultural revolution', in The Roman cultural revolution, eds T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (Cambridge 1998) 3-22. Wenger, L. Die Quellen des ròmischen Rechts (Vienna 1952). Wessner, P. 'De Lindsayi eiusque discipulorum studiis glossographicis', in Corpus glossariorum Latinorum I, ed. G. Goetz (Leipzig and Berlin 1923) 309-91. White, D. C. The method of composition and sources of Nonius Marcellus', Studi Noniani 8(1980)111-211. Wieacker, F. Textstufen klassischen Juristen (Gòttingen 1960). Willers, H. De Verrio Fiacco glossarum interprete disputatio critica (Halle 1898). Woods, C. Review of Manuscripts and tradition of grammatical texts from antiquity to the renaissance. Proceedings of a conference held at Erice, 16-23 October 1997, as the 11th Course of International School for the Study of Written Records, eds M. De Nonno, P. De Paolis, and L. Holtz (2 vols, Cassino 2000), in CR 55.1 (2005) 165-67. Review of A. Moscadi, // Festo farnesiano (Cod. Neapol. IV.A.3). Studi e Testi 19 (Florence 2001), in CR 52.1 (2002) 197. Zanker, P. The power of images in the age of Augustus (Ann Arbor MI 1988). Zetzel, J. E. G. Latin textual criticism in antiquity (New York 1981).

GENERAL INDEX Adalhard of Corbie 124, nn.74, 76 Accius, 50, 63, 67, 68 cited in Lexicon 49 Table 1 Adelperga 123 n.69, 124 n.74 adfines, adfinitas 73, 74, 76, 77, 79 Aelius Gallus, jurist and grammarian 7, 23 n.49, 33,42, 62, 73, 75, 79 juridical lemmas 75, 150 nature and structure of work 74-77 source of Lexicon for terms of relationship 7, 73-74, 76, 79 Aelius Stilo, L. 25, 34, 36, 38,41, 60, 67, 68, 71 cited in Lexicon 36, 67 on plays of Plautus 60 common source for Varrò and Verrius 13, 34 Aemilianus, quotations of 51 Aesculapius 103 Afranius, cited in Lexicon 49 Table 1, 63, 64 agnati 76 Agrippa, Marcus 24 n.53, 29 Agustin, Antonio 2,4 puts glosses of Lexicon into alphabetical order 22 alphabet, alphabetical order 1,22, 60 fluctuation of 22 alphabetization 22-23, 60-62, 113-15,123, 127,132,133 absolute 22 partial 22, 23, 31, 60 in Lexicon 1, 19, 20 n.35, 36, 60-62, 71, 75,76-77,79-80, 123-24 novelty of 23, 31,62 rarity of 23 idiosyncratic nature of 22, 36, 60, 123-24 of Paul's epitome 113-14 in medieval glossaries 132 in Pliny 22 Annius Luscus, T. quotation of 51 n.5

Anselm of Nonantola 119 antiquarianism 24 of the late Republic 2, 5-6, 12 of the early imperial period 2, 5-6, 30 second century AD interest in antiquarian scholarship 5, 37 archaizing interests of the second century AD 37 working methods 20,21 n.42 antiqui 51, 53, 54, 57, 59, 64, 65 differing treatment of in Lexicon 63-65 Antistius Labeo, M., Augustan lawyer 14, 36, 42,44 cited in Lexicon 16 n.23,44, 93 groups of lemmas in Lexicon 14 Commentario Iuris Pontifici 26, 93 Aphrodisius 37 apographs, humanist 3,137,138, 140 marks of lacunae in 147,148,149 in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 140 Apuleius 132 Arichis, brother of Paul the Deacon 117, n.44, 122, 124 Artorius Proculus, C. 1 n.4 ArtoriusRufus 1, 1 n.4,112 Ateius Capito, C. 26, 36,42, 80, 81 De iure pontifico y as source for Lexicon 26, 80, 81, 149n.47,152n.57 Ateius Philologus, L. 23 n.49,41, 64 Augustan intellectual and political life 8, 26, 82 Augustus 2, 25,42,70,73 Augustan background to creation of Lexicon 5-6, 11,24,25,27,28 centralization of knowledge under 29-30 dislike of archaizing speech 25 intellectual activity under 5-6, 8, 26, 82 and control of tradition 29-30, 31-32 and nostalgia 28-29 programme of restoration and reconstruction 24, 25, 27 171

172

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Augustus (continued) lemmas on Augustus and Julii in Lexicon 24 Aurelius Opillus 16, 34, 39 Bacchanalian scandal 88 Bartolomeo di Montepulciano 115 Barzizza, Gasparino 116 n.38 Beard, Mary, on Vestal virgins 88, 92 Bettini, Maurizio, on terms of relationship 77-79 Bona Dea 87, 91,93 prohibition of men from cult of 90-91 and male worshippers 90-91 priestess of (damiatrix) 106 n.76 Bona, Ferdinando 26, 74, 75-76 analysis of 'first and second parts' 19 n.32, 35,61,76-77 on order of authors within each letter 61 Boniface 119 books, ancient 20, 53 composition 20, 53 format 20, 53 manner of reading 20 difficulties of use for reader 20-21, 53 and memory 20 Bracciolini, Poggio 115, 116 bride, Roman 105 Brown, Virginia 121,133, 134 Cacus91 Caecilius, cited in Lexicon 16 n.23,49 Table 1,57,58,129 calendar 26, 32 n.85,46 inscribed 2, 26, 37,100 see also Fasti Calliphana, priestess of Ceres 102, 104 given Roman citizenship 102 Calpurnius 118 Casponia, priestess of Ceres 102 Cato the elder, cited in Lexicon 6, 15, 21, 49 Table 1,50-51, 55, 60, 64, 68 frequency of citations in Lexicon 6,15 runs of quotations of 6, 60, 61 use of language studied by Verrius (De obscuris Catonis) 2, 15, 21, 25, 46, 60, 68 n.73 works Origines 50 De re militari 50

speeches 50, 55 Catullus 16 n.23, 21 Ceci, Giuliano, pupil of Pomponio Leto 147 Ceres 87, 96-104 and Liber and Libera 98 and Tellus 97 castus Cereris 101 n.57 flamen Cerialis 98 Greek cult of 96-104 Orci nuptiae 98 sacerdotes Cereris 102, 104, 106 Cervani, Roberta 120, 122 Chacon, Pedro vii n. 1 Charisius, grammarian 1, 33, 37,45, 125 citations of Varrò 33 citations of Verrius and Festus 37 Charlemagne 3, 116,117, 118, 124 court 3, 109, 116,117 library 116, 117,118, 124 reform programme 117 Cicero 16 n.23, 37, 38, 39,46, 125 cited in Lexicon 21,49, 50, Table 1, 68 Brutus 51 Cincius, L., antiquarian 33, 35,41, 43, 52, 53, 57-58,62, 73 date of 52, 58 De verbis priscis 52, 57, 62 cited in Lexicon 15, 52, 57-58,73 n.17 cited by Li vy 41 citizenship, Roman 87, 102-104, 105, 108, 150,152, 154 and sacerdos Cereris 102-104, 108 Claudius Pulcher, Appius 25, 33,41 Cluny, monastery, liber Festi Pompeii in 1 n.4, 112 Coelius, fragment in Lexicon wrongly attributed to 51 n.5 cognati, cognatio 70-73, 76, 77, 82 collections of early Latin 2, 21, 23 n.49, 50, 52-53,67 commentaries, on early Latin 2, 56, 61 n.43 as source for Lexicon 2,21,23 n.49,50, 56, 67 pontifical 55 contio 38, 39 Cornelius Balbus, L. 102-104 Comificius Longus 73 n.17 Crassicius Pansa 37 Curiatius 17-18

INDEXES De gradibus cognationislì n.lO, 71 n.12, 72, 73n.l6 Demeter99, 100, 102 n.59 Détienne, M., on exclusion of Greek women from sacrifice 87 dictionaries 1,22 Dionisotti, Carlotta vii, 82 n.61, 93 n.25, 109, n.1,132 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 101 and origins of Rome 99 domestic violence 94. Domitius, grammarian 38 drunkeness, as female vice 99 n.48 edictum perpetuimi 75 Egnatius Maetennus, wife-murderer 94 Ego 72,73, 76,78 Ellinger, abbot of Tegernsee 114, 126 encyclopaedias 1, 2,5, 22 n.46 Ennius, cited in Lexicon 16, 17, 49 Table 1, 50,51,54,55,56,57,59,63 Ennodius 118 Epistola de litterìs colendis 124 epitomes 1, 2, 3,4, 6,7,109-35 Equirria 36, 44 Erchia, sacrificial calendar of 100 Euhemerus 35, 43 etymology, in Lexicon 15,16, 17, 27,74 in Ovid 26-27 in Varrò 15 Evander 99 evocatio 103 exesto 89, 107 expiatoryrituals98, 99-100, 106, 107 Fabius Pictor 1 familia 80-81, 82 Farnese, Cardinal Ranuccio, library of 2 Farnesianus (F), 2-3, 8,33 n.l, 137, 138,140, 156 discovery of 2 circulation among humanists 2-3, 8, 138, 142-43, 149 damage to 2-3,121 lost quaternions of 2-3, 8, 138, 143, 148, 149,153 Fasti 2 Fasti Capitolini 27 Fasti Praenestini 2, 26-7,45 Fasti Triumphales 27

173

of Ovid 37 Favonia, priestess of Ceres 102 Favorinus 38,46 Februarius 36,44 Festus, see also Lexicon date of 1,33,45 abbreviator of Verrius Flaccus 11, 19, 52, 62 criticizes Verrius 6,11,47, 54, 59, 61-62 additions to Lexicon 11, 12, 16 n.23 rarity of interventions 61-62 and structure of Lexicon 2, 18 n.29, 19, 23, 39,47 Festus Lexicon Project vii, 4, 8 Fortuna Muliebris 87 Forum Iulii (Cividale) 3 Fulda 119 Funaioli, H. 33, 37, 75 Gellius, Aulus 2, 6, 12, 33, 45, 66, 95, 105, 111,127 citations of Verrius 6, 37,46-47 criticizes Verrius 6 citations of Varrò 6,37, 39 Noctes Atticae 6, 37,46-47, 73 n.17,127 George of Ostia 117 n.43 glossaries Aa 121,128, 129, 134, 135 Abavus\Un3\, 128,129 n.81 Abba (Sangallensis)m, 128, 129 n.81 'Abstrusa-Abolita' 121, 128, 129, 131-35 Affatim 128,129 n.81 Arma 132 Asbestos 128 Corpus 129 n.81 Ps.-Cyrilll4n.31 Liber glossarum 114n.31, 128, 131 Ps. Philoxenus 128 Goetz, Georg 121, 128, 130, 132, 133, 135 Gracchus, quotations of 51 n.5 gradus 71, 76, 77, 78, 82, 86 Graeca sacra 97-103 grammarians, 1,4,6-7,33,37,53,62, 67, 112 Grandazzi, A., on parallels between Lexicon and De lingua Latina 19 n.31, 34 Granius 105 Greek, Paul's knowledge of 118 Greek words in Lexicon 18,46,47,65,73,79, 83, 84, 85, 97-98 Haenel, Gustav 78

174

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

haruspices 25, 46, 107 n.78 Hercules 90, 91, 107 Ara Maxima, exclusion of women from 90 female worship of 90, 107 hermaphrodite birth 100 Hesiod 46 Hincmar 116 n.39 historical writers, rarity of in Lexicon 51 Hugutio of Pisa 115 humanists 2-3, 8, 12, 111, 138, 147 interest in Paul 111 Hyginus73 n.17 Fabulae, at Monte Cassino 120, 126 incorrectly thought cited in Lexicon 50 n.3 idem, use of in Lexicon 14 inheritance, succession 76, 82 Isidore of Seville 45, 73, 115, 120, 122, 154 n.59 Italy, ideology of tota Italia 28, 29 item, use of in Lexicon 14 Julius Caesar, C. 24 n.53, 50,70 Julius Caesar, L. 25 ius civile 82 ius honorum 154 iusmigrandi 153, 154 Juno Februata 44 jurists, and family relationship terminology 7, 70,71,72,73,75-76,79,82,85 knowledge 29-31 gathering and reorganization of in first century BC 26, 29 'control' of tradition 30-31 as elite prerogative 25, 30 n.81, 31 Kriegshammer, Robert, comparison of Lexicon with De lingua Latina 12, 13, 17 n.26 Lachmann, K. 74-75 Laelius, C, probably cited in Lexicon 51 n.5 Lanciotti, S. 137 n 1, 142 n.23, 143 n.28,144, 146 language, Latin 6,15, 51, 55,56 awareness of historical development of 51, 54,55 linguistic change 53,51, 55 rhetorical language 56 poor use of 124 Le Bonniec, H. 96-97,98, 99,100,101 legal terminology 7, 82 lemmas, order of 8, 19

in apographs 3 beginning 'ma' 155, 156 beginning 'mu' 155, 156 doublets 21 n.44, 62 n.47 out of place 21 n.44, 62 n.47 Leto, Pomponio, humanist 3, 12, 138 n.5, 147 and Farnesianus 3, 142, 143, 144 and De lingua Latina 12 lex Romana Visigothorum {Breviarium Alarici) 78 lexicography, lexicographers 69, 70, 71, 73, 77, 79, 82, 115 Lexicon, of Verrius and Festus date 1,24 n.53 composition 5-6 historical context of 1, 22 n.46 editions 4 title4n.l4,33n.l purpose of 6, 11, 29 audience 6, 11,22-24,29 internal evidence for intentions of author(s) 2, 18n.29,23,39,47 use of in antiquity 29 sources of legal 72 n. 15 commentaries 21, 56 quotations from ancient authors 1, 6-7,16, 49-68 pattern of 16, 67-68 infrequency of quotationsfromantiquarians 51 omission of second-century BC prose literature 50-51 order of quotations 62 purpose of 60 citations of Varrò, 43 and see Varrò structure of 6,60-63 division into parts 19-20, 60-61 theory of Millier 19-20, 60-61, 149, 155 articuli praemissi 19 n.32, 35 glosses of 'first part' 76-77 glosses of 'second part' 61 see also alphabétisation groupings of lemmas 19 by theme 19,23 by source 19 subjects of lemmas 11 calendar, festivals 26,44,46

INDEXES family relationship terminology 7, 69-86 history 22 n.46, 24, 28 peoples of Italy 29, 32 religion 7, 26, 87-108 topography 24, 27-28, 31, 32, 44, 123 libations, of milk 95-6, 107 of wine 93, 96, 98, 100 libraries, medieval 118, 119 Cluny 127 Glastonbury 112, 127 Lobbes 126 Lorschll2, 116n.39, 126 Monte Cassino 119-120, 122 Montier-en-Derll2, 126 Lindsay, W. M., Teubner Festus vii, 4, 109-10, 130 Glossarla Latina Festus 4 n.15, 7, 128-35 literature, Latin, first century BC commentaries and collections 6, 7 omission of second-century BC prose from Lexicon 50-51 Livius Andronicus, citations in Lexicon 16 n.23,49 Table 1,64, 65, 67,133 Livy27,29,41, 107 Loicq, J. 36 Lombard kings 3 Lucan, citation by Paul 1, 11, 33, 50 n.3 Lucilius, citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1, 50, 65-67,68 differing treatment of Lucilius in Lexicon 67 Lucretius 6, 21,50 citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1,21, 57-58 use of archaic words 6 luctus, pontifical rules for 80-82 Macrobius37,45,91,98 Maecenas 29 Magna Graecia 97, 102, 103 Magna Mater 103 Phrygian rites 103 Galli 103 mag nus, adjective, in terms of family relationship 70, 73, 74,79 Manitius,M. 112, 118 manuscripts, handlist of mss of Paul 7 see also Manuscripts in Beneventan script 121, 133, 135 n. 101 in Carolingian script 110, 121, 141 marriage 77, 80-81, 85, 98, 105

175

Martial, cited by Paul 1, 11, 33, 50 n.3 Marullus, rhetor 76 Master Gregory, Mirabilia urbis Rornae 123 n.72 Matralia 87 matronal rites 87, 97, 98, 99 memory, as source for quotations 20 minutio 80, 81,82 Mithras, exclusive male cult 90 Modestinus 73,79 n.45 mola salsa 91, 92 Mommsen, T. 26, 141, 151,154 Monte Cassino, abbey 3, 116, 119, 120, 124, 134 Beneventan script 121, 133, 135 n.101 library 119,120 see also manuscripts monuments, Roman 27-28, 123-24 Forum Augustum 27 Forum Romanum 27 Moscadi, Alessandro, 5,11, 111, 114 transcription of Farnesianus 5 mourning 97 Millier, K. O. 4, 12, 19-20, 60-61, 138, 139-40, 141,149, 155 and see Lexicon edition of De lingua Latina 12 numera 153, 154 municeps, placement in Lexicon 8, 139, 14956 theories of Mancini on 8, 137-58 municipium, placement in Lexicon 8, 149-56 theories of Mancini on 8, 137-58 Naevius, citations in Lexicon 16, 49 Table 1 Narbo 1 necessari 74, 76 Nemesianus 118 nèphalia (wineless sacrifices) 99, 100-101, 107 Nettleship, Henry, derides Festus 4 Nigidius Figulus, P., 37, 39, 73 n.17 not cited in Lexicon 37 Nonius Marcellus 12, 73, 110, 125 nostalgia 28 and creation of identity 28 and heritage of Rome 28 Novius, citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1, 58 Numa9, 81

176

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

obscenus, meaning of 59 orators, of second century BC 51 citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1, 51 n.5 Orsini, Fulvio vii n.l, 4, 140, 141, 143, 144 orthography 15 lemmas linked by spelling 15 Osbern of Gloucester, Liber derivationum 115, 116 osculum 11, 94 Ovid 24 n.53, 37, 45, 76, 95, 101 Amores 101 Fasti 26, 37 interest in etymology 26-27 probable incorrect citation of in Lexicon 50 n.4 Pacuvius, citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1 Papias, dictionary 114 n.31 Paul the Deacon (Paulus Diaconus) 3-4, 137 at Charlemagne's court 3, 109,124 at Monte Cassino 3, 116, 122,124 epitome of Festus 33, 116,124,140 additions to Lexicon 33, 50 n.4 dedicatory letter of 3,118,122-24 interventions to Lexicon 3-4, 33, 70, 140, 152 omits antiquarians 4 omits entries on Rome 124 and quotations 3-4, 16,17, 33, 50 transmission of 113, 115 and Roman religion 3,105,152 and Roman society 3, 152 other works of Commenary on the Rule of Benedict 122 Historia Langobardorum 119, 120, 121, 122 letter to Adalhard of Corbie 124 n.74 letter to Adelperga 123 n.69 knowledge of Greek 118 mss of (see also Manuscripts) Duke University Latin MS 49, f. 6rb 13 n.12 humanist copies of 115,138 re-dating of 110, 111 Paul, Saint 33 Paulinus of Aquileia 117 Palatine Anthology 118 Pavia 117 n.43, 118 Pelagius, Pope 119 peregrina sacra 102, 103

persona 11 -72, 76 Peter of Pavia 117 n.43 Peter of Pisa 117 n.43 Peter of Verdun 117 n.43 Phlegon of Tralles 99-100, 107 Piccaluga, G. 95 Pieroni, Paolo, commentary on Festus 5 Pinsent, John, on municeps 149, 153, 155 Pio, Giambattista, first edition of Festus 4 Plato 112 n.21, 126 Plautus21,98 citations in Lexicon 16, 18, 49 Table 1, 53, 63,64,65, 112 n.21, 129 citations by Varrò 17 Pliny the elder 2, 37,45, 93, 95 use of alphabetization 22 frequency of citation in grammatical works 34 Naturalis historia 37 use of Verrius 2, 37 Plutarch 45, 81, 87,90, 91,92, 95, 97 Pohl, Walter 120, 121 Politian, A. 3, 142, 143 apograph by 140 n.14, 142 Pompeius, grammarian, commentary on Donatusll2 Pomponius, citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1 Porcius Latro 76 poriciam, Festus explains intentions in lemma 2,18n.29,23,39,47 Porphyrio, cites Verrius and Festus 1, 37,45 Praeneste 2, 26, 37 priests 106-07 decemviri 106 flamen Cerialis 98 haruspices 25, 46, 107 n.78 pontifices 81 pontifical law 81, 82, 93 symbols of simpulum 96, 106, 107 lituus 96 secespita 96 on coinage 96 priestesses 7, 87, 88,92, 103, 105, 106 damiatrix 106 n.76 expiatrix 106 flaminia 106 n.76 flaminica Dialis 105 flaminicae 7, 87, 106

INDEXES piatrix 106 regina sacrorum 87, 105 sacerdos 106, 107 saga 106, 107 Saliae 106 n.76 simpulatrices 106 simuiatrix 106 Vestal virgins 87, 88, 92, 103, 106 headgear of 104-106 arculum 105 flammeum 105 inarculum 105 rica 105-106 ricinia/recinia 104 riculae 104 suffibulum 106 Wrta 105 Priscian33, 115 citations of Varrò 33 Propertius91 propior 81, 82 Publicia, benefactor of cult of Hercules 90 Quintilian 22, 33 quotations in Lexicon 49-68 purpose of 60 rarity of first century BC authors 50 ancient collections of 6-7, 50, 52, 62, 67 reading 20, 23 reciperatio 75 Regulus 112n.21 Reitzenstein, R., analysis of Lexicon 12, 19, 40, 57 n.27, 61,73,74,75, 81 attributes glosses on degrees of relationship to Aelius Gallus 74 relationship, degrees of 7,69-86 terms of, Greek 79, 83, 84 terms of, male 78 terms of, 'female speaking' 79 lemmas on, attributed to Aelius Gallus 7, 69-86 Roman science of, in late Republican jurists and lexicographers 7 relegano 75 religion, Roman 25, 30, 36, 82 augury 25 Augustan 'restoration' of 25 female expiatory rituals 98, 99-100, 106, 107

177

haruspicy 25, 46, 107 n.78 Hellenization of 97-98 first century BC interest in 30 marginal role of women in 87-89, 104 matronal festivals 98 sacred law 26, 81,82, 93 sacrifice 7, 18,89-92, 102 sacrificial incapacity of women in 7, 87 religiosus 75 research techniques, in antiquity 20 dictation 20, 23 research assistants 20, 21, 23 Rhallus, Manilius 142,143, 144 and discovery of Farnesianus 2 n.6, 141 n.21,142n.24 ritus 104 Rome, Arcadian origin of 99 gates of 23, 123 lemmas on, cut by Paul 124 monuments of 24 topography of 24, 31, 123-24 Romulus 27, 28 n.71,44, 91, 94, 124 Romuleanrites44,96 n.35 Rule of Benedict 119 Rumina 95-96,107 Sabine women, rape of 91-2 sacer 75 sacrifice 7, 18,89-92, 102 civic 102 wineless99, 100-101, 107 St. Gall 115 Sallust, citations in Lexicon 49 Table 1 sanctum 75 S. Vincenzo al Volturno 119, 120 Santra23n.49,41 Savagner, A., French translation of Lexicon 4 n.16, 113 n.25 Scaliger, Joseph, interest in Festus 12 edition of Varrò 12 edition of Festus 4, 12 schedae Laeti 138 n.5, 140, 141, 142 n.26, 143 Scheid, John 87, 88, 89,91, 92, 96, 97, 101 Scholia Vallicelliana 120, 122 Schultz, Celia 90 Scipio Aemilianus, cited in Lexicon 51 script, Beneventan 121,133, 135 n.101 Carolingian 141 Secular Games 88

178

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Seneca, rhetor 76 Septimontium 13, 14, 15, 35, 36, 44 Servius45,73n.l6,98, 105 Sibylline books 97, 107 Sibylline Oracle 99-100 Silvanus 90-91, 107 female exclusion from cult of 90 female worship of 90 Sinnius Capito, source for Verrius 35, 43, 5253, 65, 66 Social War 137, 30 n.81 Strzelecki, L., on sources of Lexicon 17 n.26, 80,81 analysis of structure of lemmas 62 succession ab intestato, in XII Tables 82 Suetonius, De grammaticis (biography of Verrius) 2 n.5, 24, 25, 37,45 Sulpicius Rufus, Servius 73 n.17, 75-76 Terence, cited in Lexicon 49 Table 1, 132 textual transmission 8 Thesmophoria 99, 101,102 Thewrewk de Ponor, E., facsimile edition of Farnesianus 3 Titinius, cited in Lexicon 49 Table 1 Traversali, Ambrogio 115,116 n.36 Trebatius Testa, C. 73n.l6 Turpilius 53 XH Tables 76, 82 citations in Lexicon 53 Valerius Maximus 102 n.60 Valerius Messalla, M. 25, 26,41 Valla, Lorenzo 2 Varrò, 5-6, 16, 17, 18, 25, 31, 41, 79, 154 n.59 works of, Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum 13, 14,36,39,43,44 De comediiis Plautinis 14 De gente populi Romani 14 De lingua Latina 5-6, 12, 15, 17-20,22, 34,52,127 programme of 15,18 n.29, 22 thematic organization of 22, 23, 62 Depoetis 14 De vita populi Romani 14 Europa 14 Quaestiones epistolicae 13, 14,43 Res rusticae 15

Saturae Menippeae 14 cited in Lexicon 6, 13-15, 43 under-representation in Lexicon 6, 14 n.14 in second century AD 6 cited in grammatical works 6, 14 n.14 dominance over antiquarian and grammatical writing 6 working methods 62-63 Vegetius Renatus, Flavius 115, 116 n.36 Veranius 16n.23, 26, 41 Verrius Flaccus 2, 11, 42 46, 70 works of, 2, 42, 46-47 De obscuris Catonis 2, 25, 46, 60 De orthographia 2, 37 Fasti Praenestini 2, 26-27, 37 Libri rerum memoria dignarum 2, 46 Res Etruscae 25 and see Lexicon career of, 2, 24, 25, 37,42 Suetonius' biography of 2 n.5, 24, 25, 37 and Augustus 2, 24-27, 31, 37 and Republican scholarship 2 cited in Lexicon 33,44, 59 and alphabetical organization 22-23, 31, 60-62 working methods of 19-21, 74 study of Catonian language {De obscuris Oztom.y)2,21,25,46,60 sources of use of commentators, glossaries and collections 6, 21, 22, 23, 50, 62 and Varrò attitude to 15,31 common sources of both 16, 18, 19, 62 differences from 18,44-45, 62 independence of 13, 17, 18, 19 Varrò as source 6, 13-17, 18, 31,43 in imperial scholarship 37 loss of prestige 37 and Aulus Gellius cited by Aulus Gellius 37, 39, 46-47 criticized by Aulus Gellius 6,46,47 Vestal virgins 87, 88, 92, 103, 106 Virgil 21, 24 n.53, 93, 132 cited in Lexicon 16 n.23, 21, 24 n.53, 49 Table 1,50,59 Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew 24, 29, 30, 31 Wigbod, Commentary on the Octateuch 117

INDEXES Willibald 119 Willichar of Nomentana 117 n.43 wine, wine-making 93 and women 92-97 ban on female wine drinking 93-95 in Roman religion 93, 96 pontifical law on purity of 93 wine libations by women 93, 96, 98 wineless sacrifices (nêphalia) 99, 100-01, 107 merum n.33, 101 passwn 94, 95 spurcum vinum 93, 94 temetum 92, 94

179

women, in Lexicon 7, 87-108 in Roman religion 7, 87-108 inscribed dedications 90 headgear of as priestesses 104-06 marginalization of 7, 87 'female speaking* terms of relationship 79 use of wine 92-97 excessive drinking 94-95 wifely conduct, ideals of 94, 95 Wynnebald 119 Zacharias, Pope 119 n.51 Zeus Hypatos 99 n.49 Zeus Meilichios 100

FESTUS LEMMATA 118.3 120.6 122.7 124.13 126.11 126.16 126.29 134.14 132.18 136.11

manticularum Mains monstrum mola rnamphula municeps multam Murciae deae manum et mentum masculino

136.23 138.2 138.7 138.13 142.20 144.3

metaphoram metaplasticos metametonymia Mutini Titini minuitur populo luctus

146.9 146.12 146.17 150.36 152.16 154.7 154.9 154.19 156.26 158.19 158.22 158.27 160.3 160.23 160.32 162.17 166.7 166.11 168.2 168.23 174.20 176.3 178.19 180.3 182.4 18? 1?

56-57 149,157 139 149 154, 155 8, 149-56 13,15,43 149 n.47 146, 149 n.47 51n.5,69n.6, 85 56 n.23 56 n.23 56 n.23 56, 144 24 n.53

80, 82, 101 n.57 municipalia sacra 152 146 minora tempia 146 manalisfons murrata potione 13,15,43 me pro mihi 51,53 mendicum 138 Mater Matuta 138 145, 147, 158 Naenia nefrendes 65 n.60 69n.5 necessarius necessari 74,76 nee 53 nequinont 64,133 nequam 65 74, 79 n.47 nexum 69 n.6, 85 18 naccae 23 n.49 naucum navia 28n.71 63 nassa 18 nuptias nuncupata pecunia 17 Numam Pompilium 145-47, 158 85 <noverca> 69n.2 nothus ftt n 60 nnhilfim

182.30 184.8 184.19 188.17 192.1 194.18 196.36 202.14 204.24 210.5 210.11 216.11 218.12 218.27 218.32 222.6 222.25 226.19 226.26 228.10 228.25 230.9 230.18 232.6 232.12 232.33 234.2 236.4 236.10 238.9 242.19

nictare niquis scivit niger lapis Octaviae porticus ocrem orba oreae Opima spolia obscum obsidium obstipum optima lex Oscos ostentum occisitantur Orcum pesnis petissere peteuristas pictor Zeuxis impetum pedam pedibus obsitum pedarium piscina publica piatrix piacularis porca percunctatio perfugam Persicum portum poriciam

260.28 266.22 268.25 268.27 270.16 274.19 276.3

58 139 28n.71, 124 24 n.53, 124 64 73n.l7 5ln.5 13,15 23 n.49 51n.5 57 141 n.18 11 n.2, 59 51n.5 51n.5 35, 44, 47 15 139,154 67 n.72 39, 54 n. 19 11 n.2 23 n.49 65 n.60 66 124 106n.76 123 n.72 11 n.2, 129 129 63 2, 18n.29, 23, 39,47, 54 n. 19 propter viam 129 prodegeris 129, 131 <progenerum> 85 propius sobrino 72 n.14, 73, 74,79 n.49 73, 75 n.32 possesssio 69 n.2 pater patrimus pilâtes 139 peregrina sacra 102, 103 Plebeiae Pudicitiae 28n.71 porcas 13,15 17,28n.71 Publicius clivus

T77 7

nntevtur

254.12 254.19 256.2 260.25

*1 n Ç

INDEXES petreia praecem pronubae puis pro censu classis iuniorum 290.21 procura patricum 290.27 praerogativae centuriae

278.33 280.24 282.16 284.23 290.16

139 132 139 139 13, 14, 15,43 14 13, 14, 15,35, 43 65 n.62 14n.l6 14n.l6 14n.l6 14n.l6 14n.l6 139 124 51n.5 47 52n.l4,58 13,15

pue Hi puilia prox Penatis proculiunt Popularia sacra priveras Romani quatenus quatere rodus Ruminalem ficum 'Rhondes Icadionque1 66 65 n.62 334.19 redantruare 134 334.25 redivivum 51n.5 334.28 redarguisse reciperatio 75n.31 342.9 104 n.69 342.20 recinium 105 n.70 342.27 ricae 63, 65 n.62 344.15 remeligines 75n.31 348.18 relegati 75 348.22F' religiosus 354.25 28n.71 356.23 recepticium servum 46 26 358.21 rituales 13 358.30 religionis 51n.5 362.28 requeapse 51 n.5 362.33 respublica 55 364.12 recto fronte 105n.71 rica 368.3 65 370.20 suppum 24 n.53 370.35 Servilius lacus 28n.71 Sacram viam 372.8 374.25 Sublicium pon 124 47, 54 n. 19 378.21 scurrae

290.35 298.8 298.16 298.18 298.21 298.22 300.10 326.28 312.26 314.7 320.24 332.8 332.25

379.6

181

71, 72 n.14, 73, 74, 76, 77-80 380.5 Sororium Tigillum 28 n.71, 154, 155 64 392.25 suasuni 394.6 superescit 63 398.9 subsidium 18n.28 131 406.25 <sutelae> 408.14 sus Minervam 11 n.2, 13, 15, 35,43 65 n.60 408.25 struices 18 410.28 strebula 69 n.5,76 n.34 412.13 stir 414.14 strit 69 n.6, 86 416.13 satura 51 n.5 426.5 sagaces 106,107 54 432.20 sas 434.7 saperda 13,15 436.14 Salacia 24n.53,50n.4 436.31 salva res 39,47, 54 n. 19 106 n.76 439.18 salias virgines 47 440.5 salicem 16n.22, 17 446.2 spicit 450.4 Sceleratus vi<cus> 28 n.71 450.8 Scele 28 n.71 454.1 13, 15,43 sinistrae aves 458.1 35,36,44 <Septimontium> 460.32 servorum dies 139,154157 464.18 Sabini 14,15 466.36 summissiorem 21n.44 468.3 sex Vestae 139,154,157 sacerdotes 470.5 senacula 62 n.47 470.34 solida sella 47 472.9 suffragato 14,15 472.15 struppi 14n.l6 472.19 secespitam 14n.l6 474.3 suffibulum 106 474.19 scribtum lapidem 14n.l6 474.31 spurcum vinum 14n.l6,93 14, 15,44 474.36 Septimontio 476.14 sisterefana 14n.l6,61n.43 14n.l6,61n.43 476.18 subigere arie tern 11 n.2, 47, 54 476.36 satis n.l9,61n.45 14 478.22 Tauri ludi 478.34 Talassionem 14, 15, 19 57 480.29 uditantes sobrinus

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

182

482.7 482.30 484.9 484.32

topper torrens turmam tutulum

486.12

' Tuscum vicum

63 75 18 16 n.22, 52 n.ll 14,28n.71

492.4 494.9 496.8 498.13 500.9 512.15

tagax tutum Tatium tersum diem temetum vapula Papiria

67 14, 15 47 47 94 14/15, 60 n.36

PAUL LEMMATA 2.3 10.15 11.20 12.21 12.28 13.1 13.3

Augustus adfines altam avus abavus atftjavus avunculus

13.8

amita

15.6 26.17 30.17 30.23 30.27 31.13 32.4 32.5 32.14 33.18 37.12 41.22 42.9 45.18 46.22 50.6 50.7 59.3 60.1 63.13 65.13 71.15 72.10 72.17 73.10 75.23 76.27 80.8

arculum adoptaticius bidental bigenera blatterare bardus bellarium et bellaria bellitudinem barbari Collatina porta ciccum cassabundus cuppes et cupedia: Chalcidicum creterrae caeso caesar dusmo in loco damium deblaterare diabathra Equirria exesto epicrocum Erebum Februarius familia fratria

80.11

frater

82.23 83.20

flaminia gentilis

24 69n.5 69 n.6, 77, 83 69 n.6, 74, 83 69 n.6, 74, 83 69 n.6, 74, 83 69 n.6, 72 n. 14, 74,78 n.41, 83 69 n.6, 71, 72, 74, 76, 83 105 n.73 69n.2 128, 131 131 131 33,50 14n.l8 13 n.12 33 123 n.72 17 21 13 128, 131, 132 21 n.43 69n.2 69n.2 15 106n.76 131 17,21 36,44 89, 107 21 13 36,44 69n.5 69 n.6, 73, 74, 84 69 n.6, 73 n. 17, 80n.51,84 106n.76 69 n.6; 73 n. 17

86.23 87.16

grallatores glos

90.7 95.28 101.5 102.14 102.22

hilum impages inarculum lepista levir

109.22 militem 112.6 112.18 113.5 113.25 113.25 117.5 121.9 121.10 121.11 121.12 121.13 121.14 121.15 123.7 125.5 125.18 131.21 135.15 137.16 137.3 147.5 155.4

16 73, 74, 79 n .44, 84 139 139,140 105 21 n.43 69 n.6, 72 n• 14, 73, 74, 79 n .44, 84 6, 18 n.29, 36, 45

mensa frugibusque 145-47 iurato murricidum 155 matrimes et 69n.2 patrimes magnam socrum 73, 74, 79 n .46, 84 magnum socerum 73, 78 n.41,, 79 n.46, 84 municeps 8, 149-56 matertera matris 74,84 matertera patris 69 n.6, 72 n .14, 73, 74, 84 69 n.6, 70, 74, maior patruus 84 maior avunculus 69 n.6, 70, 74, 84 maior amita 69 n.6, 70, 74, 84 maior socer 69 n.6, 72 n.14, 73, 74, 84 69 n.6, 72 n.14, maior socrus 73, 74, 84 monimentum 26 n.63 monstrum 139 munus 151,155 myoparo 155 Murciae deae 149n.47 masculino 85 millus 51 n.5 municipalia sacrei 152 mendicum 138,158

184

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Mater Matuta 138 Neniae 158 nepos 69 n.6, 85 nepotes 85 Numae Pompila 158 nihili 139 noverca 69 n.6, 85 nequam 65 Opiter 69n.2 Piacularis porta 123n.72 pangere 139,140 139,154 petissere percontatio 129 perfuga 129 paginae 139,140 69 n.6, 85 parens pronurus 69 n.6, 86 69n.2 proculus 69 n.6, 85 privignus profecturi viam 129 prodigere 129 progenerimi 69 n.6, 85 69 n.6, 79 n.49, propius sobrino 86 139 273.5 pilâtes 13,15 275.6 porcas 281.4 petreia 139 139 283.15 pronubae 285.14 puis 139 139 priveras 301.5 155.20 157.5 162.17 163.6 179.10 181.2 181.3 185.6 201.17 235.1 235.5 . 235.14 237.2 237.5 247.8 247.11 250.21 251.14 252.24 255.6 255.7 257.2 261.7

rorarios 323.8 rica 369.1 379.10 sobrinus sciscito 391.6 399.2 Sororium Tigillum 411.10 strebula 415.1 strittavum 437.6 Salacia 427.3 saga 453.3 sex milium et ducentorum 455.14 simpulum 455.17 senaculum 459.1 septimontium 467.1 servorum dies 475.12 sex Vestae sacerdotes 479.13 Talassionem 506.14 vesperugo 506.16 vespae et vespillones

16 105 69 n.6, 86 139 139, 155 18 69 n.6, 86 50n.4 106, 107 21 n.44 96 62 n.47 36 139,154, 157 139,154,157 14 16 11,50 n.3

INDEX OF ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUDING FESTUS AND PAUL) Apuleius, Apol. 55 Aristophanes, Thesm. 733-64 Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 2.7.3 Ateius Philologus, Liber glosematorum 2GRF Augustus, Res gestae Aurelius Opillus l&GRF Caecilius, Hymnis 72R3 = 65W Hymnis 74R3 = 67W Imbris 99R3 = 90W Cato, Agr. 83 Agr. 143.1 Dissertano consulatus 25 = 47M3 = 37C Cicero, ad Q. F. 2.10.3 = Letter 14.3SB Balb. 55 Brutus Leg. 1.5.17 Nat. deor. 2.26 Nat. deor. 3.24 Verr. 2.4.99 Cincius, De verbis priscis 3GRF 29GRF Columella 12.18-45 12.19.2 com. inc. 64R3 Curiatius IGRF 2GRF 3GRF Depraenom. 4, p. 589 Kempf 6, p. 590 Kempf De gradibus cognationum 1 2 Dig. 10.10.4.4 38.10.4.6 38.10.10 38.10.1.6-7 38.10.10.9 38.10.10.15-18 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.33.1 1.40 2.19.3-5 2.25.6-7 6.17.2-4 6.94.3

57 n.25 99 n.48 97 64 24 n.53 18 58 129 57 90n.ll 107 55 58n.31 98n.43, 102 51 76 n.33 38 38 100n.54, 102 n.: 52 57 93 n.26 93 n.27 56 18 18 17-18 69n,4 69n.4 71 n.10 72n.l2 79 n.45 73 n.21 73n.l6,.82n.60 70n.9 71 n.10 70 n.8,73 n. 16 99 n.47 91 n.17 103 n.65 94 n.29 97 n.41 97n.41

186

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL

Ennius, Ann.60 Sk 65Sk 98Sk 119Sk 136Sk 137Sk 166Sk 211Sk 265Sk 291Sk 309Sk 419Sk 422Sk 509Sk trag. 387R3 = 407V3 = 415W Gaius, Inst. 3.6.7 Aulus Gellius, NA 1.18 1.25 3.3.1 3.18 4.5.6 5.17.1 5.18.1-3 10.15.28 10.23 13.6-7 13.10.4 13.13 16.14.3-4 17.6.2 17.6.4-6 17.6.11 18.7.3 18.7.5 18.7.8 19.14 Horace, Carm. 3.6 Epist. 2.1.144 Isidore, Orig. 9.1 Al Juvenal 6.343 Livius Andronicus, Odissia 15W = 11M 31R3 = 32W 32-33R3 = 33-34W 34R3 = 35W 35R3 = 30W Livy, Praef. 4-5 7.3.7 22.56.4-5 27.37.4-15

55 55 54 51 57 51 55 54 57 59 56 57 54 56 55 71 n.10 38 38 60 66 2,46 46 46 105 93-94 14n.l8 73n.l7 15.30.1 46-47 2,46, 60 n.37 46 46 46 46 46 37 28 n.76 96 n.35 73 n.21 96 n.36 64 64 64 64 64 29 41 97 n.40 107 n.78

INDEXES 34.6.15 Lucan 1.449 Lucilius 103 lM=1096Kr = 1067W =: 30.23Œ 1227M=1251Kr =:1076W:= H10Ch 1102M=1113Kr =:1134W:= H103Ch 1220M=1244Kr =:1193W:= H37Ch 1292M=1308Kr =: 197W = H79Ch 1297M=1313Kr =:H66Ch Lucretius 4.519 6.836 1142-43 Macrobius, Sat. 1.12.27-28 3.11.2 3.12.2 Martial 1.30.1 Martianus Capella 2.149 Marullus ap. Seneca, Contr. 1.1.12 Mythographi Romani 111.3 Naevius Bell. Pun. 12W = 31M Nonius 51L 167L 176.20L De propinquitate p. 894L Novius, Maccus copo 47R3 Ovid, Am. 3.10.47-48 Ars 3.637-38 Fasti 2.621-22 Fasti 4.27-30 Fasti 4.745-46 Her. 3.27-28 Met. 10.431-36 Met. 13.141-45 Pacuvius, Teucer 324R3 = 372W 377R3 = OOOW Pausanias 1.26.5 5.15.10 Phlegon, Mir. 10.22-23 Diels Plautus, Aul. 354 Amph.215 Amph. 404 AmphAXl Amph.Kïb Aul. 354 Aul. 513 Friv. 78L Friv. 80L Mil. 581 Most. 240 Nervolaria 97

97 n.40,102 n.63 ll,33,50n.3 67 51 66 65 66 65 57 58 57 90 n.l 1,91 n.16 98 91 n.17 l,33,50n.3 45 76 45 21 73n.l7 95 n.34 13n.l3 69n.3,79n.21 58 95 n.33,101 91n.l5 76 n.36 76 n.36 96 n.35 76 n.36 101 n.57, 102 n.63 76 n.36 54 56 99 n.49 99 n.49 99 n.52, 107 n.79 98 16 63 63 63 98 17n.25 16 18n.28 63 53 129

188

Poen.530 True. 271 Pliny the elder, NH 14.80 14.82 14.88 14.89 14.89-91 14.119 17.1.2 27 35.154 35.158 37 37.138 37.151-56 Pliny the younger, Ep. 3.5.11 Plut., Fab. Max. 18.1-2 NumaXl Quaest. Conv. 4.6.2 QR 57 QR 60 QR85 Rom 4 Rom. 15.4 Rom, 19.1 Propertius 4.9 Quintilian 1.7.30 1.7.33 Servius, AenA.131 Aen.5.412 Georg. 1.344 Sinnius Capito SGRF Ì5GRF Statius, Thebaid 5.551 Strabo 5.4.4 Suetonius, Aug. 86.3 De gramm. 17 Tibullus 1.1.36 Turpilius, Demetrius 24R3 XII Tables 5.4RS 5.7RS 8.16RS 5.4RS Valerius Maximus 1.1.1 1.1.15 6.3.9 Vano, De gradibus LL 5.9-10 LL 5.41

VERRIUS, FESTUS, AND PAUL 16 64 93 n.27 95 n.32 96 n.35 94,95 94n.29 93n.28 25n.54 22 n.48 98n.42 96n.36 22 n.48 22 n.48 22 n.48 23 n.51 97 n.40, 102 n.63 81 n.55 99 n.47 95 90 91 95n.34 91 n.18 91n.l8 90 n. 11,91 n. 16 22 22 105 73n.l6 98 53 65 106 n.77 102 n.59 25 n.59 2 n.5, 24, 25, 26, 37 96 n.35 53 82 n.59 53 53 82 n.59 98 n.43, 102 n.60 97 n.40, 102 n.59 94 73 n. 16 18n.29 44

INDEXES LL5.66 LL 5.87-91 LL5.91 LL 5.89 — ^ L L 5.124 LL5.130 LL5.158 LL 5.163-65 LL 6.6 LL 6.12 LL 6.15 LL 6.24 LL6.34 LL 6.60 LL 6.82 LL7.10 LL 7.26-28 LL 7.44 LL 7.50 LL 7.53 LL 7.58 LL 7.67 LL 7.69 LL7.91 LL 7.107 RR 2.11.5 32GRF 2Ì5GRF U5GRF gil,Aen.3.241 Aen.3.361 AenA.60-61 Eel. 1.3.3

44 18n.28 17 18n.29 96 104 17 22 16 44 91 n.17 44 44 17 16 n.22 23 n.49 15 16 n.22 16 21 16 18 16 17 23 n.49 95 n.34 14n.l5 16 n.22 14 59 59 93 n.24 96 n.35

INSCRIPTIONS C/L12285 CIL l 2 331 CIL 6.2181 CIL 6.2182 C/L 6.30899 C/L 9.4200

26 n.65 101 n.57 98 n.43, 102 98 n.43, 102 90n.l3 102n.62

CIL 10.812 CIL 10.1074 CIL 10.4793 CIL 10.4794 C/L 14.4327 LSCG 18

102n.62 102n.62 102n.62 102n.62 90n.l4 100n.55

MANUSCRIPTS Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Class. 18 (M.V.15) Basel, Universitàtsbibliothek N11 Nr. 9° Berlin, Staatsbibliothek 1021 Cambridge, Trinity College Library 1315 (0.5.34) Durham, NC, Duke University Lat. 49 Escoriai, Real Biblioteca g.III.9 O.III.31 Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit LP67E BPL 135 BPL191 Voss. Lat. 0.37 Voss. Lat. Q.116 Leipzig ms Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional Reserv. 4.7 Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia 90 401 439 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek elm 4719m elm 14734 elm 29670 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale IV.A.3 (Farnesianus) Oxford, Balliol College 155 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Lat. 2341 Lat. 7530 Lat. 7575 Lat. 10295 Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale Augusta 569 (H.54) Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana A 18 San Gimignano, Biblioteca Comunale 43

112n.21 113,125 111,113,127 111, 113 n.22, 114, 126 13n.l2, 116n.38 111,127 116n.39, 125 133 n.93 110,125 113,127 125 116n.39, 125 111,113, 127 133 n.93 121,135 134, 135 131,133, 134 133 n.93 125 133 n.93 2-3, and see Farnesianus 114,127 133 n.93 135n.l00 126 111, 113,127 114 n.27 120 111,127

INDEXES Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale 2291 126 University of Texas at Austin, HRHRC, Parsons Collection HRC 29 110,114,126 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Reg.Lat. 314 110, 126 135 Vat. Lat. 1468 Vat. Lat. 1469 121 Vat. Lat. 1471 134, 135 Vat. Lat. 1549 (X) 8, 137, 138, 141, 143, 147-49, 15, 158 Vat. Lat. 2731 137 Vat. Lat. 2733 111, 127 Vat. Lat. 3320 134,135 Vat. Lat. 3321 (CLA I, 15) 131, 132, 133, 134 8,138,142 Vat. Lat. 3368 Vat. Lat. 3369 (W) 8, 137, 138, 141, 143-48, 158 Vat. Lat. 6018 133 n.93 Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek 142 110, 126 Wolfenbuttel, Herzog-August Bibliothek Aug. 4° 10. 3 110, 111 n.l 1, 114 n.39, 116 n.39, 125 Gud.Lat.287 111 n. 11 Wurzburg, Universitatsbibliothek M. p. misc. f. 23 110 n.5, 113,125

191