Donati Graeci
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Editorial Board
William V. Harris (editor) Eugene F. Rice, jr.†, Alan Cameron, Suzanne Said Kathy H. Eden, Gareth D. Williams
VOLUME 32
Donati Graeci Learning Greek in the Renaissance
By
Federica Ciccolella
LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008
Cover illustration: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS. 2167 (Liber Donati, end of the fifteenth century), fol. 13v: young Earl Massimiliano Ercole Sforza at school. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ciccolella, Federica. Donati Graeci : learning Greek in the Renaissance / by Federica Ciccolella. p. cm. -- (Columbia studies in the classical tradition ; 32) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-16352-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Greek language--Study and teaching--History--To 1500. 2. Greek philology--History--To 1500. I. Title. II. Series. PA57.C53 2009 480.71--dc22 2008039458
ISSN: 0166-1302 ISBN: 978 90 04 16352 2 Copyright 2008 by The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands
Marco carissimo
CONTENTS
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
Chapter One. The Latin Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Aelius Donatus’ Artes: A Pedagogical Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Shaping of the Medieval Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Donatus(es) as Schoolbook(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Ianua(e): Structure and Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Vernacular Donatus(es) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Donati meliores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. The Association with Disticha Catonis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Printed Editions of Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Learning Latin: Repetition, Memorization, and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. The Latin Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1 8 16 20 29 44 47 52
Chapter Two. The Greek Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Position of Greek in Roman Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Greek Grammar in the Middle Ages: An Impossible Dream? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Humanism and the Revival of Greek Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Byzantine Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Practicing Greek Grammar: Erôtêmata, Epimerismoi, and Schedography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Making of Humanist Greek Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Other Grammars and Course Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Teaching Greek in Humanist Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Schools of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Teaching Greek in Greek: Michael Apostolis and the “Direct Method” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75 77
54 56 63
85 97 103 109 118 124 130 139 146
viii
contents
Chapter Three. Donati graeci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. In Search of the Greek Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Four Donati graeci or Pylai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Pylê a: The Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Pylê a: Toward a Stemma Codicum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Pylê a as a Grammar Book: The Variable Parts of Speech . . 6. Pylê a as a Grammar Book: The Invariable Parts of Speech and the Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. The Other Donati graeci: Pylai as Compilations or Donati compositi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. The Manuscripts of the Donati compositi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. The Donati compositi as Grammar Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. The Language of the Greek Donatus: Between Greek and Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. The Greek Cato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Four. The Greek Donati and Their Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Latin in Byzantium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Maximus Planudes and the Greek Donatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Places of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Using the Donati graeci in Schools: “Reutilization” and “Superimposition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
151 152 154 158 172 180 195 198 200 209 221 225 229 229 237 244 259
TEXTS Donatus graecus a Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix latina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus b Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus c Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus d Siglorum conspectus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
263 266 398 401 403 429 430 493 495
contents Notes Donatus graecus a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donatus graecus d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
513 523 529 544
Appendix I. Comparing the Four Donati graeci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 Appendix II. The Manuscripts of Ianua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 Index of Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Index of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
INTRODUCTION
Hi nunc Constantinopoli capta quis dubitet incendio quaevis scriptorum monumenti concidentur? Nunc ergo et Homero et Pindaro et Menandro et omnibus illustrioribus poetis secunda mors erit. Nunc Graecorum philosophorum ultimus patebit interitus. Restabit aliquid lucis apud Latinos, at fateor neque id erit diuturnum. [Now that [the Turks] have captured Constantinople, who can doubt that every memorial of the ancient writers will be set on fire? Now Homer, Pindar, Menander, and all the most famous poets will die for the second time. Now the last destruction of the Greek philosophers will be at hand. A gleam will survive among the Latins, but, I would say, it will not last for a long time either.]1
Few phenomena shaped Western European culture as significantly as the rediscovery of ancient studies during the Renaissance. As Jacob Burckhardt has pointed out, “though the essence of the phenomena [i.e., the cultural aspects of the Renaissance] might still have been the same without the classical revival, it is only with and through this revival that they are actually manifested to us.”2 As the ideal training for the ideal citizen of the new era, the system of humanist education replaced the medieval curriculum, which had equipped individuals with complex skills appropriate to specialized tasks, but was based on the authoritative message of a few selected texts. The influence of the culture of antiquity had not died out in Europe during the Middle Ages. The revival of classical antiquity promoted by Charlemagne in the ninth century was already a form of Renaissance; even some aspects of monastic scholarship can be understood by considering the direct influence of Latin writers, whose works had continued to be copied, studied, and imitated within the walls of medieval monasteries. Despite the increasing spread of vernacular languages, Latin kept its role as the language of the church, law, and international affairs, as well as of science and learning, throughout 1 From a letter by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) to Cardinal Nicholas of Cues, 21 July 1453 (Pertusi 19902, 2. 54). 2 Burckhardt 1990 [1860], 120.
xii
introduction
the Middle Ages, especially in Italy, where the Roman past had left the most outstanding traces. However, the Renaissance’s attitude toward classical antiquity was very different from that of the Middle Ages. The rebirth of city life, which started in Italy in the fourteenth century, favored the rise of a new culture and, at the same time, the rediscovery of the past: “Culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic bond of the Middle Ages, […] needed a guide, and found one in the ancient civilization.”3 Men of culture continued to study the Latin authors of the medieval curriculum, but expanded their knowledge by adding other authors and literary works. Recovering ancient texts that, for a long time, had lain neglected in monastic libraries of Europe became the goal of many humanists. The new manuscripts made up large collections, and the texts they contained reached a wider audience: the use of a simplified handwriting in manuscripts and, later, the invention of printing sped the reproduction of books and made their circulation easier. Translations spread the knowledge of these texts among a wider public.4 This new culture had enormous effects on education. In the humanist system of global education of the perfect citizen, the humanities acquired a significant place, along with the seven liberal arts and more practical disciplines, such as law and medicine.5 At the same time, ethical and religious values were nurtured: finally, the conflict between ancient pagan culture and Christianity found a solution in Burckhardt 1990 [1860], 123. See also Kristeller 1979 [1955], 19–20; Witt 2000, 173; and Marcucci 2002, 15–19. Scholars have often emphasized that, among the Italian city-states, Florence had partially recreated the political and social environment of fifth century Athens: the rise of a new class of merchants and traders encouraged the development of human abilities and being open to the world, while wealth and power—and not the nobility of birth—determined participation in political life. Florentines grounded the pursuit of human happiness in the use of creative intelligence and the fulfillment of the values of antiquity: virtue, justice, wisdom, and prudence, i.e., the four Platonic virtues (cf. Symp. 209A). Thus, there was no contradiction between the individual quest for material wealth and Christian morality. See, e.g., Stinger 1988, 176ff. 4 On Renaissance translations, see in particular the excellent works by Baldassarri (2003) and Botley (2004). 5 The idea that the humanities are a necessary component of a “global education” is expressed in Pier Paolo Vergerio’s treatise De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus studiis adulescentiae (text and translation in Kallendorf 2000, 2–91, in particular 28–29). See Buck 1959, 273f.; Gundersheimer 1965, 7 and 25 (with a partial translation of the treatise, 26–38); and Garin 1966, 114f. 3
introduction
xiii
the West. By the first half of the fifteenth century, the studia humanitatis became a clearly defined circle of scholarly disciplines: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy. In each of these disciplines, the reading and interpretation of Latin and Greek authors played an important role.6 The humanities were not regarded as an encouragement to otium, but as a necessary support of negotium, a stimulus to action; the imitation of the style and content of the works of the classical writers provided an excellent source of inspiration.7 The picture, however, is not homogeneous. Although the crisis of medieval pedagogy had already emerged during Petrarch’s time (1304–1374), there was no conscious break with the past until the fifteenth century. For a long time, humanist teachers continued to use medieval teaching methods, readings, and schoolbooks, and to regard repetition, memorization, and imitation as the students’ main tasks.8 Moreover, in spite of the steady rise of the vernacular languages, the prevalence of Latin as the medium of instruction remained unchallenged for a long time.9 The manifold aspects of the humanist revival of ancient culture have been extensively studied. In the last hundred years, the discovery and publication of many documents has offered a more precise and detailed picture of Renaissance education. Evaluating the relationship between the new pedagogy and medieval culture and education, however, is much more difficult:10 the interpretation of the extent According to Kristeller (1979 [1955], 23 ff.), the humanists’ main concern was literature. In fact, most of them were teachers, professors, or secretaries to princes or cities; most of their works were orations, letters, poems, or historical works. Therefore, “Renaissance humanism must be understood as a characteristic phase in what may be called the rhetorical tradition of Western culture.” Kristeller denies a philosophical origin of Humanism, even if he acknowledges the impact of the new culture on philosophy because of the emphasis placed on the individual and the rediscovery of the Greek philosophers. 7 Witt (2000, 8ff.), instead, interprets Renaissance education as being based on a polarity between vita contemplativa and vita activa and considers grammar and rhetoric to represent the terms of this opposition. Such a contrast was not felt in antiquity: grammar and rhetoric were complementary in education. For an overview of the history of modern studies on the Renaissance after Burckhardt see Rabil 1988; and Celenza 2004, 1–57. 8 See Padley 1976, 9: “Rather than a training in original thought, [humanist pedagogy] proposed a model of elegance.” Therefore, “everywhere, Renaissance grammar remains to a large extent bound up with rhetoric.” 9 See, e.g., Bolgar 1954, 267 ff.; and Garin 1958, XIII ff. 10 For example, Garin (1958, 91–104, al.) emphasized the contrast between medieval education and Renaissance pedagogy, which he regarded as a sort of revolution. 6
xiv
introduction
and effects of the changes in humanist education, as well as the evaluation of its continuity with the past, are still being discussed. However, it is undeniable that the classical revival was extremely important, at least in the intentions of humanist educators: the idea of an indissoluble bond between past and present inspired the pedagogical theories of the Renaissance.11 The re-introduction of Greek studies in the West represented a significant innovation in Renaissance culture. Most contemporaries were aware of its importance and described it as a sort of “miracle,” due to the initiative of some individuals (Coluccio Salutati and the Florentine humanist circles) and to the ability of a Byzantine teacher (Manuel Chrysoloras) who taught Greek to Westerners. Actually, the Greek revival was the culminating point of a long process; the alternately friendly and hostile relationships between Byzantium and the West had contributed to the mutual knowledge of the two worlds. Interestingly enough, the West and Byzantium followed parallel paths in their mutual approach: the interest in Greek culture that, during the fourteenth century, began to develop in the West, corresponded to the spread of Latin culture in Byzantium.12 The migration of Byzantine scholars to Italy, which had started long before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453),13 disclosed to Westerners a culture almost unknown to them: Greek writers, whom Westerners had forgotten since the end of antiquity, were read, translated, commented on, and imitated. Gemistos Plethon’s lectures challenged centuries of Scholasticism and, in this way, the foundations of medieval culture. On the other hand, both Byzantine scholarship and Western culture Almost three decades later, Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine (1986, xii–xiv) challenged Garin’s assumption by pointing out the aspects of continuity with the past displayed by humanist culture, in general, and with school, in particular. Black (1991a, 315 ff.) offers a summary in an analysis of the conclusions reached by Grendler (1989; see, however, Grendler 1991, 335 ff.). See also Witt 1988. 11 See Grafton-Jardine 1982, 55. 12 See in particular Kristeller 1966, 21ff. In any case, Byzantium’s interest in Latin culture was less intense and was basically restricted to the Latinophrones, the supporters of the Union (i.e., of the return of the Orthodox Church under the sovereignty of the Church of Rome). 13 See Monfasani 2002, 30: “We no longer believe in the myth that Greek emigrés fleeing the fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused the Renaissance in Italy.” This idea, expressed by the humanist Pier Candido Decembrio, has been repeated for centuries in textbooks as the “logical” cause of the Italian Renaissance; see Burke 2001 [19992], 243, who compares this migration to the flight of central European scholars to England and America after 1933; and Bianca 2006, 4.
introduction
xv
were heirs to the homogeneous Greco-Roman κοιν of late antiquity. Thus, for example, Byzantine and Western scholars practiced the same methods of teaching and approaching ancient texts; the focus on studia humanitatis in humanist schools resembled the rhetorical training of Byzantine schools in the Palaeologan age.14 For this reason, Byzantine curriculum and pedagogy could be easily transferred in the West; Western scholars who wanted to practice their Greek read the same texts and did the same exercises as Byzantine students. The re-introduction and the spread of Greek studies in the West, however, required important transformations with respect to the ancient Greek and Byzantine traditions; for example, it became necessary to adapt Byzantine grammar, conceived for native Greek speakers, to the needs of students who approached Greek as a foreign language, usually through Latin. Only those changes could grant to Greek studies a permanent place in Western culture. So far, scholarship has paid little attention to grammar books, lexica, and dictionaries: in other words, to the tools that made this revival possible, as well as to the methods that teachers followed to impart to their students a knowledge of Greek.15 Even a partial analysis of these tools reveals that the return of Greek studies to the West was everything but a straightforward process; its history includes bright triumphs and depressing failures, consent and criticism, acceptance and resistance. Byzantine emigrés who taught Greek in Italy became rich and famous (e.g., Manuel Chrysoloras) or were frustrated in their ambitions (e.g., Michael Apostolis); Westerners who spent their energies learning Greek could reach an impressive mastery of the language (e.g., Bruni, Filelfo, and Politian) or remain obscure and mediocre scholars. More importantly, this “minor” grammatical material, still largely unexplored, reveals that Chrysoloras, the author of the first Greek grammar for Westerners, See in particular Geanakoplos 1988, 350f. See Cortesi 1986, 164 f.: “La difficoltà maggiore nasce […] dalla mancanza di studi sistematici e organici relativi all’uso dei manuali di grammatica per l’apprendimento del greco in occidente, alla loro struttura e alle fonti in essi confluite […] La conoscenza del fenomeno grammaticale greco imporrebbe […] un preciso lavoro di raccolta dapprima di tutti i testimoni rimasti, fase indubbiamente faticosa per l’immenso materiale che giace inedito nelle biblioteche, per passare poi all’analisi e alla verifica dei contenuti.” Pontani (1996, 135) also stresses the importance of the study of lexica and grammar books: “Qualunque discorso sulla presenza della lingua greca in Occidente deve fondarsi sula positiva conoscenza degli strumenti attraverso i quali la lingua poteva essere appresa: cioè grammatiche e lessici.” 14 15
xvi
introduction
was not the demiurge or the deus ex machina that his contemporaries described. First of all, Byzantine scholarship of the Palaeologan age already had promoted a rethinking of Greek grammatical tradition; during the Palaeologan age, Byzantine elementary grammar was slowly undergoing a process of simplification to meet the demands of students for whom the Attic Greek still used in literature and documents was like a foreign language. Secondly, Chrysoloras’ main innovation—the use of the Latin system of declensions based on the ending of the genitive singular for Greek nominal inflection, anticipated by Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century—was not the only case of application of a Latinate scheme to Greek grammar. The four Greek Donati, the object of this book, represent four attempts to create a Greek grammar modeled on Latin; thus, students could learn Greek using patterns as familiar to them as those that they had used to learn Latin. A study of the four Donati graeci must take into account the complex balance between continuity and innovation in grammatical studies and pedagogy, as well as the interaction and exchanges between East and West during the Renaissance. The Greek Donati are Greek translations or adaptations of the so-called Donatus or Ianua, an elementary book used during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in learning Latin. By unveiling the origin, function, and fate of the Greek Donati, it will be possible to analyze an almost unknown aspect of the revival of Greek studies in the Renaissance. As Greek grammar books, in fact, the Greek Donati are failed experiments: they were not deemed worthy of a printed edition, nor, apparently, did they circulate outside of Italy and/or Crete. One of the four texts, version a, probably originated as a simple word-for-word translation of the Latin textbook for Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. During the fifteenth century, this version, perhaps originally written in the interlinear spaces of a Latin text, became an independent grammar and was used to learn Greek; apparently, Greek Donatus a did not undergo the process of adaptation of Latin morphology to the “target language” that led to the composition of Donati in modern languages.16 More advanced and improved grammars replaced the Greek Donatus, but the replacement 16 See below, 44–46. “Greek Donatus a” applies to several Greek versions of Ianua, which are different from each other but, apparently, closely related for their approach to the original text and the language used.
introduction
xvii
may not have been complete. In fact, when the extant manuscripts of version a were produced, the Greek grammars of Manuel Chrysoloras, Theodore Gaza, Constantine Lascaris, and some other Greek scholars already existed. Thus, Greek Donatus a, the Donatus translatus, may have been transformed into an independent grammar in an area where such books were not circulating. Many elements point to Crete or some other Venetian colony in Greece as possible places of origin. It is highly probable that some Venetian officers and their families brought the most widespread elementary Latin schoolbook, Ianua, and that the book was later translated into Greek. Versions b, c, and d, on the other hand, are clear and conscious attempts to create “real” Greek elementary grammars using Ianua’s structure. Some parts maintain a tight link with the Latin text, while some other parts are taken from authentic Greek grammatical material, especially from Moschopoulos’ erôtêmata or from his source(s). In all three Donati compositi, for example, the paradigms of the section on verbs are derived from the same source, which was probably an improved Greek translation of Ianua. Most probably, Donati compositi were just some of the many compilations of grammatical material available at that time. In any case, compiling seems to be a typical method in the composition of Renaissance Greek grammars: for example, some sections of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata closely echo Moschopoulos’ work. As Greek grammars, in spite of their many differences, the four Donati graeci show some common features. All of them consider five nominal declensions and four regular verbal conjugations (with the addition of a variable number of irregular verbs, all modeled on Latin). The parts of speech expounded are the same and in the same order as in Ianua: this means that in Greek there is no article, but, as in Latin, there is an interjection. Greek nouns lack a dual but have an ablative (and Greek prepositions can take the ablative, too); Greek verbs lack both the dual and the middle voice but have the impersonal voice, the future imperative, all tenses of the subjunctive (in a), and even a supine and a gerundive (in a). The Donati compositi, on the other hand, acknowledge the existence of the aorist, but often confuse it with the perfect. These four grammars build up a type of Greek grammar that I would call “Donatus-type” or “Pylê-type.”17 The
17
The use of the term Pylê is explained below, 154–155.
xviii
introduction
Greek Donati are closely connected with Latin elementary grammar: they represent the introduction of Latin parsing grammar (Poeta quae pars est, etc.) within a different system, which privileged definition (τ στιν νομα, etc.). Greek Donatus a, first of all, is a translation from Latin. Therefore, the first chapter of this study deals with its Latin original, the PseudoDonatan Ianua, by sketching out the evolution of Aelius Donatus’ Ars minor in its medieval forms; Ianua was just one of them. Chapter Two examines the rediscovery of Greek culture and the revival of Greek studies in the West. After a brief description of the study of Greek in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, this chapter describes and evaluates the role played by Byzantine emigrés in re-establishing a Greek curriculum in the West. Three aspects receive particular emphasis: the creation of a new Greek grammar for Westerners, the similarities between Byzantine and Latin pedagogy, and the position of Greek in Renaissance schools. The last two chapters focus on the Greek Donati. Chapter Three offers an analysis of the texts, describing the manuscript tradition and the content of the four versions, with particular emphasis on version a. Since, however, a critical edition of a grammatical text makes sense only if it takes into account the pedagogical context within which the text was produced,18 the final chapter deals with the questions raised by the Greek Donati: chronology, authorship, place of origin, and use in classrooms and/or for the self-study of Greek. The anonymous translator(s) of Greek Donatus a probably did not intend to write a Greek grammar and Maximus Planudes did not know that his Greek translation of the Disticha Catonis would become an elementary reading for Western students of Greek. In the same way, I did not approach the Greek Donatus originally for its significance in Renaissance Greek studies. This project started as a final paper for a graduate course on the reception of antiquity, taught at Columbia University by Professor Suzanne Said in the fall of 1998. While inquiring into the reception of Latin culture in Byzantium, I came across Maximus Planudes’ translations from Latin; among the works of this extraordinary polymath, the (supposed) translation of 18 See Carlotta Dionisotti’s programmatic assertion (1984, 208): when dealing with grammatical texts, it is necessary “to engage with the text, to ask it questions, in short to understand both it and why one is working on it.”
introduction
xix
Aelius Donatus’ Ars minor still awaited a critical edition. I decided to undertake this task in my dissertation: the limited number of manuscripts transmitting the text—six, five of which are in Italian libraries and directly accessible to me—seemed to offer an ideal condition for textual criticism. Also, that topic granted my study a fair level of originality; in fact, the only existing monograph on the Greek Donatus was an unpublished dissertation that Wolfgang Oskar Schmitt defended in 1966 at the Humboldt Universität of Berlin. Schmitt’s outstanding work—which, unfortunately, had almost no circulation outside of the former German Democratic Republic—contained a thorough discussion of the problems related to the Greek Donatus (especially of Planudes’ authorship) and a critical edition of the text.19 I began my work by checking the existence of other manuscripts containing the Greek Donatus; I was able to use catalogues, electronic resources, and data banks that were not yet available at the time when Schmitt was doing his research or were not accessible to him as a scholar living beyond the Iron Curtain. The result was the discovery of five new manuscripts, containing three different versions of the same text. In my dissertation (Columbia University, 2004), I presented a critical edition of the “Planudean” Greek Donatus, i.e., version a, as well as an overview of other two versions, i.e., b and what I believed was the only extant part of c, the section on verbs.20 In my edition of the text, the new manuscripts allowed me to confirm or to correct many of Schmitt’s assumptions. Further research has led me to discover the missing parts of version c, as well as a fourth version, d, in the grammar attributed to Zacharias Calliergis in one of the manuscripts of version a. Another significant result has been the identification of some elements that 19 Schmitt’s dissertation was made available to me in microforms, thanks to the effort of the Interlibrary Loan Service of Butler Library at Columbia University. Schmitt’s dissertation still represents an indispensable starting point for further research on the Greek Donatus. Starting from a general outline of Planudes’ activity as a translator (pp. 1–36), Schmitt analyzed the text of the Latin Ianua (37–103), its Greek translation, and its manuscript tradition (104–211). He equipped his edition of the Greek text (1+–92+) with a commentary centered mainly on language and style (212–265). The hypothesis of Planudes’ authorship was examined and rejected in the final part of the work. My attempts to contact the author in Berlin through his former advisor, Johannes Irmscher, have yielded no result. This book is also dedicated to Wolfgang Schmitt, an extraordinary scholar, and to the memory of Johannes Irmscher. 20 See Ciccolella 2004, 260ff.
xx
introduction
point to Crete or the Northeastern part of Italy as the place of origin of the four Greek Donati.21 These new discoveries have immensely widened the field of inquiry. One Greek Donatus—the “vulgate,” version a—might still be viewed as the result of the initiative of an individual or as the authentic or spurious work of a Byzantine scholar and, as such, as a contribution to literary history only. But four versions of the same text, which probably originated within the same environment, indicate that they were created to respond to precise cultural demands; thus, we must consider the four extant Donati graeci in general, within the context of the revival of Greek studies in the West, and in particular, as products of the search for adequate tools for the teaching of Greek, which distinguished the first stages of that revival. Working on Renaissance Greek grammar represents a challenge and requires, so to speak, the spirit of a pioneer. First of all, no modern critical editions are available for the most important Byzantinehumanist grammars: Manuel Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, Theodore Gaza’s Introduction to Grammar (Εσαγωγ γραμματικς), Constantine Lascaris’ Summary of the Eight Parts of Speech (Επιτομ τν κτ λγων μερν), and, of course, minor works such as Chalcondyles’ and Calecas’ grammars. Secondly, there is no general survey of the study of Greek in the Renaissance comparable, for example, to Robert Black’s 2001 extensive study on Latin education. A monograph that may consider not only the products of “high” scholarship, such as translations of classical texts, but also the tools available for elementary instruction in Greek is still a desideratum for the study of Greek culture in the Renaissance. Also, we need systematic studies on the structure, sources, and use of Greek grammar manuals in the West, but not without the preliminary, careful work of collecting and cataloguing all the immense amount of extant material scattered throughout European and American libraries. This book is intended as a first attempt to fill this gap by describing a tradition of Greek studies somehow connected with Venice and Crete; this tradition was certainly inferior in quality and circulation when compared with the Florentine scholarship, but it is still important in the cultural history of the Renaissance.22 See Ciccolella 2005, 15–20. On the differences between Venetian and Florentine humanism, see Witt 2000, 85–87, 454–458. 21 22
introduction
xxi
The edition of grammatical texts raises particular problems. It is true that Renaissance texts present the advantage of being closer in time to our age than classical texts.23 However, texts created for school use were subject to continuous modifications. As a matter of fact, a grammar was not merely read but used: like all secular books, grammar books were not made to last.24 In the past as well as in the present, a grammar was continuously open to corrections. Unusual forms were likely to be “corrected” and replaced with more normal forms or perhaps deleted entirely. Teachers were free to modify the text by excluding superfluous material or including what they considered appropriate to their own pedagogical methods and to the demands of their classes. Typically, later editions of schoolbooks are better than earlier ones: this reverses the idea of an “archetype,” in Lachmann’s sense, as a possible goal of a critical edition. We should also consider that elementary school texts were usually much more tolerant of forms of the spoken language than literary texts. Theoretically, then, an excess of “normalization” of language and style would be inappropriate. Practically, however, we should not exclude that some “modern” or extravagant forms were introduced in the copying of manuscripts unintentionally by copyists rather than intentionally by grammarians. Applying common sense or skeptical suspension of judgment is often the best solution: in some cases, abandoning the idea of correcting the text or even using cruces desperationis may be not signs of defeat, but ways to respect what is no longer accessible to minds educated in “analogical” Greek grammar.25 See Celenza’s considerations about the editing of Renaissance texts (2004, 136). See Cavallo 1980, 158. 25 For a discussion of Lachmann’s method and of its use in modern textual criticism, see Reynolds-Wilson 19913, 214; Irigoin 2003 [1977]; and Montanari 2003, 33– 40. Polara (1991) has effectively described the difficulty of editing grammatical works; his remarks deserve to be quoted extensively: (102) “Tra gli obblighi più evidenti per un editore di testi grammaticali ‘seri’ c’è quello di correggere, o almeno tentare di correggere errori visibilmente non d’autore, che rendano l’esposizione incomprensibile, incoerente o contraria alla dottrina consolidata.” (103) “Di fronte ad evidenti inesattezze, che non si possono neppure attribuire ragionevolmente ad un momento di distrazione del grammatico, l’intervento editoriale si impone ed il rispetto della tradizione manoscritta significa solo incomprensione della dottrina.” On the other hand: (107) “[…] nel tentativo di formire un testo ‘ragionevole’, non solo si può incorrere in madornali errori, quando ci si lasci prendere la mano dal gusto dell’intervento e si sostituiscano il proprio pensiero e la propria dottrina a quelli dell’autore, ma c’è anche il pericolo sottile di eliminare, come sviste involontarie e perciò emendabili, veri e propri usi stilistici, o addirittura consuetudini di lingua.” 23 24
xxii
introduction
I have corrected or modified the texts only when they appeared clearly altered or corrupted and when their alterations could be explained by the manuscript tradition.26 In general, however, I have tried to preserve elements that I consider as constituent features of the Greek Donati and closely bound to their Latin model, such as the confusion between declensions and verbal tenses or the Latinate lexicon and syntax of some passages. Similarly, I have preserved forms that reveal the influence of demotic Greek in the study of Greek classical grammar. In fact, I have not aimed to make the Greek Donati similar to grammars in the modern sense, but to offer to readers and scholars four texts that, with their imperfections, might document a particular stage of the revival and spread of Greek studies in the West. In laying out the texts, I have tried to offer a complete picture of the variae lectiones found in the manuscripts of versions a and b by presenting them in parallel columns when they represent different branches of the manuscript tradition.27 Often, I have given my preference to 26 Of course, fixed rules do not exist: choices may vary according to specific situations. The fact that most of the scribes of the Greek Donati so far identified were professional copyists, priests or notaries and, as such, presumably in control of the texts they were copying would discourage any textual intervention; an excess of conservatism, however, may harm the clarity and readability of texts, which is the purpose of any modern critical edition. Thus, on the one hand, assuming that the Greek Donati were tools to teach literary Greek, I have corrected nominal and verbal forms influenced by the spoken language (δημοτικ). Most probably, in fact, these anonymous grammarians relied on the grammar taught by late antique and Byzantine grammatical texts, which were based on Attic Greek; the influence of the current language may have easily affected the writing and the transmission of ancient grammatical forms. On the other hand, I have preserved some non-classical forms and constructions attested in Hellenistic and Byzantine literary texts, especially in the parts of the Greek Donati intended for describing concepts—e.g., definitions and examples—where grammarians may have chosen language and style in order to communicate more easily with their students. I have preserved inconsistencies and omissions, as well as some forms attested by all manuscripts and reflecting the common usage of the spoken language, because correcting them would have meant introducing an abstract idea of Greek into a text that originated as a response to concrete demands. Conversely, I have corrected forms and passages that may have appeared obscure to modern readers. Finally, I have avoided textual interventions in the many cases of non-attested grammatical forms or irreparably corrupted passages. 27 In the Greek Donatus a, I have italicized the passages that belong to MS. R only. This manuscript is closely related to the “vulgate” text (x), but is often independent from it; see below, 172 ff. In the Latin texts facing the Greek Donati a and c, I have indicated in italics the passages where the Greek and Latin texts do not coincide. Also, in the transcription of c’s Latin version (Pl), I have italicized words and forms that do
introduction
xxiii
readings contained in the manuscripts bearing the most recent version of the text, which happen to be more complete and correct than the earlier versions. On the other hand, I adapted punctuation and orthography to modern usage. In the negative critical apparatus, I did not mention the mistakes of iotacism, psilosis, and orthography in each manuscript, unless they represent significant (possible) textual variants. Versions a and c have been edited with a Latin translation facing the Greek text. In c’s case, I have offered a transcription of the Latin text as it appears in the manuscript, with all its orthographic peculiarities, its gaps, and its mistakes. In a’s case, I have not offered an existing text, but a sort of ideal “Ur-Ianua a” that may or may not have been the original of Greek Donatus a, but that functions as a point of reference and a support for better understanding the Greek text. For this reason, unlike the c-text, for a I have maintained the standard classical writing (e.g., ae and oe instead of e).28 I wish to express my gratitude to my advisors, Alan Cameron and Carmela Vircillo Franklin, who have supervised my dissertation with patience and care and provided invaluable intellectual and moral support during the various stages of the process. I am also grateful to the other members of the defense committee, Consuelo Dutschke, Kathy Eden, and James Zetzel, for their constructive criticism and suggestions. Alexandros Alexakis and Roger Bagnall were very helpful at the first stage of my research, while Maria Luisa Angrisani and Maria Grazia Jodice gave me the opportunity to present the first results in a lecture at the University of Rome “La Sapienza,” in April 2001. The questions raised during that lecture and the other presentations that
not correspond with “regular” grammar and vocabulary. The notes on pages 513–553 were not intended as an extensive commentary on the four texts, which would deserve a separate volume. With these notes, which supplement the description of the texts in Chapter 3 and the critical apparatus, I have tried to explain some difficulties in the language of the Latin and Greek Donati, their relationship with other grammatical texts, and my choices in establishing the texts. I have devoted more attention to the Donati compositi, which, unlike version a, are not treated individually in Chapter 3 and have never been objects of specific studies until now. 28 I have used the Latinized form of Greek names that are familiar to modern scholars and readers (e.g., “Marcus Musurus,” instead of “Markos Mousouros”). Conversely, I have transliterated less familiar Greek names (e.g., “Moschopoulos” or “Margounios”). Greek words have been usually transliterated (e.g., erôtêmata instead of ρωτματα, but Erotemata as the title of Chrysoloras’ grammar). The bibliography is updated to March 2007.
xxiv
introduction
I gave on Renaissance Greek grammar have stimulated me to reconsider many of my assumptions and widen the field of my research. Two grants from Texas A&M University have allowed me to explore some Italian libraries in order to find the Latin originals of the Greek grammars edited in this book; I wish to thank in particular Isabella Fiorentini of the Biblioteca Trivulziana in Milan for her assistance. I completed the revision of the manuscript as a fellow of Villa I Tatti, the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Like all those who have had the privilege of working at I Tatti, I benefited from a stimulating intellectual environment and invaluable resources. I am extremely grateful to my colleague Craig Kallendorf and to Christopher Celenza for their continuous encouragement and their patience in reading the manuscript and pointing out mistakes and omissions. Giuseppina Magnaldi helped me solve many doubts concerning the constitutio textus, while Wolfgang Haase, Steve Oberhelman, and three anonymous referees were lavish with advice when an article based on my dissertation appeared in the International Journal of the Classical Tradition (2005). Their contributions have been so numerous that it would be impossible to acknowledge all of them as they occur. I thank Concetta Bianca, Msgr. Paul Canart, Guglielmo Cavallo, Mario De Nonno, Elizabeth Fisher, James Hankins, Umberto La Torraca, Athanasios Markopoulos, Antonio Martina, and David Speranzi for many useful conversations, for a wealth of bibliography, and for often making available to me their works before publication. I am grateful to William Harris and the editorial board of the Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition for accepting this work in their prestigious series, to Krista May for revising my English carefully and patiently, and to the staff of Brill for solving all kinds of editorial problems. My professors and fellow graduate students at Columbia, my friends in Italy and in the U.S., my colleagues at Texas A&M, and the other fellows at I Tatti have shared in one way or another the long process that has led to this book. Particular thanks go to my family, especially to my mother Paola and my husband Marco, for tolerating my long absences and making me feel their warm support in all ways possible. I consider this book as a point of departure rather than a point of arrival. Much research still needs to be done on Renaissance Greek
introduction
xxv
studies, and I hope that, in the future, new discoveries will add new information, widen the perspective, and even challenge the conclusions reached so far. Florence, May 2007
chapter one THE LATIN DONATUS
The use of Aelius Donatus’ Ars minor and of other grammars derived from it during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance bears witness to the effectiveness of Donatus’ method for teaching elementary Latin. At the same time, the many modifications that the text underwent throughout the course of the centuries—in particular, its “contamination” with Priscian’s Institutiones and other medieval works on grammar, as well as the massive insertion of paradigms—correspond to important changes in the teaching methodology used for Latin. This chapter analyzes the causes and effects of the evolution of the Ars minor into one of its many new forms, Ianua, which became the most common Latin elementary grammar in the Italian schools of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. An early version of Ianua constituted the original of Greek Donatus a. 1. Aelius Donatus’ Artes: A Pedagogical Program During the Middle Ages, the Latin grammarian Aelius Donatus, although pagan, was held in the greatest esteem. He owed much of his fame to Saint Jerome, who proudly referred to him as his teacher (praeceptor meus Donatus: Contra Rufinum 1. 16, PL 23, 429 A; etc.).1 Donatus, grammaticus urbis Romae, was active between 354 and 363 C.E. The name “Donatus” is especially attested to in Africa, which was also the place of origin of other grammarians of that age, including Probus, Nonius Marcellus, and perhaps Charisius.2 Aelius Donatus’ grammatical works constitute a corpus (Ars grammatica Donati) of four books. The first book, known as Ars minor, contains a synthetic treatment of elementary morphology—the eight parts of 1 Humanists explicitly attributed to Donatus the merit of Jerome’s refined literary education. See Brugnoli 1965; Rice 1985, 85; and the passages quoted ibid., 231 n. 5. 2 On Donatus’ life, see in particular Holtz 1981, 15–20; and Kaster 1988, 275–278. For a survey of Donatus’ life, work, and fate, see Holtz 2005.
2
chapter one
speech—in a catechistic format. The last three books make up the Ars maior, where grammar is treated more extensively. The second book (Ars maior 1) deals with the constituent elements of words and phrases: letters, syllables, accents, and punctuation. The third book (Ars maior 2) analyzes the eight parts of speech: noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, participle, conjunction, preposition, and interjection, paying particular attention to the properties (accidentia), i.e., the changes to which words are subject when related to other words. The fourth book (Ars maior 3) focuses on style and contains a description of its qualities (figures of speech) and defects (barbarism, soloecism, etc.). The genetic structure of the Ars maior and its transition from simple to complex, from essential to ancillary elements, correspond to the method followed in classrooms. At the same time, however, the Ars maior has the framework of the rhetorical-philosophical treatises of antiquity: there is, in fact, a clear attempt to codify previous knowledge into an all-inclusive, self-contained system.3 The pyramidal structure of each chapter, the division of the matter into classes and subclasses, the exposition by antitheses and complements, and especially the dogmatic tone, make the Ars maior a complex work. Adding to this complexity, Donatus does not ever declare his aim or his general plan.4 At any rate, a comparison between the Ars minor and the Ars maior reveals that Donatus conceived the two works as two stages in the study of grammar. The Ars minor is a compendium, a textbook for an introductory course; it focuses on the rudiments of the language and presents them in a form that is easy to memorize. The Ars maior meets the demands of more advanced students, who require a real reference book in order to accomplish the stylistic ideal of artistic prose. Although the treatise in three parts was by far the most common method in expounding grammatical material, short grammars like See the observations by Holtz, 1981, 61. Lomanto (1987, 1113 ff.) has focused on the uniformity in structure of Roman Artes grammaticae, of which Donatus’Ars maior represents a clear example. Based on the Stoic distinction between λ ξις (dictio, the word considered per se) and λγος (oratio, the word within a context), most Artes deal first with the elements of λ ξις (de voce, de littera, de syllaba, de dictione, de oratione; de accentibus, de tonis or de distinctione or de posituris; de rhythmo, de metro, de pedibus), then with what concerns λγος (the eight parts of speech), and finally with the elements of style (Latinitas). This tripartite structure seems to have been elaborated by Remmius Palaemon in the first century C.E. 4 As Holtz remarks (1981, 54): “Il ne s’agit pas ici d’un corps de doctrines qui se crée sous nos yeux dans une libre méditation, […] mais d’une série de très pesantes affirmations qui ont pour effet de constituer une sorte d’inventaire.” 3
the latin donatus
3
the Ars minor were not unknown in antiquity. The most successful handbook for the study of Greek, the Τ χνη γραμματικ by Dionysius Thrax, of the second century B.C.E., shows the same characteristics found in Donatus’ Ars minor: it consists of a set of definitions, sometimes explained with examples. Dionysius’ Τ χνη allows us to locate the origin of the short grammar within the Alexandrian cultural milieu.5 In the initial chapters of his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian criticized the use of manuals (commentariola) for the teaching of elementary grammar (1. 5. 7): Ex quibus ( scil. grammaticis) si quis erit plane impolitus et vestibulum modo artis huius ingressus, intra haec, quae profitentium commentariolis vulgata sunt, consistet; doctiores multa adicient. [If a teacher is quite uneducated, and has barely crossed the threshold of his profession, he will confine himself to the rules commonly known from teachers’ manuals; a more learned man will be able to add many more.]6
Quintilian was perhaps aware of the incongruities and obscurities that such elementary books could contain: they synthesized—often arbitrarily—complex issues, summarized longer works, or reported teachers’ dictations in classrooms, but they lacked thoroughness and consistency. The innovative character of the Ars Donati lies in its combination of an elementary textbook with a grammatical treatise, thus offering a complete course of Latin. Moreover, Donatus devotes much more space to practical issues, such as inflection, than to theory, definitions, and concepts. We cannot say to what extent Donatus’ innovation reflects an actual change in the teaching of Latin in classrooms. However, it is interesting to note that other grammarians of the late fourth century—for example, Charisius and Diomedes—also reduced the extent of the traditional theoretical parts in their Artes: a more pragmatic view of grammar seems to have prevailed during this time, and it was perhaps a general custom not restricted to individual scholars. A comparison of the treatment of a topic common to both the Ars minor and the Ars maior, the eight parts of speech, will clarify this point. The Ars minor is conceived in question-and-answer format, as 5 6
On Dionysius’ Τ χνη, see below, 106. Translation by Russell 2001, 125.
4
chapter one
a dialogue between a teacher and a pupil who repeats his assignment in the classroom. The colloquial style of the Ars minor is evident also in introductory expressions typical of the language of classrooms, such as Da declinationem verbi activi (4, p. 593 Holtz); Da adverbia loci; Da temporis, etc. (5, p. 596 Holtz). As noted by Holtz, this pattern, which is as old as the school itself, reflects not only the philosophical (Platonic) dialogue, but also the Roman tradition of a father educating his son.7 The dialogical form was not uncommon in grammatical works, but in the Ars minor it is used extensively and systematically for the first time. The Ars minor became a model for later works on grammar: the dialogical form, in fact, was more suitable than the enunciative form for recognizing and memorizing rules or definitions at the elementary level. The following passages on the noun offer an interesting example of the similarities and the differences between Donatus’ two Artes: Ars minor, p. 585 Holtz: (2) Nomen quid est? Pars orationis cum casu corpus aut rem proprie communiterve significans. Nomini quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Qualitas, comparatio, genus, numerus, figura, casus. Qualitas nominum in quo est? Bipertita est: aut enim unius nomen est et proprium dicitur, aut multorum et appellativum. [What is the noun? A part of speech with cases, which signifies a person or an object either specifically or generally. How many properties apply to the noun? Six. Which ones? Quality, comparison, gender, number, form, and case. What does the quality of nouns consist in? It is twofold: either the noun belongs to one, and it is called “proper”; or it belongs to many, and it is called “common.”] Ars maior 2, pp. 614 f. Holtz: (2) Nomen est pars orationis cum casu corpus aut rem proprie communiterve significans, proprie ut Roma Tiberis, communiter ut urbs flumen. Nomini accidunt sex, qualitas, conparatio, genus, numerus, figura, casus. Nomen unius hominis, appellatio multorum, vocabulum rerum est. Sed modo nomina generaliter dicimus. (3) Qualitas nominum bipertita est. Aut enim propria sunt nomina, aut appellativa. Propriorum nominum secundum Latinos quattuor sunt species, praenomen, nomen, cognomen, agnomen, ut Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus […] Appellativorum nominum species multae sunt. Alia enim sunt corporalia, ut homo, terra, mare; alia incorporalia, ut pietas, iustitia, dignitas. etc. [The noun is a part of speech with cases, which signifies a person or an object either specifically or generally: specifically like “Rome” or “Tiber,” generally like “city” or “river.” Six properties apply to the noun: quality, comparison, gender, number, form, and case. The name refers to one man, the noun to many, the term to objects. However, 7
Holtz 1981, 100.
the latin donatus
5
we call them “nouns” only, in a general sense. The quality of nouns is twofold: nouns are either proper or common. In Latin there are four kinds of proper names: the personal name, the gentile name, the surname, and the nickname, like “Publius Cornelius Scipio the African” […] There are many kinds of common nouns. Some of them are corporeal (= concrete), like “man,” “land” or “sea”; others are incorporeal (= abstract), like “devotion,” “justice” or “dignity”; etc.]
Apart from some slight differences, the definitions of the Ars minor build up, so to speak, the framework of those of Ars maior 2. By first learning, most likely by heart, the basic rules in the Ars minor, the pupil would acquire the background necessary to understand the more complex classifications of the Ars maior. Moreover, the Ars minor contains charts of declensions and conjugations, but very few technical details and examples that may distract pupils from absorbing the essential concepts. On the other hand, in book 2 of the Ars maior the author has generously supplied examples and details but has omitted charts. The student who tackled the Ars maior, in fact, was supposed to have already mastered the Latin language well enough to concentrate on word analysis (μερισμς); therefore, examples were an indispensable tool for remembering rules and grammatical categories.8 The Ars minor and the Ars maior, the handbook of elementary morphology and the encyclopedic treatise on grammar, were not ends in themselves, but were conceived as preparatory to the study of literature, the final purpose of the teaching of the grammaticus. Donatus’ commentaries on Terence and Virgil represent the fulfillment of his effort to equip late-antique teachers with pedagogical tools useful for their task. The first has been handed down with gaps and interpolations. Of the second commentary, which is probably the earlier of the two, only the biography of Virgil taken from Suetonius’ De poetis, the letter of dedication to Munatius,9 and the introduction to the Bucolics See Holtz (1981, 110–117): isolated words are taken from everyday language and from the school environment or refer to the Roman tradition, whereas sentences are usually quotations from Virgil, the auctor mainly studied in schools. 9 This letter (published by C. Hardie in Vitae Virgilianae antiquae, Oxford 1960) is particularly interesting in identifying Donatus’ aims and methodology. Donatus intended to write a book that might be useful to his colleagues, especially those who were just beginning their career; at the same time, he wanted to improve the ancient commentaries by taking into account the different pedagogical demands of his age. For this purpose, as Donatus claims, he had collected a considerable amount of documentation, had carefully selected the material, and had decided to reproduce his sources to the letter. Donatus shows the tendency, typical of Roman scholarly prose, to juxtapose heterogeneous elements, as well as a remarkable taste for inserting 8
6
chapter one
are still extant. The rest can be reconstructed through Servius, especially the so-called Servius Danielis or Servius auctus. Literature had become a science during the Hellenistic age thanks to the accurate studies of the Alexandrian scholars, and had received a place of distinction in the Hellenistic school. In its three-level curriculum studiorum—γραμματιστς, γραμματικς, and #τωρ—the second stage, that of the “grammarian,” was in fact devoted to the study of poetry. When literary studies were introduced in Rome in the late second century B.C.E., the grammaticus was assigned the same role in the Roman school system: for Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, and other Latin authors, the grammarian was first of all a teacher of literature whose main task was the interpretation of poetry. Donatus himself was better known for his commentaries than for his grammatical treatises. Throughout the imperial age and up until the final decline of the ancient educational system, Virgil and Terence (with Cicero and Sallust for prose and, from the late fourth century, also Lucan, Statius, and Juvenal) held a steady place in the Latin curriculum. The four stages of the teaching of auctores in classrooms remained unchanged: lectio (reading a text, usually aloud), enarratio (exposition and interpretation of the content and the language), emendatio (correction and improvement of the transmitted text), and iudicium (evaluation of the author and his work). From the fourth century B.C.E., with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, the origin, development, and functions of language had become objects of study as well.10 Consequently, grammatical studies followed two parallel lines, codified in Quintilian’s distinction between the interpretation of the authors (historice, exegetice, enarratio auctorum) and the science of speaking and writing (methodice, horistice, scientia loquendi et scribendi).11 quotations in the text. However, he rarely mentions his own interpretation. See Holtz 1981, 29ff. 10 See in particular Irvine 1994, 25–39. 11 Cicero (De oratore 1. 187) indicated the main tasks of grammar in the study of poets (poetarum pertractatio), the knowledge of the contents of literary works (historiarum cognitio), and the explanation of words and their correct pronunciation (verborum intepretatio and pronuntiandi sonus). Quintilian’s division of grammar into the study of correct speech (recte loquendi scientia) and the interpretation of poets (poetarum enarratio: Inst. or. 1. 4. 2; 1. 9. 1, etc.) substantially followed Cicero’s assumption. In the fifteenth century, Niccolò Perotti still hinted at Quintilian’s definition in his Rudimenta grammatices: Grammatica est ars recte loquendi recteque scribendi, scriptorum et poetarum lectionibus observata (quoted by Percival 1981, 237).
the latin donatus
7
The interpretation of literary texts (scientia interpretandi) and the rules for the correct use of language in speaking and writing (ratio scribendi et loquendi) were both still relevant for late-antique grammarians. Audax, who lived some time between the fourth and the sixth centuries, specifies this in the question that introduces his grammar book (GL 7, 321): Grammatica quid est? Scientia interpretandi poetas atque historicos et recte scribendi loquendique ratio. [What is grammar? The science of interpreting the poets and the historians and the method of writing and speaking correctly.]
The same concept is expressed in the pompous words that Diomedes addressed to Athanasius when introducing the three books of his Ars grammatica (GL 1, 299): Artem merae Latinitatis puraeque eloquentiae magistram sub incude litteraria dociliter procudendo formatam humanae sollertiae claritas expolivit. [The brightness of human ingenuity refined the art of the true Latin style (Latinitas) and the master of pure eloquence [i.e., grammar], molded by hammering (it) on the anvil of literature in a teachable way].
Literary sources demonstrate that Latin grammarians taught exactly as their Greek colleagues: grammar’s distinction between historice and methodice applied also to Roman schools. As for methodice, Varro and Remmius Palaemon had adapted to Latin the Greek grammar codified by Dionysius Thrax. The adaptation of Latin to Greek was carried to such a point that Roman grammarians felt obliged to find a Latin equivalent for the article in the demonstrative pronoun hic, haec, hoc; to distinguish between subjunctive and optative, even if in Latin the same forms function for both meanings; and to introduce an eighth part of speech, the interjection, in order to make the number equivalent to that of their Greek models.12 However, the use of correct language in writing and speaking, which in late antiquity had already gained importance in the common concept of grammar,13 gradually came to prevail over the study of 12 13
See Bonner 1977, 193 ff. See, for example, Dositheus’ definition (1, p. 2 Bonnet): Τ χνη γραμματικ στιν
γνσις διωρ$ωμ νης %μιλας ν τ& λ γειν κα' ν τ& γρ(φειν ποιημ(των τε κα' *ναγν+σεως ,μπειρος διδασκαλα / Ars grammatica est scientia emendati sermonis in loquendo et
scribendo poematumque ac lectionis prudens praeceptum. On this subject, see Sandys 19583, 1. 8f.; Percival 1988, 83 n. 22; and Irvine 1994, 53–55.
8
chapter one
literature. The gradual but inexorable changes in the linguistic facies of the Roman world required that teachers should pay more attention to the correctness of language than to the reading of the auctores. Thus, the study of literature became subsidiary to that of language. At the same time, instead of being a preliminary stage for the study of the auctores, grammar became an end in itself. The attempt to save Latinitas from inevitable decline made elementary grammar books increasingly necessary to meet the demands of students who, because of the diffusion of the vernaculars, more often than not had to learn Latin as a foreign language. Over the course of time, Donatus’ Ars minor became the preferred handbook for Latin grammar in schools. Donatus’ twofold commitment to language and literature fully conforms to the Greco-Roman grammatical tradition. However, he can also be considered as a point of departure: his Ars minor, which was used to learn the Latin language for about twelve centuries, built up the foundations of medieval and Renaissance elementary grammar. 2. The Shaping of the Medieval Donatus The Ars Donati was just one of many works on grammar handed down from late antiquity to the Middle Ages. Both abbreviated school texts, like the Ars minor, and encyclopedic treatises, like the Ars maior, belonged to the so-called Schulgrammatik-type, which was based on the methodical analysis of the morphological elements of the language, the parts of speech. For each part, a definition, a list of properties (accidentia), and a fairly detailed discussion of its functions is given; definitions usually prevail over examples and paradigms. With more than one thousand pages, Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae is the most monumental work of this kind. A medieval student of Latin could benefit also from Artes dealing with specific aspects, such as metrics, orthography, and figures of speech: for example, De orthographia by Caper, Agroecius, and Bede, or De arte metrica by Bede. Less systematic guides to nominal and verbal inflection, known as Regulae and containing lists of paradigms, were available also: for example, Pseudo-Palaemon’s Regulae, Probus’ Catholica, and Priscian’s Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo.14 These categories, however, should be
14
See Irvine 1994, 57; and Law 1997, 54.
the latin donatus
9
considered in a very broad sense because few works on grammar fall within only one of them: every kind of variation and cross-influence was possible, depending on the goals of the grammarian and the demands of his audience. This point explains why Donatus’ Ars, “the most successful textbook ever written” in the history of Western education,15 underwent an endless process of transformations and adaptations from late antiquity to the sixteenth century. Like many other ancient grammatical texts, Donatus’ work survived a transformation of the culture that had produced it. Christian communities, in fact, realized very quickly that Latinitas and emendatio—writing correctly and establishing a correct text—were indispensable to the preservation of a written tradition and the continuation of their textual culture. In order to achieve their goals, Christian scholars had to rely on a well-established set of rules and on the authority of accepted literary models.16 The demand for a normative grammar became even more compelling after the sixth century, when vernaculars were gradually replacing Latin in everyday usage: therefore, access to the Latin texts of ecclesiastical and monastic culture had to be assured through the systematic study of Latin grammar. Donatus’ pedagogy, based on a course of Latin on two levels, was seen as particularly suitable in satisfying this urgent, practical need. It was Servius, grammaticus urbis Romae at the beginning of the fifth century, who mainly contributed to making the Ars Donati an authoritative text. His commentaries on Donatus’ Ars minor and Ars maior were widespread. As in his commentary on Virgil, Servius treated Donatus as an auctor, whose statements were subject to comments by teachers and were memorized by students. Servius often used the formula ut Donatus dicit to reinforce his assertions.17 Irvine 1994, 58. See Murphy 1974, 139. Irvine 1994, 74 ff. A strong and lasting opposition to the use of pagan grammarians, however, arose among the most conservative Christians. Law (1994a, 100) quotes a short text, handed down by two ninth-century manuscripts, which bears witness to the debate between those who asserted the usefulness of ancient grammar and those who considered it as a vessel of the “wine of error which lying teachers poured out” (vinum erroris quod […] propinaverunt magistri mendaces: a quotation attributed to Gregory the Great). 17 On Servius and “Sergius,” see Holtz 1981, 223 ff., 428–429; and Kaster 1988, 169–196, 356–359, 429–430. Two versions of Servius’ commentary (GL 4, 405–428 and 428–448) have been handed down by an eighth-century manuscript (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 7530), severely corrupted in spite of its antiquity. The 15 16
10
chapter one
From the fifth to the seventh centuries, Donatus’ work had several imitators and commentators: for example, Cledonius, a Latin grammarian in Constantinople, who wrote the first commentary on Donatus equipped with lemmata (thus bearing witness to the condition of Donatus’ text that was circulating at Constantinople at the time); Servius and the mysterious Sergius or Pseudo-Cassiodorus; Pompeius, who taught in Africa; and Julian of Toledo, a bishop of Visigothic Spain.18 Writers and grammarians from the sixth century onwards demonstrate that Donatus had risen to the level of a symbol.19 Priscian, who taught Latin in Constantinople during the sixth century, praised Donatus and made extensive use of his work, even if his attitude toward the Ars Donati was cautious and realistic rather than blindly laudatory.20 Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, and Bede held Donatus’ work in great esteem. In most cases, however, they relied not on the original text but on commentaries that amplified the authentic Donatan material through more or less arbitrary additions.21 Between the fifth and the sixth centuries, ancient grammar was Christianized. Donatus’ work also underwent the same treatment: words taken from Christian texts or lexica and passages from the Scriptures replaced, or were added to, the examples taken from Vir-
first editor, Jenson (Venice, ca. 1476), attributed the first to Marius Servius Honoratus and the second to “Sergius grammaticus.” A “Servius plenior,” a more extensive version of a commentary on Donatus’ Ars with a massive use of Virgil to explain Donatus’ rules, is also attributed to a Sergius, which is most likely just a wrong reading of the name “Servius”; see Heinrich Keil’s introduction to his edition in GL 4, LII. This “Servius plenior” was used by Cledonius, Pompeius, and the anonymous author of the two books of Explanationes in Donatum (GL 4, 486–565). Holtz (1981, 429), in turn, attributed the two books to two different authors. On the vexatae quaestiones of the origin and authorship of the Explanationes, see De Paolis 2000. A fragmentary treatise (Sergii fragmenta Bobiensia: GL 7, 537–541) and a commentary on the Ars minor (GL 8, 143–148) have also been attributed to Sergius: see Holtz 1981, 429. 18 On Cledonius (GL 5, 7–79), see Holtz 1981, 235, 429–431. On Pompeius (GL 5, 95–132), ibid., 236f., 431, and the comprehensive study by Kaster 1988, 139–168. Excerpts from Julian of Toledo’s work have been edited in GL 5, 317–328, and 8, CCIV–CCXXXIX. 19 For example, Boethius (Categ., PL 64, 257 D, 260 A) considered Donatus and Aristarchus as the undisputed authorities on Latin and Greek grammar respectively. See Holtz 1981, 238. 20 Priscian’s works are edited in volumes 2 and 3 of GL. On Priscian’s use of Donatus’ Ars, see Holtz 1981, 239–244, 425. 21 Holtz 1981, 245–259, 318f.
the latin donatus
11
gil and from the Roman pagan tradition.22 This Donatus Christianus became the basic textbook in the cloisters of eighth-century Ireland, where learning Latin was a compelling necessity for religious practice. Donatus, however, had conceived his Ars for fourth-century native speakers of Latin. With his work—especially the Ars maior—he had aimed to impart not knowledge of the Latin language, which was taken for granted in native speakers, but a taxonomy and classification of words necessary to define the style of the auctores. Therefore, in the Ars minor Donatus had offered the conjugation of only one verb, lego, and the declension of five nouns or adjectives, one for each gender traditionally recognized: hic magister (genus masculinum), haec musa (genus femininum), hoc scamnum (genus neutrum), hic et haec sacerdos (genus commune), and hic et haec et hoc felix (genus omne). This certainly was not enough to acquaint a non-native speaker with the complex verbal and nominal inflections of Latin. Donatus’ grammar, in fact, does not deal with Latin morphology, but restricts the treatment of the language to basic definitions and to very few examples of the main grammatical categories.23 In order to adapt this text to the needs of Christian students for whom Latin was a foreign language, Irish grammarians resorted to several strategies: from the contamination of the Ars minor with Book Two of the Ars maior to the improvement of Donatus’ text by the works of other grammarians, such as Charisius, Diomedes, Probus, Consentius, and Priscian, probably made accessible through an influx of manuscripts from the European continent. This is the case, for example, in Virgilius Maro and the source of the seventh-century Ars Malsachani. Commentators also continued their activity, focusing on the Ars maior: the anonymous Ars Laureshamensis, the Ars Ambrosiana, and Quae sunt quae of the seventh-eighth centuries.24 The Ars minor 22 For example, in Donatus Christianus the nouns ecclesia and templum and the adjective fidelis replaced Donatus’ musa, scamnum, and sacerdos as examples of nominal genders and as paradigms of inflection; fructus and species were added as paradigms of fourth- and fifth-declension nouns; the question “(part of speech) quid est?” became “Quid est (part of speech)?”. See Law 1994, 73–74. 23 See Percival 1988, 72. 24 Vivien Law has devoted several important studies to the problems connected with the preservation, transmission, and use of Latin grammars in medieval Ireland and England (1994; 1997, 28–49, 91–123; etc.). On the reception of Donatus in Ireland, see Holtz 1981, 272–320. On the treatise Quae sunt quae, see Munzi’s observations in his recent edition (2004, 9–15; text and commentary on pp. 17–66).
12
chapter one
gradually prevailed over other short grammar books, such as the manuals by Asper, Dositheus, and Scaurus, or the Ars breviata attributed to Augustine. Even more important, however, was the fact that the Ars minor was integrated with Regulae-type grammar books. Irish grammarians of the seventh and eighth centuries (e.g., Tatwine and Boniface) concentrated their efforts on improving the content and structure of the Ars minor by adapting it to the needs of their pupils: they abandoned the semantic and derivational criteria of ancient grammar and reduced the space traditionally devoted to definitions in favor of a more thorough description of “accidence” and morphological phenomena.25 The merging of Schulgrammatik with Regulae created a model of elementary foreign-language grammar unprecedented in antiquity. The creation of a “grammar for foreigners” seems to be peculiar to the insular grammarians of the seventh and eighth centuries. Works conceived by teachers who taught Latin to Greek students, such as Eutyches, Phocas, and Priscian, although based on a comparative approach to the Latin language, in fact were written according to the usual formal and descriptive criteria.26 The earliest surviving example is the Ars Asporii. Although still defective in its disposition and organization of contents, we can consider it as a first experimental grammar for non-Latins: written perhaps in Gaul at the end of the sixth century, the Ars Asporii consists of a contamination between the Ars minor and the second book of the Ars maior. Donatus’ Ars is reproduced in its Christianized form and with a significant increase in the number of examples quoted.27 Typical Christian contents and methods are displayed by another anonymous
25 Law 1997, 104 ff.; see also Contreni 1986 (1992). Word separation, graphically visual forms, and modification of the word order were some of the devices through which Insular grammarians made Latin grammar more easily accessible to pupils; see Saenger 1997, 83–90. 26 See Law 1986; 1997, 58, 73. 27 A version of the Ars Asporii, or Ars Donati exposita ab Aspero, was published in GL 8, 39–61 from MS. lat. 207 of the Bürgerbibliothek in Bern. On the transmission of the text and its versions, see Holtz 1981, 432. The author keeps and expands Donatus’ distributional classifications of nouns by gender (GL 8, 40: Genera nominum sunt quattuor, masculinum, femininum, neutrum, commune. Masculinum ut hic iustus, femininum ut haec ecclesia, neutrum ut hoc ieiunium, commune duobus generibus ut hic et haec finis vel hic et haec sacerdos vel hic et haec dies. Est praeterea trium generum, quod omne dicitur, ut hic et haec et hoc ingens felix prudens. Est epicoenon nomen, id est promiscuum, ut vultur ardea accipiter vel aquila, etc.). Christian paradigms are quoted for the verbal system (49–51): ieiunio, oro, vigilo, praedico, supplico, commendo, etc. See Law 1994a, 91 and 1997, 102 f.
the latin donatus
13
elementary grammar in question-and-answer format, the fragmentary Ars Bernensis, which was composed in Ireland during the eighth century. As in the other Artes of that age, Donatus is considered an absolute authority: his words are constantly quoted in the form of lemmata, paraphrased, and explained, like the Scriptures, in a literal sense. The anonymous author of the Ars Bernensis contaminated Donatus’ Ars minor and the second book of the Ars maior with Pompeius, Priscian, Sacerdos, Charisius, and Isidore, following a procedure that reminds us of the catenae of the early commentators of the Bible.28 The adoption of the formal classifications of nouns and verbs into five declensions and four conjugations, used by Priscian in his Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo, represented a significant improvement: it provided the framework for a description of Latin morphology that complemented Donatus’ definitions.29 In turn, this new “Priscianic Donatus” was supplemented by commentaries, which often preceded the text in manuscripts, and by tools aimed at making the grammar book suitable for beginning students. They included, for instance, exercises and lists of paradigms taken from the stock material available to teachers and often circulating separately in schools, such as Declinationes nominum, i.e., lists of nouns declined without a connecting text, composed in England perhaps during the seventh century.30 This “Insular elementary grammar” was, therefore, an elementary descriptive grammar, which Vivien Law has defined as “a succinct systematic exposition of Latin grammar in which morphology takes first place.”31 It originated in England during the seventh century and built up the foundations of later elaborations of the Ars minor. Text in GL 8, 64–142. Another catena grammaticalis is the so-called Donatus ortigraphus (edited by J. Chittenden, CCCM 40 D, Turnhout 1982), a dialogue between a teacher and a pupil, in which Priscian and other grammarians are also used extensively. See Holtz 1977, 70; 1981, 434–436. 29 Cf. 1. 1, GL 3, 443: Omnia nomina, quibus Latina utitur eloquentia, quinque declinationibus flectuntur; 3. 38, 450: Omnia verba […] habent coniugationes quattuor. On the (probable) origin of the traditional classification of Latin morphology from Varro and Remmius Palaemon, see Barwick 1922, 236ff. 30 See Holtz 1981, 341, 344–348; Law 1994, 74–75 and 1997, 75 ff., 104; and Colombat 1999, 69 (on Vestibulum, a list of three thousand Latin words in 427 sentences, which usually supplemented Ianua). Declinationes nominum were copied, for example, after Donatus’ Ars maior 2 in the third part of Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 5570, dating from the beginning of the twelfth century. According to Holtz (1981, 419), they are a “free exploitation, in catechistic form (at least at the beginning of the text) of Priscian’s Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo” (my translation). 31 Law 1984 and 1997, 78. 28
14
chapter one
The British-Irish case was not isolated: in the rest of Europe, Donatus’ Ars also underwent transformations and adaptations. Among the many variants of the Ars Donati handed down to us, Louis Holtz has recognized another main tradition: the “Visigothic,” which is of Spanish origin. In Italy, the Visigothic and the Irish traditions merged in the middle of the eighth century, perhaps in the Irish monastic foundation of Bobbio.32 Whereas the transmission of the Ars minor, constantly used in schools, was continuous and uniform, the three books of the Ars maior had a more varied fate. From the time of Servius, because of two books devoted to the morphology of the parts of speech (the Ars minor and the second book of the Ars maior), Donatus’ corpus was often handed down in two independent parts: Ars minor and Ars maior 1, and Ars maior 2 and 3. Book Two of the Ars maior competed with the Ars minor, which was considered too elementary, especially during the so-called Carolingian Renaissance, when an elevation in culture also caused a change in pedagogy. An increase in the number of manuscripts of classical authors (e.g., Virgil, Terence, and Horace) copied in the Carolingian age attests to a renewed interest in ancient literature and, most probably, to a revival of the practice of reading poetry in schools. The teaching of grammar, however, remained generally restricted to the doctrine of the parts of speech.33 Elementary morphology, based on Donatus, built up the core of the most widespread grammatical works of that age: the tracts by Paul the Deacon,34 Peter of Pisa,35 and Smaragdus.36 Because of its simplicity, the Ars minor became in later centuries the most common elementary schoolbook for Latin. From the thirteenth
See Holtz 1981, 446–499. On the conservatism of Carolingian education, see Munzi 2000. For example, the parts of speech constitute the main theme of Alcuin’s De grammatica (PL 101, 848– 902; see below, n. 39), a dialogue between a teacher and two students, one Frankish and one Saxon. Alcuin, although trying to insert the grammatical doctrine within a wider context, did not go very far beyond elementary grammar. See Holtz 1989, 155. 34 In his Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus exposuit (re-edited by M.F. Buffa Giolito, Genova 1997), Paul contaminated an interpolated version of Donatus’ Ars minor with a complete Declinationes nominum-type treatise and other shorter supplements (on formae casuales, monosyllabic nouns, compound pronouns, impersonal verbs). See Holtz 1989, 155; Giolito’s introduction, 23–31; and Law 1994, 73 ff. and 1997, 134. 35 A partial edition in GL 8, 159–171. 36 Liber in partibus Donati, ed. by B. Löfstedt, L. Holtz, and A. Kibre, CCCM 68, Turnhout 1986. 32 33
the latin donatus
15
century on, an increasing number of manuscripts handed down the Ars minor with other more advanced grammars, such as the Doctrinale by Alexander of Villedieu, a verse grammar through which students would complete their study of Latin grammar. Commentaries by Irish and Carolingian grammarians (Murethach, Sedulius Scottus, and Remigius) replaced those transmitted from late antiquity.37 Carolingian teachers also introduced a significant innovation in foreign-language grammar by supplementing the Ars minor with a new tool, the parsing grammar, in which the descriptions of the characteristics and properties of each morphological element were introduced by the analysis of a headword. The closest model was Priscian’s Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium, a detailed analysis of every word of the first line of each of the twelve books of the Aeneid. Priscian, who lived and worked in Constantinople, may have been influenced, in turn, by the methods used in Greek and Byzantine schools.38 The return to the traditional practice of parsing (i.e., identifying and labeling grammatical forms) was a consequence of the rediscovery of Priscian promoted by the Carolingian grammarians and influenced the later development of medieval grammar and teaching.39 The most important elementary grammar books used in the Middle Ages, Remigius and Ianua, were parsing grammars resulting from a contamination between Donatus’ Ars minor and Priscian’s Institutiones. Parsing grammar was an “open” form that easily permitted variations and insertions of new material: this flexibility was its key to success.40 On the other hand, the imitation of Priscian’s Partitiones caused a revival of the dialogical form, which had been used already in the Ars minor and perhaps corresponded to the actual practice that was being followed in schools. In his dialogue De grammatica, Alcuin had See Holtz 1981, 505 and n. 23; Holtz 1989–1990; and Law 1997, 60f., 144–146. On Byzantine schools, see below, 106ff. 39 Quintilian (Inst. or. 1. 8. 13) recommended the practice of parsing in the teaching of grammar. The “rediscovery” of Priscian, which corresponded to the higher standard of Carolingian scholarship, was promoted by Alcuin of York, abbot of Tours, who lived between the eighth and ninth centuries. By means of his Dialogus Franconis et Saxonis de octo partibus orationis and his abstracts of the final two books of Priscian, Alcuin attracted the attention of his contemporaries to Priscian’s main work, the eighteen books of Institutiones grammaticae. The transmission and use of Priscian’s Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo had continued without interruption from late antiquity onwards, and in Mediterranean Europe the knowledge of Priscian’s whole corpus had never ceased. See Law 1997, 61 f., 83; and Holtz 2000. 40 Law 1997, 85. 37 38
16
chapter one
tried to set the content of Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae in questionand-answer format. However, the earliest proper example was offered by Peter of Pisa, who taught grammar to Charlemagne: in Peter’s Ars, questions such as “What is pater?” and “To what word class does it belong?” introduced an analysis of each part of speech. This format was later maintained and improved to such an extent that it became a distinguishing feature of these handbooks, for the most part anonymous, and usually known by their initial question: Codex quae pars, Doctus quae pars, Quid est doctus,41 Magnus quae vox, or, in the more distinctly Christianized versions, Anima quae pars and Propheta quae pars. At the end of the ninth century, Usuard of St. Germain introduced in his grammar the first declension with the parsing of poeta. Poeta quae pars est? was also the introductory question of the twelfth-century Ianua, which, together with the contemporary Dominus quae pars and Magister quae pars, was one of the most widespread grammar books of the Middle Ages.42 Therefore, together with Donatus, Priscian gradually became an authority and an object of commentaries.43 In particular, the Scotti peregrini Sedulius and John Eriugena commented on Donatus’ Ars on the basis of Priscian. Priscian’s works were used both as a complement to Donatus’ grammar and as autonomous textbooks until at least the eleventh century, when they eventually supplanted the Ars Donati in schools. 3. Donatus(es) as Schoolbook(s) A catalogue of the Library of St. Gall allows us to identify the content of the schoolbag of a student of Latin during the Carolingian age and to evaluate the presence of Donatus’ Artes in the curriculum. On Quid est doctus / TI ESTIN DOCTUS, see below, 90. Law 1994a, 93 ff.; 1997, 134ff., 141–143. For a list of the anonymous parsing grammars of the ninth and tenth centuries, see Law 2000, 29–31. On Dominus quae pars, see also below, 23 n. 61. 43 As Carlotta Dionisotti remarks (1984, 204 f.): “It is a curious fact that, Roman Donatus notwithstanding, the Latin grammars written for Greeks, from Charisius and Diomedes, to Cledonius, Priscian and Eutyches, were all at some point imported into the West. […] One reason […] was that Donatus naturally assumes you know the language, he teaches how to analyse it; the Eastern grammars taught Latin as a foreign language, so with heavy emphasis on descriptive morphology, and plenty of vocabulary: and this was what was increasingly needed in the West.” 41 42
the latin donatus
17
Eight copies of Donatus’ Ars minor, supplemented with three charts of nominal declensions and one of verbal conjugations, were to be used at the elementary stage, while nine copies of Donatus’ Ars maior, one of the so-called Priscianus maior (books 1–16 of Priscian’s Institutiones), and two of Priscianus minor (books 17 and 18) were for the intermediate level. Other books (three copies of the first book of Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies, five of Bede’s De arte metrica, and copies of commentaries on Donatus’ Artes) probably functioned as reference books on a more advanced level.44 Another interesting document is the Dialogus super auctores by Conrad, a schoolmaster of the Cluniac monastery of Hirsau, between the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh centuries. By means of a conversation between a teacher and a student, Conrad described and analyzed the literary works read in schools. He took into account the life of the author, the title of the works, their purpose, content, and usefulness, and the branch of philosophy to which each work could be assigned.45 As for Donatus, Conrad at first listed the qualities of his Ars in the elementary teaching of grammar: Donatus should not be considered a minor author because he only deals with the basic elements of grammar (quia rudimentis parvulorum aptus cognoscitur). In fact, other grammarians also used Donatus’ way of expounding grammar because they considered him to be a “remarkable foundation” (inter maximos ponendus est et quasi quoddam singulare fundamentum in ceteris auctoribus habendus: 79. 238–244 Huygens). Moreover: Quantus autem fructus finalis legentium in hoc opere sit, per hoc cognoscitur, ut ignoret quid grammatica sit qui Donatum neglexerit: de maiore enim et minore Donato nobis sermo est, qui unus idemque minores quidem lactis fovet in minoribus disciplinis alimento, maiores in institutis fortioribus pascit solido cibo. (81. 311– 316 Huygens). [The great degree to which readers can profit from this work can be seen from the fact that he who neglects Donatus ignores what grammar is. For we are dealing with a major and a minor Donatus, who, being one and the same, foster the younger with the nourishment of milk in minor disciplines and feed the elder with solid food in braver undertakings.]
On the one hand, the question-and-answer format of the Ars minor, its conciseness, and its presentation of the matter divided into short 44 45
See Ising 1970, 24–25. On Conrad’s work, see in particular Murphy 1980, 167.
18
chapter one
sections, ensured easy memorization of its content.46 On the other hand, the subject matter was complete enough to provide material for a basic knowledge of Latin. These qualities and the extensive use of the Ars minor in medieval schools gradually made “Donatus” (Donat, Donnet, etc.) synonymous with “primer” or “elementary textbook.”47 For example, along with the Psalter, the first reading, Donatus appears in some thirteenth-century North Italian documents concerning the hiring of private teachers.48 In most cases, however, the Donatus used in medieval schools was no longer the original text of the Ars minor. The insertion of the necessary tools for students who were learning Latin as a second language—paradigms, examples, and tables of inflection—had also brought about significant changes in the theoretical parts of the grammar book. Thus, if we trust Bede’s complaint, it was already impossible in the seventh century to distinguish Donatus’ authentic text from the additions that had corrupted it: Artium Donati liber ita a plerisque vitiatus est et corruptus, dum unusquisque pro libitu suo, sive ex aliis auctoribus, quod ei visum est addidit, sive declinationes aut coniugationes et ceterum huiusmodi inseruit, ut nisi in antiquis codicibus, vix purus et integer ut ab eo est editus reperiatur.49 [Donatus’ Artes have been spoiled and corrupted by many people—for everyone has included at his whim whatever contributions from other authors seemed proper to him, as well as declensions, conjugations, and other material of that kind—so that it can hardly be found to be pure and complete, as it was edited by him, except in ancient manuscripts.] Schmitt 1966, 40. On the antonomastic use of “Donatus,” see Murphy 1974, 32. 48 See Grendler 1989, 4, who quotes two Genoese documents of 1221 and 1248. 49 Preface to Cunabula grammaticae artis Donati a Beda restituta, PL 90, 613 C; an English translation of the whole passage can be read in Law 2000, 25 f. Bede himself tried to improve the Ars minor by increasing the number of examples quoted and parsed. In addition to the Cunabula (PL 90, 613–632), in question-and-answer format, Bede also wrote a treatise on elementary morphology, the Libellus de octo partibus orationis (631–642). The usage of interpolating grammar books is condemned also in the lines quoted by Thurot (1869, 32) from an anonymous verse grammar: Haec alicui si qui legat exponendo minori, deprecor hunc ut, quod posui minus exposuive non bene, supplere velit. Apponet moderate, non tamen in serie ponendo, sed memorando tantum per verba, vel margine suppleat extra. Si, quaecumque velit, lector addas seriei, non poterit libri certus sic textus haberi. 46 47
the latin donatus
19
As Law has pointed out, “the appearance of the parsing grammar as a distinct genre is associated with the desire to safeguard the integrity of the Ars minor. That was better achieved […] by preserving the Ars minor in its original form (or as near to it as centuries of interpolation would permit) and transmitting it together with an assortment of other texts designed to supplement its lacunae.”50 At any rate, by the end of the Middle Ages, the name “Donatus” was used for three kinds of elementary Latin grammar: a) the authentic Ars minor by Aelius Donatus, handed down by many manuscripts dating from the eight century onwards; b) a late-medieval version of the Ars minor with the insertion of parts from the Ars maior and the increase in nominal and verbal paradigms; and c) the so-called Pseudo-Donatus, also entitled Ianua, Liber Donati, or Rudimenta grammaticae. Composed perhaps before the thirteenth century, Ianua offers a conspicuous example of the contamination of Donatus’ Ars minor and Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae. The handbook concentrates on elementary morphology, for which it provides a large number of paradigms, but in the sections on prepositions and conjunctions it also contains a short outline of syntax.51 Both the first and the second texts were rather common in Northern and Central Europe, whereas Ianua had particularly high circulation in Italy, as demonstrated by the Italian origin of most of its manuscripts and printed editions.52 The critical attitude of humanist scholars toward medieval grammar apparently did not concern elementary schoolbooks. In his De linguae Latinae elegantia (1444), Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) criticized the grammatical treatises mostly used in the Middle Ages, such as Doctrinale by Alexander of Villedieu and Graecismus by Eberhard of Béthune. While recommending that Latin be purged from the medieval “barbarism” and Scholasticism, Valla supported a return to an eloquence based on usus rather than on logical causae and, especially, a restoration of the ancient and late antique grammatical tradition, from Varro and Caesar to Donatus and Priscian. Scholars such as Niccolò Perotti, Antonio de Nebrija, and Aldus Manutius followed Valla’s advice Law 2000, 32. See Ising 1970, 34; Schmitt 1979, 99f. 52 Thirty of the thirty-four manuscripts of Ianua identified by Black (2001, 373–378, and below, Appendix II) have certain Italian origin. Of the thirty-one incunabula of Ianua listed in GW (7, 361ff., 8987–9017), only six did not appear in Italy: GW 8995–8996 (Ulm 1480/90), 9000 (Köln 1486/89), 9001 (Westminster, ca. 1487), 9008 (Geneva 1493), and 9016 (Barcelona 1500). 50 51
20
chapter one
and modeled their Latin grammar books closely on Donatus and Priscian.53 The similarities between Ianua and the authentic works by Donatus and Priscian made Ianua perfectly compatible with the new pedagogical trends. Indeed, the humanists’ rediscovery of the study of classical Latin brought an increased demand for schoolbooks. This greater need for literacy favored a reassessment of the Ars Donati in the school curriculum. Donatus’ Ars minor and its by-products were copied and printed many times. After the first block-printed edition, which appeared a little before 1450, 384 incunabular editions of Donatus minor were printed.54 The presumed authorship of Aelius Donatus may have protected even the defective Ianua from attacks. In any case, there were no elementary schoolbooks to replace those used in the Middle Ages. 4. Ianua The third kind of elementary “Donatus” is commonly known as Ianua. Remigio Sabbadini assigned it this title because of the first word of its introductory poem:55 Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem, Nec prae me quisquam recte peritus erit. Nam genus et casum speciem numerumque figuram His quae flectuntur partibus insinuo. 5 Pono modum reliquis quid competat optime pandens Et quam non doceam dictio nulla manet. Ergo legas, studiumque tibi rudis adice lector. Nam celeri studio discere multa potes. [I am a door for the ignorant desiring the first art; without me no one will become truly skilled. For I teach gender and case, species and number, and formation in their parts, which are inflected. I put method into the remaining parts of speech, explaining what agrees t he best. And no use of the word remains that I do not teach. Therefore,
53 On Valla’s Elegantiae and Perotti’s Rudimenta, see Ax 2001 and Worstbrock 2001, respectively. Although insisting on the semasiological rather than on the formal aspects of grammar, humanists retained and developed many aspects of medieval grammar, such as the division of nouns into substantives and adjectives and the importance of the verb esse. See Padley 1976, 17–50, in particular 39ff. 54 Holtz 1981, 509. 55 Sabbadini 1904–1905, 284; and 1922, 7.
the latin donatus
21
unskilled beginner, read and dedicate yourself to study, because you can learn many things with rapid study.]56
In four elegiac couplets,57 the book introduces itself to its intended reader, the “unskilled beginner” (rudis lector). After summing up its content (lines 3–6), the poem suggests the right approach to the subject matter: reading and careful study (legas studiumque tibi … adice) will make it possible to learn the Latin grammar quickly (celeri studio). The fact that the poem does not appear in the earliest manuscript of Ianua (London, British Library, MS. Harley 2653, of the second half of the twelfth century) suggests that it was composed later than the text.58 Such introductory poems were not unusual in grammatical works. For example, the sixth-century Latin grammarian Phocas introduced his nine books of his Ars de nomine et de verbo with six elegiac distichs, in which he emphasized the “new shortness” of his work (line 2: nova … brevitas; cf. line 4: Multa loqui breviter sit novitatis opus; etc.). Immediately afterwards, Phocas reinforced this programmatic assertion in a prose prologue: although writing a short grammar book (libellum) may be regarded as “an inconsiderate and almost impious endeavor” (temerarius ac paene sacrilegus conatus), he is aware that he has undertaken a useful task (fateor me negotium suscepisse pluribus profuturum) because pupils will certainly benefit from a short exposition of grammatical rules and from an easier approach to the subject matter (nominum regulas breviter explanare et scrupulosam difficilemque materiam adulescentibus perviam facere).59 The term ianua (“gateway”) recalls the concept of authoritative guide.60 Ianua differs widely in structure and content from Donatus’ 56 Translation by Gehl (1993, 88–89). The epigram has been quoted also by Garin (1958, 98 no. 13), with quisquis instead of quisquam in line 2. 57 Style and metrics of the poem have been carefully analyzed by Schmitt (1966, 47–49). 58 See Black 2001, 50f., 369ff. Before Black’s study, MS. Magliabechi I 45 of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence was considered as the earliest extant copy of Ianua (a description in Gehl 1993, 254). Dated between the eleventh and the fourteenth centuries, the manuscript was assigned to the thirteenth century by Schmitt (1966, 41) and to the thirteenth-fourteenth by Bursill-Hall (1981, 91.23). Black (2001, 373f.) assigns it to the first half of the fifteenth century. 59 GL 5, 405–439, in particular 410–411. 60 See Gehl 1993, 84 n. 5: God is defined as “doorway and teacher” by Hrabanus Maurus (ninth century). The use of ianua for a grammar book echoes Roger Bacon’s definition of the knowledge of languages as “the first gate of wisdom” (prima porta sapientiae: Opus Tertium, ed. by J.S. Brewer, London 1859, XXVIII, 102). In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, “ianua” occurred rather frequently in the titles of “liminal” texts, such as handbooks for learning foreign languages. For example: 1)
22
chapter one
Ars minor. This difference may explain why it has been neglected by scholars to such an extent that, although printed several times during the Renaissance, it has not been deemed worthy of a critical edition: Ianua does not offer any contribution to the constitutio textus of Donatus’ grammar. As an introductory text to the study of Latin grammar, the pseudoDonatan Ianua deals only with the eight parts of speech: the four variable (noun, verb, participle, and pronoun) and the four invariable (preposition, adverb, interjection, and conjunction). With the doctrine of the parts of speech, language becomes a rational phenomenon: by learning how to classify each word into given categories, pupils discover that language has a logical structure. Inflection becomes the first distinctive criterion. Ianua is therefore divided into eight sections, each devoted to one part of speech. In some manuscripts, a short title (De verbo; De pronomine; etc.) is added to indicate the passage from one section to the next, either in the text or, more often, in the right- or left-hand margin. The grammatical material is presented in catechistic form by means of a series of questions and answers. All sections have the same structure. The description of each part of speech is introduced by an example, and the pupil is asked to identify the part: Poeta (amo, legens, ego, ad, nunc, heu, et) quae pars est? Nomen (verbum, participium, pronomen, praepositio, adverbium, interiectio, coniunctio) est. Another question leads to the definition of the part of speech itself; for example: Quare est nomen? Quia significat substantiam et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum casu. Further questions are devoted to explaining accidence; for example: Nomini quot accidunt? Quinque. Quae? Species, genus, numerus, figura et casus. Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur; etc. Then, for William Bathe (1564–1614), Ianua linguarum sive modus maxime accomodatus: quo patefit aditus ad omnes linguas intelligendas, Londini, excudebat H.L. (= Lownes) impensiis Matthaei Lownes, 1615 (first published in Latin and Spanish, Salamanca 1611); Bathe, an Irish Jesuit, presented 5,302 Latin words in 1,200 moral sentences, with a Spanish translation facing the Latin text; 2) Isaac Habrecht (d. 1633), Ianua linguarum silinguis. Latina, germanica, gallica, italica, hispanica, anglica. Sive, Modus ad integritatem linguarum compendio cognoscendam maxime accomodatus […] Argentinae, sumptibus E. Zetzneri, 1630; 3) Johan Amos Comenius (1592–1670), Ianua aurea reserata quatuor linguarum sive Compendiosa methodus Latinam, Germanicam, Gallicam et Italicam linguam perdiscendi: sub titulis centum, periodis mille comprehensa, vocabulis bis mille ad minimum aucta: cum quadruplici indice… Genevae, sumptibus Ioannis de Tournes, 1643. Published in Leszno in 1631, Comenius’ Ianua consists of 8,000 Latin words used in 1,000 sentences of increasing difficulty, which, in turn, are divided into 100 chapters. See Colombat 1999, 63 ff.
the latin donatus
23
the four inflected parts, a number of examples are given to describe inflection (e.g., declensions and conjugations). For the four indeclinable parts, all categories are listed with suitable examples, such as: Da [adverbia significationis] temporis, ut hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras, aliquando, olim, tunc, quondam, iam et semper. Da loci, ut hic vel ibi, illuc vel inde, intro, foras, longe et procul. The last section, on conjunctions, is very short. We should attribute this shortness to a conscious pedagogical choice: the study of conjunctions introducing coordinate and subordinate clauses, in fact, took place at a more advanced level. Therefore, a general overview of conjunctions, which completed the treatment of the eight parts of speech, was considered fully adequate for learning the first stage of Latin. In his detailed study on the Latin Ianua, Wolfgang Schmitt has pointed out that, in spite of the alleged authorship of Donatus, the main sources of this grammar are Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae or some medieval work deriving from Priscian’s, as well as an elementary grammar, the Regulae attributed to Remigius of Auxerre, a ninthcentury commentator of Donatus, also known as Pseudo-Remigius, Remigius or Dominus quae pars.61 The similarities between Ianua and Priscian’s work are striking: they include the general structure and the way of presenting grammar (e.g., the order of the parts of speech62 and the division of pronouns into four modi), as well as the terminology used in definitions and the examples chosen to explain them. As for Schmitt 1966, 91–99; 92: “Mit der Ars minor des Aelius Donatus hat der PseudoDonatus (Ianua) nur den Namen gemein.” See, however, Sabbadini 1905–1905, 284 (Ianua is a reworking of Donatus’ Ars minor with Priscianic influences), and Garin 1958, 98 (Ianua is a medieval compendium, in question-and-answer format, of Donatus’ grammar). On Remigius of Auxerre, “le dernier grand professeur de grammaire de l’époque carolingienne,” see Holtz 1989–1990, 172 f.; Law 1994a, 105 f. Remigius (handed down in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 7492, and published by Pinborg in 1982 from a printed edition of 1486) was conceived as the first part of a complete Latin course. Its sources are Donatus, Priscian, and other medieval grammarians: Alexander of Villedieu, Peter Helias, Eberhard of Béthune, Giovanni Balbi, etc. The general structure is very similar to that of Ianua. There are, however, some differences in the examples chosen to explain each part of speech. Moreover, in the exposition of the eight parts of speech, the anonymous author preserved Donatus’ order, whereas Ianua followed Priscian’s order. According to Merrilees (1990, 23–24), in fact, Dominus quae pars was not an elementary grammar. Droz (1964, 273) and Pinborg (1982, 65 n. 7) considered Ianua to have been derived from Remigius, although there are no convincing elements to confirm this hypothesis. 62 Priscian, in turn, takes up the order of Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη: noun, verb, participle, [article], pronoun, preposition, adverb, interjection, conjunction. This order is justified by several scholia on Τ χνη, e.g., GG 1.3, 357 f. See Robins 1993, 60. 61
24
chapter one
the Regulae, its uncertain chronology does not allow us to draw any conclusion: the similarities between Regulae and Ianua may be due to their derivation either from a common source or from each other, but it is difficult to establish which one served as a model for the other. The close relationship to Priscian’s Institutiones places Ianua within the context of the rediscovery of Priscian in the Carolingian age. More precisely, if MS. Harley 2653 is really the earliest of the Ianua manuscripts, the twelfth century is a terminus ante quem.63 On the basis of some internal elements, Schmitt supposed that Ianua might date from the middle of the twelfth century: the reference to the coin byzantius in the section on the conjunction, the use of neutropassivum for the verbal categories, of supinum for verbal adjectives, and of regere and regimen in the section on the preposition, and the influence of Ovid’s versification in the initial poem.64 In any case, the fact that the manuscript tradition of Ianua already appears full of variants in its thirteenth-century examples suggests that, at that time, the distance from the “archetype”—if there ever was one—was already considerable.65 Ianua has been handed down in a large number of manuscripts and printed editions. In his inventory, Bursill-Hall listed thirty-four manuscripts altogether, scattered throughout several European and North American libraries.66 In 1991, Black identified another manuscript as one of the most interesting copies of Ianua: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 80.67 Then, in his outstanding 2001 study on Above, n. 58. See Schmitt 1966, 99–103; and 1969, 72 f. His arguments are: a) there is no mention of byzantius before the eleventh-twelfth centuries; b) neutropassivum belongs to Scholastic Latin; c) Ianua knows the difference between supine and gerund (with which forms like amatum and amatu were previously identified), established by Peter Helias in the middle of the twelfth century; d) regere became a common term in medieval grammar during the thirteenth century, but its first use may be traced back to Peter Helias (but see below, n. 121); and e) Ovid’s influence suggests that the twelfth-century rediscovery of Ovid had already taken place. 65 Either directly quoted or unconsciously echoed by those who had learned Latin with it, Ianua influenced other grammatical treatises of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, such as Guarino da Verona’s Regulae grammaticales. However, Sabbadini’s conclusions on the direct influence of Ianua on Guarino’s treatise (1896) have been contradicted by Percival (1972, 263 ff.): the two works are similar because they derive from a common source, Priscian. 66 Bursill-Hall 1981. 67 Black 1991, 101ff.; and 2001, 50–55, 374. See also the description in Gehl 1993, 252 f. The volume is a school anthology that also contains a set of Regulae grammaticales by Tebaldo and some reading texts: Cato’s Disticha, Prosper of Aquitaine’s Epigram63 64
the latin donatus
25
medieval and humanist education, Black revised and updated BursillHall’s list.68 We cannot exclude the possibility of other manuscripts being discovered as the cataloguing of all the surviving Latin manuscripts proceeds. Most of the manuscripts listed by Bursill-Hall and Black belong to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; by that time, the text of Ianua had been abbreviated, consistently with the changes that had occurred in elementary education.69 To my knowledge,70 manuscripts containing Ianua generally correspond to the typology of grammatical manuscripts: small in size and with wide margins, written in minuscule, soberly decorated, and often inaccurate in layout and script.71 With very few exceptions, these books were not created to last or to be preserved in libraries, but were conceived for immediate use, often by many users. Thanks to the conservatism of the school system, the same book could be used by generations of students if it survived the wear and tear of being passed from hand to hand; generally, manuscripts written on parchment had better chances of surviving than did those written on paper, but in any case the extant manuscripts are certainly a small fraction of those originally produced and circulating. Ianua is usually not the only text contained in the volume. It is followed by reading texts, such as the Disticha attributed to Cato the Elder or other works of the so-called auctores octo, or by works on grammar for intermediate or advanced students of Latin, such as Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale or Guarino’s Regulae grammaticales. Many of these volumes, therefore, may be defined as complete courses of Latin, of which Ianua represented the first stage. The picture offered by the manuscripts of Ianua, however, is extremely complex: several different versions of the text have been handed down. A systematic study of the manuscript tradition of this mata, and some fables. Initially, Black dated it at the thirteenth century, but later (1996a, 704 n. 4) he opted for the beginning of the fourteenth century. 68 Black 2001, 373–378. Black’s inventory is reproduced in Appendix II (below, 583–585). 69 Black 2004, 21: “The shortening of Ianua suggests the work’s changing function in the classroom. Its abbreviation coincides with new educational aims and the new class of specialist elementary masters whose aims were not to give a full course in Latin grammar but only to teach elementary reading and writing.” 70 My remarks do not claim to be complete; they are based on the limited number of copies of Ianua that have been accessible to me so far. 71 See Holtz 1977a, 249: “Sauf exception, le livre de grammaire est un livre austère, compact, destiné à rendre service, et non un object d’art.”
26
chapter one
grammar book has not been undertaken so far, and in any case lies outside the scope of the present work. What follows is the result of personal observation and data obtained from modern studies on Ianua. The earliest extant manuscripts of Ianua are: London, British Library, MS. Harley 2653, of the twelfth century, and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15972, written between 1260 and 1280.72 As Black has pointed out, these earliest copies contain a much more extensive text than the later manuscripts or the printed editions: this seems to indicate a change in the function of Ianua from a grammar for advanced students to an elementary manual for the study of Latin in classrooms.73 The majority of Ianua manuscripts date from the fifteenth century. Particularly interesting is manuscript 2167 of the Trivulziana Library in Milan, a beautiful book written before 1499 for Massimiliano Ercole Sforza, Earl of Pavia (1493–1530), the eldest son of Ludovico il Moro and Beatrice d’Este. Lavishly decorated in gold, red, and blue, the manuscript includes eight miniatures, other smaller pictures, and the coats of arms of the closely related Visconti and Sforza families. The miniatures are captioned by short poems (sonnets or rhymed distichs of hendecasyllables) in Italian, which describe the life of the young earl, based on the fundamental assumption of humanist teaching that both culture and physical training are important (mens sana in corpore sano).74 The miniatures are related to Latin grammar, the content of the book,75 and convey an unmistakable visual message: Schmitt 1966, 41–42; 1969, 50–51; Black 1996, 5–12, and 2001, 373. Black 1991b, 143f.; 2001, 50f. and 369–372. 74 The manuscript has been described by Santoro (1965, 318ff.). It contains Ianua (fols. 4r-42r), Cato’s Distichs (43r-50r), and a short catechism on grammar, inc. Quot sunt partes orationis? Octo (see below, 43). On the miniatures (reproduced in Ferrari 2000, 155–160, plates 13–18), see Santoro 1962, 12, and the detailed descriptions by Porro (1884, 139–143) and Fava (1952, 24ff.). On the pedagogical meaning and purposes of the pictures in the Trivultianus manuscript, see Mariani Canova 1981, 211ff.; and Ferrari 2000, 138–142, and 2004, 106f. 75 On fol. 2r, now lost, a group of boys was represented with books in their hands, going to school; in the background, a large gate hinted at the incipit of the grammar, Ianua. At the beginning of the treatment of the verb amo, a noble girl, from the window of her palace, looks at the earl below; edo is described through a laid table, and gaudeo through a triumph. On fol. 13v, at the beginning of the section on doceo, the young earl is at school with his teacher, classmates, servants, fowlers, a dog, and a dwarf; below this, two lines read: “Infin ch’el mastro insegna el conte a gara / studia et ascolta e volunteri impara” (As long as the teacher lectures, the Earl unceasingly 72 73
the latin donatus
27
thanks to its moral values, culture is crucial in the training of the good ruler.76 The other manuscripts correspond to the typology described above. Although the general structure of Ianua is preserved, the number and quality of examples and paradigms quoted may vary considerably. By following a purely numerical criterion, the extant manuscripts can be divided into two groups. The majority belong to the short grammar book, Ianua brevis, where the number of examples is limited and, if possible, uniform—for example, MS. Plimpton 138 of Columbia University Library in New York, which contains three paradigms for each declension, or MS. lat. 127 of the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome, with four.77 In both cases, we have small manuscripts in gothic script, containing Ianua and Cato’s Distichs only. In the Casanatensis codex, dots divide the text into shorter units in order to aid memorization. MS. Vat. Ottoboni lat. 1967, formerly in the library of Giovanni Angelo, Duke of Altemps, also belongs to this category, although it presents more paradigms and a more accurate version of the text. It contains an interlinear version of the verbal forms in a CentralNorthern Italian (Tuscan?) vernacular, perhaps written down from a printed exemplar.78 Sometimes we also find traces of the notes that a pupil may have taken during a class.79 reads, listens, and eagerly learns). On fol. 43r, the teacher gives him a book containing moral precepts, perhaps alluding to the next stage of his education, the reading of Cato’s Disticha. 76 On fol. 1v, at the beginning of the book, a portrait of Massimiliano is captioned by a sonnet urging him, as a future ruler, to practice not only “strength and wisdom,” but also culture, literature, and virtue, so that he may “gire a l’alte cime” (reach the high peaks, scil. of fame and glory). Marcucci (2002, 97) remarks that the purpose of these pictures was to educate through images as well a to image: through them, the young prince could see himself as a model for his subjects. 77 On the Plimpton manuscript, see the description by Seymour De Ricci and W.J. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, New York 1935–1940, vol. 2, 1777; see also Ives 1942, 40; and Black 2001, 376. MS. Plimpton 145, another copy of Ianua according to Bursill-Hall (1981, no. 183. 15), actually contains Guarino’s Regulae grammaticales and Carmina differentialia, and two short anonymous grammatical treatises, the first of which is a reduced version of Ianua (see De Ricci and Wilson’s catalogue, 1778; and Ives, loc. cit.). The Casanatensis manuscript has been described by Maddalena Ceresi and Emma Santovito, Catalogo dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Casanatense, Roma 1961, 44–45. See Black 2001, 375. 78 For example: ut amem, “Dio voglia ch’io ame”; cum amem, “con ciò sia cosa ch’io ame”; etc. 79 As for the perfect subjunctive of amo, cum amarem, the pupil notes that “El tempo comenzato non è fornito” (the time has begun but is not finished) and translates “con
28
chapter one
The second group, Ianua longa, is represented by more extensive grammars, in which the standard stock of definitions and forms is increased through insertions from other grammatical works. Important examples are MS. Strozzi 80 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence, MS. lat. 15972 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and MS. 404 of the Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile in Padua.80 Other Ianuae resemble Ianua longa for the number of paradigms: MS. Vat. Chigi L. VI. 98—with eight paradigms for the first declension, five for the second, no fewer than eighty-six for the third, and four for both the fourth and the fifth—and MS. Vaticanus lat. 9295, an edition of Ianua by the humanist Pietro da Montagnana.81 Clearly, this hypothesis should be taken as a starting point that is open to all kinds of modifications when the analysis of a larger number of copies of Ianua will produce a more precise picture. At any rate, even a superficial investigation of the few manuscripts that I have seen reveals that each of them contains a different version of the text. As is the case with schoolbooks in general, teachers could introduce changes into the textbooks they used, according to their own pedagogical demands and to those of their classes. Nor is it possible to infer that the fuller version of the text found in the Harley manuscript was completely supplanted by the short one:82 the two versions may have circulated together, at least for some time and in some places. The advent of printing contributed to an enormous increase in the number of copies of Ianua available in the book market. We know of thirty-two incunabular editions; twenty-eight of them were printed in Italy.83 The number of the copies of Ianua printed after 1500 has not
ciò fosse cosa ch’io amassi o amaria.” For the pluperfect cum amavissem, he reports “El tempo andato è longamente passato” (the time has gone and has elapsed long ago) and translates “con ciò fosse stato cosa che avesse o averia amato.” 80 I refer only to manuscripts that I have seen directly. Black (1996, 5–12) offers a brief description of the Ianuae longae contained in MSS. Strozzi 80, Magliabechi I 45, and Paris. Bibl. Nat. lat. 15972, to which he adds (19f.) MS. Harley 2653. 81 See below, 47 f. 82 See Gehl 1993, 90; and Black 2001, 50f. 83 An additional incunable of Ianua not listed in GW or in the other catalogues of incunabula has been identified by Grendler (1985, 273 n. 14): Venice, Theodorus de Ragazonibus de Asula, 8-XII-1488. Grendler also notes that, in some cases, the text of Ianua was considered to be interchangeable with the Ars minor. For example, in GW 8908 the epigram Ianua sum, etc., is followed by the text of Donatus’ work.
the latin donatus
29
yet been calculated.84 This abundance has so far imposed a serious obstacle to a modern critical edition of Ianua: even among the printed editions available, two identical copies are hard to find. 5. Ianua(e): Structure and Variants Between 1450 and 1500, the first period of the history of printing, about 360 editions of Donatus’ grammar were printed in Europe. Whereas the Ars maior was printed only five times and incompletely (GW 9030–9034), the Ars minor and its later versions, including Ianua or Rudimenta grammatices, had a wide circulation (GW 8674–9028). Schoolbooks immediately attracted the attention of the first printers, such as Gutenberg in Germany or Sweynheym and Pannartz in Italy:85 these texts were easily sold, circulated widely, and the demand for them was steady. Thus Donadelli (“little Donatuses”) occur very often in inventories of booksellers and stationers.86 Printed editions of Ianua present some common aspects. Usually in quarto, their average size is cm 14 ×19–20. Most incunabular and later editions of Ianua were printed in large Gothic type fonts, with the first page decorated in red and black ink, without paragraphing and without any visual distinction between paradigms and definitions. As Grendler has pointed out, the type and layout of Ianua hint at the way chivalric romances, vernacular religious texts, or works generally intended for a popular audience were printed; partly for obvious economic reasons and partly for the conservatism of book forms, Ianua continued to be printed in Gothic type fonts well beyond the advent of Roman type, as employed, for instance, for Guarino’s Regulae.87
Nineteen editions of Ianua printed from 1510 to 1645 are listed and analyzed by Grendler (1985, 265–267). 85 Johannes Gutenberg printed several editions of Donatus’ Ars minor between 1445 and 1446. A Donatus was printed by Sweynheym and Pannartz at the Benedictine abbey of Subiaco in 1464. See Plebani 1994, 78. 86 For example, an inventory of the contents of the shop, the house, and the farmhouse of the Florentine stationer Giovanni di Michele Baldini made after his death in 1425 (published by De La Mare 1973a, 243–248) mentions several schoolbooks, including (no. 113) “sette Donadelli con Cato e ve n’è uno vechio” (i.e., seven copies of Ianua with Cato’s Distichs, one of which quite old), and (no. 149) “cinque Donadelli in carte vechie” (five copies in old paper, i.e., probably, in bad condition). 87 See Grendler 1985, 262 f. 84
30
chapter one
There are, however, some differences that cannot always be explained by place and time of origin. Even copies separated by a short time span and originating in contiguous areas can show completely different features. Ianua manuscripts were still being copied in the fifteenth century; moreover, several editions of the text most probably circulated at the same place and at the same time. The old grammar book entirely in Latin (GW 8987–9017: from 1470 to 1500) coexisted with the new editions featuring translations of Latin forms into vernacular languages, such as Donatus melior by Antonio Mancinelli (GW 9019–9024: 1491–1500) and the Latin-Italian Ianua (GW 9025–9028: 1492–1499). Such variety may reflect several different methods used in classrooms to teach and learn Latin.88 What follows is a general description of Ianua. The manuscripts and the printed editions considered here, although representing only a small part of the available documentation, offer a sufficiently clear picture of the style and content of Ianua.89 a. Nouns Introduced by the question: Poeta que pars est? Nomen est, the section on nouns also includes comparative, superlative, and numeral adjectives. Nouns and adjectives, in fact, were usually considered by ancient grammarians to belong to the same category. After the definition of
88 On the printing and circulation of Donatus’ Ars minor and Ianua in the fourteenth century, see Jensen 2001, 105–106 and 108. 89 The following remarks are intentionally generic; my purpose is to provide readers with a general overview of Ianua to support my analysis of the Greek Donati. For this reason, I will not account for, or explain, the individual features of each Ianuatext I am dealing with because it would lie outside the purpose of the present study. I will use the following abbreviations:
a) Manuscripts: K: New York, Columbia University, MS. Plimpton 138, 15th c. (Ianua brevis); S: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 80, early 14th c. (Ianua longa); U: Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile, MS. 404, 1461 (Ianua longa). b) Printed editions: p: Pescia, typiis Savonarolae, 28. IX. 1492 (GW 9006 = IGI 3555, 2. 167) v: Venice, Giovanni Battista Sessa, 13. I. 1495 (GW 9027 = IGI 3562, 2. 168) The p-edition represents the “vulgate” version, the one that, to my knowledge, occurs most often. The v-text is a “bilingual Donatus” and contains the translation of part of the Latin text into the Venetian vernacular.
the latin donatus
31
the noun, taken from Priscian (Quare est nomen? Quia significat substantiam et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum casu: Inst. gramm. 2. 5, GL 2, 56), a list of five accidentia follows, in the same order as in Priscian: species, genus, numerus, figura, casus. The distinction between species primitiva (or principalis) and species derivativa is also derived from Priscian. Thus, poeta is considered as a derivative of poesis.90 The main criterion of distinction for gender is the use of the articular pronoun hic haec hoc. Seven genders are identified: masculinum (hic), femininum (haec), neutrum (hoc), commune (hic, haec), omne (hic, haec, hoc), incertum, and promiscuum. The numeri, singular and plural, are defined per idem (Quia singulariter / pluraliter profertur). The three figurae—simplex, composita, and decomposita—hint at Priscian’s classification.91 The sequence (iustus)—iniustus—iniustitia, which replaces Priscian’s magnus—magnanimus—magnanimitas, occurs in almost every copy of Ianua. As for the last property, case, most Ianuae breves are limited to the definition of the nominative; some copies, however, offer a complete list of cases (Quot sunt casus nominum? Sex. Qui? etc.) and further distinguish between casus recti and casus obliqui (Quot sunt recti? Duo. Qui? […] Quot sunt obliqui? Quattuor. Qui? etc.).92 The main difference among copies of Ianua concerns the paradigms used to expound the declensions. Their number is extremely varied, and it is almost impossible to find two copies with identical examples. Some examples, such as poeta and musa, belong to the ancient school grammar and have already appeared in Donatus’ Ars minor; others (grammatice, magister, scamnum, etc.) refer to the classroom itself. Some names hint at classical reading books of late antiquity and the Middle Ages, in particular Virgil: Anchises, Priamides, Aeneas; Vergilius, Orpheus, and Theseus. In particular, the group of nouns referring to the readings typical of a Christian environment stands out: Abraham, Pascha, Andreas, parsimonia, anima; dominus, deus, synodus, Petrus, Laurentius, Eustochius; sacerdos, lectio, lector, virgo, pauper, etc. The exposition of the declension is uniform: Nominativo hic poeta, genetivo huius poete, dativo huic poete, accusativo hunc poetam, vocativo o poeta, ablativo ab hoc poeta; et pluraliter: nominativo hi poete,
90 The connection between poeta and poesis is perhaps derived from medieval grammar, whereas Priscian (Inst. gramm. 5. 5, GL 2, 143; 17. 208, GL 3, 208) considered poeta as being derived from the Greek ποιητς. See Schmitt 1966, 50–51 n. 39. 91 Inst. gramm. 5. 56, GL 2, 177. 92 See Schmitt 1966, 53, n. 48–50.
32
chapter one genetivo horum poetarum, dativo his poetis, accusativo hos poetas, vocativo o poete, ablativo ab his poetis.93 [In the nominative hic poeta, in the genitive huius poetae, in the dative huic poetae, in the accusative hunc poetam, in the vocative o poeta, in the ablative ab hoc poeta; and in the plural: in the nominative hi poetae, in the genitive horum poetarum, in the dative his poetis, in the accusative hos poetas, in the vocative o poetae, in the ablative ab his poetis.]
Each of the five sets of paradigms concludes with a question concerning the declension to which they belong. The definition takes into account the ending of the genitive singular; sometimes the dative singular is also given as a distinguishing element.94 Also included in each declension’s section are the declensions of irregular nouns.95 Some qualifying adjectives, as well as the adverbs derived from them, are given in their three degrees of comparison: bonus, malus, magnus, parvus, and doctus appear in almost all editions; fortis, velox, felix, verus, pridem (prior, primus), ante, infra, and pius can be also found. The declension of the numeral adjectives, accompanied by the article (pluraliter: nominativo hi duo, he due et hec duo, etc.) also includes the indeclinable quattuor (pluraliter: nominativo hi et he et hec quattuor, etc.) because, as is specified immediately afterwards: omnia nomina numeralia a quattuor usque ad centum sunt omnis generis, numeri pluralis et indeclinabilia. [All numerals from quattuor to centum are of all genders, of plural number, and indeclinable].
b. Verbs The question Amo que pars est? introduces the section on verbs, by far the longest and the most complex of Ianua. The definition of the part of speech is taken from Priscian (Quare est verbum? Quia cum modis et temporibus sine casu agendi vel patiendi est significativum).96 The list of the 93
In v, the translation of the paradigms involves the entire declension. For example: Nominativo hic et hec advena, lhomo e la femina forestera. Genitivo huius advene, de lhomo e de la femina forestera. Dativo huic advene, a lhomo a la femina forestera; etc. 94 In the case of the first declension, the p-text reads: Cuius declinationis? Prime. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in e diptongum desinit, ut hic poeta huius poete, et hec musa -se. In other texts, an objective statement may replace the direct question; e.g., K, S, and v read: Prima declinatio nominis est, cuius genitivus singulari et dativus in e diphtongum desinit, ut hic poeta huius poete huic poete. 95 To my knowledge, however, only Ianuae longae contain irregular nouns. 96 In some texts (e.g., v), the definition is completed with the etymology of “verb”:
the latin donatus
33
eight verbal properties follows Priscian’s order: genus, tempus, modus, species, figura, coniugatio, persona, and numerus.97 As for genus, “voice” or significatio verborum, Donatus lists five genera, whereas Ianua normally acknowledges eight: activum, passivum, neutrum, commune (deponent verbs with both active and passive meaning), deponens, neutrum passivum (or neutropassivum, semideponent verbs), passivum neutrum (active verbs with passive meaning), and nullum (or neutrum substantivum, verbs not ending in -o, e.g., sum).98 Definitions and terminology, however, vary conspicuously in the many versions of the text. In their descriptions, formal aspects usually prevail over syntactical meaning.99 The five verbal tenses (praesens, praeteritum imperfectum, praeteritum perfectum, praeteritum plusquamperfectum, and futurum) are defined per idem: Cuius temporis? Presentis (preteriti imperfecti, etc.). Quare? Quia presens (preteritum imperfectum, etc.) tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem.100 [Of what tense? Present (imperfect, etc.). Why? Because it designates a present (imperfect, etc.) tense, either active or passive.]
The same kinds of definitions also occur in some texts for the moods (indicativus, imperativus, optativus, subiunctivus, and infinitivus),101 but other, more formal criteria may also be employed.102 Unde dicitur verbum? A verbero, -as, vel a verberatum, eo quod in perferendo aerem verberamus. See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 1, GL 2, 369: Verbum est pars orationis cum temporibus et modis, sine casu, agendi vel patiendi significativum […] Verbum autem quamvis a verberatu aeris dicatur, quod commune accidens est omnibus partibus orationis, tamen praecipue in hac dictione quasi proprium eius accipitur, qua frequentius utimur in omni oratione. 97 Inst. gramm. 8. 2, GL 2, 369. 98 Seven genera usually occur in medieval grammar (e.g., in Francesco da Buti’s grammar); humanist grammar returns to five. See Rizzo 1995, 33. 99 For example, K, U, and p read: Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens facit ex se passivum in or. The same “formal” definition can be found in Donatus, Ars minor 4 (p. 592 Holtz): Activa quae sunt? Quae in o desinunt et accepta r littera faciunt ex se passiva, ut lego, legor; and in Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 9, GL 2, 374: Activa vel recta vocantur [verba] quae in o desinentia et assumpta r facientia ex se passiva, etc. On the other hand, the definition in S and v also hints at the use of the active voice: Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens potest facere transitionem ad aliquod rationale animal unde possit fieri conversa locutio. 100 The originals of the Greek versions a and c must have also contained a definition of the “combined tenses” (Priscian’s coniuncta tempora: Inst. gramm. 8. 43, GL 2, 408): praesens et praeteritum imperfectum and praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum for optatives, infinitives, and participles. See below, n. 109. 101 The v-text defines the indicative, imperative, and optative by using the same formula: Cuius modi? Indicativi (imperativi, optativi). Quare? Quia indicat (imperat, optat) rem esse vel fuisse vel futuram esse. U has Quia eo utimur ad indicandum (imperandum, optandum) aliquid alicui. 102 For example, the definition of subjunctive reads: Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare?
34
chapter one
Like nouns, verbs may belong to two species, primitiva and derivativa, and to three figurae: simplex, composita, and decomposita. Different examples might be used to illustrate them.103 The four conjugations are distinguished according to the ending of the second person singular of the present indicative. This criterion is generally used by grammarians.104 Irregular verbs are considered nullius coniugationis: Cuius coniugationis? Prime (secunde, tertie, quarte). Quare? Quia in secunda persona presentis indicativi modi habet a productum (e productum, i correptum vel e, i productum) ante s vel ante ris, ut amo amas et amor, amaris (doceo doces et doceor doceris; lego legis et legor legeris; audio audis et audior audiris). Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non sequitur 105 regulam alicuius coniugationis. [Of what conjugation? The first (second, third, fourth). Why? Because in the second person of the present indicative it has a long a (a long e, a short i or e, a long i) before s or before ris, like amo amas and amor amaris (doceo doces and doceor doceris; lego legis and legor legeris; audio audis and audior audiris). Of what conjugation? None. Why? Because it is irregular and does not follow the rules of any conjugation.]
The definitions of the four personae (prima, secunda, tertia, and nulla)106
Quia egens adverbio vel coniunctione subiungit sibi aliud verbum vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perfectum significet sensum. This definition echoes Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 68, GL 2, 424: [subiunctivus] eget non modo adverbio vel coniunctione, verum etiam altero verbo, ut perfectum significet sensum. 103 As examples of figurae, K, U, p and probably S have amo-adamo and peramoperamasco, whereas v has cupio-concupio-concupisco. Both amasco (not peramasco, which is not attested) and cupio … concupisco are mentioned by Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 73, GL 2, 428 and 81, 434, respectively. On amasco (or adamasco), see Rizzo 1996, 13. 104 Donatus, Ars minor 4, 591 f. Holtz (the third conjugation includes also the fourth); Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 93, GL 2, 443; etc. 105 The v-text has non servat. 106 The definition in S, p, and v is semantic and closely modeled on Priscian’s definition: the first person is que cum loquitur de se ipsa pronuntiat, the second ad quam prima loquitur directo sermone, and the third de qua prima loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam positam ad quam dirigit sermonem (dirigitur sermo v). K has: Quia in prima persona verbi reperitur (quia est secunde/tertie persone verbi), and U has: Quia significat rem de se loquentem (rem ad quam aliquis loquitur / rem ut de qua prima loquitur ad secundam, etc.). Infinitives, impersonal verbs, gerunds, and supines are nullius persone and nullius numeri. See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 101–102 (GL 2, 448–450). Donatus’ definition, on the other hand, is simpler and based on examples. Cf. Ars minor 4, 593 Holtz: Personae verborum quot sunt? Tres. Quae? Prima, ut lego; secunda, ut legis; tertia, ut legit; Ars maior 2. 12, 638 Holtz: Personae verbis accidunt tres, prima, secunda, tertia. Prima est, quae dicit lego; secunda, cui dicitur legis; tertia, de qua dicitur legit.
the latin donatus
35
and of the two numeri (singularis and pluralis, identical to that given for nouns)107 conclude the introduction to the verb. A long section on verbal paradigms follows. For each of the four conjugations, one regular verb—amo, doceo, lego, and audio—is conjugated in its voices, moods (modi), and tenses (tempora), according to the following chart: I. Verbum activum: 1. Indicativus a. Presens, b. Preteritum imperfectum, c. Preteritum perfectum, d. Preteritum plusquamperfectum, e. Futurum 2. Imperativus a. Presens,108 b. Futurum 3. Optativus (all forms are introduced by utinam) a. Presens et preteritum imperfectum (= imperfect subjunctive), b. Preteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum (= pluperfect subjunctive),109 c. Futurum (= present subjunctive) 4. Subiunctivus (all forms are introduced by cum) a. Presens, b. Preteritum imperfectum, c. Preteritum perfectum, d. Preteritum plusquamperfectum, e. Futurum (= future perfect indicative). 5. Infinitivus a. Presens et preteritum imperfectum (= present), b. Preteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum (= perfect), c. Futurum.110 II. Verbum impersonale Third person singular, passive, of each mood and tense of the active voice (I. 1–5), plus:
107
Another definitio per idem, common to all texts: Cuius numeri? Singularis (pluralis). Quare? Quia singulariter (pluraliter) profertur. 108 Contrary to modern normative Latin grammar and like Greek grammar, the imperative in Ianua has a third person, corresponding to the third persons singular and plural of the present subjunctive. 109 “Double tenses” are given by Donatus (Ars minor 4, p. 593 Holtz) and explained by Priscian by considering the aspect of each tense (Inst. gramm. 8. 42–43, GL 2, 407 f.): In hoc autem modo (scil. optativo) dumtaxat et infinito tempora coniuncta habent Latini praesens com praeterito imperfecto et praeteritum perfectum cum plusquamperfecto ad imitationem Graecorum […] Nam praeteritum imperfectum rationabiliter idem est etiam praesens; dico enim “utinam legerem nunc” et “utinam legerem heri” […] Praeteritum quoque perfectum et plusquamperfectum optativi coniuncta sunt; licet enim vel multo ante vel paulo ante esse perfecta haec eadem intellegere nos optare, ut si dicam “utinam legissem ante quinquaginta annos” et “utinam legissem ante horam.” 110 Two forms are usually given: supine in -um +ire and future participle + esse.
36
chapter one
6. a. Gerundia vel participialia nomina, b. Supina, c. Participia (= present and future participles)111 III. Verbum passivum Same moods and tenses as the active (I. 1–5), plus: 6. a Participia (perfect participle), b. Gerundivum. In the treatment of the finite moods, the transition from the singular to the plural persons is always marked with the formula et pluraliter. Moreover, each verb is usually introduced by a list of its most significant forms, which perhaps reflects the way principal parts were memorized in schools: the first three persons of the present and perfect indicative, the first two of the imperative, then present and perfect infinitive, the gerund, the two supines, and the present and future participles. For example: amo, amas, amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, amavisse; amandi, amando, amandum; amatum, amatu; amans et amaturus.
For the passive, the same tenses are used, but the perfect participle and the gerundive replace the gerund, supines, and active participles: amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; amatus sum, es, est; amare, ametur; amari, amatum esse vel fuisse; amatus et amandus.
After the regular four conjugations, the irregular verbs are introduced. They are basically the same in all editions of the text, although their order may vary: sum, volo, fero, edo, eo, gaudeo, fio, and memini.112 In addition to presenting a stock of irregular forms suitable for memorization, this section of Ianua illustrates some of the definitions included in the introductory section, by offering examples of the conjugation of verbs generis nullius (sum), neutri (eo), neutri passivi (gaudeo, fio), etc.
111 The gerund is given in the genitive, dative, and accusative. Usually, a sentence marks the transition to the verbal nouns and adjectives: Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec, etc.; supina sunt hec, etc., whereas the participles deserve a catechistic question: Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Answers may vary. K, S, U, and p, for instance, insist on the formation of participles, as in the following example: Amans et amaturus. Amans unde formatur? A prima persona preteriti imperfecti indicativi modi. Quomodo? Amabam, -bam in ns, fit amans. Amaturus unde formatur? Ab ultimo supino. Quomodo? Amatum, amatu, addita rus fit amaturus. 112 Other irregular verbs, such as poenitet and decet, may also be included. For example, poenitet is found in the twelfth-century MS. Harley 2653 (Black 2001, 371) and decet is in S and U.
the latin donatus
37
c. Participles The introductory question is followed by a general definition of the participle, which modern grammar generally includes under the verb. Its properties are explained as including accidentia of both the noun and the verb: Legens que pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia partem capit nominis partemque verbi. Recipit enim a nomine genera et casus, a verbo autem tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram. Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Que? Genus, casus, tempus, significatio, numerus et figura.113 [What part of speech is legens? It is a participle. Why is it a participle? Because it partakes of the noun and of the verb: it takes from the noun the genders and cases, from the verb the tenses and meanings, and from both the numbers and forms. How many properties apply to the participle? Six. Which ones? Gender, case, tense, meaning, number, and form.]
Each of the properties is then described with examples. Legens is defined as generis masculini vel feminini vel neutri or generis omnis, depending on the noun or pronoun to which it refers (Quia sic est illud cui adheret). Several definitions of casus can be found in the various versions of Ianua. Three tenses are acknowledged and distinguished according to the usual formal criterion, i.e., from the ending of the nominative: Cuius temporis? Presentis et preteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in ans vel in ens presentis et preteriti imperfecti temporis est. Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in tus vel in sus vel in xus, et unus in uus, quod est mortuus, preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti temporis est.114 Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in rus vel in dus futuri temporis est. [Of what tense? Present and imperfect. Why? Because every participle ending in ans or ens is of the present and imperfect tenses.
113 Priscian had not given any exact definition of the participle: its distinctive character results from its being related to both the noun and the verb (see Robins 1951, 65 f.). Thus, the definition given in Ianua summarizes Priscian’s statements on participles: cf. Inst. gramm. 11. 1, GL 2, 548; 5, 551; 8, 552; and 13, 555. 114 Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 11. 16–17, GL 2, 558: Praeteriti vero temporis participia, quae in tus vel sus vel xus desinunt, similiter a supino extremo fiunt, addita s et correpta u […] Excipitur mortuus a morior, cuius supinum cum secundum analogiam moritu et hinc moriturus facere futurum debeat et praeteritum moritus, mortuus, non moritus facit.
38
chapter one Of what tense? Perfect and pluperfect. Why? Because every participle ending in tus or in sus or in xus, and one in uus, which is mortuus, is of the perfect and pluperfect tenses. Of what tense? Future. Why? Because every participle ending in rus or in dus is of the future tense.]
The definitions of the fourth property, significatio, emphasize the link between the participle and the verb from which it is derived. A maximum of seven significationes are mentioned: activa, passiva, neutralis or neutra, communis, deponens, neutralis passiva or neutra passiva, and nulla or neutralis substantiva. Their definitions are formulaic: Cuius significationis?…Quare? Quia a verbo…venit, quod est illud:…, inde venit… [Of what meaning? … Why? Because it comes from a … verb, which is: …; therefrom comes …]
Except for legens for the active and lectus for the passive, the examples chosen to explain the significationes may vary. After the declension of the participles in their tenses (legens, lectus, and sometimes lecturus and legendus), some texts add a useful summary of the inflection; for example:115 Cuius declinationis? Tertie. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in is correptum desinit, ut legens, legentis. Et sic alia participia desinentia in ans vel in ens sunt declinationis tertie. Alia vero participia sunt prime et secunde, quia genitivus singularis desinit in e et in i, ut lecti, lecte, lecti. [Of what declension? The third. Why? Because its genitive singular ends in short is, like legens, legentis. Thus, all the other participles ending in ans or in ens are of the third declension. Conversely, the other participles are of the first and the second, because their genitive singular ends in ae and i, like lecti lectae lecti.]
d. Pronouns After the introductory questions (Ego que pars est? Pronomen est) and the definition of the part of speech (Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur loco proprii nominis et certam significat personam),116 the six properties of the pro115 The text is quoted from p. U’s summary is much shorter: Cuius declinationis? Prime et secunde. Quare? Quia ex parte feminini sunt prime et ex parte masculini et neutri secunde. 116 This definition is based on Priscian (Inst. gramm. 12. 1, GL 2, 577), who linked the pronoun to proper names only, whereas his source, Dionysius Thrax, correctly linked it to all nouns (17, p. 60 Lallot): *ντωνυμα στ' λ ξις *ντ' νματος παραλαμβανομ νη
the latin donatus
39
noun (species, genus, numerus, figura, persona, and casus) are described in the usual way. After the species primitiva and derivativa—already known to students, and therefore not defined with examples117—the genus, numerus, and figura are introduced. Figura can be simplex or composita. No example is given for the former (Cuius figure? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur), whereas for the latter texts offer several options: idem, from is and demum; egomet, from ego and met; istic, from iste and hic, etc.118 The most important property of the pronoun, however, is persona. The following definition occurs in almost every copy of Ianua, with slight variations: [Quia] omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est prime, et tu, quod est secunde, et vocativis casibus aliorum, qui sunt persone secunde. [(Because) all nouns and pronouns are of the third persons, except for ego, which is of the first, and tu, which is of the second, as well as the vocatives of the other pronouns, which are of the second person.]
As in Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae,119 the fifteen pronouns “about which there is no doubt for Latins” (de quibus nulla dubitatio est apud Latinos) are then divided into four modi according either to the endings of the genitive and dative singular (in -i or -is / -i: ego, tu, sui, for the first; in -ius / -i: ille, ipse, iste, hic, and is, for the second) or to the declension they follow (first and second declensions for the third: meus, tuus, suus, noster and vester; third declension for the fourth: nostras and vestras). Each definition is followed by the declension of the pertinent pronouns. Pronouns are further divided into two main categories: primitiva, which includes eight pronouns and corresponds to the first two modi, and derivativa, concerning seven pronouns and corresponding to the last two modi. (a pronoun is a word that is substituted for a noun). See Robins 1951, 66, and 1993, 77. 117 In Ianua, species is treated both at the beginning and toward the end of the section on pronouns. Both sections constitute a synthesis of Priscian’s extensive treatment. In Inst. gramm. 12. 1 and 7, GL 2, 577 and 580, he distinguishes between primitive (ego, mei, tu, tui, sui, etc.; ille, ipse, iste, hic, is) and derivative pronouns: Derivativa septem diximus. A prima persona derivantur tria; a singulari genitivus unum, mei meus, a plurali duo, nostrum vel nostri, noster et nostras; a secunda quoque tria […], a tertia vero persona unum, sui suus. The same extensive treatment is found in S. 118 See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 12. 21, GL 2, 589 (idem), and 22, 590 (istic, egomet). 119 Inst. gramm. 13. 4 ff., GL 3, 2 ff.
40
chapter one
e. Prepositions After the question Ad que pars est?, the fifth part of speech—the first of the non-inflected—is thus defined ex causa in all texts: Quare est prepositio? Quia preponitur aliis partibus orationis per appositionem vel per compositionem;120 per appositionem, id est per regimen casuum; per compositionem, id est quando componitur. [Why is it a preposition? Because it is placed before other parts of speech either by juxtaposition or by combination: by juxtapositon, which means by taking cases; by combination, which means when it is combined (with other parts of speech).]
Ianua acknowledges only one property for prepositions: casus or regimen casus.121 Four categories of prepositions are distinguished, depending on the case they take (the accusative, the ablative, or both), or whether they appear in compound words. Each list is introduced by two questions (Ad / Ab / In cui casui servit? and Quot sunt prepositiones … in compositione?). The pertaining prepositions follow a roughly alphabetical order. f. Adverbs The section begins with the question Tunc or Nunc que pars est?, followed by the definition of the adverb: Quare est adverbium? Quia stat iuxta verbum et semper nititur verbo. [Why is it an adverb? Because it stands near the verb and is always supported by a verb.]
The text then mentions the three adverbial properties: species, significatio, and figura, which hint at Priscian’s (Inst. gramm. 15. 5, GL 3, 63) rather than at Donatus’ significatio, comparatio, and figura (Ars min. 5, p. 595 Holtz; Ars maior 2. 13, p. 641 Holtz).
120 Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 14. 1, GL 3, 24: Est igitur praepositio pars orationis indeclinabilis, quae praeponitur aliis partibus vel appositione vel compositione. 121 The term regere and its derivatives (e.g., regimen), dear to medieval grammar (Thurot 1869, 82), were already used by Servius as meaning “to determine”; for example, Comm. in Don., GL 4, 408, 28: ablativus singularis regit genetivum, dativum et ablativum pluralem; etc. The use of regere as “to govern,” for verbs or prepositions taking particular cases, is rare in grammatical works earlier than Doctrinale. See Rizzo 1995, 36; Reynolds S. 1996, 97–109; and Colombat 1999, 427–429.
the latin donatus
41
Ianua-texts, however, differ considerably in the part regarding significatio, which concerns the semantic classes of the adverbs. After the adverbs of time and place, which Donatus and Priscian also consider as the initial categories, the number, order, and even name of the other categories and the quoted examples are extremely varied.122 All categories, however, are introduced with the same formula: da, genitive, ut, examples. g. Interjections Latin grammarians added the interjection to replace the article and keep the number of the parts of speech unchanged. Both Donatus and Priscian, in fact, point out that Greek grammarians include interjections in the category of adverbs and express their own opinion on this issue.123 In Ianua, of course, there is no trace of such a debate, and the treatment of the interjection occupies the shortest section. The standard definition reads: Heu que pars est? Interiectio est. Quare est interiectio? Quia interiacet aliis partibus orationis. [What part of speech is heu? It is an interjection. Why is it an interjection? Because it lies between other parts or speech.]
This definition, modeled on Donatus’ definition in the Ars maior, hints at the function rather than the semantic value of the part of speech. The categories of “meaning” (significatio), the only property of this part of speech, may vary in name and number in Ianua-texts.124 h. Conjunctions Conjunctions were conceived as a trait d’union between morphology, i.e., elementary Latin, and syntax, which pupils tackled at a more
122 Ianuae longae (S, U) and v list twenty-eight categories, p twenty-six, and K eighteen. 123 See Donatus, Ars maior 2. 17, p. 652 Holtz; Priscian, Inst. gramm. 15. 40, GL 3, 85. The first evidence of interiectio is in Quintilian (Inst. or. 1.4. 19), who probably took it up from Remmius Palaemon: see Barwick 1922, 165 ff. 124 Both p and v include the categories dolentis, (ad)mirantis, exclamantis, and timentis (expavescentis p), to which p adds indignantis (racha) and deridentis (vah), whereas v has gaudentis (euax, euge). U has dolentis, gaudentis, admirantis, and expavescentis, whereas K and S are limited to dolentis and admirantis.
42
chapter one
advanced level of the Latin curriculum. Thus, this part of speech receives a synthetic treatment in the last chapter of the elementary grammar. The example quoted in Ianua to introduce conjunctions is et, and the definition, “because it connects the other parts of speech” (quia coniungit ceteras partes orationis), echoes Priscian, Inst. gramm. 16. 1, GL 3, 93: coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis, coniunctiva aliarum partium orationis.125 Ianua agrees with Priscian also in the definition of the three properties: species, figura, and ordo.126 Donatus acknowledged five kinds of conjunctions: copulativae, disiunctivae, expletivae, causales and rationales. The Ianua-texts considered here list from twelve to seventeen categories, which correspond, more or less, to the species indicated by Priscian. The fact that some categories almost always occur in a fixed sequence and usually in groups of three suggests that this was the way they were memorized in schools.127 The examples quoted in Ianua include both single conjunctions and entire sentences, in order to represent the actual usage of the part of speech within a context. The quoted sentences are mostly exempla faithfully repeated from Priscian: for example, si stertit dormit for coniunctiones continuativae (= Inst. gramm. 16. 3, GL 3, 94); equidem merui nec deprecor, a quotation from Virgil, Aeneid 12. 931, which Priscian used in order to describe coniunctiones approbativae; and Aeneas quidem pius fuit, Ulixes vero astutus for coniunctiones completivae (= 16. 13, GL 3, 102). Priscian’s statements are often quoted almost literally in Ianua, as in the definition of coniunctiones copulativae and adversativae:
125 See, however, Donatus, Ars minor 7 (p. 599 Holtz) and Ars maior 2. 15 (p. 646 Holtz): pars orationis adnectens ordinansque sententiam. 126 Donatus (see the previous note) has potestas instead of species, whereas species, in turn, is a category of potestas: (Ars maior 2. 15, 646 Holtz) potestas coniunctionum in quinque species dividitur. 127 The p-text even quotes the first seven categories in the same order as Priscian: copulativae, continuativae, subcontinuativae, adiunctivae, causales, effectivae, and approbativae. This order is repeated in v, except that adiunctivae are put after approbativae. Another sequence occurs in Priscian and in both editions: disiunctivae, sub(dis)iunctivae, and discretivae vel electivae. Moreover, v and Priscian have in common the series adversativae, abnegativae, and collectivae vel rationales.
the latin donatus Priscian (Inst. gramm.)
Ianua
(16. 2, GL 3, 93) Copulativa est quae copulat tam verba quam sensum.
Copulativa est que copulat tam sensum quam verba
(16. 10, GL 3, 99) Adversativae sunt quae adversum convenienti significant, ut tamen, quamquam, quamvis, etsi, etiamsi, saltem.
Adversativa est que adversum convenienti significat, ut tamen, quamquam, quamvis, si, etsi, ut: ego multo tempore servivi tibi, tu tamen habes me odio.
[“Copulative” is that which connects both words and meaning. “Adversative” are those which signify opposition to a statement, like tamen, quamquam, quamvis, etsi, etiamsi, saltem.]
[“Copulative” is that which connects both meaning and words. “Adversative” is that which signifies opposition to a statement, like tamen, quamquam, quamvis, si, etsi, as in: “I have served you for a long time; however (tamen), you hate me.”]
43
In some cases, Ianua’s definitions paraphrase or summarize Priscian’s text, thus making it easier and more accessible to beginners of Latin. We may infer that the anonymous compiler(s) of Ianua left out everything that was not considered immediately useful—such as Priscian’s frequent references to Greek—and reduced grammar to synthetical but also to rather obscure definitions. Priscian’s examples were also maintained. i. Appendix Some Ianuae conclude the treatment of the eight parts of speech with a short appendix that, through a sequence of questions and answers, recalls the fundamental concepts, definitions, and practical rules treated and explained in the manual. This was certainly meant as a tool for reviewing or checking the level of preparation reached after a thorough study of the handbook. Usually, each part of speech is presented by way of the same three questions, concerning its definition, properties, and etymology (Quid est …? Quid est proprium…? Unde dicitur…?). Rather than a summary of the text, the appendix seems to be a complement to it: the etymological meanings of the names of the parts of speech, usually taken from Priscian, do not appear in the pertinent sections of the handbook, but are inserted here as tools for memorization and comprehension.128 128
An extensive appendix can be found in U and one much shorter in p. The
44
chapter one
The flexibility of Ianua and its ability to be modified and adapted to all kinds of demands constitute the main reasons for its success. 6. Vernacular Donatus(es) Nowadays it is generally agreed that books that teach the rules of a native language should be in that language, whereas a foreign language should be taught in the student’s native tongue. Until the beginning of the Renaissance, however, this assumption was not valid.129 For example, Manuel Chrysoloras wrote his elementary Greek grammar, Erotemata, entirely in Greek, and it was thanks to the translation into Latin by Guarino Guarini that it became effective in the West as a tool for learning Greek. Only in 1498 do we have the first Greek grammar written in Latin: Urbano Bolzanio’s Institutiones. Although dual-language Ianuae—the so-called Donato al senno—do not appear before the advent of printing,130 it is possible to trace some “ancestors” of these Latin-vernacular grammar books: for example, an incomplete Latin grammar translated into a North Italian dialect, recognized by Sabbadini in the flyleaves of MS. S 40 sup. of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan.131 The name “Donatus,” however, was also used for handbooks for the elementary study of languages other than Latin. Consequently, we do not know whether the titles included in medieval library catalogues—“Donatus gallicus,” a “Donatus sive partes translatae ex appendix of v was aimed at a practical purpose, the translation from Latin into the (Venetian) vernacular. The v-text concentrates on nouns and verbs, the most complex parts of speech. The appendix gives practical rules for recognizing the gender and the declension of nouns (for example: Si genitivus singularis desinit in e et dativus in e est declinationis prime, etc.), as well as for translating from and into Latin (Quem sensum habet nominativus? Lo vel la, etc. In quot accidentibus debet concordare nominativus cum verbo? In duobus, scilicet in persona et in numero, etc.). 129 An exception is represented by the Greek translation of Dositheus’ grammar, written to teach Latin to Greeks. 130 Black 1996a, 708; 2001, 42. Latin-Italian Ianuae were printed in Venice from 1492 onwards (GW 9025–9028). As in the v-text, the vernacular translation was limited to the introductory poem and to single forms of paradigms and examples, but did not concern the parts on theory and definitions. Twenty-one editions of bilingual Ianuae from 1503 to 1717 are listed by Grendler (1985, 267 f.). 131 Sabbadini 1904–1905, 281ff. The flyleaves belong to the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. Sabbadini’s identification of the Latin text with Ianua has been rejected by Black (1996a, 708 n. 18).
the latin donatus
45
latino in theutonicum,” and a “Donatus anglice”132—refer to translations of the Latin grammar into vernaculars or to books written for the teaching of those languages. Over the course of time, in fact, the Ars minor and Ianua became the basis for handbooks on the teaching of vernacular languages. The authors of these handbooks, mostly anonymous, not only applied the handy question-and-answer format, but also adapted to other languages the Donatan-Priscianic pattern of the eight parts of speech, often with some effort. They also followed their model(s) in placing much more emphasis on morphology than on syntax. More importantly, they adopted (and adapted) the grammatical terminology employed for Latin. The comparative method, commonly used in teaching foreign languages, provided the background for these Latinate grammar books.133 There are two striking cases. Ælfric, Abbot of Eynsham (ca. 955 – ca. 1030), wrote an elementary Latin handbook using Donatus’ question-and-answer format to teach Latin; he paired each Latin form with an Anglo-Saxon translation. He also conceived the project of teaching the Anglo-Saxon language by applying the method used by Donatus and Priscian. In this way, he stretched Anglo-Saxon morphology into the Procrustean bed of Latin grammatical categories. For example, he increased the number of Anglo-Saxon cases from four to six. Moreover, as exempla of each nominal gender, Ælfric used words with a meaning equivalent to the Latin paradigms but often of different gender.134
Schmitt 1979, 100. The same can be said about a lost “Donatus” in Old Prussian, written by William of Modena in the thirteenth century: see Schmitt 1966a. 133 See Bischoff 1967 [1961], 231: “The more seriously medieval language studies were pursued, the more they derived their principles from Latin grammar.” Holtz (2005, 126) correctly remarks that these adaptations were based on the assumption that all languages have the same structure and, therefore, Donatus’ and Priscian’s analyses of Latin applied to any language. Interesting remarks on the teaching of French during and after the Renaissance can be found in the studies by Minerva and Pellandra (1989); see also Merrilees 1987, 91ff. Similarly, between the fifth and sixth centuries, Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη γραμματικ (see below, 106f.) was adapted to describe the Armenian language: see Sirinian 2003. 134 See Robins 1951, 71–74; Sandys 19583, 1. 512 f. (with a facsimile of Ælfric’s Latin grammar from an eleventh-century manuscript in Cambridge); and Orme 2006, 42 f. The relationship between Latin and English in Ælfric’s grammar has been analyzed by Menzer (2004), who remarks (110): “[W]riting for English speakers, [Ælfric] is teaching English grammar the way we teach introductory grammar or linguistics, 132
46
chapter one
In the thirteenth century, Uc Faidit (Ugo Faiditus) composed a Donatz Proençal for two Italian officials of the court of Frederick II. Faidit’s original text was perhaps in Provençal with an interlinear Latin translation. Faidit adopted the framework of the elementary Latin grammar to expound the rudiments of the Provençal language. He gave up the question-and-answer format but adopted the division into eight parts of speech, the grammatical terminology, and the definitions of both Donatus and Priscian. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that an early version of Ianua was the basis of Faidit’s work. Faidit, however, went so far in adapting the Provençal morphology to Latin that he omitted the treatment of the article, which exists in Provençal, and included the neuter and the genus omne for nouns, both of which are absent in Provençal. He then had to point out, however, that neuter substantives behaved like the masculine. Faidit acknowledged six nominal cases, which were nothing but the literal translation of the Latin cases, and three declensions so closely modeled on the first three Latin declensions as to obscure the real distinctions relevant to Provençal.135 Particular cultural factors contribute to explaining some other cases of the Latin grammatical tradition’s influence in establishing the grammars of some vernacular languages. For example, Donatus’ Ars minor, extensively used in Germany as a schoolbook, provided the framework for the systematization of German vernacular grammar.136 In France, a new emphasis on the preservation of Greek and Roman heritage led to “the most thoroughly Latinizing of French vernacular grammars,” Jacques Dubois’ In linguam Gallicam isagoge, una cum eiusdem Grammatica Latin-Gallica, ex Hebraeis, Graecis, et Latinis auctoribus (Paris 1531), written entirely in Latin.137
making it possible for students to talk about their language grammatically. Ælfric’s Grammar does teach English […] as a textbook written for speakers of English teaches introductory English grammar.” 135 On the Donatz Proençal, see Bischoff 1967 [1961], 229, as well as Marshall’s 1969 edition and extensive study. 136 See Padley 1988, 255 ff.: in spite of the opposition of some scholars (e.g., Valentin Ickelsamer, ca. 1534), many Latinate German grammars were produced in the sixteenth century. On the influence of Latin grammar in the systematization of Hebrew and Slavic languages, see Holtz 2005, 126f. 137 Padley 1988, 331.
the latin donatus
47
7. Donati meliores As humanists became aware of the difference between medieval and classical Latin, they began to challenge the effectiveness of Ianua as a tool for learning Latin. Although Ianua continued to be used in schools for a long time, various attempts were made to improve it. The two examples described below show that humanist teachers still considered Ianua’s general framework to be effective and left it unaltered. At the same time, however, they tried to “dignify” the elementary schoolbook by connecting it with the tradition of ancient grammar and with the best examples of medieval pedagogy. The Latin grammar copied on fols. 2r–57v of MS. Vat. lat. 9295 is entitled Editio Petri de Montagnana presbyteri super Donato minori qui est de octo partibus orationis (sic). Pietro da Montagnana (ca. 1400–1478), a teacher of grammar and the rector of the parish of San Fermo,138 based his Latin elementary grammar on an Ianua longa, but integrated Ianua’s short theoretical parts with quotations from ancient and medieval grammarians. Montagnana usually indicates his sources (secundum Donatum, fol. 2r; ut scribit Priscianus, 2v; ut scribit Priscianus in principio octavi libri, 10r; etc.); also, he often takes up, with slight variations, the same quotations from classical authors used by Priscian to explain his definitions. Montagnana’s grammar does not contain more paradigms than a traditional Ianua. On the other hand, for the sake of clarity, he often equips his explanations with easy examples, probably taken from his practice as a teacher; for example (fol. 2r): Quot sunt partes grammatice? Quattuor Quae? Littera, syllaba, dictio et oratio. Littera? A. Syllaba? An. Dictio? Antonius. Oratio? Antonius legit lectiones. [How many parts of grammar are there? Four. Which are they? Letter, syllable, word, and sentence. What is a letter? A. What is a syllable? An. What is a word? Antonius. What is a sentence? Antonius legit lectiones.]
Pietro juxtaposes grammatical definitions from ancient and medieval authors, without making any attempt to reach an original synthesis; 138 Pietro da Montagnana taught “grammar” at the school of the Cathedral of Padua from 1423 to 1433 or 1434, and later at a public school sponsored by the comune. “Grammar” meant Latin, and probably Greek and Hebrew as well; in fact, Pietro’s library and works testify to his knowledge of the three languages and justify the praises that he received from his contemporaries. See Sambin 1972–1973; Wilson 1977, 338 and 1992, 115; and below, 258 n. 83.
48
chapter one
his compilation is often repetitive and sometimes even confusing. However, repeating concepts several times may correspond to the pedagogical aim of facilitating their memorization. Some decades later, Antonio Mancinelli from Velletri (1452–1505), who taught Latin grammar in Rome, Venice, and other Italian cities, attempted another and more fortunate improvement of Ianua. In the preface to his Donatus melior (Rome 1487),139 which Mancinelli dedicated to his sons Pindarus, Quintus, and Sextus, he presented his edition of Donatus’ booklet of grammar (Donati libellum grammaticae), together with the corrected text of Carmen de moribus by “a certain Cato” (Catonis cuiusdam). He had decided to improve both texts (elimare constitui; […] haud piguit emendare), because Donatus’ grammar had been “corrupted by carelessness in many passages” (plurimis quidem locis […] incuria depravatum) and Cato’s poem was in even worse condition (ubique paene corruptum). Such a difficult undertaking was not only useful, but also necessary. Since, according to Quintilian (ut Fabius meminit: Inst. or. 1. 1. 19), human minds retain most steadfastly what they perceive in the initial stage of learning (natura tenacissimi sumus eorum quae rudibus animis percipiuntur), an elementary textbook full of mistakes and imperfections might irreparably affect the future knowledge of a discipline. The vernacular translation of the most difficult forms might also prevent a student’s misunderstanding of the foundations of the Latin language (visum est […], quo et vobis et posteris ego prodessem, difficiliora quaeque vernacula lingua exponere). In conclusion, Mancinelli urged teachers not to be deceived by the apparent simplicity of the grammar book; he encouraged students to memorize both Donatus’ text and the short essays on declensions and syntax that he had written and attached to the handbook: Postquam vero Donatum hunc recte edidiceritis, summam declinationis et constructionis libellum, quos anno superiori edidimus, memoriae commendantes, facile totius grammaticae summam scietis. [After learning this Donatus thoroughly, commit to memory the treatise on declensions and the essay on syntax that we published last year, and you will easily know the whole of grammar.]
Having been presented as an improvement of a pre-existing text rather than a completely new book, Mancinelli’s Donatus melior main139 Datum in Urbe intra Cal(endas) Decemb(res), M.cccc.lxxxvii. My observations are based on the edition printed as: Venetiis, per Ioannem de Cereto de Tridino alias Tacuinum, Anno Domini nostri Iesu Christi Mccccc, die 8 Martii (GW 9024).
the latin donatus
49
tains almost unaltered the structure and content of the original handbook.140 After the short initial poem, Mancinelli treats the parts of speech in the same order and according to the same method. Some slight modifications, however, show that his first concern was to make the form and content of Ianua clearer and more rational.141 Like some more recent editions of Ianua, Mancinelli also reduces the frequency of catechistic questions by replacing them with objective statements that are more authoritative and, consequently, have a stronger impact on students.142 Thus, induction replaces the traditional deductive method: pupils are first supposed to learn the rule and then to reinforce their knowledge with paradigms and examples. Mancinelli takes up the nominal paradigms of Ianua with some adjustments and additions. For example, pascha is included among the nouns of the third declension because of its genitive paschatos or paschatis, and the adjective f(o)elix, which had been mentioned and declined already by Donatus (Ars minor 2, pp. 586 and 587, and Ars maior 2. 5, p. 619 Holtz), is taken as an example of genus commune.143 Apparently, Mancinelli also acknowledges the importance of the use of the vernacular in pedagogy. As an aid to his Italian pupils, he translates the first noun declined, poeta, and the first verb conjugated, amo, into a central Italian vernacular. The verb of the first conjugation is fully and accurately translated in order to function as a model for the translation of the other verbs: in fact Mancinelli, unlike the com-
140 The precise title of the whole book, printed in the upper margin of the first page, is Donatus Melior. Catonis Carmen de moribus. De arte Libellus. 141 For example, in the old textbook, nominal properties followed the definition of poeta in a list, with no connection to the example quoted (only the definitions of species derivativa and genus masculinum pertain to poeta). Although repeating the same wording and sequence of definitions, Mancinelli accompanies the mention of all nominal properties with examples taken from Ianua itself; for example: Cuius generis musa? Foeminini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione unum articulare pronomen, haec […] Cuius figurae iustus? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur; etc. 142 For example, the basic rule regarding the first declension follows the list of paradigms in most editions of Ianua. In Mancinelli’s edition, the rule precedes the paradigms and reads: Prima declinatio nominis est cuius genitivus singularis in ae diphthongum desinit, ut hic poeta, huius poetae, et haec musa, huius musae. 143 Mancinelli’s paradigms are: poeta, musa, advena (first declension); dominus, deus, magister, scamnum (second); pater, mater, pascha, homo, omnis, foelix (third); visus, manus, domus, cornu (fourth); dies, res, species (fifth); bonus (first and second declension combined); duo, tres, quattuor (nomina numeralia); and bonus, malus, pius (degrees of comparison of adjectives and adverbs). Mancinelli may have collated two or more editions of Ianua.
50
chapter one
pilers of the Donati al senno, refrains from translating other nominal and verbal paradigms.144 The only exceptions are memini, for which several variants are given, and the impersonal form of eo.145 As for the other verbs, both regular (doceo, lego, and audio) and irregular (volo, fero, edo, eo, gaudeo, and fio), only forms which may present some difficulties, such as the infinitives or the gerunds, are deemed worthy of an accurate translation.146 In the sections on adverbs and conjunctions, Mancinelli does not seem to follow any of the known editions of Ianua. Also, he increases the number and quality of the examples for each category: sometimes he improves their style or makes them clearer by supplementing them with material taken from Priscian.147 The booklet also respects the demands of students in many other senses. Mancinelli maintains a consistent use of principal parts before the verbal conjugations. He was conscious of the value of mnemonic verses in pedagogy; thus, he sometimes inserts lines taken from medieval verse grammars at the end of regular conjugations.148 At the same time, Mancinelli made the elementary grammar more “scientific” and less empirical by mentioning ancient authors and grammarians and
144 The Latin perfect indicative amavi, etc., is translated into Italian in both the past tense and the present perfect (io amai and ho amato), whereas v mentions only the present perfect (mi ho amado). The same prevalence of the present perfect over the past tense can be observed nowadays in North Italian dialects. 145 For example: Ego memini, io me ricordo, recordaime, et some recordato; tu meministi, tu te recordi, recordasti, et site recordato, etc.; Verbo impersonali modi indicativi tempore praesenti itur, se va. Praeterito imperfecto ibatur, se giva, etc. 146 For example: Infinitivo modo sine numeris et personis tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto docere, insegnar. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto docuisse, haver insegnato, etc.; Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt haec: docendi, de insegnar et de esse insegnato, etc. 147 For the adverbs of place, instead of reproposing the generic list of Ianua, Mancinelli divided them into sub-groups according to their meaning (hic, illic, istic; hinc, illinc, istinc, etc.), thus following the same criterion as Priscian, Inst. gramm. 15. 30, GL 3, 83. To the adverbs of time quoted in Ianua, Mancinelli added four adverbs in an order corresponding to Priscian’s, ibid. 28, p. 81. In the example for coniunctio deminutiva, which in most Ianuae reads Si non potes mihi dare bis(s)antium, saltem accommoda denarium, Mancinelli replaced bisantium with the more classical aureolum (Mart. 9. 4. 3, etc.). 148 Here is an example concerning the verb edo (the source of these lines is unknown to me):
Induperativis ede tum vel es; ac edat ille este edite adiungit plurali quippe secunda. Esto tu esto ille vel edat; dic velle futurum. Plurali estote apponuntur, et edant vel edunto.
the latin donatus
51
comparing their theories; this use of primary sources to support the exposition of grammatical rules is indeed one of the most interesting features of Donatus melior.149 At the end of the grammar book, in an afterword to his readers (Mancinellus ad lectorem), Mancinelli feels obliged to justify his decision to maintain the definitions of Ianua even in some controversial cases, such as the identification of “optative,” the third persons and the first person plural of the imperative, and the passive meaning of the gerund: passages from Latin writers (Terence, Ovid, Lucan, Suetonius, Martial, etc.) and grammarians (Priscian and Diomedes, as well as Augustine) had encouraged him not to change the traditional way of presenting Latin grammar. Mancinelli also used the authority of grammarians in the appendix, which consists of the juxtaposition of definitions of the parts of speech and their properties, mostly taken from Donatus, Diomedes, and Priscian. In short, Mancinelli tried to make Ianua a useful and rational tool for teaching and learning Latin. A huge gap separated teachers and pupils of Renaissance and post-Renaissance schools, Mancinelli’s intended audience, from those of the Middle Ages, for which Ianua had been conceived. The text of Ianua itself, which had not escaped the typical fate of all schoolbooks, was in need of emendation and improvement. The teacher from Velletri attempted to satisfy the demand for a more effective textbook by sticking close to tradition. However, because of the increasing cultural importance of the vernacular languages, times were ripe for a radical change in pedagogy. On the other hand, in spite of Mancinelli’s effort to revise and improve the Latin Ianua, editions of the original grammar continued to circulate.150
149 For example, in the section on prepositions, taken directly from Ianua, after mentioning the prepositions that can be found only in compounds—di, dis, re, se, am, con—Mancinelli adds an interesting remark on am and grounds his assumption on the authority of Macrobius, Festus, and Priscian: Cave an dicas. Nam veteres an pro circum ponere solebant auctore Macrobio. Et Festus inquit am praepositio significat circum. Hinc dicitur ambustus, i.e., circum ustus. Priscianus et etiam liber xiiii inquit am per graecam praepositionem significat ut amplector, amputo, ambio, etc. 150 See Grendler’s discussion of six editions of Ianua issued from 1501 to 1594 (1985, 268 f.).
52
chapter one 8. The Association with Disticha Catonis
The Distichs of Cato (Disticha Catonis), a work in verse, were often appended to Ianua and to other elementary grammars. Attributed either to Marcus Porcius Cato the Censor (Cato the Elder, 234– 149 B.C.E.)—who, according to Gellius (Noct. Att. 11. 2. 2), wrote a Carmen de moribus for his son—or to an unknown “Dionysius Cato,”151 the Distichs actually were composed sometime after the third century C.E. and assumed their present form by the ninth century. In any case, quotations from this work do not appear before the fourth century.152 The Disticha are a product of the interest in archaic Latin writers typical of Latin culture in the late Empire. Written in a very easy Latin, the Distichs functioned as the first Latin reader in schools: they provided beginners with a text to read and memorize after learning the fundamental notions of Latin morphology. Notes on manuscripts suggest that pupils read the sentences in class, paraphrased them, and commented on them almost word by word. Two Piedmontese documents of 1409 and 1421 mention pupils legentes de Donato et Catone.153 “Cato” is a metonymy for the Disticha, which follows Ianua or Rudimenta grammatices in almost all manuscript copies and in twenty-three of the thirty-two incunable editions.154 The presence of the Disticha is regular in the editions of Donatus melior by Antonio Mancinelli, as well as in the vernacular version of Ianua: Donato or Donadello often meant Ianua plus the Distichs. The Disticha or Dicta Catonis are a collection of moral sayings: introduced by a praefatio and fifty-seven short sentences (breves sententiae) in prose, they consist of about 150 maxims in elegiac couplets. They make up a didactic poem divided into four books.155 Among the large number of manuscripts that have transmitted Cato’s Distichs, modern editors have singled out at least three different versions: a “vulgate” of 306 lines, bearing the title Marci Catonis ad filium libri (Ψ);
151 The misunderstanding concerning “Dionysius Cato,” which originated from Scaliger’s 1598 edition, lasted until the nineteenth century; see Roos 1984, 194f. 152 On quotations from the Disticha in late antique literary works, see Roos 1984, 187–190. 153 Black 1991b, 144. 154 GW 8988, 8991, 8992, 8995–9000, 9002–9004, 9006–9011, 9013–9016. 155 The metrical prologues of Books Two, Three, and Four and the breves sententiae are probably interpolations.
the latin donatus
53
a second version of 331 lines, which is more complete but not free from interpolations, entitled Dicta Marci Catonis ad filium suum (Φ); and the so-called Barberini recension, of uncertain origin.156 The importance of the Distichs in education went far beyond that of a simple linguistic exercise: as Hazelton has written, “the Disticha Catonis […] reveals itself as a compendium of the root ideas that informed the thinking of mediaeval men,” since it contained “in bulk the amalgamation of classical and Scriptural lore that is characteristic of medieval literature.”157 Thus, Donatus and Cato were both regarded as “ancestors”: they were considered as authorities of the past and as products of a pagan culture that had merged with Christianity and transmitted its values to it. As Donatus had established the rules for the correct use of the language, Cato had provided the rules for living in a society based on the same high moral values as those promoted by Christianity.158 Although the Distichs lack a significant religious dimension, some similarities between them and the Sapiential books of the Bible promoted the “conversion” of Cato into a Christian moralist. Just as Donatus drew much of his authority as a former teacher of St. Jerome, Cato was often compared to Solomon and associated with St. Paul or the Fathers of the Church. This process undoubtedly favored the continuous use of the Distichs in medieval Christian schools. Some passages of the Distichs, in fact, were explained through references to the Scriptures. Admittedly, the fact that Cato was a pagan author left the work open to occasional criticism.159 However, the Distichs were highly valued by most men of culture because of their effectiveness in teaching good habits and customs to young people, and because their shortness and sententious tone was well suited to the tastes of men of the Middle Ages.
See Schmidt 19792, 1. The most important modern editions are J.W. Duff and A.M. Duff in Minor Latin Poets, London–Cambridge MA, 19352, 585–639; and M. Boas and H.J. Botschuyver, Amstelodami 1952. 157 Hazelton 1957, 173. 158 See Hazelton 1957, 162: “Cato reflects the values of its era. It is in fact a distillation […] of many of the ideas and sentiments found in Augustan and Silver Latin literature”; and Reynolds S. 1996, 10: “If Donatus was the basic grammar of Latin, […] the Disticha of Cato was the basic grammar of pragmatic morality.” See also Waquet 1998, 51f. 159 Doubts about the suitability of Cato for study in schools were expressed by Othloh of St. Emmeran in the eleventh century and by Mathurin Cordier in the sixteenth century. See Hazelton 1957, 159 and n. 9, and Thomson-Perraud 1990, 8. 156
54
chapter one
As a text used in schools almost without interruption from late antiquity to the Renaissance,160 Cato’s Distichs were handed down in many copies, often together with other elementary readers, the socalled auctores octo.161 Like Donatus, Cato also kept his place in humanist education. One reason for this may be found in the fame of the author as a representative of ancient Roman pagan culture. Erasmus included the Distichs in a collection of moral sayings, together with the Sayings of the Seven Sages and Publilius Syrus’ sentences. Moreover, they were translated into many vernacular languages. In the twelfth century, after French and Occitan, already the Distichs were gradually rendered into Greek, German, English, Dutch, Icelandic, Spanish, and Catalan; in the thirteenth century, they were translated into several Italian vernaculars as well.162 9. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Printed Editions of Ianua The relative abundance of printed copies proves that Ianua continued to be used in Italy after the fifteenth century, in competition with other grammar books. Grendler has listed a fair number of editions,163 showing that the basic text of Ianua continued to circulate rather widely, sometimes in conjunction with other grammatical material. On the other hand, the vernacular version Donato al senno, based on the revised edition of Mancinelli, slowly supplanted the Latin Ianua. The titles of the editions convey some information about the way in which the book attracted its readers. The elementary character of the grammar is usually underlined (grammatices rudimenta, brevissimae puerorum institutiones), together with the name of its prestigious alleged author, Aelius Donatus, which guaranteed scientific exactitude and respect for an ancient tradition of studies as well. Moreover, the geographical distribution of the titles suggests that some “local traditions” had been established in the printing of Ianua: 160 Hazelton (1957, 158 n. 4) has outlined a short history of the fortune of Cato’s Distichs, noting that the first certain evidence of their circulation dates back to the Merovingian times. A commentary was written by Remigius of Auxerre in the ninth century. See also Riché 1985, 137. 161 See below, 68ff. 162 See Mead 1939–1940, 41; Segre-Marti 1959, 187 f.; Roos 1984, 228–241; and Ortoleva 1992, XXXI f., with bibliography. 163 Grendler 1989, 413–418.
the latin donatus
55
1) Aelii Donati grammatici pro impetrando ad rempublicam litterariam aditu novitiis adolescentibus grammatices rudimenta que aptissime dedicata is the title of four Venetian editions by Lucantonio Giunta (1510 and 1525) and Guilelmus de Fontaneto (1525 and 1530);164 2) two editions issued in Brescia (Brixiae) by Ludovicus Britannicus in 1536 and 1548 bear the title Aelii Donati grammatici brevissimae puerorum intitutiones;165 3) the titles Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices and grammatices (e)rudimenta appear in two Florentine and two Roman editions, respectively;166 4) Aelii Donati grammaticale is the title of three Milanese editions: two by Francesco Paganello (1597 and 1611) and one by Graziadei Feriolo (1597). In all cases Ianua is printed with Cato’s Distichs; 5) Donatus ad lectorem appears on top of the first page of several editions of Central-Northern Italy (e.g., Venetiis, apud Jo. Gryphium, 1575, with Disticha; Patavii, apud Laurentium Pasquatum, 1608, with Disticha; Maceratae, apud Curtium Gobbum et Iosephum Pandarum, 1645, with Disticha); 6) an edition entitled Aelii Donati grammatices erudimenta was published in Rome (apud Antonium Facchettum, 1595 [?], with Disticha). The Roman edition of 1638 (Typis Vitalis Mascardi, 1638, with Disticha) features a text of Ianua influenced by Donatus melior. In another Roman edition (apud Victorium Elianum, 1575, with Disticha and other grammatical material), declensions and conVenetiis, impensiis Lucantonj de Giunta florentini […] 1510 tertio idibus Novembris (with Disticha); Venetiis per Guilelmum de Fontaneto, 1525 (with Disticha); Venetiis […] Luce Antonii Junta florentini impressa, 1525 die xviii Maij; Venetiis per Guilelmum de Fontaneto 1530 (almost identical to the 1510 edition). 165 Brixiae, per Ludovicum Britannicum, 1536 (with Disticha); idem, 1548 (with Disticha). 166 Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices incipiunt, Florentiae, apud Iuntas, 1578 (with Disticha and other material); nuperrime ab innumeris erroribus expurgata, Florentiae, typis Massae, 1645 (with Disticha). Another Florentine edition (per Benedictum Iunta, 1548, with Disticha) is untitled. However, in an edition printed in Milan, the name of the curator is also mentioned: Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices studio et opera Barptolomei Moirani […], Mediolani, ex officina Valerii et Hieronymi fratrum de Meda, 1568. The Roman editions are: Aelii Donati grammatices erudimenta, Romae, apud Antonium Facchettum, 1595(?) (with Disticha); and Aelii […] erudimenta nunc demum post omnium editiones, quae ad hanc usque in lucem prodiere, novo ac faciliori ordine digesta. Accuratius ac diligentius emendata et ab innumeris erroribus purgata, Romae, Typis Vitalis Mascardi, 1638 (with Disticha; the Ianua text is influenced by Donatus melior; printed with Guarino’s Regulae by the same printer, in the same year, using continuous signatures). 164
56
chapter one jugations of Ianua are supplemented with other examples, and a small amount of translation is added.
The circulation of Mancinelli’s Donatus melior had its peak in the first decades of the sixteenth century.167 At the end of the century, however, editions of Donato al senno (generally entitled Donato al senno con / et il Cato volgarizzato in lingua Toscana) became much more frequent.168 This varied supply of different texts corresponds to the various pedagogical demands of that time: while new methods of teaching and learning were being developed, it was still possible for old and new forms to coexist. The history of the Greek Donatus, on the other hand, demonstrates that the same dialectic between continuity and innovation influenced the teaching of Greek in the West. 10. Learning Latin: Repetition, Memorization, and Translation Elementary Latin grammars were in Latin: schoolbooks entirely in the vernaculars appeared only in the seventeenth century. During the Middle Ages and part of the Renaissance, the native language of students was almost never used in grammar books and probably rarely employed in oral teaching: Latin was taught in Latin, with an approach to the language that was very similar to the so-called direct method.169 The preservation of Latin as a learned means of communication up until the threshold of the modern age helps explain why fifteenth-century humanists continued to use the same textbooks Editions listed by Grendler: Milan, Leonardo Pachel, 18 May 1501; Venice, Giovanni Tacuino de Tridino, 29 October 1502 and 5 August 1508; Milan, Pietro Martire de Mantegatiis, 22 September 1503 and 10 February 1506; Venice, Georgio de Rusconibus, 18 April 1519; and Rome, Antonio Facchetto, 1594. 168 Editions listed by Grendler: Venice, Manfredo de Monferrato de Sustreno de Bonelli, 22 April 1503, and Melchiore Sessa, 29 April 1508 (both untitled; the latter also contains a short review section); Venice, Francesco de Leno, 1570; Milan, Iacobus Girardonius, 1570; Verona, Bortolamio Merlo, between 1600 and 1650; Treviso, Girolamo Righettini, 1636; Florence, “nel Garbo,” Giuseppe Manni, between 1650 and 1700; Bergamo, Marc’Antonio Rossi, 1653; Bologna, Domenico Barbieri, 1654; Treviso, Francesco Righettini, 1660; and Florence and Bologna, Gioseffo Longhi, 1670. 169 On the interaction between Latin and the vernacular languages in education in early modern Europe, see Waquet 1998, 31–39. On the direct method or audiolingual instruction, very popular in foreign language pedagogy in the 1960s, see, e.g., Titone 1968, 100–106, and 1980, 25 f. 167
the latin donatus
57
and to read the same literary works upon which late antique and medieval men of culture had built their knowledge. The most significant innovation in medieval grammatical studies, a philosophical approach to grammar (“speculative grammar”) inspired by Scholasticism, was confined to North European universities and did not affect elementary and intermediate education.170 Nor were significant changes introduced in terminology and in teaching philosophy:171 as one of the seven liberal arts, grammar was based on “a set of prescriptions imparted in a systematic fashion,”172 and, as such, resisted radical transformations. In his dialogue entitled De vanitate mundi, the twelfth-century theologian Hugh of St. Victor described the activity of a medieval school. He presented consecutive stages of learning Latin as taking place at the same time in different classrooms: learning the alphabet and vocabulary, listening to a teacher lecturing on inflection, composition, and etymology of words, reciting and memorizing the new words, and writing exercises.173 The structure of elementary books and the writings of some Renaissance teachers reveal that little had changed from antiquity. Inserting linguistic phenomena into logical categories arranged in a hierarchical structure made those phenomena intelligible: teachers began with the definition and explanation of the first elements of language—letters, syllables, and words—then went through elementary morphology, i.e., the eight parts of speech. Finally, as a preparation for the study of advanced grammar and rhetoric, they analyzed some syntax and elements of style.174 This process corresponds to an On speculative grammar see Bursill-Hall 1971; 1975, 180ff.; Grendler 1989, 164f.; and Black 2001, 70–74. A general overview of all aspects of medieval grammar is offered by Huntsman 1983. 171 Italian documents from the fourteenth to the end of the fifteenth century show that the traditional link between (Latin) grammar and Christian morality was maintained during the Renaissance: see Kohl 1988, 6 and Black 1991b, 137–139. On terminology, see Rizzo 1995. 172 Percival 1988, 68. 173 See Marrou 1956 [1948], 150ff.; Taylor 19494, 1. 137; and Murphy 1980, 171. Words were often grouped together according to their etymology to aid memorization, and this practice is reflected in medieval word lists and glossaries; see Weijers 1989, 147. 174 See Grendler 1989, 195, who quotes Battista Guarini’s treatise De ordine docendi et studendi (7 ff., Kallendorf 2002, 268ff.; see also Piacente 2002, 38ff., with an Italian translation) and Orazio Toscanella’s I modi più communi con che ha scritto Cicerone le sue epistole secondo i generi di quelle, con altre cose (Venice, Bolognino Zaltieri, 1559, 43). 170
58
chapter one
inductive method, which was already well-established in antiquity: in its shift from the easier to the more complex, from letters to syllables and from words to sentences, this method also resembles the structure of the grammatical works handed down to us. In this learning process, called “progymnasmatic,” Murphy has distinguished eight major elements, four of which directly concern the elementary study of Latin: at first, pupils learned sounds, words, and meanings, and then they moved on to grammatical rules. Writing skills and speaking skills were used to reinforce each other. In the study of grammar, memorization preceded understanding.175 Repetition and memorization were two stages closely related to each other in the learning process: the former ensured the latter, and constant practice enlarged the capacity of memory. As Grendler has mentioned, they corresponded to “a psychology of learning inherited from the ancient world,” based on a “mechanistic view of the mind’s operation.”176 At first, pupils just read the grammar book, and then they had to memorize the grammatical rules: “latinizing by the rules” (latinare per le regole) appears frequently in documents concerning teachers and pupils. All the pupils in a class recited together and in a loud voice. When pupils had acquired a fair mastery of Latin grammar, they began to do exercises or “concordances”: they had to use the forms that they had learned by heart in all ways possible. Oral repetition and written exercises continued to follow each other at length, even when students approached their first literary text, Cato’s Distichs. Repeating, in fact, expands memory and makes memorization
Murphy 1980, 172–173. Grendler 1989, 196; see also Riché 1985, 134f. The reason, as Grendler remarks, was that “Renaissance pedagogues viewed children’s minds as blank wax tablets on which anything written deeply enough would endure until death.” In his Vita scholastica, for example, Bonvesin de la Riva (ca. 1250 – ca. 1313) considered memorization as the fifth key to wisdom (see Marcucci 2002, 119). The idea that education must inculcate a capacity to think independently is a recent achievement: from antiquity to the eighteenth century, an exclusive emphasis was placed on the acquisition of a fixed set of notions, which were usually the product of the dominant ecclesiastical and secular authorities; see the interesting remarks by Houston (1988, 56) and Marcucci (2002, 94). Repetition and memorization continued to be recommended and applied in classrooms by Renaissance teachers. For example, in a letter of 1425 to Martino Rizzon, who had become a teacher, Guarino Guarini recommended that boys should memorize (memoriae mandent) Virgil’s lines, with more regard for frequent repetition than for the number of lines (Virgilii versus magis frequentes quam multos). See the text in Garin 1958, 344. 175 176
the latin donatus
59
easier; memorizing was considered as equivalent to understanding and knowing.177 The importance of memory in education had already been stressed by Quintilian (Inst. or. 11. 2. 1: omnis disciplina memoria constat) as a fundamental component of the study of grammar (1. 1. 19 and 37). Quintilian suggested that the text should be memorized word for word, after being divided into shorter sequences (divisio). The practice of divisio explains the layout of medieval sacred texts—especially the Psalms, used as an elementary reading—or of schoolbooks, both handwritten and printed. They were divided into cola and commata, with colored initials and many other devices to attract readers’ attention. Among these devices, the use of pictures was very common: the decoration of the incipit of the works or of sections of texts as well as the images accompanying texts created “a pictorial rubric.”178 Moreover, the very title Ianua, “gateway,” hints at the memoria artificiosa or artificialis, or “architectural” memory, which consisted of connecting objects to places, buildings, or parts of buildings.179 Also, the frequency of alpha177 See Gehl 1993, 88. In particular, Riché (1985, 138) observes that memorizing grammatical catechisms allowed pupils to practice the Latin language already at an early stage of their learning: as in modern Assimil, “l’enfant apprend par coeur ce dialogue [scil. Ælfric’s grammar: above, 45] et arrive ainsi à parler d’une façon courante le latin.” 178 Carruthers 1990, 226f. On the per cola et commata text format, see Saenger 1997, 16ff. Cicero recommended the use of “striking” images in his De oratore 2. 357: utendum est […] imaginibus autem agentibus, acribus, insignitis, quae occurrere celeriterque percutere animum possint. The Latin grammar in Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS. C 678, copied in the fifteenth century in the Benedictine cloister of Seligenstadt, offers an interesting example. The grammatical text is a contamination of Donatus’ Ars minor and Priscian’s Institutiones. The Latin words and forms are either translated into the local vernacular, Hochdeutsch, or illustrated with pictures functioning, so to speak, as a visual translation: their purpose was to strike the imaginations of pupils, to make the matter entertaining, and to encourage memorization. For example, next to the title of the chapter on conjunction (coniunctio: fol. 34r), there is a picture of two old men sitting opposite each other, with their beards tied in a knot. Sometimes pictures and glosses in Hochdeutsch appear together: on fol. 140r, a little monkey uses a rope to draw the initial t of the verb traho, glossed zychen (Germ. ziehen), “to draw.” Other pictures recall moral and religious issues (little skulls, indicating the lack of forms in defective verbs; a dance of the dead; etc.) or a “mundus inversus” (mice burying a cat, hares hunting a hunter; etc.). The manuscript of Uppsala represents an agreeable exception within a pedagogical context in which boredom, constraint, and corporal punishments were extremely frequent: Luther considered learning Latin grammar “a torture” (carnificina); more recently, Churchill did not tolerate the repetitive and meaningless exercises in inflection. See Asztalos 1989, 2 (a facsimile of the manuscript) and Stolt in Asztalos 1989, 1. 11. 179 This also applies to Vestibulum, “forecourt,” the title of one of the supplements
60
chapter one
bets (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Hebrew, or imaginary) written on schoolbooks suggests that the alphabetic sequence was often used for the same purpose.180 Much more frequent were mnemonic verses, usually leonine hexameters, employed for grammar books such as Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale or Eberhard of Béthune’s Graecismus.181 In areas where the knowledge of Latin as a spoken language had been lost more quickly, such as Central and Northern Europe, vernacular languages began to be used quite early at the initial stage of education. In English, Irish, and German manuscripts, glosses in vernacular languages already appear in the ninth and tenth centuries.182 In most cases, teachers translated the Latin grammar book word by word into the vernacular language and explained it carefully. According to Ising, teachers could also dictate the text; pupils wrote it down on paper or wax tablets and learned by heart both the Latin forms and their equivalents in the vernacular. This methodology affected the printing of schoolbooks before 1500, as demonstrated by some incunables of Ianua and the Ars minor in Latin with German glosses.183 of Ianua (above, 13 n. 30). Considered an invention of the Greek poet Simonides of Ceos (ca. 556 – ca. 468 B.C.E.), architectural memory was taught by the Sophists and mentioned by Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, and enjoyed a revival during the Middle Ages. For example, at the beginning of medieval Bibles, the Tables of Eusebius, compiled in the fourth century and later translated into Latin, showed the parallel passages of the four Gospels inserted within a frame of four arcades. See Carruthers 1990, 93, 122; Bockelmann in Ars memorativa 1993, 297–312; Heimann-Seelbach 1996; and Law 1996, 38–40. 180 Aristotle had recommended the use of the alphabetic sequence in memorizing; see Carruthers 1990, 109–111. 181 On mnemonic verses, see Percival 1981, 254; Riché 1985 (1993), 144; Carruthers 1990, 80; and Ernst and Massing in Ars memorativa 1993, 73–100 and 101–115. 182 See Ising 1970, 23; and Orme 2006, 109–118. MS. C 678 of Uppsala (above, n. 178) demonstrates that, in the fifteenth century, the use of Hochdeutsch in the teaching of elementary Latin grammar was even recommended to teachers. Most of the Latin words are glossed, and rules and technical terms are translated into the vernacular; moreover, teachers are urged, in Latin, to use the mother language of their pupils in classrooms. See the interesting remarks by Stolz 1979, 311f. 183 See Ising 1970, 256ff. Ising quotes the program of the four schools of Latin in Nürnberg in 1505: students must learn the Latin declensions and conjugations, but also learn nouns and verbs in German, with examples (die nomina und verba tewtschen lernen, mit exempeln). More specifically: Magister ein maister oder der maister, exemplum magister est in choro, magistri des maisters, exemplum claves sunt magistri, die schlüssel sind des maisters […] Auch die verba mit exempeln, als ego amo ich hab lieb, tu amas du hast lieb […] und sochs also furbasser in singulari und plurali, in preterito und futuro zuvertewtschen, alles mit exempeln. For pupils, the lesson must be not only useful (nutzlich), but also pleasant and delightful (lustig und lieplich). Moreover, in his program for the Latin school at Husum, Rector Johannes Oldenburg (1555–1605) considers that, by learning Latin in German, pupils
the latin donatus
61
However, because of the traditional conservatism of the forms and contents of education, Latin continued to offer a pedagogical model for centuries, even when the linguistic reality had changed. As Black has pointed out repeatedly, “it may have been pedagogically problematic, if not impossible, to teach basic reading techniques in a language without any fixed orthography.” Latin had become a sort of artificial language, unchangeable and suited for teaching, whereas vernacular languages were changeable, unstable, learned naturally but unteachable; vernacular could not be taught because it was not considered as an ars.184 In countries where Romance languages were spoken, the replacement of Latin by the vernacular languages as a means of instruction took place more slowly but consistently from the fifteenth century onward.185 In Italy, the first documents concerning the use of the vernacular—not only in elementary reading and in writing, but also in the teaching of Latin beyond the elementary level—belong to the thirteenth century; the translation from Italian vernaculars into Latin (thema) was a very common exercise in fourteenth-century schools.186 During the Renaissance, the demand for a restoration of the original purity of Latinitas hampered the extensive use of the vernaculars in teaching; however, teachers had to cope with the linguistic reality of that time, which was continuously evolving and was following a direction opposite to that of pedagogical treatises.187 After a careful can improve not only their Latin, but also their mother language: this concept is still common in modern pedagogy. 184 Black 1996a, 707 f.; 2001, 42, and 2004, 20; and Gehl 1989, 388 f. See also Burke’s interesting observations (2004, 43–60). On the distinction between vernacular languages—considered as “natural languages”—and Latin—the “grammatical language” by antonomasia—in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance, see Rizzo 1990, 1998, and 2004. Humanists applied a similar rigid distinction to Greek by distinguishing between Homer’s language (oral and popular) and the sermo Atticus (written and literary): see Ferreri 2002. 185 Some translations of the Ars minor or Ianua into French, however, date from the thirteenth century; see Colombo Timelli 1996. Merrilees (1991, 91) remarks that the teaching of Latin in French was already well-established at that time. 186 See Sabbadini 1922, 12. 187 On the one hand, in his Regole della lingua fiorentina (ca. 1450), Leon Battista Alberti regarded Italian as a form of Latin, although corrupted and disfigured; therefore, using Latin instead of Italian was equivalent to using the language in its pure state instead of its degenerated form: see Padley 1985–1988, 2. 24ff. In Venice, a large number of vernacular Donatuses, Donati al senno, and Donati meliores were circulating between the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, but Aldus Manutius, who printed many works in vernacular, wrote his Latin grammar on the model of
62
chapter one
study of the vernacular glosses in school manuscripts, Robert Black has concluded that vernacular languages were not used where we would expect to find them, namely, at the very elementary stage of basic Latin morphology. On the other hand, the importance of vernaculars in the Latin syllabus would increase progressively with the study of advanced Latin prose composition and with the reading of authors.188 During the first half of the fourteenth century, vernacular languages began to be commonly used at the intermediate level of the study of grammar.189 In the sixteenth century, the decay of Latin as the language of instruction was indisputable even in Italy.190 In the preface to his Donatus melior, Antonio Mancinelli recommended that teachers should “explain each of the more difficult issues in the vernacular language” (difficiliora quaeque vernacula lingua exponere). The increase in vernacular translations of Ianua (Donato al senno) from the sixteenth century shows that the use of vernacular languages in the teaching of Latin had become more and more frequent: teachers wanted their students to understand the text instead of simply memorizing it.191 The composition of Latin grammars in the vernacular marks the final stage in the transformation of Latin into a dead language and the evolution of the teaching method from memorization to translation. Their authors justify their choice as an attempt to meet the demands of beginners, who need to feel comfortable when tackling a “new and strange” language.192
the ancient grammarians and without any consideration for the vernacular. On the other hand, in the thirteenth century, Alexander of Villedieu, in the introduction to his Doctrinale (8–10), had already urged pupils to solve their problems in the study of the language by listening to their teachers, who would lecture them in their own language (laica lingua). More than two centuries later, the same consideration led the Spanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija to affirm in his Gramática castellana (1492) that Latin could be more easily approached via the vernacular: see Padley 1988, 164. 188 Black 1996a, 711 f., 721; 2001, 41. 189 For instance, in the Regulae parvae by Goro d’Arezzo, definitions were still in Latin, but examples and paradigms were extensively translated, and references to common vernacular usage were constant in the description of Latin syntax. See Black 1996a, 728. 190 Waquet (1998, 215) links the decay of Latin education to changes in society and culture, which made Latin no longer necessary to pursue public careers of communicate scientific knowledge. 191 See Black 1991b, 143. 192 Grendler (1989, 186ff.) mentions: a Grammatica latina in volgare (Verona 1529), attributed to Bernardino Donato da Verona; Della lingua romana (1540) and De’ primi
the latin donatus
63
11. The Latin Curriculum With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the network of schools created throughout the empire disintegrated under the barbarian invasions.193 Even after the partial re-establishment of the school system during the Carolingian age, the task of educating future churchmen, administrators, and professionals was undertaken almost exclusively by monasteries. In the fourteenth century, the number of documents concerning schools (notarial records, letters of appointment, etc.) increases significantly. It is difficult to say whether this is due to the fortuitous circumstances that often determine the survival of documentation or to a real “pedagogical explosion,” as Grendler put it.194 In any case, documents attest to the fact that, during the Renaissance, children had to choose between two different curricula: the vernacular curriculum, based on arithmetic and abacus, for those who were to become merchants or craftsmen; and the Latin grammar school, which trained future professionals. Girls, especially of the lower social strata, rarely attended schools. As for boys, the distinction between the vernacular and Latin curricula usually coincided with the pupils’ social level: of course, children of the upper class were more likely to attend the Latin grammar school than boys belonging to less well-todo families.195 principii della lingua latina, ovvero il Priscianello (1550) by the Florentine Francesco Priscianese; and the Latin grammar by Orazio Toscanella (d. 1579). Needless to say, the use of vernacular languages was very common in grammar books conceived for the self-study of Latin. An interesting example is the anonymous Exercitium grammaticale puerorum per dietas distributum (Antwerpen 1485), which had no fewer than fifteen incunabular editions. The author orders grammatical rules according to their difficulty and describes them with literary exempla. In addition to the traditional devices of an elementary manual—simple prose, dialogical form, direct addresses such as da mihi, declina, etc.—the book employs a carefully planned layout (fonts of various sizes, paragraphs, and lists and charts of forms) and an extensive translation of all of the Latin forms into German; see Puff 1996, 415 ff. 193 See the extensive analysis by Riché 1976 [19623], 23 ff. 194 Grendler 1985a, 187. 195 See Witt 1995a. Documents on the vernacular curriculum, of course, are less numerous than those on the Latin curriculum. However, Gehl (1993, 32 f.) maintains that, from the thirteenth century, there was increasing literacy outside Latin (see also Ortalli 1996, 56ff., for Venice and the Veneto, and Balestracci 2004, 21ff., for Tuscany). Some students, in fact, never studied grammatica—which in fourteenthcentury documents means “Latin”—but learned only the basic skills, i.e., reading and writing for commercial purposes. Gehl concludes that “the evidence that some schooling was entirely in the vernacular is sketchy but incontrovertible”; contra Black
64
chapter one
Documents dating from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution convey the idea of “a scholastic tower of Babel” rather than of a unified educational system.196 Moreover, forms and contents of the curriculum could vary according to external factors, such as, most importantly, the availability of teachers. In general, the basic curriculum offered by Renaissance schools was rather homogeneous across Europe. Italy offers the richest and most varied amount of documentation.197 A document from Arezzo dating from 1440 gives us a clear picture of the Renaissance’s three-level school system.198 The first two stages of education were distinguished according to the knowledge of Donatus, the elementary grammar book. In fact, we have an elementary level of pupils “not reading Donatus yet” (scholaribus nondum legentibus Donatum), who were taught to read and write by means of the tabula, a sheet of parchment or paper (carta, collum, cedula, pagina, etc.) fixed on a wooden board (tabula, tolla, tola or toletta) and displaying the letters of the alphabet, a series of syllables, and the text of one or two prayers. Tabula was also called “the Holy Cross” (la Santa Croce) because the alphabet was usually preceded by the picture of a cross. Another primer was the “Psalter” (salterio, libricciolum, libretto, quaternus or vesper), perhaps a collection of prayers (Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and the Apostles’ Creed) and short religious texts, usually introduced by the alphabet and a list of syllables.199 For many children, education ended at this point. 2001, 44 n. 66. A primer entirely in vernacular, the so-called Babuino, may have been used for the vernacular curriculum or for self-study at the elementary level: see Black 2001, 43 n. 65. 196 Houston 1988, 10. 197 Most documents come from North and Central Italy, with very few being from the South. On Renaissance schools in Italy (private, “communal,” state, and church schools), see Grendler 1985a; 1989, 5–81; 1990; and Houston 1988, 24ff. See also Trovato 1998, 20–29, who corrects some of Grendler’s assumptions. 198 Black 1991b, 139: Archivio di Stato di Arezzo, Deliberazioni del Magistrato dei Priori e del Consiglio Generale 7, fols. 33v-34r. 199 “Psalters,” or salteri, could also include some psalms, in particular the seven penitential psalms, the basic devotional text of the Middle Ages. Both the “Psalter” and the Book of Hours (Libro d’ore, usually for girls) were books of prayers and could also circulate outside schools. Several salteri are mentioned in the inventory of the shop of the Florentine stationer Giovanni Baldini (above, 29 n. 86), but they were not necessarily schoolbooks. In some areas of Italy, Salteri continued to be used for education until the nineteenth century. The only extant Salterio of the Renaissance is the Liber Iesus (Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, MS. 2163), copied and decorated for Massimiliano Ercole Sforza (see above, 26). See Riché 1985, 137; Grendler 1989,
the latin donatus
65
A second level included pupils “reading Donatus but not proficient in Latin” (scholares legentes Donatum nondum lactinantes): they approached Latin elementary morphology by reading the Pseudo-Donatan Ianua (Donato, Donado, or Donadello: hence the name Donatisti), together with Cato’s Distichs. Often, Donatus meant both Ianua and Cato. The absence of vernacular glosses in manuscripts of Ianua until the fifteenth century suggests that the text had to be read and memorized entirely in Latin.200 Moreover, based on the lack of paragraphs and of any divisio of the text in the layout of many manuscripts and printed editions, Black has inferred that, in most cases, Ianua was used “primarily as a reading text rather than as a manual for learning Latin grammar.” Other elements seem to confirm this hypothesis: first, the many Donadelli mentioned in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century inventories do not correspond to the limited number of children who actually learned Latin in schools. Secondly, the verb normally used in documents about Donatus is legere, while the current expressions for the study of Latin are facere and la(c)tinare.201 According to many documents and curriculum descriptions from the mid-fourteenth century to 1500, Ianua was taught in two stages: per lo testo (a veduta, testualiter, syllabicando, compitare), i.e., simply sounding it out syllable by syllable and word by word; and per lo senno (cum sensu, sensualiter), i.e., “by meaning.” The teacher provided an interlinear translation into the vernacular, which was often written (and later printed) in the interlinear spaces of the text. At that point, students learned the text by heart: “memory seems to have been at times synonymous with understanding.”202 This method, probably designed
146; Plebani 1994, 80; Black 1991b, 140f.; Gehl 1993, 32; Reynolds S. 1996, 9; and Ferrari 2000, 136–138. 200 Gehl 1989, 400; 1993, 98. 201 See Black 1991b, 141f. 202 Black 1996, 16; see also 1991b, 142, 1996a, 704 n. 6, and 2001, 63. Black criticizes Gehl’s assumption (1993, 31, 84–86) that both expressions refer to memorization, the first of a visual type (“to test the student’s ability to memorize and to conceive of language in formal terms”) and the second “of a more internalized kind” (the text “could be used in a substantial and instrumental way as a means for acquiring some understanding in Latin grammar”). A Venetian contract of 1402 confirms Black’s assumption: a teacher, Daniele dal Pozzo from Capodistria, is hired to teach the two sons of the noble Agostino Contarini, Marco and Jacopo. Marco, the elder son, who will take up the family business, will learn to read Latin and scribere condecenter, whereas the younger will stop at the elementary level because it will be enough quod bene sciat legere Donatum et Catonem ad textum. See also Pastore Stocchi 1980–1981, 106; Witt 1995a,
66
chapter one
“to satisfy the demand for rapid literacy,”203 seems to have changed in the late fifteenth century, when the bilingual editions of Donatus demonstrate that translation had replaced memorization as the primary learning method. Donatus’ Ars minor and its medieval versions imparted the basic notions of morphology and inflection, but could not provide a level of knowledge of Latin adequate for professional uses or for an approach to classical literary texts. This was the goal of two thirteenth-century treatises in verse, Doctrinale by Alexander of Villedieu and Graecismus by Eberhard of Béthune,204 both of which contain very few examples of inflection but are much more detailed in the theoretical parts. Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae, the most extensive treatment of Latin grammar, remained the undisputed authority for intermediate Latin. Some attempts were made to supplement Priscian’s schematic definitions and to improve the possibility of a pedagogical use of Institutiones.205 During the second half of the fifteenth century, some comprehensive grammatical manuals were composed, certainly with the purpose of replacing Donatus and Priscian; each of them constituted a complete course of Latin.206 101; and Ortalli 1996, 54 f. On reading aloud as a learning practice, see Saenger 1997, 7 f. 203 Black 2004, 21: in the first stage, pupils acquired a reading skill that applied both to Latin and to vernacular texts, whereas the second stage was for those who could progress to the study of Latin. 204 Doctrinale has been edited by D. Reichling, Berlin 1893, and Graecismus by J. Wrobel, Breslau 1887. The former had 280 incunabular editions (GW 933–1211), while the latter had only eighteen (GW 9211–9228); see Mead 1939–1940, 39. 205 For example, Pietro da Isolella tried to build a new grammar by putting together Priscian’s definitions, Donatus’ catechistic form, and the language and the mnemonic verse of Doctrinale and Graecismus. On Pietro da Isolella’s grammar (edited by Fierville 1886), see Black 1996a, 726, and 2001, 83 n. 127. Some mnemonic verses from Doctrinale and Graecismus became popular or even proverbial and appear also in other works on grammar, such as the lexicon by Giovanni Balbi; see Weijers 1989, 144. 206 For example: Niccolò Perotti’s Rudimenta grammatices (Rome 1473); Antonio de Nebrija’s Introductiones Latinae explicitae (Salamanca 1481); and Despauterius’ Commentarii grammatici, a collection of essays on grammar (Paris 1537). See Percival 1981, 256ff., and 1988, 69–70; and Waquet 1998, 49. Niccolò Perotti’s Rudimenta are indebted to the genuine Ars minor by Donatus, but many parts of this work are no more than an elaboration and an improvement of Ianua, whose question-and-answer format is also maintained. Some forms are translated into the vernacular, and inflection is often organized into columns and rows. In addition to morphology, Rudimenta also treat syntax and letter writing. See Percival 1981, 243 ff., 257; and Grendler 1989, 173. On Perotti’s method of teaching Latin, see Charlet 1992. Grendler also mentions the Regulae grammaticales by Gaspare da Verona, a student of Guarino, and Ognibene Bon-
the latin donatus
67
The ability to lactinare or latinare “by the rules” (per le regole)207 was the main objective of the second grade. The “rules” may indicate other Latin textbooks for the intermediate level, such as the Regulae by Francesco Da Buti (d. 1406)208 and the Regulae grammaticales by Guarino Guarini (1374–1460), which were usually tackled after Ianua. During the Renaissance, Ianua and Guarino’s Regulae became a corpus and were often printed together, sometimes with Cato’s Distichs.209 In particular, Guarino’s grammar did not contain inflection (probably taken for granted at that stage), simplified the presentation of morphology, concentrated on verbal syntax, and presented some forms translated into the Italian volgare.210 With Guarino’s Carmina differentialia, often appended to the grammar book, students could learn a lot of synonyms, homonyms, and difficult Latin terms. The Carmina were expounded in elegiac couplets for the sake of memorization.211 The practice of writing the meaning of difficult words (glosses) explained in the classroom between the lines or in the margins of isoli’s De octo partibus orationis liber, an attempt to improve Guarino’s Regulae by adding examples of inflection and employing some references to Greek. 207 On latino or latinor as a technical term, see Rizzo 1995, 30ff. 208 Like other intermediate books—for example, the Regulae parvae by Goro d’Arezzo—Da Buti’s grammar had been conceived as a practical tool for Latin composition; see the passages quoted by Black (1996a, 729–730; and 2001, 110 n. 305.) A manuscript of Da Buti’s Regulae (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. lat. misc. e. 52) describes the content of the instruction of lactinantes. The syllabus was divided into three parts: Latinus minor, which included the regule pertinentes ad primam bancam (eight parts of speech, nouns, and active and passive verbs), the regule secunde bance (neutra and communia verba), the regule tertie bance (deponent and impersonal verbs), and the regule quarte bance (impersonal verbs, active and passive voices, and inchoative verbs); Latinus mediocris (nouns in detail, comparatives, superlatives, partitives, numbers, interrogatives, adverbs, relatives, infinitives, distributives, participles, and pronouns); and Regule maiorum (conjunctions and figures of speech). See Black 1991b, 145 f.; 2001, 100. 209 Grendler (1989, 189f.) mentions three joint editions: Romae, apud Victorium Elianum, 1575; Romae, apud Antonium Facchettum, 1595; and Romae, typis Vitalis Mascardi, 1638. An edition of Donati et Guarini grammatica insitutio by Marco Antonio Bongiari (Perugia 1593) offers the two grammatical texts together in a complete course of Latin. 210 The formula si, or quando, detur thema often introduces the vernacular translation of the text. Verbs are classified into the traditional five genera (active, passive, neuter, common, and deponent), but within each genus verbs are sub-classified according to the case they govern. On the sources of Guarino’s grammar (Priscian, Folchino dei Borfoni, and Francesco Da Buti), see Sabbadini 1906, 114ff., and Percival 1972, 272 f. On themata, translation exercises from the vernacular into Latin, see Garin 1958, 123; and Black 1996a, 736; 2001, 111ff. 211 For an edition of Guarino’s Carmina, with introduction and commentary, see Percival 1994, 153 ff.
68
chapter one
a text is as old as school itself. Even in antiquity, the demand for bilingual catalogues of words concerning specific topics had inspired the composition of lists of glosses, which later evolved into lexicographical works or real dictionaries. In order to satisfy the practical need for translations, medieval lexica entirely in Latin (for example, Papias vocabulista, dating from 1041; Osbern of Gloucester’s Panormia; Hugutio of Pisa’s Magnae derivationes, of the twelfth century; and Giovanni Balbi’s Catholicon, of 1286) were gradually supplemented with lists of Latin/vernacular words, usually grouped according to vocabulary classes.212 When a satisfactory mastery of Latin grammar had been reached, pupils began to read the auctores minores or auctores octo (scholares lactinantes et auctores audientes, or auctoristae). The auctores octo were chosen not only for their moral and religious content, but also for their utility in reviewing and improving the notions of grammar acquired in the previous stages. They also contained very useful notions on history, mythology, geography, and religion: maxims, proverbs, and edifying stories provided a repertory useful in embellishing the style of any prose writing that a pupil might produce in his career.213 According to Boas, a fixed corpus of these simple “post-Donatum” Latin works was created in the ninth century. In addition to Disticha Catonis, which usually occupied the first place (hence Boas’ definition of Libri Catoniani), the kernel of auctores octo included Theodulus’ Ecloga or Aethiopum terras,214 Avianus’ Fabulae, the elegies by Maximianus, Claudian’s De raptu Proserpinae, and Statius’ Achilleis. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, other works were included in the collection.215 Boethius’ Consolatio philosophiae, the most complex reading 212 Latin-Old English and Latin-Old German glossaries already began to appear in the eighth century. On medieval Latin lexica, see Garin 1958, 98f.; Gianola 1980; Weijers 1989, 140ff.; and Charlet 2004, 168–171. A list of Latin/vernacular words by Domenico Bandini has been published by Black in the appendix to his 1996 study (745–751). Two lists by Goro d’Arezzo are preserved in two manuscripts of the British Library, Harley 2458 and 6513. 213 See Gehl 1993, 31. 214 Attributed to Gottschalk of Fulda, a pupil of Hrabanus Maurus (d. 867), the Ecloga is a dialogue between the shepherd Pseustis (“Liar”) and the Jewish Alithia (“Truth”) on the relationship between classical mythology and the Christian revelation. See Garin 1958, 93 f., and Grendler 1989, 112. 215 These works were Facetus or Supplementum Catonis (a handbook on good manners, attributed to John of Garland); Cato novus; Geta or Graecorum studia; Tobias by Matthew of Vendôme (a verse book of morality); Doctrinale altum parabolarum by Alain of Lille; Elegia by Henry of Settimello; a rhymed version of St. Augustine’s sentences by
the latin donatus
69
of the elementary course, constituted a trait d’union between the auctores minores and the classical Latin authors. Ovid or other Christian authors could also be included in the texts of this first stage.216 Boas’ conclusions conflict with the extreme variety of texts included in the manuscripts. Admittedly, the sequence (Donatus)—Cato—Theodulus—Avianus occurs quite frequently at the beginning in the libri manuales, manuscript anthologies of various subjects dating from the eleventh to the thirteenth century.217 However, there is no fixed order in the sequence of the texts: within a general list of elementary readings, teachers were free to choose the texts they considered most suitable for their classes.218 The most common reading list, however, included eight works: Cato, Theodulus, Facetus, Chartula, Liber parabolarum, Tobias, Aesopus, and Floretus (hence the definition of auctores octo).219 Between the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries, these texts circulated in Italy—first in manuscripts, then in printed editions— either individually or in groups of two or three: probably, for the pedagogy of that time, one or two texts were sufficient for reading in class.220 After the easy Latin verse of the medieval auctores octo, pupils approached more complex classical authors, the auctores maiores. Virgil, Lucan, Seneca’s tragedies, Terence, Statius, Persius, Claudian, and Ovid were included in the syllabus; Latin prose was limited to Cicero and Sallust.221 In a poem for the death of the Bolognese grammarian Prosper of Aquitaine; Aesop’s fables translated by Waltherius or Galterus Anglicus (the chaplain of king Henry II of England); Chartula or De contemptu mundi; Physiologus or Tres leo naturas (the transposition in verse of Theobaldus’ Physiologus); Liber quinque clavium sapientiae; Floretus; Poenitentiarius; Synonima atque equivoca by John of Garland; De quattuor virtutibus attributed to Seneca; and Prudentius’ Dittochaeum or Prudentiolus or Eva columba. Most of these works belong to the twelfth century. See Garin 1958, 94ff.; and Orme 2006, 98–115. 216 See Boas 1914, 17 ff.; Avesani 1967, 17; Kohl 1988, 6; and Gehl 1993, 52 f. 217 The three works were defined as primus, secundus, and tertius liber de moribus, respectively; see Thomson-Perraud 1990, 12, 24 f. 218 See Avesani 1965, 479; and Thomson-Perraud 1990, 11–23. For example, the thirteenth-century scholar John of Garland included Cato and Theodulus in his reading list for students, together with the Latin classics (Virgil, Horace, Cicero, etc.): see Sandys 19583, 1. 550 and notes 6–7. 219 For a description of these texts, see Garin 1958, 92 ff. Black (2001, 199, 219– 236) has analyzed extensively the manuscripts containing collections of minor Latin authors to be read in schools. 220 Thomson-Perraud 1990, 27 f. 221 Virgil, introduced in the Latin school curriculum for the first time by Quintus Caecilius Epirota at the end of the first century B.C.E., never lost his predominance.
70
chapter one
Ambrosius, the anonymous author mentioned the entire list of Latin authors read in his schools. It included the typical medieval reading list for intermediate students—Cato, Prosper, Boethius, Claudian, etc.—as well as classical and post-classical poets and prose writers: Lucan, Seneca, Ovid, Terence, “Tullius” (i.e., Cicero), Martial, Juvenal, and Sallust.222 A “canon” of Latin authors to be read at a more advanced level, in fact, was established in the fourteenth century: Virgil, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Horace, Statius’ Thebais, and Lucan’s De bello civili. Other poetry included Seneca’s tragedies, Terence’s comedies, and Juvenal’s satires. As for prose, Cicero and Seneca were read for philosophy, and Livy, Caesar, Sallust, Suetonius, Valerius Maximus, and the Historia Augusta were for history.223 However, the method followed by teachers in classrooms did not change substantially from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. The glosses in manuscripts reveal that teachers gave the meaning of some words through Latin synonyms, paraphrased the text, commented on the mythological, historical, and geographical information it contained, pointed out the figures of speech, and often offered a moral or allegorical interpretation of the text.224 By the turn of the fourteenth century, medieval Latin education began to be challenged and criticized, even if its basic philosophy and methodology remained unquestioned for a long time. At the end of the century, the Florentine Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406) supported with much energy and firmness the cause of a Latin style purified from all non-classical elements.225 In a 1452 letter to his son Niccolò, Guarino Guarini resolutely condemned the dicendi et scribendi horrens et inculta barbaries (a quotation from Cicero, De oratore 1. 14 and De senectute 3) that had polluted Latin studies because Cicero, the greatest model Next came Terence, who ranked only sixth in the canon of Volcacius Sedigitus, but who had enjoyed great success during the imperial age. Horace was read in schools, but not as often as were the first two authors. Of the prose writers, Cicero was the most important, followed by Sallust. The quadriga Virgil, Terence, Cicero, and Sallust dominated Latin schools up until the Renaissance; see Marrou 1956 [1948], 278f. 222 The poem has been published by Avesani (1965, 468ff.). 223 Kohl 1988, 6–7. The most extensive treatment can be found in Black 2001, 173– 274. 224 Black 1991b, 150ff.; and 2001, 275 ff. On teachers’ comments on ancient texts in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Marcucci 2002, 80–92. 225 See Witt 1983, 227–271. See also Sandys 19583, 1. 610; Kohl 1988, 7; and Percival 1988, 73–74. For an overview of the debate about the Latin language during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Rizzo 2004.
the latin donatus
71
of Latin prose, was being ignored, “while Italy had swallowed Prosperi, Evae columbae, and Chartulae” (cum Prosperos, Evas columbas et Chartulas […] absorbuisset Italia).226 The Florentine Matteo Palmieri (1406–1475), in his dialogue La vita civile, cited among the causes of the present decline the “dismal teachers with dismal authors” and the “obscure and gloomy books” taught in schools.227 Like Lorenzo Valla, Leon Battista Alberti (ca. 1404–1472) proposed to replace “cartule e gregismi” with the study of the sources of Latin grammar (Priscian and Servius) and the reading of the classical Latin authors (Cicero, Livy, and Sallust).228 However, medieval grammars continued to be used at the elementary level of instruction. Guarino, for instance, kept Ianua and even Doctrinale and Graecismus as points of reference for his own manual, Regulae; memorization, repetition, and catechism continued to be considered as the basic elements of effective learning.229 Although rejected by humanists because of their impure Latin, the auctores minores did not disappear immediately. Perhaps their moral content or a precise editorial choice prevented the favorite medieval readings from disappearing. Especially in France and in Spain (and rarely in Italy, where the crisis of the medieval educational system had manifested itself much earlier than elsewhere), they were collected in anthologies—the Libri minores—and printed and reprinted many times until the middle of the sixteenth century.230 However, by this point, the culture based on the auctores octo was being questioned. In a letter to his patron Juan Rodriguez de Fonseca, Bishop of Palencia, Antonio de Nebrija, who prepared an edition of the Libri minores, expressed serious doubts about the effectiveness of the texts. Nebrija acknowledged the value of Disticha Catonis, which had been a pillar in the education of generations of pupils, but considered the other texts litterarum quisquilias. In the same way, Mathias Bonhomme, in the introduction to his edition of Auctores octo (Lugduni 1538), emphasized the difference between Cato’s Distichs (antesignanum illum Catonem […]
226 227
103 f.
Quoted by Garin 1958, 91 and 416. “Tristi maestri con tristi autori […] obscuri e tenebrosi libri.” See Garin 1958,
228 See Garin 1958, 92. On humanists’ critical attitude toward medieval grammar, see Rizzo 1996. On Valla, see above, 19. 229 See Grafton-Jardine 1982, 62, and Black 2004, 32. The importance of memorization in learning is stressed by Battista Guarini, De ordine docendi et studendi 13 (Kallendorf 2002, 274). 230 A list of editions of Libri minores in Avesani 1967, 21ff., and 89ff.
72
chapter one
tibi damus, quem unice ames, colas, amplexeris) and the other libri minores (reliquos vero, qui Catoni impie assuti sunt, illumque multis parasangis male sequuntur, tamquam scopulum fugias).231 Two pedagogical experiments concerning the teaching of grammar deserve to be mentioned. Giulio Pomponio Leto, a pupil of Valla, who lived in Rome and Venice during the second half of the fifteenth century, wrote a course on Latin grammar in two parts: Romulus for beginners and Fabius for more advanced students. He proposed a return to the authentic sources of Latin grammar and the rejection of all the additions and modifications introduced in the Middle Ages, such as themata and the vernacular translation of paradigms. Instead of Donatus and Priscian, he considered Varro and Quintilian as his privileged sources. Leto also replaced themata with passages from classical authors and went so far as to modify the traditional terminology and disposition of the matter. Leto’s innovations did not enjoy any success, except for the tabular disposition of paradigms, which was also adopted by later grammarians.232 Almost one century later, the Spanish humanist Franciscus Sanctius, known as “el Brocense” (Francisco Sánchez de la Brozas, 1523– 1601), who taught eloquence at Salamanca, rejected medieval grammar tout court as well as the normative approach common to most Renaissance grammarians, which enslaved language to a set of rules. He proposed a direct approach to the authors, the real “authorities” of the ancient languages: Plato and Aristotle for Greek and Cicero and Quintilian for Latin. Moreover, Sanctius reduced the parts of speech from eight to three—nomen, verbum, and particula—and considered the verb esse as the basis for every verb. This clear attempt at a
231
On Nebrija’s letter (printed at the beginning of his edition, Libri minores de novo correcti per Antonium Nebrissensem, of 1511) and Bonhome’s introduction, see Avesani 1967, 22 ff. 232 Leto’s grammar was printed in Venice in 1484 by Battista de Tortis. This edition is now incorporated into MS. Reginensis lat. 1818 of the Vatican Library. Leto acknowledged six parts of speech (noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, conjunction, and preposition) and six declensions (of which the third corresponded to the traditional fifth, the fourth to the third, the fifth included just genu, and the sixth domus; a list of irregular nouns was also given). On the life and work of Pomponio Leto, see, e.g., the studies by Lovito (2002 and 2005). On Leto’s grammar, together with Zabughin’s still fundamental study (1909, 2. 208–223), see Bianchi-Rizzo 2000, 637–650, where Leto’s activity is considered within the context of Pope Nicholas V’s cultural environment. Manuscripts and printed editions have been analyzed by Ruysschaert in his articles of 1954 and 1961. See also Percival 1988, 75; and Rizzo 1995, 40f.
the latin donatus
73
“universal grammar” makes Sanctius a forerunner of Port Royal and Chomsky.233 The attempts of Leto, Sanctius, and many others to renew grammar, although fruitless, should be taken as signs of dissatisfaction with traditional methods. Indeed, the innovation that most deeply affected Renaissance culture was the revival of ancient Greek language and literature, which enabled the Latin world to regain consciousness of its roots and, at the same time, to confront different pedagogical methods.
233
Sanctius expounded his theories in his Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae (Salamanca 1587, repr. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt 1986). On Sanctius’ grammar, see Viljamaa 1976, 9–17; Padley 1985–1988, 1. 269ff.; and Vogt-Spira 2001. Sanctius’ reduction of the number of the parts of speech recalls Lorenzo Valla’s reduction of Aristotle’s ten ontological categories and six medieval transcendentals into three: substantia, agere / actio, and qualitas (Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie, ed. by G. Zippel, 2 vols., Padova 1982). Moreover, Valla’s logical-ontological categories closely resemble Sanctius’ grammatical tripartition (I owe this remark to Christopher Celenza, whom I warmly thank). On Valla’s dialectic, see Blum 2004, 49–51 (with extensive bibliography).
chapter two THE GREEK CURRICULUM
During the fourteenth century, the threat of a growing Turkish power and the inability of Christianity to oppose it effectively brought Italy and the Byzantine world closer to each other: the acknowledgment of common roots, not only Christian but also Greco-Roman, stirred the conscience of Western men of culture and awoke their interest in the fate of the Byzantine Empire. At the same time, Petrarch and other scholars marked a turning point in Italian culture, in favor of a rediscovery of the authentic Latin tradition after centuries of barbarism.1 Humanists, aware that a deep and long-lasting knowledge of the classical tradition also involved the study of the Greek language, turned to Byzantium and its culture. The cultural exchange began with Manuel Chrysoloras’ teaching in Florence (1397) and continued well beyond the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453). Both the Italians who studied under Byzantine emigrés and those who went to Constantinople to learn Greek were exposed to the Byzantine pedagogical and literary tradition, in which grammar held a particularly important place. In Byzantine education, in fact, Greek classical literature and language had never lost their importance: as in antiquity, they were considered the foundation of culture itself. In any case, Byzantine pedagogy was not completely different from the teaching methods used in the West: the emphasis on memorization and repetition, the use of religious texts (in particular, the Psalms) as the first readings, the practice of parsing and defining grammatical phenomena (schedography), the question-and-answer format of the school books and exercises (erôtêmata), and the link between the correctness of the form and morality of the content created an ideal connection between schools on both sides of the Mediterranean. Byzantine teachers who found refuge and employment in the West did not simply import their culture and pedagogy into an environment ready to receive it. Rather, they provided the material for the
1
See Dionisotti C. 1967, 121.
76
chapter two
teaching of Greek as a foreign language. Thus “their success had, and continues to have, an effect, profound and irreversible, on the structure and content of education and intellectual life in Europe and in those parts of the wider world that have come under European influence. This is no small achievement.”2 At any rate, the insertion of Greek studies into the Western school curriculum took place by adapting the new pedagogy to the Latin tradition. The “new” Greek curriculum was closely modeled on the Latin, and even the study of Greek grammar was usually based on a comparison between Greek and Latin forms. As Hankins has pointed out, the integration of Greek culture into Western civilization was one of the few cases in human history in which a mature literary culture absorbed the refined language of another nation, reserving a permanent place for it in its pedagogical system.3 The revival of Greek studies in the West during the Renaissance apparently began because of the initiatives of individual personalities and was not founded upon a previous tradition. It would be restrictive, however, to explain the whole phenomenon only through the action of external elements. Greek had been part of Latin culture since antiquity. Even in the Middle Ages, the thread that bound Latin and Greek cultures together had never been completely broken. Rather, the renewed contacts with Byzantium gave new life to issues that, for a long time, had remained latent in Western culture. Never had Byzantium been so close to the West as at the end of its history, as demonstrated by the Byzantine Latinophrones of the Palaeologan age. In the West, the rediscovery of Greek heritage in Latin literature promoted by Petrarch and the first humanists prepared the way for the revival of the study of ancient Greek, the language of the literary masterpieces that had so remarkably influenced the most important Latin works.4 In fact, the presuppositions for the revival of Greek studies Robins 1993, 262. Hankins 2001, 1256. 4 The idea that it is impossible to understand Latin literature fully without knowing Greek occurs so often in the writings of the first humanists (Leonardo Bruni, Guarino, Politian, etc.) that it can be considered a topos. See Hankins 2001, 1253. For example, in a 1416 letter to Niccolò Pirondolo, Guarino Guarini says that Greek and Latin are related to each other like a mother and daughter: [Graecae litterae] tam iocundae, tam utiles nostris hominibus sunt, et latinis litteris tanta cognatione ac necessitudine devinctae, ut matrem ac filiam non iniuria dixeris (see Garin 1958, 308). Another interesting programmatic assertion comes from Andronicos Contoblachas, a Byzantine emigré who taught Greek in Basel from 1473 to 1477. In his oration “In Praise of Greek Letters,” 2 3
the greek curriculum
77
were closely connected with the demand of the first humanists for restoring the purity of the Latin language; only later did Greek studies acquire the dignity of an independent field.5 1. The Position of Greek in Roman Education From the second Punic war onward, all educated Romans had to be bilingual, proficient in both Latin and Greek (utriusque linguae: Horace, Carm. 3. 8. 5). Quintilian (Inst. or. 1. 1. 12) demonstrates that Romans were well aware of the Greek roots of their culture. In fact, Latin literature had begun with the translation of the Odyssey by Livius Andronicus, a Greek slave from Tarentum. From the theater of Plautus and Terence, the poems of Catullus, Virgil, or Horace, and the philosophical works of Cicero and Seneca, to the products of “Silver Latin” authors and late antique writers, Latin literature continued to be heavily infuenced by Greek models.6 As Marrou has pointed out, “the Romans were the first to use a foreign language systematically to increase their mastery over their own.”7 For a long time, in fact, teaching remained the prerogative of Greek slaves from South Italy, Greece, or Asia. They were entrusted with the education of children of well-to-do families and with teaching in schools. They obviously imported into the Roman world the contents and methodologies of their own learning, which influenced preserved in the Vatican manuscript Reginensis lat. 1557, Contoblachas says that he has always associated Latin and Greek (Latina cum Grecis coniunxi), as Priscian had done, since Latin culture is derived from Greek culture: Profecto nullo modo quispiam prima elementa absque licteris Grecis accipere poterit, adeo connexa est hijs omnibus disciplina Grecorum, ut nihil sit altum nec perfectum sine ipsa. See Schmitt 1971, with an edition of the oration on 275–277. 5 See Grafton 1988, 23: “The humanists of the period 1400 to 1460 wished above all to revive classical Latin culture […] They translated Greek works that filled gaps in the Latin culture of their time—above all, works of history, geography, and moral philosophy.” In fact, as Francesco Filelfo remarks in introducing his translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Non enim Graecas litteras tantopere omnes discere studemus quo iis apud Athenienses Byzantiosve utamus, sed ut illarum subsidio et ductu Latinam literaturam et eloquentiam melius teneamus et lautius (in Georgii Trapezuntii Rhetoricorum libri V, etc., Venetiis, in aed. Aldi et Andreae, 1523, ff. 136r-136v, quoted by Gualdo Rosa 1985, 180). Politian also expressed the same opinion: see Grafton 1977, 175. 6 See, e.g., Momigliano 1975, 16ff.; Bonner 1977, 20ff.; Aerts 1985, 78; Harris 1989, 158ff.; and Biville’s remarks in Bilingualism 2002, 86. 7 Marrou 1956 [1948], 255.
78
chapter two
the shaping of the Latin school curriculum. The Greek culture that spread in Rome was Hellenistic culture, based on writing rather than on orality, and centered on epic, drama, and rhetoric. The Romans absorbed it, but also adapted it to their own needs: for them, in fact, Greek was a foreign language. We have no precise indication either of the way in which most Latin writers acquired a knowledge of Greek good enough to allow the reading and understanding of Greek literary works, or of the tools, if any, used for this purpose.8 Instead, we may suppose with Kramer that foreign languages were taught and learned according to the same method as mother languages, that is, by memorizing formal grammar, word lists, and literary passages.9 The emphasis on Greek in culture and education increased progressively from the second century B.C.E. to the beginning of the imperial age, when Latin culture reached its full development.10 During the Republican age, the same grammaticus could teach both Greek and Latin. On the other hand, inscriptions show that under the Empire teachers specialized in one language or the other, and Greek grammarians were gradually distinguished from Latin grammarians.11 However, in spite of this diversification of tasks, we may suppose that both Latin and Greek teachers continued to practice the traditional methods. The comparison, or σ2γκρισις, between Greek and Latin was the basis of the study of Greek among the Romans. Usually it concerned See Grafton-Jardine 1982, 55 f. Rochette (1997, 49–54) remarks that the teaching of foreign languages never held any place in Greek and Roman education, even if literary sources mention cases of polyglotism: e.g., Mithridates according to Pliny the Elder (Nat. hist. 25. 6) or Crassus according to Valerius Maximus (8. 7. 6). On the attitude of ancient Greeks toward foreign languages, see De Luna 2003. Ovid’s case is particularly interesting: he learned the Getic language only when it became clear that he would never return to Rome from his exile, probably for fear that the knowledge of another language would contaminate his Latin. 9 Kramer 1996, 38. However, according to Morgan (1998, 167 ff.), “there is no evidence […] that formal grammar was used to teach non-speakers to speak, read or write classical or koine Greek”: tables, charts, etc. were for pupils who already spoke and understood the language and wanted, or needed, to use it correctly in preparation for the next step in their education, rhetoric. 10 Augustus pursued a politics of integration between the two main cultures of the empire (cf. Horace, Epist. 2. 1. 56: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, etc.). The peak was reached under Hadrian’s rule, when the first translations from Latin into Greek appeared: e.g., the translations of Virgil’s Georgics and Sallust’s historical work by Arrianus and the sophist Zenobius, respectively. See Marrou 1956 [1948], 258f.; and Rochette 1997, 21ff. 11 Bonner 1977, 57. 8
the greek curriculum
79
the treatment of literary genres; thus, Cicero could be compared with Demosthenes, and Virgil compared with Homer.12 However, the comparison between the grammatical forms of both languages also became frequent from Varro onwards, as is demonstrated by the interesting remarks of Quintilian in his Institutio oratoria. Quintilian’s position was rather moderate. Since the Late Republic, Roman culture had been markedly characterized by the use of the two languages. Quintilian saw such a close connection between Greek and Latin that elementary education could start in either language, for “both follow the same path.”13 However, Quintilian also realized that, if Greek education had prevailed, Latin would have lost its importance. On the one hand, Greek was a language of culture, and in part of Roman society it had even superseded Latin as the language commonly used;14 in the pars Orientis of the Empire, Greek continued to be the first language well after the Roman conquest. On the other hand, Latin was the chief means of communication for any official or professional transaction within the political and social structure of the Roman Empire: in addition to being the language of law, army, and administration, Latin was spoken by entire communities within the confines of the Empire. Quintilian was also aware that the similarities between Latin and Greek were more apparent than real: (Inst. or. 1. 1. 12–14) A sermone Graeco puerum incipere malo, quia Latinum, qui pluribus in usu est, vel nobis nolentibus perbibet, simul quia disciplinis quoque Graecis prius instituendus est, unde et nostrae fluxerunt. Non tamen hoc adeo superstitiose fieri velim ut diu tantum Graece loquatur aut discat, sicut plerisque moris est. Hoc enim accidunt et oris plurima vitia in peregrinum sonum corrupti et sermonis, cui cum Graecae figurae adsidua consuetudine haeserunt, in diversa quoque loquendi ratione pertinacissime durant. Non longe itaque Latina subsequi debent et cito pariter ire. Ita fiet ut, cum aequali cura linguam utramque tueri coeperimus, neutra alteri officiat. Cf. Quintilian, Inst. or. 10. 1. 105 f.; 10. 5. 2–3. See Marrou 1956 [1948], 255. Inst. or. 1. 4. 1: Nec refert de Graeco an de Latino loquar, quamquam Graecum esse priorem placet: utrique eadem via est. 14 Roman votive and funerary inscriptions show a high percentage of Greekspeaking slaves and freedmen, and borrowings from Greek were common in everyday language, as demonstrated, for example, by Petronius’ Satyricon. In the second century C.E., Juvenal defined Rome as “a Greek city” (Sat. 3. 61) and criticized the snobbish ladies of the Roman élite, who preferred speaking in Greek to Latin and compared Homer to Virgil (Sat. 6. 185–197, 434–437). On the relationship between Greek and Latin in the Roman world, see Rochette 1997 and the articles by Biville, Swain, and Leiwo in Bilingualism 2002. 12 13
80
chapter two [I prefer a boy to begin by speaking Greek, because he will imbibe Latin, which more people speak, whether he will or no; and also because he will need to be taught Greek learning first, it being the source of ours too. However, I do not want a fetish to be made of this, so that he spends a long time speaking and learning nothing but Greek, as is commonly done. This gives rise to many faults both of pronunciation (owing to the distortion of the mouth produced by forming foreign sounds) and of language, because the Greek idioms stick in the mind through continual usage and persist obstinately even in speaking the other tongue. So Latin ought to follow not far behind, and soon proceed side by side with Greek. The result will be that, once we begin to pay equal attention to both languages, neither will get in the way of the other.]15
Quintilian was also very cautious in recommending lexical borrowings from Greek (Inst. or. 1. 5. 58).16 Children would learn, already at an elementary stage, the explanations of obscure words (glossae: 1. 1. 35: Protinus … potest … interpretationem linguae secretioris, id est quas Graeci glossas vocant, ediscere). Their training had to include oral and written exercises with a moral content: (ibid., 35–36) Ii quoque versus qui ad imitationem scribendi proponentur non otiosas velim sententias habeant, sed honestum aliquid monentis. Prosequitur haec memoria in senectutem et impressa animo rudi usque ad mores proficiet. [I should like to suggest that the lines set for copying should not be meaningless sentences, but should convey some moral lesson. The memory of such things stays with us till we are old, and the impression thus made on the unformed mind will be good for the character also.]17
Some exercises (progymnasmata) consisted in turning verse into prose and prose into verse, Latin into Greek and Greek into Latin.18 In Book 10 of his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian applied the idea of the parallel study of Latin and Greek literature by creating, for each literary genre, a canon of Latin authors (10. 1. 85–127) that corresponded as closely as possible to the Greek canons (10. 1. 46–84). Greek authors were studied in Roman schools during the Empire: Papinius Statius’ father, a grammarian, taught Homer, Hesiod, SapTranslation by Russell 2001, 71. See Dionisotti 1995, 50. 17 Translation by Russell 2001, 81. See also Xenophon, Cyn. 13. 5: νματα μ3ν γ4ρ ο5κ 6ν παιδε2σειε, γνμαι δ , ε καλς ,χοιεν [For words would not educate, but maxims would, if well found]. On the importance of moral issues in ancient education, see Morgan 1998, 14f. 18 Murphy 1980, 162 f. 15 16
the greek curriculum
81
pho, Alcman, Corinna, Stesichorus, Pindar, Ibycus, Callimachus, and Lycophron in his school near Naples (Silvae 5. 3. 146–148).19 Bilingual (Greek-Latin) papyri show that both languages and literatures were taught in Egypt during the imperial age, even if the two languages were used within two different economic and social contexts.20 The analogies between the Latin and Greek languages in grammar and lexicon did not escape the attention of ancient grammarians. In the first century C.E., Dionysius of Halicarnassus considered Latin as a Greek dialect (Ant. Rom. 1. 90. 1, etc.). Greeks, in fact, held Latin in much greater esteem than the other “barbarian” languages and even deemed it worth studying. Four centuries later, Macrobius gave a σ2γκρισις of the Latin and the Greek verbal systems in his treatise De verborum Graeci et Latini differentiis vel societatibus.21 Macrobius justifies his attempt by remarking that nature herself had given to both languages “both the grace of the sounds and the system of an ars, as well as a similar elegance and a very close kinship in the gentleness of the language itself ” (et soni leporem et artis disciplinam atque in ipsa
19 We may wonder whether Statius’ description applies to all schools of the Empire or only to the school of his father, who at any rate lived and worked in a Greekspeaking area. Moreover, the selection of authors may reflect the personal interests and tastes of the teacher rather than a Greek curriculum generally established for Roman schools; see Bonner 1977, 216. Many Greek inscriptions have been found in Pompeii, where Greek was widely spoken together with Latin (see García y García 2004, 140). Some Latin inscriptions from this area are written in Greek letters: for example, the inscription on the fifth page of a triptych (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. 4, Suppl., pars 1, Berolini 1898, no. 321. XXXII), displays a bizarre mixture of Latin and Greek. 20 In Roman Egypt, Latin was the language of law, administration, and the army, whereas Greek was the language of business and was fluently spoken by the Roman ruling class as well; the local population spoke Demotic. A knowledge of Greek and Latin was necessary to pursue any public career, especially after Diocletian’s “Latinization” of the imperial public administration. Many Egyptian papyri contain tools for the study of Greek grammar—e.g., fragmentary treatises similar to Dionysius’ Τ χνη, charts, tables of declensions and conjugations—or bilingual editions of Latin authors (Cicero and Virgil), as well as school exercises in Greek, Latin, or both languages; see Morgan 1998, 156ff.; and Swiggers-Wouters 2000. Cribiore (1996, 29–30) points out that the same tools (alphabet writing, literary passages, glossaries, grammatical treatises, etc.) were used to learn both Greek and Latin, but the hands of papyri containing Latin exercises demonstrate that Latin was studied at a more advanced level. Since scribes knew Greek better than Latin, confusion between scripts occurred frequently. See also Kramer 1996; and Rochette 1999. 21 The treatise, addressed to a Symmachus, has been handed down fragmentarily and in two versions. See the edition by De Paolis 1990. On Macrobius’ identity and chronology, see Cameron 1966, 25 ff.
82
chapter two
loquendi mansuetudine similem cultum et coniunctissimam cognationem dedit).22 Macrobius’ work offers an interesting document of comparative linguistics.23 His purpose was not pedagogical: he described, but did not explain, similarities and differences between Greek and Latin verbal inflections. Moreover, his description of Greek verbs, which takes up the work of Dionysius Thrax, is different from that of the Latin verbs. It is worth noticing, however, that Macrobius used the comparative approach, generally practiced in antiquity in the teaching of foreign languages, for a work aimed at different purposes and intended for an audience of Romans who already knew Greek.24 With the advent of Christianity, Greek became the language of the new faith, but by the end of the second century Christian communities in Africa and Italy began to adopt Latin for liturgy and theological writings. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the “Christian Hellenism” of Jerome and Rufinus contributed to an increase in the knowledge of Greek theology in the Latin world.25 On the other hand, the need for translations indicates that, during this time, the cultural separation of the two sides of the Mediterranean basin had already started. This process reached its conclusion in the seventh century. In late antiquity, Graeco-Roman civilization was still vital, and the exchanges between the two parts of the Empire were intense: the idea of a universal Christian empire undoubtedly contributed to reinforcing a sense of unity. The cultural κοιν that connected the two parts of the Roman Empire has often been emphasized. Africa, the terra bilinguis, was the birthplace of Tertullian, Apuleius, and other authors who mastered both Latin and Greek in the same way. The same can be said of Macrobius, Martianus Capella, and others, up to the period
De verborum diff. 1, in De Paolis 1990, 5. De Paolis (1990, XXVIII), in fact, considers Macrobius’ work as “l’unica testimonianza di una certa consistenza dell’analisi linguistica del greco e del latino, di cui ci sono rimaste solo deboli tracce.” Rochette (1997, 61 n. 55) relates Macrobius’ treatise to a long tradition of comparative studies dating back to Claudius Didymus’ treatise on analogy among the Romans (Περ' τς παρ4 8Ρωμαοις *ναλογας), dated during the first century C.E. 24 There are some similarities between Macrobius’ De verborum differentiis and an anonymous treatise De verbo, probably a product of Priscian’s circle, composed for a Greek who wanted to learn Latin; the same environment also produced the two books of the Ars de verbo by Eutyches, a pupil of Priscian (GL 5, 447–489). The earliest copy of De verbo, the palimpsest MS. lat. 1 of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, belongs to the late seventh century. See Dionisotti 1984, 206f.; and De Paolis 1990, XXXVIII f. 25 Courcelle 1948, 37 and 130. 22 23
the greek curriculum
83
of the Gothic kingdom, the “second blossoming of philosophical Hellenism in Italy,” when Boethius and Cassiodorus undertook the ambitious project of transmitting Greek knowledge to the West by translating the most important Greek philosophical and scientific works into Latin.26 In third-century Gaul, boys learned both Latin and Greek in schools;27 a century later, the grammarian Ausonius mixed Greek and Latin in his poems. Libanius often mentioned the school of Roman law that flourished in Berytus, and Procopius of Gaza wrote a letter of recommendation for a grammarian, Hierius, who taught Latin in the Palestinian city between the fifth and sixth centuries.28 In sixthcentury Constantinople, Priscian and Eutyches taught Latin and John Lydus used Latin sources for his historical work. During the seventh and eighth centuries, the Byzantine Empire withdrew into itself under the threat of the Arabs and the Iconoclastic crisis. Contacts with the West became less frequent, to the detriment of the knowledge of Latin, which after the sixth century ceased to be the language of law, administration, and the army.29 The increasing gap between written (Attic) and spoken Greek (κοιν) required more emphasis on the “technical” aspects of grammar in the teaching of the language. However, a school system substantially unchanged since antiquity ensured the survival of ancient Greek culture.30 Conversely, the barbarian invasions in the West caused the end of civic life and, with it, that of the school system and of the culture that it had produced for centuries. As Cavallo has pointed out, one of the aspects of the gap between Antiquity and the Middle Ages was the loss of Greco-Latin identity by the Latin and Greek sides of See Courcelle 1948, X, 257–261; and Berschin 1988 [1980], 43 ff., 73 ff. However, Riché (1976 [19623], 44) notes the substantial failure of the effort of Boethius and his group to restore Greek philosophy and literature: such an effort was not understood by Boethius’ contemporaries, since “there were simply not enough people who could read Greek or who were even interested in the translations produced during this period.” In any case, Boethius’ translations exerted great influence on Western culture during the Middle Ages. 27 Morgan 1998, 29–30, from a scene described in a parallel Latin-Greek schoolbook. 28 On Libanius’ attitude to Latin, see Cribiore 2007, 206–212. On the knowledge of Latin in the Greek world during the fourth century, see Fisher 1982. On Hierius, a Latin grammarian in Gaza (Procop. Gaz., Ep. 145), see Kaster 1988, 293. 29 The nouns of most of the military and bureaucratic offices of the Byzantine Empire were taken from Latin. See Oikonomides 1972. 30 On the Greek school system in Late Antiquity, see, e.g., Courcelle 1980, 392; and Cribiore 2001, 194–201. 26
84
chapter two
the ancient world, which became purely “Western” and “Byzantine,” respectively.31 An immediate consequence was a loss of the knowledge of Greek in the West. From the fifth century, the Latin-speaking world seems to have known the Greek tradition not through the original texts, but through their Latin translations or reworkings. What survived of Greek was confined to liturgy or drawn from glossaries, bilingual sacred texts, or Latin authors.32 Even the Byzantine conquest accomplished by Emperor Justinian had no apparent lasting consequences on Greek studies in Italy, judging from the fact that Gregory the Great (ca. 540–604), even after his missions to Constantinople, lacked a knowledge of Greek.33 One of the main reasons for the decay of Greek in Western culture was that Greek was no longer felt and taught as a living language: a repetitive and mnemonic study of grammar in classrooms had replaced the direct learning from a pedagogue described by Quintilian. In his Confessions, Augustine of Hippo offers a very interesting description of the methods used to teach Greek in North Africa at the end of the fourth century. As a boy, Augustine hated being forced to learn (Conf. 1. 12. 19: non amabam litteras et me in eas urgeri oderam), but enjoyed attending the class of the Latin grammaticus (1. 13. 20: adamaveram […] Latinas […] quas docent qui grammatici vocantur). However, for reasons that he was not able to explain, he hated Greek (quid autem erant causae cur Graecas litteras oderam […] ne nunc quidem mihi satis exploratum est): for him, Greek was a burden and a cause of distress (onerosas poenalesque habebam […] omnes Graecas). He explained his aversion to Greek in terms of being forced to memorize words and poetic passages in a foreign language. Thus the “most-sweetly vain Homer” (1. 14. 23: Homerus dulcissime vanus) was “bitter” (amarus) to him, as Virgil must have been to Greek children when they were forced to learn his poetry: Difficultas omnino ediscendae linguae peregrinae quasi felle aspergebat omnes suavitates Graecas […] Nulla verba illa noveram et saevis terroribus ac poenis, ut nossem, instabatur mihi vehementer. Cavallo 1990, 48. For example, Fulgentius of Ruspe (ca. 467–532/3), whom his contemporaries praised for his extraordinary knowledge of Greek, probably did not read in Greek the works that he quoted. See Courcelle 1948, 207. 33 See Riché 1976 [19623], 147. 31 32
the greek curriculum
85
[In truth, the difficulty of learning a foreign language sprinkled all the Greek sweetness with gall, so to speak […] I did not know any of those words, and I was being vehemently urged to learn them with cruel threats and punishments].
The main obstacles, therefore, came both from the unfamiliarity of a foreign language (lingua peregrina) and from the methods used in schools to impart its knowledge. In contrast to this gloomy picture, Augustine’s description of how he learned Latin, his native language, sounds almost like an idyll: Nam et Latina aliquando infans utique nulla noveram et tamen advertendo didici sine ullo metu atque cruciatu inter etiam blandimenta nutricum et ioca adridentium et laetitias adludentium. Didici vero illa sine poenali onere urgentium, cum me urgeret cor meum ad parienda concepta sua, et qua non esset, nisi aliqua verba didicissem non a docentibus, sed a loquentibus, in quorum et ego auribus parturiebam quicquid sentiebam. Hinc satis elucet maiorem habere vim ad discenda ista liberam curiositatem quam meticulosam necessitatem. [For there had also been a time when, as a child, I knew absolutely no Latin. However, I learned it by paying attention, without any fear and suffering, amid the caresses of my nurses and the jokes and cheerfulness of my friends who smiled and played with me. Indeed, I learned Latin without any pressure or punishment urging me to do so: it was my heart that urged me to give birth to its conceptions, and there was no other way, except by learning words not from teachers but from speakers, in whose ears, in turn, I gave birth to whatever thought I conceived. Hence, it is sufficiently clear that free curiosity has more power in learning such notions than fearsome constraint.]
Thus, in the fourth century Greek had undergone in the West the same fate as Latin in the Middle Ages: it was no longer a living language, but a foreign language, no longer learned by ear, but with a massive use of memorization and a set of rules. 2. Greek Grammar in the Middle Ages: An Impossible Dream? After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Greek gradually disappeared almost completely from the Western school curriculum. During the Middle Ages, Latin was the medium for learning, literature, and business. Medieval men of letters knew Latin poets and prose writers but, apart from few exceptions, had no knowledge of Greek language and literature. However, the situation was not homogeneous. The knowledge of Greek never vanished in Rome, South Italy, and Sicily,
86
chapter two
that is, in areas with a relevant presence of Byzantines and with intense commercial, cultural, and political relations with the Greekspeaking world.34 In his lavishly documented study on the survival of Greek in the Middle Ages, Walther Berschin has recognized “a dotted line […] of concern with and knowledge of Greek” throughout the Latin Middle Ages.35 Conversely, Guglielmo Cavallo has pointed out that it is necessary to make a clear distinction between a real knowledge of Greek and the use of Greek at modest levels. The evidence collected by Berschin has led Cavallo to affirm “a substantial absence of the Greek language” in the West between the seventh and the eleventh centuries: “[The] disappearance of the study of Greek grammar prevented the circulation of texts, and in effect limited the use of Greek to symbolic message, sacred, distinctive, or decorative sign, formulaic word, learned stereotype, refined quotation, obscure reference, and even coquetry.”36 For example, the lexica by Papias, Hugutio or Brito, and the works by Eberhard of Béthune, John of Garland, Alexander of Hales, and others, show an often arbitrary use of Greek for etymologies. However, as Berschin himself remarks, “all of these works belong to the history of Latin language instruction in the Middle Ages. Their purpose is not to teach Greek […] but rather to expand the expressive capacity of Latin by means of ‘exotic’ finesse.”37 The problem of Greek studies in the West during the Middle Ages requires, first of all, a definition of the kind of Greek that was actually lacking in the knowledge of Western scholars. Learning Greek in order to trade with Byzantine merchants or to go on pilgrimages in Greek-speaking areas was still possible through contacts with native
According to Harris J. (1995, 121), “Greek appears to have been widely understood, for example, in Rome in the eighth and ninth centuries, when there was a substantial Greek presence in the city and although the study of Greek in Rome and elsewhere in Northern Italy tended to decline after the eighth century, the presence of a sizable Greek-speaking population in the South ensured that it did not die out completely.” 35 Berschin 1988 [1980], 3–4. Greek studies in the Middle Ages represent a large field that concerns the survival and transmission of Greek literary works, the influence of Greek works on Western literature and art, translations, grammatical studies, etc. The present overview considers only some aspects related to the study of Greek grammar and the teaching of the Greek language. 36 Cavallo 1990, 50 (my translation). Also, McCormick (1977, 220) warns against overestimating the “influence” of Byzantium on the West during the Middle Ages. 37 Berschin 1988 [1980], 254. 34
the greek curriculum
87
speakers and even by means of phrasebooks circulating from the third century onwards, the so-called hermêneumata, which taught the words and the colloquial expressions useful to communicate in practical circumstances.38 But this Greek was not appropriate for reading ancient literary texts. Nor could ancient Greek be recovered through dictionaries, lexica, or grammatical works: these tools had been conceived for native speakers, not for foreigners striving to acquire the basis of the language. Moreover, as Carlotta Dionisotti has put it, a serious obstacle was imposed by the fact that the “world of ideas, institutions, and daily living” assumed by the writers of such manuals had disappeared centuries before: for medieval monks, “Homer’s gods, or Athenian democracy, […] the Olympic games, the idealized nude” were forms devoid of contents, if not outright sources of scandal.39 Another very important factor was a lack of a real demand for Greek in Western culture during the Middle Ages. Few Western scholars were inter38 These bilingual school manuals, probably written for Greeks but used also by Latins, contained a Greek-Latin vocabulary, in alphabetical order and/or by subject (names of gods and goddesses, vegetables, fish, etc.), bilingual colloquia (written conversations), and some simple reading exercises in both languages (anecdotes, Aesop’s or Hyginus’ fables, etc.). A collection of hermêneumata has been edited in the third volume of CGL; see also the recent edition of Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana Leidensia by G. Flammini, München-Leipzig 2004. On hermêneumata, see Dionisotti 1982, 86ff.; Debut 1984; and Korhonen 1996. Marrou (1956 [1948], 263 f.) quotes an example from P. Fouad I 5, 12f. (CGL 3. 31. 24f.):
ατο:ντος τινς ;να στρατε2ηται 8Αδρανος ε=πεν Πο> $ λεις στρατε2εσ$αι;
petente quodam ut militaret Adrianus dixit Ubi vis militare?
Marrou notes that the same kind of word-for-word translation was used by Greeks learning Latin, as evident, for example, from a passage of Virgil’s Aeneid (3. 447) quoted in the same papyrus: illa manent immota locis neque ab ordine cedunt
κε>να μ νει *κνητα ν το>ς τποις ο5δ3 *π? τς τ(ξεως ε@κει.
Such word-for-word translations, therefore, apply to a foreign language the same method used in Hellenistic schools for ancient literary texts, i.e., the glossing of obsolete words into colloquial Greek. 39 Dionisotti 1988a, 19.
88
chapter two
ested in learning Greek outside of vocabulary and etymologies, which could be supplied by many medieval lexica; this lack corresponded to the limited supply of qualified teachers able to teach Greek to Westerners.40 For medieval scholars interested in Greek, the main hindrance to the study of the language was a lack of grammar books. The few extant traces of medieval Greek grammars, together with the evidence offered by manuscripts, do not allow us to believe that, during the Middle Ages, there was ever a systematic study of Greek grammar that might have promoted the mastery of the language and, in this way, the spread and circulation of texts. The knowledge of Greek that survived in the Middle Ages was lexical, not grammatical. Medieval scholars were able to obtain a fair number of Greek words from the texts of Cicero, Pliny the Elder, the Latin poets, and many late-antique and Christian writers, but these isolated words or glosses were not enough to construct or to read a sentence. The late-antique bilingual glossaries that survived in libraries had been conceived for native speakers of Greek and could hardly be used by Latins. Nor would the Greek forms inserted in Latin grammar books—the Greek text of Dositheus’ grammar, Macrobius’ treatise on Greek and Latin verbs, Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae, and the Artes of other grammarians, such as the Ars de verbo of Priscian’s pupil Eutyches—have enabled anyone to read Greek classical texts. Therefore, some scanty evidence of Greek studies in England and Ireland during the seventh and the eighth centuries seems surprising, to say the least; the Latin translations of the works of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite, made first by Hilduin between 831 and 835 and then by John Scottus Eriugena between 850 and 860, even if still very approximate, really seem to border on the miraculous.41 For a long time scholarship has maintained and often overemphasized that, during the Middle Ages, the Greek cultural tradition survived in England and Ireland.42 However, British and Irish monks did See Gianola’s interesting observations (1980, 9–10). See, however, Mc Cormick’s remarks (1977, 218f.). 42 On Greek in the British Isles during the Middle Ages, after the fundamental study by Ludwig Traube (1891), see Berschin 1988 [1980], 132 ff. In 668, Pope Vitalian sent two Greek monks to England: Theodore of Tarsus, in Cilicia, and Hadrian, perhaps from the Greek-speaking area of North Africa. Theodore, who became Bishop of Canterbury, established a school in that city. Both monks taught the Bible as well as patristic and non-patristic texts in Latin, with the aid of Greek sources when 40 41
the greek curriculum
89
not know much more of Greek than the alphabet and some vocabulary, taken from glossaries and some Latin grammar books; the same can also be said for many of the grammarians who dealt with Greek.43 During the Carolingian age, increased relations between the Frankish court and Byzantium incidentally stimulated and promoted the study of Greek. Negotiations were made for marriages between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Empress Eirene, and between Hrotrud, one of Charlemagne’s daughters, and Eirene’s son, Constantine VI. The Byzantine historian Theophanes the Confessor reports that the eunuch Elissaeus was sent from Constantinople to Aachen to instruct the Princess in the Greek language and the usages of the Byzantine court: she would evidently have never received the same training from any Westerner.44 The Ottonian emperors pursued a similar necessary. Most probably, Theodore and Hadrian brought their own Greek books to England, but none of them survived. The teaching of the Greek language may also have been part of their task, although no evidence points to any instruction, even in the rudiments of Greek grammar in their school. Rather, the documents handed down to us suggest that students received only some oral instruction in Greek. See Bischoff and Lapidge 1994, and also Riché 1976 [19623], 371; Berschin 1988 [1980], 99; and Lapidge 1988. The latter has recognized in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. M 79 sup. a first-hand document of the teaching of the two monks. In spite of Bede’s enthusiasm for the Canterbury school (Hist. eccl. 4. 2), its instruction in Greek was probably not satisfactory. One of the students of Canterbury, Adhelm of Malmesbury, misunderstood the use of the letters mu and delta, meaning μα$ητς and διδ(σκαλος respectively, in the source of his dialogue on grammar, the sixth-century work Instituta regularia divinae legis by Iunilius. Instead, he took them to be abbreviations of magister and discipulus, thus producing the instance, very rare in medieval treatises, of a teacher answering the questions of a pupil. See Aerts 1985, 80. 43 Bede himself (673–735), although not completely ignorant of Greek, was able to read Greek theological works by Origen, Basil, and Clement only in their Latin translation. Bede’s Greek may have come from dictionaries, lexica, or even grammar books unknown to us. He may have built up his knowledge of Greek with a thorough study of a bilingual Bible, by comparing the Greek and the Latin texts word for word, perhaps with the help of a copy of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus. In his De orthographia—written for monks who, having learned the rudiments of Latin grammar, wanted to tackle Biblical interpretation or the copying of texts—Bede used also lists of idiômata, i.e., verbs and nouns with different constructions in Latin and Greek, in addition to late-antique treatises on grammar (Caper, Agroecius, etc.) and specific works on orthography. He may have taken them either from the works of grammarians, such as Charisius, Diomedes, Dositheus, and Priscian, or from lexica, such as the Greek-Latin Harleyan glossary (see below, 92). Until now, however, no evidence supports any attempt to establish which tools were actually available to him. See Sandys 19582, 1. 458ff.; Riché 1976 [19623], 387; and Dionisotti 1982a, 114f., 129, 140–141. 44 Chronographia 1. 445 ed. by C. de Boor, Lipsiae 1883–1885. See Jeauneau 1977– 1978, 35.
90
chapter two
policy of dynastic union and reached a significant result in 972, when Emperor Otto II married the Byzantine Princess Theophano, a niece of emperor John Tzimisces. Their son, Otto III, seemed to bridge the gulf between East and West. Meanwhile, Carolingian and Ottonian emperors favored the introduction of Byzantine customs in their courts. Greek words appear even in official documents issued by the Church and the imperial chancery, as well as in the poems that court poets addressed to the emperors. Two short grammatical texts are probably related to the ephemeral revival of Greek during the ninth-tenth centuries: both represent attempts to compose a Greek grammar within the Latin tradition only and can be considered ancestors of the Greek Donati of the Renaissance. The first is a grammar that begins with the words τ στιν doctus:45 it is a Greek translation of part of a Latin elementary grammar modeled on Donatus’ Ars minor. However, “grammar” is an exaggerated definition for this text: after the initial questions and answers, the exposition becomes a mere list of grammatical terms to define genders, numbers, figures, cases, parts of speech, and declensions, apparently without any logical connection. The anonymous translator may have taken the Greek terms from Priscian’s Institutiones or Dositheus’ grammar, or even from a bilingual lexicon. Here is the beginning of the grammar: TI ESTIN DOCTUS MEPOC ΛUΓU. TI MEROC ΛUΓU ESTIN. ONOMA ECTIN. ΠOCA ΠΑΡΕΠΟΝΤΕ TUTO ONOMATI. EX. etc.
Quid est doctus. Pars orationis. Que pars orationis est. Nomen est. Quot accedunt huic nomini. Sex.
45 Published by Omont (1881), the grammar can be read on fols. 134v-135r of the ninth-century MS. lat. 528 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, probably copied in the French abbey of St. Denis; see Bischoff 1967 [1951], 259. The text occupies fifty lines in all and is written in two parallel columns, with the Greek version on the left and the Latin original on the right side of the page. Iotacism, the transformation of the diphthongs into single vowels, and the confusion between long and short vowels or smooth and aspirated consonants reflect the post-classical pronunciation of Greek. As happens in most Latin medieval manuscripts, the Greek is written in capital letters. Moreover, the confusion between Greek and Latin letters demonstrates that the copyist did not know the Greek alphabet well and tended to confuse the Greek letters with similar Latin letters.
the greek curriculum
91
Rather than a document demonstrating “dans quelle decadence étaient tombées les études grecques en Occident,”46 this short text can be considered an ancestor of the Greek Donatus a and a first experiment of a Greek elementary grammar outside the Byzantine tradition. The second text is the beginning of a Greek grammar, written on fols. 13r–15v of MS. 114 (philol. 109) of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna.47 After the usual introductory parts on the alphabet and numerals, the author—probably a South German monk, Fromund—gives the Greek articles and several examples of nominal declensions. Fromund chooses nouns according to their gender: % κ2ριος for the masculine; E μο:σα, E γυν, E Eμ ρα, E *γαλλασις for the feminine; and τ? νομα, τ? ,ργον, and τ? σκαμνον for the neuter. Also, % *νρ is declined as an example of a patronymic. This is followed by a list of about two hundred nouns (many of which are taken from biblical and liturgical texts) and the declensions of % FερεGς κα' E F ρεια and of ε5τυχς κα' ε5τυχ ς. As Berschin observes, this grammar “offers no evidence of firsthand lessons given by Greeks.”48 However, it is interesting to note that this grammar contains paradigms—μο:σα, σκαμνον, Fερε2ς, and ε5τυχς—taken from Donatus’ Ars minor, where the Latin equivalents—musa, scamnum, sacerdos, and felix—all appear in the chapter on the noun (586 Holtz). Between the ninth and the tenth centuries, cultural exchanges between Byzantium and the West also became more intense. Translations of Greek texts were produced in Italy, particularly in Rome and Naples.49 Meanwhile, some slight traces of Greek scholarship appeared north of the Alps, especially in the monasteries of St. Denis, Liège, Laon, and St. Gall. In the library of St. Gall, in particular, many bilingual manuscripts and copies of Dositheus’ grammar and of the Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana were stored.50 The renewed interest in Greek may have been due to the presence of Byzantines or ItaloOmont 1881, 126. The manuscript was partly written at the monastery of St. Pantaleon in Cologne. See Bischoff 1967 [1951], 260; and Aerts 1985, 83. Berschin (1990 [1988], 196) considers this text “the only Ottonian attempt to a Greek grammar.” 48 Berschin 1990 [1988], 196. 49 See Berschin 1988 [1980], 157–171; and Chiesa 1987, 37 ff. 50 St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS. 902, of the second half of the ninth century, contains both texts. In other manuscripts (e.g., 877 and 878), Greek and Latin texts appear together: see Kaczynski 1988, 45 ff. 46 47
92
chapter two
Greeks in those monastic communities, but there is scanty evidence to support this hypothesis. In 827, the Byzantine Emperor Michael II sent a copy of the works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (now Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. gr. 437) to Louis the Pious. After a first version by Hilduin, Charles the Bald ordered a new translation from the Irish monk John Scottus Eriugena (ca. 810 – ca. 875), who completed it before 862. Eriugena shows knowledge of Greek that is extraordinary for his age: he was familiar both with Greek patristics and with some classical texts, and might even have read Plato’s Timaeus in Greek. In addition to the Corpus Dionysiacum, he translated into Latin works by Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.51 His extravagant habit of interspersing his Latin poems with Greek words corresponded to his love for “the sacred nectar of the Greeks” (sacrum Graecorum nectar). John appreciated the Greek language, which he found more expressive, comprehensible, precise, and penetrating (significantius manifestius, expressius acutius) than Latin. We may wonder where and how John Scottus had learned enough Greek to undertake the translation of a complex work like the Dionysian corpus.52 Like Bede and some others, he may have used bilingual Bibles, Greek-Latin glossaries (e.g., Laon, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 444 and London, British Library, MS. Harley 5792), lists of Greek words (Graeca collecta) taken from Latin authors and equipped with a Latin translation,53 and the elements of Greek grammar that 51 Maximus’ Ambigua and Scoliae deal with the same main themes as PseudoDionysius’ corpus: the affirmative and negative theology, the doctrine of procession and return, etc. Gregory of Nyssa’s De imagine, like the other texts translated by John, reflects an interest in cosmology. Jeauneau (1977–1978, 24 f.) has suggested that these translations were also commissioned by Charles the Bald and, therefore, corresponded to precise philosophical and theological interests of the Emperor. 52 Like all medieval translators of theological texts, John had given a word-forword version of the Dionysian corpus. For this reason, at the end of the ninth century, Anastasius the Librarian, a supporter of the method of translating ad sensum, criticized John’s translations, although he paid due respect to the achievements of a vir barbarus (PL 122, 93 C–D): “This barbarian living on the confines of the world, who might have been deemed to be as ignorant of Greek as remote from civilization, could have proved capable of comprehending such mysteries and translating them into another tongue” (translation in Sandys 19583, 1. 492). See Chiesa 1987, 38; and Berschin 1988 [1980], 168. 53 Word lists from Priscian’s Institutiones and from Augustine’s Categoriae decem, for example, were used for the glossary of Laon. Other lists were drawn from Jerome’s letters and from Lactantius’ Divinae institutiones, which contained entire sentences in Greek. See Jeauneau 1977–1978, 26f.
the greek curriculum
93
could be taken from late-antique Latin grammarians. Most probably, however, John’s translations would not have been possible without the benefit of his direct contacts with Greeks. The favorable attitude of Emperor Charles the Bald toward Byzantium may have encouraged their presence in the Frankish kingdom. Two centuries later, Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1168–1253), Bishop of Lincoln, summoned Greek monks to England and entrusted John of Basingstoke, Archdeacon of Leicester (d. 1252), with the task of collecting grammar books in Greece.54 Grosseteste had evidently understood that the study of the Greek language would have been impossible without both the contribution of native speakers and the use of appropriate textbooks.55 Nothing certain can be said about the grammar books that Basingstoke brought from Greece; as for the lexica, some hypotheses are possible.56 In any case, Grosseteste’s knowledge of Greek allowed him to complete a new Latin translation of the Corpus Dionysiacum and to translate other theological works, including the Byzantine Testamenta XII patriarcharum.57 The “quite astonishing Greek studies”58 that flourished in England during the thirteenth century were due especially to the initiative of some men of culture whose greatest concern was the recovery of the Graeca lectio in Biblical exegesis. Roger Bacon (1214–1294), the doctor Cf. Roger Bacon, Opus tertium, p. 91 Brewer (above, 21 n. 60): vocavit Graecos et fecit libros grammaticae Graecae de Graecia et aliis congregari. 55 As Carlotta Dionisotti (1988, 21) has pointed out, “the real watershed in Grosseteste’s Greek studies […] was the point when he stepped beyond all the nuggets embedded in Western tradition and sat down to work on continuous Greek texts with the aid of grammars and dictionaries composed by Greeks.” 56 In her study on the Greek books available to Grosseteste (1988, 22 ff.), Dionisotti has assumed that he used two Greek lexica (the tenth-century Suda and the so-called Etymologicum Gudianum) and a bilingual dictionary, a copy of which is the thirteenthcentury Lexicon Arundelianum (London, College of Arms, MS. Arundel 9: see James 1910). Its original was most probably a lexicon compiled by substituting Latin words for the Greek glosses of a Byzantine lexicon now lost. The manuscript contains 16,000 Greek words generally transliterated in the Latin alphabet and glossed in Latin for users who did not know any Greek. Some glosses of clear South Italian origin link this lexicon with the native speakers of Greek who were part of Grosseteste’s circle, such as “magister Nicolaus” or Nicholas the Greek. See James 1910, 400; and Weiss 1977 [1951], 88. On Nicholas the Greek, see Berschin 1988 [1980], 252. 57 Grosseteste translated verbum de verbo. Often, however, he rendered one word with several synonyms (connected by the conjunction seu) and sought a way to adapt Latin morphology and syntax to the structure of the Greek language. See Mercken 1999, 338ff. 58 Berschin 1988 [1980], 249. 54
94
chapter two
mirabilis, educated in Paris and Oxford and a pupil of Grosseteste, considered the mastery of Greek and Hebrew to be necessary for a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and of the philosophers, since those languages granted direct access to the sources. Like his master, Bacon was aware that the main problem was a lack of knowledge of grammar and of pedagogical methods. Unlike Grosseteste, however, he did not consider the contribution of native speakers to be effective. Speaking a language did not necessarily mean knowing how to teach it: Non sunt quattuor Latini qui sciant grammaticam Hebraeorum et Graecorum et Arabum […] Multi vero inveniuntur, qui sciunt loqui Graecum et Arabicum et Hebraeum inter Latinos, sed paucissimi sunt, qui sciunt rationem grammaticae ipsius, nec sciunt docere eam: tentavi enim permultos.59 [There are not even four Latins with knowledge of the grammar of Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic […] Indeed, there are many among the Latins who can speak Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew, but very few know the grammatical system of the language; nor do they know how to teach it: indeed, I have tested very many of them.]
The ignorance of Greek and Hebrew had led to the false derivations, interpretations, and etymologies of the lexica of that age (Papias et Hugutio et Brito), accused by Bacon of being deceitful (mendaces).60 Bacon was the author of the first known attempt to compile a Greek grammar for Westerners by combining the Greek and the Latin grammatical traditions.61 Bacon’s Greek grammar has been handed down in the fifteenth-century MS. 148 of the library of Corpus Christi College in Oxford and in a fragment now at the Cambridge University Library. The work is in Latin and deals with the rudiments of the Greek language: alphabet, syllables, diphthongs, dialects (idiômata), vowels, semivowels, consonants, a limited number of antistoichiai and possible orthographical mistakes, as well as prosody, nouns, pronouns, and verbs. Opus Tertium 10, p. 33 f. Brewer. Compendium studii philosophiae, p. 446f. Brewer. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were considered the “sacred languages” of humankind: see Resnick 1990. 61 Another attempt should be mentioned. Gerard of Huy, the author of a thirteenth-century versified grammar entitled Triglossos, refers to “a small book” (codex parvus) that he himself had written, containing “the eight parts of speech in Greek” (octo logu grece partes), the nominal declensions (quomodo per casus inflectat nomina grecus), and the prepositions (protheses). Unfortunately, this work is lost. Petrarch used the Triglossos to obtain at least an elementary knowledge of Greek. See Berschin 1988 [1980], 255; and Dionisotti 1995, 53 f. 59 60
the greek curriculum
95
The introductory chapter on grammar (Pars prima, Distinctio secunda) begins with a programmatic assertion: the author will provide Greek words with an interlinear translation into Latin because understanding their meaning will make learning easier and more pleasant.62 Thus, Bacon broke with the tradition of monolingual grammar books, anticipating what was to take place only centuries later. Bacon’s view, in fact, was comparative, and his methodology was based on the observation of the similarities and differences between the two languages.63 On the other hand, as happens in many medieval texts, in the Greek prayers quoted with Latin interlinear translation (the Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, Creed, Magnificat, and the Songs of Symeon and Zachariah), Greek was transliterated and written according to the iotacistic pronunciation, most likely for practical purposes. As for the section on verbs, Bacon declared that translating all the forms would have been outside the scope of an introductory work and superfluous for the immediate goal of reading texts. Therefore, not wanting to oppress his readers, he would give a paradigm in Greek letters, a paradigm in transliteration, and some general rules on the formation of verbal moods and tenses.64 Bacon introduced the conjugation of the verb τ2πτω by quoting a passage in Greek, certainly from a Byzantine erotematic manual. It is worth noticing that he refers to a Greek usage, which he wishes to introduce in his pedagogy (p. 173f. Nolan-Hirsch, quoted faithfully): Sicut igitur grecus, ante formacionem coniugacionis secundum hoc verbum, querit de hoc vocabulo, cuius sit partis oracionis […], sic hic queram greco sermone et 62 See the edition by E. Nolan and S.A. Hirsch, The Greek Grammar of Roger Bacon, Cambridge 1902, 13: Quoniam lingua insipida est, que non intelligitur, ideo ad delectacionem legentis ponuntur vocabula latina in prima linea, ut sic cum lectura grecorum vocabulorum pateat eorum intelligencia quamvis suavius legantur et maior utilitas consequatur. 63 Considerare tamen debet lector quod pono latinum sicut respondet grecis vocabulis (p. 13 Nolan-Hirsch). Cupiens igitur exponere grammaticam grecam ad utilitatem latinorum necesse est illa comparari ad grammaticam latinam […] quia grammatica una et eadem est secundum substanciam in omnibus linguis (p. 27). Bacon considers, in particular, the use of cases, the article, and the dual. The presupposition for a comparison was the idea of the universality of grammar, which in the Middle Ages gave rise to the so-called “Modistae.” 64 Coniugaciones vero non omnes ponam in hoc tractatu […] propter gravitatem multitudinis earum et superfluam difficultatem intelligendi eas, quia novicius addiscens grecas coniugationes vix unam recipiet pacienter, et quia hic tractatus est introductorius in grammaticam grecam […] grecis igitur litteris ponam hic unam coniugationem et aliam ponam latinis litteris secundum tamen formam coniugandi grecam […] Ponam tamen regulas quasdam de formacione verbi coniugationum (pp. 171 f. Nolan-Hirsch).
96
chapter two grecis litteris et repondebo ut grecus respondet. Querit igitur grecus: τιπτω, ποιου μ ρους λγου στι; ρματος. ποας εγκλσεως; %ριστικς. ποας δια$ σεως; ενεργετικς. ποου εδους; προτοτ2που. ποου σχματος; Iπλο:. ποου *ρι$μο:; ενικου. ποου προσ+που; πρωτου. ποου χρνου; νεσττος. ποας συζυγας; πρ+της τν βαρυτνων. κανονισοη (sic). [Thus, so as, before conjugating this verb, a Greek asks to which part of speech it belongs, […] here I will ask questions in Greek language and letters and will answer them as a Greek answers. The Greek asks: “To which part of speech does τ2πτω belong?” “The verb.” “To which mood?” “Indicative.” “To which voice?” “Active.” “To which class?” “Primitive.” “To which form?” “Simple.” “To which number?” “Singular.” “To which person?” “The first.” “To which tense?” “Present.” “To which conjugation?” “The first of the non-oxytone.” “Decline!”].
This passage demonstrates that Bacon most probably had on his desk a copy of some Greek erôtêmata, such as those preserved in Wolfenbüttel (Erotemata Guelferbytana).65 The section of his grammar on nominal declensions is unfortunately incomplete, but it is clear that Bacon wanted to reduce the Greek declensions from fifty-six to three. In fact, he criticized the classification of the Greek nouns according to the ending of the nominative, used from Theodosius onward; as an option, he proposed abolishing the distinction of genders and adopting the ending of the genitive as the main distinctive criterion, “sicut fit apud nos.”66 Although Bacon’s Greek grammar does not seem to have circulated widely, it represents a significant symptom of an interest in the systematic study of Greek three centuries after the Scotti peregrini and one century before Humanism. In 1312, during the Council of Vienne, the papacy made an effort to give a permanent place in the school curriculum to Greek and to other Eastern languages. Forty chairs were established in the four main universities of the Christian world and at the papal court, with the purpose of preparing experts in Biblical studies and Christian missionaries in the East. The only concrete
65 Identifying the text used by Bacon and tracing the stages of its journey to England would be extremely interesting for the history of Greek studies in the Middle Ages. 66 Sic igitur possunt declinationes Graecorum reduci ad tres modos declinandi; sed tamen greci moderni aliter procedunt in nominum declinacione (p. 146 Nolan-Hirsch). Following this is a brief account of the fifty-six canons of Theodosius iuxta singulas terminaciones nominativorum, sed hic modus superfluus est (147). See Sandys 19583, 1. 595; and Pertusi 1962, 341f.
the greek curriculum
97
result of this initiative was the institution of a chair of Hebrew in Oxford.67 The papal decree, however, is a clear sign that the West was breaking away from its secular isolation and turning with new attention toward the languages and cultures of the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. 3. Humanism and the Revival of Greek Studies Considering the general situation of Greek culture in the West at the end of the thirteenth century, it is quite surprising to find that in Italy, where the Greek tradition—at least in some areas—had never completely vanished, learning ancient Greek was as difficult as it was in England. In the later Middle Ages, an interest in philosophy and the sciences developed, perhaps under the influence of the Arabs. Through Arabic works, Greek authors like Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen, and Hippocrates became known in the West. However, the many theological, medical, philosophical, and scientific works translated from Arabic or Greek into Latin in Italy during the Middle Ages had not stimulated any interest in those languages. Medieval scholars did not seek an approach to original texts because they considered it useless: they were inclined to neglect what was not of immediate use. For example, a copy of a purely literary text, Plutarch’s Moralia (now Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. C 126 inf.), was circulating in Padua at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Its owner, Pace of Ferrara, did not know Greek; nor, apparently, did he have any interest in a translation of the text.68 Like Grosseteste and Bacon, Petrarch tried to learn Greek from a native speaker. Between August and September 1342, he took some lessons in Avignon from the Byzantine monk and polymath Barlaam of Calabria, who had converted to Catholicism and become involved in the debate on the Union.69 Petrarch, however, either because of the
See Berschin 1988 [1980], 261–263. The manuscript contains Maximus Planudes’ edition of Plutarch. Pace, who taught grammar and logic at Padua, may have received it from Pietro d’Abano, a doctor, philosopher, and translator of Greek, who had lived in Constantinople between 1270 and 1290. See Stadter 1973, 157; and Wilson 1992, 2. 69 See Baron 1968, 60. On Barlaam’s life and work, see Hunger 1978, 2. 250. The reasons and aspects of Barlaam’s conversion have been analyzed by Kolbaba 1995, 67 68
98
chapter two
limited number of lessons he received or because of the bad character of his teacher, achieved no more than a rudimentary knowledge of Greek grammar.70 In Florence, as in the rest of Europe, the relations with the Byzantine Empire, although rather intense in some periods,71 had never contributed to an awakening of interest in the Greek language. Some years after Petrarch’s attempt, Giovanni Boccaccio invited to Florence another Greek speaker from South Italy, Leonzio Pilato, a pupil of Barlaam, who taught him the basics of Greek.72 Pilato’s teaching in Florence, which lasted for about three years (1360–1362), was very important for the development of Florentine culture. Pilato did not go far beyond an elementary level of teaching. An interesting document comes from the notes that Giovanni Boccaccio and Domenico Silvestri took during one of his classes, concerning the Greek epigram AP 16. 297: Pilato read the epigram and translated it into Latin, while his students took notes on the translation and pronunciation of the Greek text.73 More important are his translations of the Homeric poems and of 466 lines of Euripides’ Hecabe—the first readings in Byzantine schools—that Pilato produced as a teaching aid. Although later criticized by several humanists for their roughness, these word-for-word versions contributed to spreading the knowledge
126ff. On the cultural environment of the papal court in Avignon, see Reynolds and Wilson 19913, 128f. 70 Petrarch never succeeded in reading the manuscript of Homer (now Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. I 98 inf.) that the Byzantine ambassador Nicholas Sigeros had given him. See Familiarium rerum libri XVIII, 2. 10 (ed. by V. Rossi, Firenze 1937, 277): Homerus […] apud me mutus, immo vero ego apud illum surdus sum. Gaudeo tamen vel aspectu solo et saepe illum amplexus ac suspirans dico: O magne vir, quam cupide te audirem! Sed aurium mearum alteram mors obstruxit, alteram longinquitas invisa terrarum (Petrarch refers to the death of Barlaam and the departure of Nicholas Sigeros). See Pertusi 1990a [1977–1978], 244; Sowerby 1997, 39, 45; and Young 2003, 78ff. 71 For example, the Florentine Acciajuoli family ruled Athens, Thebes, and Corinth between the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries. See Ostrogorsky 19692 [19633], 510, 550; and Weiss 1977, 228. 72 Pilato’s culture, rooted in the South Italian tradition, was also deeply influenced by Latin: he knew Homer, Euripides, Lycophron, and Tzetzes as well as Virgil, Pliny, and Livy. Born probably in Gerace (Calabria), Pilato began his studies with Barlaam; in about 1348, he moved to Crete, where he spent almost ten years. In 1358/59, he was in Venice, where he met Petrarch (see below, n. 74). See Pertusi 1964, 475; Cavallo 1980, 236; Pertusi 1990a [1977–1978], 245; and Fyrigos 2002. 73 Silvestri’s notes can be read in Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS. I III 12, fol. 26, and Boccaccio’s in Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. 38, 17, fol. 84v (see De La
the greek curriculum
99
of the original Homeric text in the West after centuries of oblivion.74 Moreover, Pilato’s explanatory notes aroused a remarkable interest in Greek mythology, stimulating Boccaccio, for example, to write his Genealogia deorum gentilium. However, Pilato’s teaching of Greek remained an isolated episode and did not give rise to a school of Greek. Several reasons may be proposed: Pilato’s own insufficient knowledge of ancient Greek, his difficult character,75 and, especially, the fact that he had to proceed empirically because of the lack of appropriate tools to teach a non-Greek audience. The silence that surrounds the identities of his students is perhaps a clue that his teaching was not completely successful.76 Thirty years after Pilato’s departure, the Florentine administrators took a concrete initiative for the institution of a school of Greek. Coluccio Salutati, humanist and Chancellor of Florence, seized the opportunity offered by increasing contacts between Florence and the Latinophrones of Constantinople: he entrusted Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia with the tasks of finding Greek books and persuading the ByzanMare 1973, plate VI a). The Greek epigram concerns the seven cities that lay claim to Homer’s birth. The text reads: 8Επτ4 ριδμανουσι πλεις δι4 #ζαν 8Ομρου Κ2μη, Σμ2ρνα, Χος, Κολοφ+ν, Π2λος, NΑργος, Α$ναι,
which Boccaccio transcribed: Epta erimenusi polis diarison homiru Chimi Smirni Chios Colophon Pylos Argos Athine. See Martellotti 1983 [1959], 241ff. 74 The Middle Ages knew the Iliad only through the so-called Ilias Latina or Homerus Latinus, an epitome of Homer’s poem in 1,070 Latin hexameters, composed perhaps before the first century C.E. Pilato probably made a first translation of books 1–5 of the Iliad at Petrarch’s request; parts of this prima translatio appear in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 7880.1 (written by Giovanni Malpaghini and annotated by Petrarch) in the margins of Pilato’s final version of the poem. In 1359, Petrarch (albeit dissatisfied with this first version) and Boccaccio commissioned Pilato to translate the complete Iliad. Pilato translated the two Homeric poems in Florence, where he received from the Commune a public salary of 100 florins per year for his teaching. On Pilato’s method of translating, see Pertusi 1990a [1977–1978], 247 f. In a 1392 letter to Antonio Loschi, Coluccio Salutati criticized the bad Latin of Pilato’s versions of the Homeric poems and entrusted Loschi—even if he did not know Greek—with their improvement. See Witt 1983, 303; Gualdo Rosa 1985, 185; and Berti 1998, 86. 75 Petrarch, who met Pilato in Padua in the winter 1358/59, called him magna bellua for his shabby appearance and his rough manners: see Pertusi 1990a [1977–1978], 245. 76 See Pertusi 1964, 504; Weiss 1977, 229; and Wilson 1992, 3 f.
100
chapter two
tine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras to move to the Tuscan city.77 That choice may have been dictated by a distrust of the teaching ability of South Italian Greek speakers:78 perhaps Salutati tried to avoid a new failure by turning to a renowned Byzantine scholar from Constantinople (still the most prestigious center of the Greek culture), who also had a very good reputation as a teacher.79 After long negotiations, in 1397 the mission of bringing Chrysoloras to Florence was accomplished, thanks also to the financial support of Niccolò Niccoli and Palla Strozzi.80 Chrysoloras spent only a little more time in Florence than Leonzio Pilato—from February 1397 to March 140081—but “the extent of his impact on Florentine intellectual life can scarcely be exaggerated.”82 Chrysoloras, in fact, succeeded where his predecessor had failed. First, he was experienced in teaching “ancient Greek as a foreign lan-
77
291.
On Salutati’s life and contribution to humanism, see Witt 1983 and 2000, 230–
78 Greek culture in South Italy survived long after the Norman conquest. However, the interruption of direct contacts with Byzantium and the strong influence of the surrounding Latin culture determined its main features: a steady conservatism and a particular emphasis placed on grammar books, lexica, dictionaries, and tools for the study of the Greek language. Nevertheless, in the fourteenth century, South Italian Greek culture was in decay. 79 Manuel Chrysoloras had taught in Constantinople from the 1380s to the 1390s. In 1390–1391, he was sent to Venice on a diplomatic mission and gave some Greek lessons to Roberto Rossi, a member of Salutati’s circle, who became enthusiastic about Chrysoloras’ personality and methodology. On his return to Florence, Rossi contributed to the spread of Chrysoloras’ reputation in Florence. See Weiss 1977, 232; Witt 1983, 303 ff.; and Wilson 1992, 8. 80 The official documents pertaining to Chrysoloras’ appointment, sojourn, and teaching in Florence are quoted in Gherardi 1881, 363–373. See Garin 1958, 112–116; and Weiss 1977, 234ff. 81 Chrysoloras accepted the appointment for obvious reasons: the extremely good conditions offered by the Florentines (150 florins per year) as well as the difficult situation in Byzantium because of the impending Turkish menace and the religious controversies. He may also have considered the spread of Greek culture as a way to gain support for Byzantium among the Western cultural élites (see Hankins 2001, 1251). In any case, Chrysoloras led a very comfortable life in Florence. His success as a teacher, as well as a competitive offer made by Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti to attract him to Milan, led the Florentine government to increase his already-high salary. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear what caused Chrysoloras’ departure from Florence: perhaps some conflicts with the Florentine men of culture or his desire to resume diplomatic work for Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, whom he joined in Pavia immediately after leaving Florence. See Weiss 1977, 238f.; and Mergiali 1996, 139. 82 Stinger 1977, 16.
the greek curriculum
101
guage.” Like most teachers of the Palaeologan age, in Constantinople he had taught ancient Greek to students who, although being native Greek speakers, actually spoke a language very different, in terms of grammar and vocabulary, from the language of the classical age. Secondly, his excellent knowledge of Latin enabled him to communicate effectively with his Western students.83 Thirdly, and more importantly, Chrysoloras simplified the complex system of the Greek grammar handed down from antiquity and made it accessible to Latin speakers. Chrysoloras achieved his goals mainly by adapting Greek grammar to patterns common in Latin grammar and by using teaching devices deeply rooted both in Byzantine and in Latin tradition, such as the catechistic grammar book. His grammar book, Erotemata, “Questions,” was soon revised and equipped with a Latin translation by one of his pupils, Guarino Guarini, and became the most widespread Greek textbook in the Renaissance. The merit of bringing Greek studies back to Italy after seven centuries of exile, which Boccaccio claimed for himself,84 was attributed by humanists to Manuel Chrysoloras;85 additionally, the concrete efforts of the Florentine administrators did not remain unconsidered.86
83 See document CI (March 28, 1396) in Orlandi 1881, 365: Volentes iuventutem nostram posse de utroque fonte bibere, latinisque greca miscere […] decrevimus aliquem utriusque linguae peritum, qui nostros greca docere possit adsciscere. Chrysoloras may have learned Latin in Constantinople well before 1394 at the Dominican monastery of Pera: see Förstel 1992, 48. In any case, the knowledge of Latin was a crucial requirement in the employment of Byzantine teachers during the Renaissance. 84 Boccaccio proudly emphasized his effort to obtain an appointment for Leonzio Pilato (Genealogia deorum gentilium 15. 7, ed. by V. Romano, Bari 1951, 766): Nonne ego fui qui Leontium Pylatum a Venetiis occiduam Babilonem quaerentem a longa peregrinatione meis flexi consiliis, et in patria tenui, qui illum in propriam domum suscepi et diu hospitem habui, et maximo labore meo curavi, ut inter doctores Florentini studii susciperetur, ei ex publico mercede apposita? Fui equidem! Ipse insuper fui, qui primus meis sumptibus Homeri libros et alios quosdam Graecos in Etruriam revocavi, ex qua multis ante saeculis abierant non redituri. Nec in Etruriam tantum, sed in patriam deduxi. Ipse ego fui, qui primus a Leontio in privato Yliadem audivi. Ipse insuper fui, qui, ut legerentur publice Homeri libri, operatus sum. 85 For example, in 1411 Guarino wrote to Angelo Corbinelli: Qua in re abs te peto et magis atque magis oro, ut illustrissimo in primis Manuel Chrysolorae gratias habeas suumque attollas ad sidera nomen, quoniam eius viri opera simul et humanitate factum est ut graecarum splendor litterarum ad nostros redierit homines, quos ob earum ignorationem non parvae dudum involverant tenebrae (quoted by Garin 1958, 308). In his Commentaria rerum suo tempore gestarum, Leonardo Bruni wrote: Retulit […] Graecam disciplinam ad nos Chrysoloras Byzantius, vir domi mirabilis ac litterarum Graecarum peritissimus (quoted by Gualdo Rosa 1985, 183). 86 In the biography of Niccolò Niccoli included in his Lives of Illustrious Men of
102
chapter two
The idea of being a group of elect, the devotees of the classical paideia, and the only guardians of an ancient and glorious heritage, inspired the writings of many of Chrysoloras’ pupils.87 Humanists implicitly acknowledged the role of Chrysoloras as a bridge between two cultural traditions with common roots but separate development and as the point of departure for a new tradition. However, as an heir to Greek and Byzantine cultures, Chrysoloras also represented a point of arrival. In order, then, to assess his contribution to the culture of the Renaissance, his Byzantine background and the cultural environment from which he came should be taken into account.88
the Fifteenth Century (Vite di uomini illustri del secolo XV ), Vespasiano da Bisticci (b. 1421) attributed to Niccoli the honor of being “the reviver of Greek and Latin letters in Florence.” Those studies, in fact, “had for a long time lain buried, and although Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio had done something to rehabilitate them, they had not reached that height which they attained through Niccolò’s cultivation of them for diverse reasons” (2. 236, ed. A. Greco, Firenze 1970). Vespasiano also indicated two of these reasons: Niccoli’s concrete action to induce Chrysoloras and other Greek teachers to come to Florence by providing money for their journeys, and his creation of a collection of “a vast number of books on all the liberal arts in Greek and Latin […] accessible to everyone” (237–238). Upon Niccoli’s death, eight hundred books, valued at six thousand florins, were left for public use. See Gundesheimer 1965, 50f.; and Stinger 1977, 36ff. On the manuscripts brought to Florence by Chrysoloras, see Rollo 2002. 87 Gualdo Rosa (1985, 184) quotes Guarino’s letters to Roberto Rossi and to Bartolomeo Aragazzi of Montepulciano, where Chrysoloras is compared to a father and his pupils to his sons. Together with Boccaccio’s Genealogia, Leonardo Bruni’s Laudatio Florentinae urbis, written in 1403 or 1404, is the first literary work directly influenced by Greek literature; see Baron 1968, 151ff. On Bruni’s Greek studies, see Wilson 1992, 13 ff., 29–31. The enthusiasm for Greek culture in Florence influenced not only literature and learning, but also theology and, to a lesser extent, the visual arts; see the interesting article by Hetherington, 1992. 88 See Robins 2000, 423: “The sort of information provided in the skhede [on which see below, 113 ff.], the glosses of the commentators on classical texts of all sorts, the grammar books of the Byzantines, and the Byzantine grammarians themselves, who in the last decades of the Eastern Empire came to teach and write in Italy, were the instruments and the agents of the recovery and restitution of the learning of the Greek language and of Greek literature in the Italian and then in the whole Western European Renaissance. It is hard to see how all this could have come about so quickly and have established so firm a hold on Western European education and scholarship without the material and intellectual achievements of the Byzantine linguistic scholars.”
the greek curriculum
103
4. The Byzantine Tradition “The scholars of the Byzantine and of the latter part of the Roman age are unsystematic and diffuse, are deficient in originality of thought and independence of character, and are only too ready to rest satisfied with a merely mechanical reproduction of the learning of the past. In matters of scholarship they seldom show a real advance, or even display a sound and impartial judgment […] Their weakest side was grammar. They laid little stress on syntax and not much more on accidence, while they paid special attention to accentuation and orthography […] But the scientific study of grammar was set aside for the preparation of mere manuals for the use of beginners.” Thus wrote John E. Sandys in his comprehensive History of Classical Scholarship. Indeed, Sandys acknowledged some contributions of Byzantine scholars from Photius and Arethas to Planudes, Moschopoulos, and Triclinius, but only “if they are regarded as among the earliest precursors of the Renaissance.”89 Sandys did nothing but quote a common opinion. Still, as Robert Robins has pointed out in one of the few studies specifically devoted to grammar in Byzantium, it is possible to explain the activity of Byzantine grammarians by taking into account three important elements. First of all, Byzantine grammarians considered themselves as the “guardians” of the Greek language and culture, invested with the task of preserving the glorious heritage of the past. Secondly, they were “first and foremost teachers,” and their research activity makes sense if related to their teaching. Spreading the knowledge of correct Greek and, at the same time, protecting the language from external influences and deviations from the accepted standards of correctness engaged all their energies.90 Thirdly, if grammar was the basis, rhetoric was the final object of Byzantine education. In spite of deep social and cultural changes, eloquence had retained in Byzantine society the same importance as in antiquity.91 Skills in composition and speech were necessary to undertake any career in any environment, from the Church to the imperial palace: educated individuals who had at least a passable level of literacy were indispensable to the complex bureaucratic system of the Byzantine state. On the other hand, 89 90 91
Sandys 19583, 1. 434–436. Robins 1993, 20–29. See Webb’s interesting observations (1994, 84).
104
chapter two
there was no need for specific technical skills, except for officials of the highest ranks, who had to know law and administration. Thus, the traditional education based on ancient Greek language and literature, which trained individuals on the appropriate use of the language, was more than sufficient for aspiring state administrators: the imitation (μμησις) of a canon of literary models of the past led to the acquisition of that artificial Hochsprache typical of most Byzantine literary works.92 These considerations explain, for example, why no grammarian has ever attempted a general synthesis of Greek grammar, as Priscian did with Latin in his Institutiones grammaticae. Although grammar was also studied at a higher level,93 schoolbooks concentrating on correctness in morphology, orthography, and prosody responded sufficiently, in general, to the immediate demands of teachers and pupils. The handy question-and-answer format of erôtêmata and the short “sketch” (σχ δος) of schedography were considered as particularly appropriate for these immediate goals. Donatus and Priscian remained the basis of Latin grammatical instruction throughout the Middle Ages. In the same way, in Byzantium, some works inherited from antiquity and late antiquity laid, so to speak, the foundations of grammar from the beginning to the end of Byzantine civilization. For example, the importance given to nouns and verbs and a lack of consideration for syntax in Manuel Chrysoloras’ Erotemata faithfully mirror a grammatical tradition that dates back to the Hellenistic age.94 The fact that these texts, although variously elaborated, were constantly used over the course of the cen-
See Browning 1978; and Maltese 2001, 361 f. On μμησις, see the important study by Hunger, 1969–1970. 93 An analysis of some biographies of Byzantine scholars and educated saints has led Ann Moffatt (1979) to conclude that, between the mid-seventh and mid-ninth centuries, grammar was considered the foundation of secondary education in Byzantium. In fact, Bardas’ University of Constantinople, founded in the ninth century, included grammar among the curricular disciplines, together with philosophy, geometry, and astronomy. See Förstel 1992, 18. 94 Pontani (1996, 138), quoting Berti’s 1987 study, remarks: “[Nell’] utilizzazione degli erotemata crisolorini […] si riflette l’uso della scuola bizantina, saldamente ancorato ab aeterno alla Techne di Dionisio Trace e soprattuto alla sua ampia tradizione scolastica. […] [La] grammatica di Manuele Crisolora mostra di continuare il modello didattico che sappiamo essere in uso in Oriente dall’età tardo-antica.” The fact that grammatical teaching concentrated on single words rather than on sentences may explain the lack of interest in syntax in Byzantine grammar: see Swiggers-Wouters 2003. On syntax in Byzantium, see Picciarelli 2003, 267–275. 92
the greek curriculum
105
turies has contributed to conveying the impression of a long-term immobility of Byzantine pedagogy.95 Indeed, the grammatical works of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries show that Byzantine grammar was anything but a fixed, immutable system. Nicephorus Blemmydes, George Acropolites, Manuel Holobolos, Maximus Planudes, Manuel Moschopoulos, Demetrius Triclinius, and many others introduced significant innovations in elementary and advanced grammar. They explained the differences between everyday language (δημοτικ) and Attic Greek, established the rules for writing Attic, and, using word lists and lexica, “stored” the specific vocabulary and idioms employed by the writers used as models. By this time, in fact, Attic Greek had become a dead language. Other interesting innovative features may be derived from contacts with the West. For example, syntax, generally neglected by Byzantine grammarians, became central in the treatises of Maximus Planudes and John Glykys. Glykys’ theories on the origin of language and on the function of cases remind us of the speculative grammar, which was in vogue at this time in Western schools. An idea of the “universality” of linguistic phenomena is in fact implied in Gregory of Cyprus’ failed attempt to learn grammar and logic at a Latin school.96 In general, however, we may regard Byzantine grammar as the continuation of ancient Greek grammar, which had begun with the first studies on language by sophists (Protagoras and Prodicus) and philosophers (Democritus, Plato, Aristotle and his school, and the Stoics). On the one hand, the flourishing of literary studies in Alexandria at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. and at Pergamon one century later led to closer attention to linguistic aspects as an integral part of literary works.97 On the other hand, the spread of Greek among non-Greek populations as a cultural medium and the increasing gap between written and spoken language created the necessity of 95 In his excellent survey of Byzantine education, Markopoulos (2006) notices a substantial absence of innovations throughout the centuries: Byzantine school remained “une institution marquée par un attachement quasi sacré à la tradition intellectuelle gréco-romaine”; on the other hand, “une étonnante faculté d’adaptation aux conditions chaque foix en vigueur” ensured the survival and the perpetuation of ancient pedagogy in Byzantium (95). 96 On Byzantine grammar in the last two centuries of the empire, see Bolgar 1954, 86ff.; Geanakoplos 1962, 23 f.; Garzya 1975; Constantinides 1982; and Robins 1984, 219ff., and 1988, 337 ff. Webb (1994, 94–96) has focused on the relationship between Byzantine and Western grammar. 97 On the origins of Greek grammar, see Montanari F. 1987, 1093–1098.
106
chapter two
defending the correct usage of the language (8Ελληνισμς). Thus, both theoretical and practical reasons explain why, during the second century B.C.E., the Alexandrian Dionysius Thrax (ca. 170 – ca. 90), a pupil of the grammarian Aristarchus, wrote the first systematic treatise on Greek morphology, known as Τ χνη γραμματικ. The authenticity of this work has been discussed at length;98 in any case, Dionysius’ Τ χνη enjoyed great success among both Greek and Latin grammarians such as Varro and Remmius Palaemon.99 It was also widely used in late antique schools, probably as a text to be memorized and recited, as demonstrated by some Egyptian papyri.100 The Τ χνη was popular in Byzantium: Michael Psellus echoed, or even quoted, entire passages from it.101 Dionysius’ Τ χνη also had an important influence on the creation of a grammatical terminology both in Greek and in Latin. Since actual life apparently lay outside the concerns of Byzantine men of culture, we have neither specific texts nor reliable documentary sources on schools in Byzantium: we cannot fully reconstruct, for example, the exact content of the curriculum or the teachers’
98 Di Benedetto (1958, 216–210; 1959) has pointed out the discrepancies between the introductory chapter on the definition of grammar and the actual content of the Τ χνη, and between the extant text and the quotations from it by other ancient grammarians. Considering also that there are no direct quotations from the Τ χνη under the name of Dionysius Thrax before the fifth century C.E., Di Benedetto concluded that the text handed down to us is an anonymous compilation from between the third and the fourth centuries and that only the initial chapter belongs to Dionysius Thrax. The debate is still open: see Di Benedetto 1973; Pinborg 1975; Wouters 1979, 36; Robins 1996; Morgan 1998, 154 f.; the articles by Robins, Schenkeveld, Collinge, Wouters, and Di Benedetto in Law-Sluiter 19982; and Cribiore 2001, 211. 99 On Dionysius’ Τ χνη in the Roman world, see Law in Law-Sluiter 19982, 115– 117. 100 See Wouters 1979, in particular 33–45, and the commentary on two fifth-century papyri containing fragments of Dionysius’ Τ χνη, P. Hal. 55A and P.S.I. I. 18 (109ff. and 120ff.). Dionysius’ work is just one of the several Τ χναι handed down in papyri: see Cribiore 2001, 211ff. It is worth noticing that, since Greek and Roman education was based on memory rather than on written texts, no editorial activity originated from the demands of schoolbooks, with the exception of the literary texts read at the schools of grammarians and rhetoricians. The fact that Egyptian papyri include many school exercises but very few manuals demonstrates that, until late antiquity, teaching continued to be based on dictation and/or transcription of sentences read or written by the teacher, whereas individual study of manuals was practiced only to a very limited extent. See Fedeli 1989, 369f. On school exercises on papyri, see Cribiore 1996. 101 See, for example, the encomium ες τ?ν μοναχ?ν Ιω(ννην τ?ν ΚρουστουλPν *ναγνντα ν τQ 8ΑγRα Σορ& (in Oratoria minora, ed. by A.R. Littlewood, Leipzig 1985, 137–151).
the greek curriculum
107
demands and the students’ performance. Even from the small amount of data available, however, we can infer that the traditional three-stage school system was maintained throughout the Byzantine Empire.102 Children103 learned to read and to write at the school of the γραμματιστς. A passage in a fifteenth-century manuscript describes the stages of elementary learning:104 first of all, pupils must learn to write correctly (γρ(φειν *σφαλτ) “what is handed over” to them (τ4 κδιδμενα) and memorize it carefully (μαν$(νειν … *κριβς). After interpreting and explaining it (Sρμηνε2ειν), they must arrange it (συντ(σσειν) “according to grammatical rules and logic” (κατ4 καννα κα' μ $οδον λογικν) and paying close attention to antistoichiai (πρνοιαν μεγστην τν *ντιστοχων τι$ σ$αι), i.e., to words written differently but pronounced in the same way. The text belongs to a relatively late date; however, considering the conservative character of ancient education, we may suppose that the same method was also in effect at earlier times. Writing, memorization, and composition were the standard pedagogical methods, and grammatical rules and orthography were the content of elementary teaching in Byzantine schools.105 After learning the first rudiments of classical Greek, pupils usually practiced them on some easy texts: the Psalms, the Book of Wisdom and other passages from the Scriptures, Saints’ lives, and even some history. These first readings and the grammar books used at the school of the γραμματικς remained almost unchanged over the course of the centuries.106 In an anonymous and undated dialogue containing a list of the grammar books commonly used by Byzantine teachers, Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη γραμματικ is the first text quoted. It is followed by 102 See Efthymiadis 2005, 260ff. The distinction between the three levels, however, was not rigid and uniform; see Kaster 1983, 345f. 103 “Children,” of course, meant essentially “boys.” Women, except for members of the establishment, did not have access to education. Sources insist on the exclusion of women from the study of classical (pagan) literature—considered as inspiring passion and lust—and of the other disciplines of the γκ2κλιος παιδεα. According to George Tornices, the author of her epitaph, even the imperial Princess Anna Comnena, as a girl, had to read classical literature secretly. See Maltese 2001, 365 f.; and Cavallo 20072, 41f. and 52 ff. 104 Quoted by Hunger 1989, 77 and 150 n. 5, from Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS. theol. gr. 243, fol. 62. 105 The many works on orthography produced in Byzantium reflect the importance that correct writing had in the Byzantine curriculum; see Schneider 1999. 106 On the Psalter, which was the first reading book in Byzantium as well as in the West (above, 64f.), see Cavallo 20072, 35 f.
108
chapter two
Theodosius’ Canons, Herodian’s work on prosody, and the commentaries by George Choeroboscus and Orus.107 In the form in which it has been handed down, Τ χνη is a very concise compilation of the elementary morphology, orthography, and phonetics of classical Greek. Its author defined grammar as a “practical knowledge of what is generally said by poets and prose writers” ( μπειρα τν παρ4 ποιητα>ς τε κα' συγγραφε:σιν Tς π' τ? πολG λεγομ νων).108 Therefore, the study of morphology was not per se, but secondary to the main purpose of grammar, i.e., literary criticism (κριτικν). After accentuation (τνος), punctuation (στιγμ), letters (στοιχε>α), and syllables (συλλαβα), Dionysius’ grammar deals with the parts of speech: noun ( νομα), which includes adjectives as well as demonstrative and interrogative pronouns; verb (#μα); participle (μετοχ); article (Uρ$ρον), with the relative pronoun; pronoun (*ντωνυμα), i.e., personal and possessive pronouns; preposition (πρ$εσις); adverb ( πρρημα); and conjunction (σ2νδεσμος). The Τ χνη ends with declension and conjugation (κλσις and συζυγα, exemplified by the verb τ2πτω), but does not consider syntax and style.109 Syntax was extensively treated in the four books Περ' συντ(ξεως by Apollonius Dyscolus, of the second century C.E., which Priscian used as a model for the final part of his Institutiones.110 Apollonius’ son, Aelius Herodian, concentrated on accents and metrics in his Καννες τς κα$ολικς προσ&ωδας, handed down as fragmentary, but surviving through an epitome made by Theodosius in the fourth century.111 The Introductory Canons on Inflection of Nouns and Verbs by Theodosius of Alexandria (Εσαγωγικο' καννες περ' κλσεως νομ(των κα' #ημ(107
The text, which concerns the study of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and law, has been edited by Treu (1893, 97–99), who has dated it to the eleventh century. 108 Webb (1994, 90) points out that “generally” ( π' τ? πολ2) indicates that “analysis of individual style is not part of grammar”: the subordination of grammatical studies to the aims of rhetoric makes texts not much more than “repositories of lexical and syntactical paradigms,” regardless of their content and literary value. 109 See Sandys 19583, 1. 138f., and Bonner 1977, 195 f. Dionysius (14, p. 58 Lallot) divided the Greek verbs, according to the letter before the ending of the first person singular, into six classes of “unaccented” (βαρ2τονα: labials, velars, dentals, ζ or σσ, liquids and nasals, vowel or “pure ω”), three classes of “circumflexed” (περισπ+μενα: the contracted verbs in -εω, -αω, and -οω), and four classes of μι-verbs (τ$ημι, ;στημι, δδωμι, πγνυμι). Together with the verb τ2πτω as a paradigm of conjugation, Dionysius’ distinction was also adopted in most of the later grammar books. 110 Edited by R. Schneider and G. Uhlig in GG 2. 2, 1–497. 111 Herodian’s works have been edited by A. Lentz in GG 3; see Hunger 1978, 2. 12 and 14.
the greek curriculum
109
των) presented a list of nominal and verbal forms with the rules of inflection, which in the third-fourth centuries supplemented the theoretical definitions of Dionysius’ Τ χνη.112 Theodosius’ Canons were often appended to Dionysius’ handbook and contributed to forming Greek school grammar. Theodosius divided Greek nouns into fifty-six declensions according to their gender and to the ending of the nominative: thirty-five masculine, twelve feminine, and nine neuter. He took up Dionysius’ terminology and verbal paradigm—the verb τ2πτω—but at the same time started the regrettable practice of inventing forms for the sake of completeness. Thus, he offered to his readers not only the forms of τ2πτω actually in use, but also imaginary futures and aorists, which eventually were transmitted to later grammarians up to modern times. The commentaries by George Choeroboscus (second half of the eighth century), Sophronius of Jerusalem (ninth century), and other grammarians usually circulated with Theodosius’ Canons in Byzantine schools.113 Designed to complement Theodosius’ schematic information, these commentaries offered to teachers a conspicuous amount of grammatical material for their classes.114 The commentators dwelt upon the word accent, prosody, and inflection of each nominal and verbal form, also taking into account possible antistoichiai and orthographical problems.
5. Practicing Greek Grammar: Erôtêmata, Epimerismoi, and Schedography The West had known school texts in question-and-answer format since late antiquity from Donatus’ Ars minor. This tradition had lasted throughout the Middle Ages, especially in the Lombard-Cassinese environment. But grammatical catechisms were also very popular in Edition by A. Hilgard in GG 4. 1, 3–99. The texts of these commentaries follow Theodosius’ Canons in GG 4: 1. 103–361 and 2. 1–371 (Choeroboscus); and 2. 375–434 (Sophronius, who used the scholia of the sixth-century grammarian John Charax). See Sandys 19583, 1. 361; Pertusi 1962, 329; Hunger 1978, 2. 11 f.; and Robins 1993, 112. 114 Sometimes these commentators resemble teachers lecturing their students. See, for example, Choeroboscus in GG 4. 2, 359: NΗδη κα' ν το>ς ες ω¯ μεμα$καμεν, Wτι % ,$ηκα κα' % ,δωκα κα' % Xκα […] πρτοι *ριστοι σεσημεωνται κ.τ.λ., “We have already learned about the ω-verbs that ,$ηκα, ,δωκα, and Xκα […] have been noted as first aorists, etc.” 112 113
110
chapter two
Byzantium. The dialogical form was considered so effective in the exposition of grammar that it was also used for scholarly treatises, such as Planudes’ Περ' γραμματικς δι(λογος.115 In the fifteenth century, this form reached great popularity thanks to elementary schoolbooks by Manuel Chrysoloras, Demetrius Chalcondyles, and Manuel Calecas. Therefore, the two most popular Byzantine forms of schoolbooks, erôtêmata and schedê, may well represent a meeting point between Eastern and Western pedagogy. South Italy seems to have played an important role in this exchange. Many of the manuscripts that have handed down these school texts are of South Italian origin,116 and the “Longibardos” (Lombard) mentioned by Anna Comnena as a teacher of schedography might also have been South Italian. At the same time, since the Byzantine scholars who taught in Italy had also learned grammar from those textbooks and were influenced by them in their teaching, they can be rightly considered to be the ancestors of humanist Greek grammar books. a. Erôtêmata Conceived as a supplement to the study of grammar, erôtêmata, “questions,” consisted of an exposition of grammatical rules based on the parsing of words and sentences, in the form of a short dialogue between a teacher and a pupil. All erôtêmata followed Theodosius’ nominal canons and verbal conjugations.117 Their origin is uncertain; a precursor can be found in a Florentine papyrus (P.S.I. sine numero) of the first century C.E., which contains a short dialogue on the properties of the noun.118 The earliest manuscript containing erôtêmata is
On the use of dialogues (erotapokriseis) in Byzantine school texts, see Garzya 1997, 145 ff. and 2000, 143f. An “extension” of the erotematic form for non-grammatical texts can be found in the Homeric catechism on characters of the Iliad, probably dating from the first half of the tenth century. It has been handed down in a manuscript divided into two parts: MSS. gr. 6 of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome and 4626 of the Biblioteca Nacionál in Madrid; see Cavallo 1980, 166. 116 Most manuscripts are palimpsests: the school texts were written on liturgical texts of the tenth-eleventh centuries. See Gamillscheg 1977, 213 f. 117 Pertusi (1962, 333) quotes the erôtêmata contained in the thirteenth-century manuscript Ζ. α. 1 of Grottaferrata (see below, n. 119) as an example of absolute faithfulness to Theodosius’ classification. 118 Wouters 1979, 135–138 (no. 7). 115
the greek curriculum
111
perhaps the eleventh-century MS. F 84 of the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome. The number of manuscripts increased notably in the centuries that followed.119 The so-called Erotemata Guelferbytana offer a clear example. Handed down by the thirteenth-century MS. Gudianus 112 of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, these erôtêmata are based on Dionysius Thrax, Theodosius, Herodian, and the scholia on George Choeroboscus or their source. The anonymous author(s), in fact, followed the canonical division of the grammatical matter into fifty-six nominal declensions, nine verbal conjugations in ω and four in μι.120 The title of the first erôtêma, Πρτος τν εσαγωγικν κα' πιτομικν καννων. Α@ας (“The first of the introductory and compendious canons: Ajax”), is analyzed word by word by means of a sequence of questions (Π$εν πρτος; … Τ στιν εσαγωγ; … Τ στιν πιτομ; … Τ στι καν+ν; … Π$εν καν+ν; etc.). Then the paradigm, Α@ας, leads to other questions. In this way, the word is defined according to the part of speech to which it belongs, i.e., the noun, as well as to its five properties: gender, species, form, number, and case. Each property, in turn, is specified in its meaning and function. For example: (GG 4. 1, XXI. 42—XXII. 3) 8Ο Α@αςZ ποου μ ρους λγου στν; Ονματος. Ποου γ νους; Αρσενικο:. Τ στιν *ρσενικ?ν γ νος; Ο[ προτ(σσεται κα$’ ε5$ε>αν κα' Sνικν πτσιν Uρ$ρον τ? %. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Ποου ε@δους τν παραγ+γων; 8Ρηματικο:. Τ στι #ηματικν; Τ? *π? #ματος παρηγμ νον, κ.τ.λ. [Α@ας: to which part of speech does it belong? To the noun. To which gender? Masculine. What is the masculine gender? That which, in the nominative singular, is preceded by the article %. To which species? Derivative. What kind of derivative? Verbal. What is “verbal”? That which is created from a verb, etc.]
After some questions concerning prosody, etymology, and position in Theodosius’ canons of the nominal inflection, the paradigm Α@ας is declined in the singular, dual, and plural. For each case, the basic rule of composition and prosody are given. For example:
119 The most important are two twelfth-century manuscripts of the Biblioteca dell’Abbazia in Grottaferrata—Z. α. 1 and Z. α. 2—as well as Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. 484, of the first half of the thirteenth century. See Pertusi 1962, 331; and Cavallo 1980, 166, 191. 120 Alfred Hilgard has provided an introduction, an analysis, and a partial edition of the text in GG 4. 1, XXI–XXXVII.
112
chapter two (GG 4.1, XXIII. 23–25) 8Ο Α@αςZ πς κλνεται; Το: Α@αντος. 8Ο καν+ν; Τ4 ες α¯ ς¯ κα$αρ?ν νματα δισ2λλαβα βαρ2τονα μακροκατ(ληκτα δι4 το: ν¯ τ¯ κλνεται, Α@ας Α@αντος, Θας Θαντος κ.τ.λ. (XXIII. 32–33) Το: Α@αντοςZ % τνος; ΠPσα γενικ νματος κοιν *πα$ς π' τα2της τς συλλαβς ,χει τ?ν τνον, φ’ Xς κα' E ε5$ε>α κ.τ.λ. [8Ο Α@ας (Ajax): how is it declined? Το: Α@αντος. What is the rule? Disyllabic and unaccented nouns in pure -ας, ending with a long syllable, are declined in -ντ-, like “Ajax” (Α@ας Α@αντος) and “Thoas” (Θας Θαντος), etc. Το: Α@αντος: which rule regulates the accent? Every genitive of a noun, if common121 and not modified, bears the accent on the same syllable as the nominative, etc.]
The same pattern can be observed for verbs. There are introductory questions concerning properties; for example: (ibid. XXX. 10–17) Σπερω, ποας συζυγας τν βαρυτνων; Π μπτης τν βαρυτνων. Π$εν δλον; 8Η δ3 π μπτη δι4 τν τεσσ(ρων *πεταβλων, λ¯ μ¯ ν¯ ρ¯ […] Σπερω, πρωττυπον στ'ν ] παρ(γωγον; Παρ(γωγον. Κα' π$εν γνεται; παρ4 τ? σπ, τ? κατασπ. κ.τ.λ. [Σπερω (I sow): to which conjugation of the unaccented verbs does it belong? To the fifth of the unaccented. How is it evident? The fifth is shown through the four invariable, λ, μ, ν, and ρ.122 […]. Is σπερω primitive or derivative? Derivative. And from what does it derive? From σπ (I draw), κατασπ (I draw down); etc.].
Such questions are followed by a survey of the other tenses (perfect, aorist, and future active; perfect middle-passive), each completed by the “rule” (καν+ν) that governs its composition and accent. For the sake of brevity and simplicity, the last paradigms of a category receive a less extensive treatment than the first ones. Erôtêmata show the general structure of a parsing grammar. There is no hint, however, of the syntactical function of the words analyzed: the emphasis is placed exclusively on forms and prosody. This issue demonstrates how difficult it was for Byzantine pupils of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to write and scan ancient Greek words cor-
121
I.e., capable of being long or short; see LSJ, s.v. See Dion. Thrax 6, p. 47 Lallot. The editor explains (p. 105): “Là ou les autres consonnes donnent lieu à variation dans certaines flexions nominales et dans les formations sigmatiques de la morphologie verbale, les quatre liquides demeurent telles quelles.” 122
the greek curriculum
113
rectly because of the deep transformations that the spoken language had undergone over the course of time.123 The anonymous Erotemata Guelferbytana anticipated the Erotemata by Manuel Moschopoulos, a student of Planudes (born ca. 1265).124 Copied and printed many times, Moschopoulos’ catechism eventually overshadowed all the earlier experiments of the same kind. It continued to be widely used for the study of Greek in European schools even after the publication of the improved grammar books by Chrysoloras, Gaza, and Lascaris, all of whom, in turn, used Moschopoulos’ work as a model. Although retaining the structure, the language, and the content of the genre, Moschopoulos abridged the grammatical material and thus made it more effective and more suitable for memorization.125 He eliminated the repetitions that made earlier catechisms difficult to use by simply referring to rules and paradigms already expounded. The large number of manuscripts—many of which were variously contaminated—make it difficult to recover Moschopoulos’ original text.126 b. Epimerismoi and Schedography The practice of parsing, or “epimerism” ( πιμερισμς or μερισμς, Lat. partitio, as in Priscian’s work Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium), consisted of analyzing all the words of a text in all their aspects: morphology, meaning, etymology, spelling, accentuation, and prosody. Originally limited to the Homeric poems, this kind of exercise was later applied to other texts, both pagan and religious, which teachers could choose depending on their personal tastes and on the demands of their classes. Thus we have, for example, epimerisms on the Psalms 123 Typical late Greek forms that can be found in erôtêmata are τ for α5τ or το:το (e.g., in the frequently asked question τ τ? γρ(φεις;) and the particle *ς in exhortations (e.g., *ς κλναμεν, “let us decline”); see Hilgard’s observations, XXXVI f.
Part of Moschopoulos’ Erotemata has been edited by Hilgard in GG 4. 1, XXXIX–XLIV. On Moschopoulos’ literary activity, see Hunger 1978, 2. 70f.; and Fryde 2000, 295–299. 125 Βραχυν$ ντα (“abridged”) appears, in fact, in the title of Moschopoulos’ Erotemata in Bern, Bürgerbibliothek, MS. gr. 316. See Hilgard’s introduction, XXXVIII. 126 The many copies written by teachers bear witness to the success of Moschopoulos’ work in schools. Förstel (1992, 22 f.) mentions the case of George Baïophoros, who taught at the Catholicon Mouseion of the monastery of Prodromou-Petra (see below, 144): between 1403 and 1433, he seems to have copied about eighteen manuscripts. 124
114
chapter two
by George Choeroboscus and on Philostratus’ Images—the so-called Τεχνολογαι—by Maximus Planudes and Manuel Moschopoulos.127 The etymology of the term “schedography” (σχεδογραφα) is uncertain. It probably derives from the words σχ δος (gen. σχ δους, pl. σχ δη) and σχ δη (gen. σχ δης; cf. Latin scheda), which in Byzantine Greek meant “draft,” “sketch,” or “note.”128 From the eleventh century, σχ δος properly indicated a short didactic passage on grammar. Schedography was a further application and development of epimerism. In Byzantine schools, it supplemented the theoretical study of schoolbooks by means of examples taken from the actual use of the language. Often in question-and-answer format, σχ δη contained a detailed analysis of each word of a passage; they could be arranged either according to the word order of the original text or alphabetically. Most probably, pupils learned them by heart from a written text and recited them in classrooms. The purpose of σχ δη was to equip pupils with an extensive vocabulary and to offer examples of correct writing and grammar. A particular emphasis was given to antistoichiai. Indeed, the σχ δη handed down to us are extremely various: they may include simple lexical observations as well as extremely convoluted grammatical topics. The texts parsed were prayers, hymns, fables, and passages from the Scriptures or from pagan authors, taken from gnomologia or from manuals of rhetoric. More often than not, however, these texts were expressly created ad usum scholae, with style and content appropriate for the teaching of grammar and lexicon.129 Most σχ δη are anonymous. When an author is mentioned, they are attributed either to well-known literates—such as Theodore Prodromos, Nicetas Eugenianos, and Constantine Manasses—or to obscure teachers or priests.130 Over the course of time, however, Manuel Choeroboscus’ Επιμερισμο' το: Ψαλτηρου were published by Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1842. On πιμερισμο, see Krumbacher 18972, 590 f.; Hunger 1978, 2. 22 f., 70; and Garzya 2000, 135 ff. 128 Cp. LSJ and PGL, ss. vv., and modern Greek σχ διο, “drawing,” “sketch,” or “draft.” In humanist Latin, scheda or schedula indicates an unbound sheet used for drafts; see Rizzo 1973, 305 f. 129 See the extensive study by Gallavotti (1983, 3 ff.) and the texts published by Vassis (1993–1994, 14–19) and Miller (2003, 12 ff.). 130 See Browning 1976, 25–26; Gallavotti 1983, 24ff.; and Vassis 1993–1994. A female author of σχ δη seems to be mentioned in an iambic poem by John Tzetzes, preserved in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS. 203 (F. 68), f. 220r and published by Mercati (1951). Tzetzes urges the woman to devote her time to female-oriented 127
the greek curriculum
115
Moschopoulos became the “schedographer” by antonomasia, and many collections of σχ δη of different times and origins were arbitrarily attributed to him in manuscripts.131 A first piece of evidence of the use of schedography in Byzantine schools dates back to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Christopher of Mytilene, Michael Psellus, John Mauropous, John Tzetzes, Gregory of Corinth, and Eustathius experienced that method in various ways. From their texts, it emerges that schedography was taught in several schools of Constantinople (such as those of the Orphanotropheion, the Church of the Forty Martyrs, and St. Theodore το: Σφορακου), which often organized competitions between students.132 Most of these authors, however, display an ironic and critical attitude toward schedography.133 The most interesting judgment is expressed in Anna Comnena’s Alexiad, 15. 7:134 το: δ3 σχ δους E τ χνη ε_ρημα τν νεωτ ρων στ' κα' τς φ’ Eμν γενεPς. παρημι δ3 Στυλιανο2ς τινας κα' τοGς λεγομ νους Λογγιβ(ρδους κα' Wσους πισυναγωγν τεχν(σαντο παντοδαπν νομ(των […] *λλ4 ν:ν ο5δ’ ν δευτ ρ&ω λγ&ω τ4 περ' το2των τν μετε+ρων κα' ποιητν κα' α5τν συγγραφ ων κα' τς *π? το2των μπειραςZ πεττεα δ3 τ? σπο2δασμα […]. τα:τα δ3 λ γω *χ$ομ νη δι4 τν παντελ τς γκυκλου παιδε2σεως *μ λειαν. το:το γ(ρ μου τν ψυχν *ναφλ γει. Wτι πολG περ' τα5τ4 νδιατ τριφα, κUν, πειδ4ν *πλλαγμαι τς παιδαρι+δους το2των σχολς κα' ε'ς #ητορικν παργγειλα κα' φιλοσοφας Eψ(μην κα' μεταξG τν πιστημν πρ?ς ποιητ(ς τε κα' ξυγγραφε>ς aιξα κα' τς γλ+ττης τοGς χ$ους κε>$εν ξωμαλισ(μην, ε=τα #ητορικς παρηγο2σης μο' κατ γνων τς {το:} πολυπλκου τς σχεδογραφας πλοκς. *λλ4 τα:τα μ ντοι προσιστορσ$ω, ε κα' μη κ το: παρ ργου, *λλ4 δι4 τ? το: λγου *κλου$ον.
[The technique of grammar analysis was invented by younger men of our generation (I am passing over Stylianos and his school, men like activities such as spinning and weaving instead of reading and writing, because “speeches and culture are suitable for men,” and reinforces his idea with a quotation from Aeschylus, Sept. 200. However, the presence of many words referring to weaving suggests that the poem may be itself a σχ δος on the terminology of that activity. 131 On Moschopoulos’ schedography and its origin, see Keaney 1971, 304ff. 132 These competitions probably consisted in improvising commentaries as elaborate as possible on a given text. On σχ δος contexts, see Lemerle 1977, 227 ff.; and Miller 2003, 18ff. 133 Hunger 1979, 2. 25 f. On schedography during the age of the Comneni, see Garzya 1971, 2–6; and Efthymiadis 2005, 267 ff. 134 The text has been re-edited by D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis (vol. 1, Berlin– New York 2001, 485). I have followed, and partially modified, the English translation by Sewter (1969, 495 f.).
116
chapter two Longibardos and the compilers of catalogues of all kinds […]).135 Today these sublime studies are considered not even of secondary importance; the poets and even the historians, together with the experience to be derived from them, are denied their rightful place. Today it is the game of draughts that is all the rage […].136 It grieves me to see the total neglect of general education. It makes my blood boil, for I myself spent much time on these same exercises. After liberation from the elementary studies, I devoted myself to rhetoric, touched on philosophy and in the midst of these sciences eagerly turned to the poets and historians. So the rough edges of my style were smoothed out; thereafter, with the aid of rhetoric, I condemned excessive indulgence in schedography. These personal reminiscences, by the way, are not superfluous: they are intended to reinforce my argument for a general education.]
Anna’s passage does not convey precise data and information on schedography, but contains an explicit critique of the effects of this practice on education. According to Anna, schedography induced students to neglect the original literary texts and reduced learning to a purely mechanical exercise to such an extent that it became responsible for the decay of literary studies.137 In spite of the disapproval of intellectuals, schedography continued to be used in schools for centuries. From the twelfth century, a ν α or καιν σχεδογραφα, represented by Theodore Prodromos and his 135 Anna defines schedography as a product of the culture of her age (ε_ρημα τν νεωτ ρων). On Stylianos, who taught at the school of St. Theodore το: Σφορακου, see Lemerle 1977, 238. Longibardos % σοφ+τατος κα' λογι+τατος wrote some Παρεκβλαια περ' συντ(ξεως κα' *ντιστοχων π(νυ bφ λιμα, mentioned by Psellus. A text
transmitted under his name has been published by Festa (1907, 432 ff.), who assigned Longibardos to the tenth or eleventh centuries. Hunger (1978, 2. 26f.) defined Longibardos’ work as “ein extremes Beispiel für die unmethodische und unpädagogische Anhäufung von Wissenstoff in schwer verdaulicher Form: grammatisches, syntaktisches und orthographisches Material, mit etwas Mythologie gemischt, wird unter einem leichten moralisch-asketischen Firnis dargeboten.” 136 Krumbacher (18972, 591) interpreted the “game of draught” (πεττεα) as referring to schedography itself, either for its banality or, more probably, for its desultory treatment of texts and, consequently, its continuous repetitions in the word analysis. Similarly, other twelfth-century authors—e.g., Eustathius and Tzetzes—emphasize the ambiguity (α@νιγμα, γρ>φος, etc.) and the complexity (πολ2πλοκος, λαβυριν$+δης, etc.) of schedography. See Vassis 1993–1994, 10; and Efthymiadis 2005, 269. 137 John Tzetzes (Chiliades 9. 710–712) also expressed the same opinion. See Krumbacher’s harsh critique (18972, 592) of Byzantine schedography and the very similar exercises in fashion in Prussian schools at the end of the nineteenth century: “Ob nun die fortlaufende Analyse zwischen die Zeilen oder unter dem Texte steht, berührt das Wesen der Sache nicht, und dieses besteht bei beiden Methoden darin, dem Schüler alle ‘Schwierigkeiten’ zu ebnen und eigenes Nachdenken, Suchen und Lernen möglichst zu ersparen.”
the greek curriculum
117
followers, tried to reinvigorate the traditional matter by presenting it in the form of puns.138 Indeed, such a pedantic method of teaching grammar and orthography was considered more and more appropriate in a linguistic context determined by an increasing gap between the written and the spoken language. For example, in a passage from MS. gr. IX.14, of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice, ff. 11–11v, an anonymous grammarian reminds a young man (c ν ε) that schedography is necessary if one wants to learn correct writing (τ? σχεδογραφε>ν … δι4 τ? ρ$ογραφε>ν στ'ν *ναγκα>ον). Learning to write without correctness is a waste of time (ε δ τις σπε2δει μ3ν π' τ? γρ(φειν, ο5 σπουδ(ζει δ3 π' τ? ρ$ογραφε>ν, π' κεν& δει); therefore, the young man is urged to devote his energies to it (τονυν κα' σ2, ε αFρQ τ? ρ$ογραφσαι, σπο2δαζε κα' *γωνζου WσQη σοι @ς).139 Many manuscripts containing σχ δη are of Italian origin.140 The fifteenth-century MS. Ven. Marc. gr. XI.16, formerly in the Library of San Giovanni di Verdara in Padua, offers an example of the popularity of this method up until the Renaissance.141 In its ninety-two folios, written by a Greek-Italian hand, the manuscript contains a set of resources for teachers: commentaries on some troparia for the Virgin Mary, on short sentences and anecdotes taken from Demosthenes, Diogenes Laertius, Aesop, and other authors, on some of Aesop’s fables, on the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia, etc. It also allows us to glimpse the method followed in classrooms: after an interlinear paraphrase of the text, the teacher commented extensively on its grammar, lexicon, and orthography. The commentaries included antistoichiai, lists of words with the same ending, compounds, and also the complete declension of some nouns, in an order based on association rather than on logic. As Webb has pointed out, in fact, schedo138 On this “new schedography” as opposed to the “old” one (παλαι(), see Garzya 2000, 144. 139 Quoted in Debiasi 1971–1972, 115–116. The manuscript contains a sample of the collections of σχ δη that teachers could use to supplement Moschopoulos’ work. They included various material, often from Theodore Prodromos or the scholars of his circle: see Gallavotti 1983, 8, 11ff. Addresses to young men are typical of these texts: with such devices, teachers tried to attract the attention of their pupils. Other interesting passages are quoted by Browning from MS. Ven. Marc. gr. XI. 31 (1976, 22–23). 140 A list of these grammatical manuscripts can be found in Gamillscheg 1977, 215 f. See also Browning 1976, 23–24; and Cavallo 1980, 181 n. 71. On schedography in the Salentine area, see also Gallavotti 1983, 19ff. 141 Described and partially edited by Debiasi 1971–1972, 109ff.
118
chapter two
graphy conveyed the idea that each word had to be considered not by itself but within a context, in “a constant cross-reference,” and “firmly anchored within a complex and multi-dimensional linguistic system.”142 6. The Making of Humanist Greek Grammar After learning grammar mostly by memory, Byzantine students proceeded to the study of Greek orators; in fact, rhetoric was the goal of Byzantine education. The emphasis placed on rhetoric associated the Western studia humanitatis with the Byzantine curriculum; as Kristeller remarked, the learning and interests of the Italian humanists were more similar to the Byzantine tradition than to the tradition of the Western Middle Ages.143 Moreover, pedagogy was based on the same principles on both sides of the Mediterranean: repetition, memorization, and parsing. However, the Greek emigrés who taught in Italy could not propose to their students the curriculum of Byzantine schools without some adaptations. Thus, the need for a teaching methodology suitable for non-Greek speakers resulted in a demand for simplifying the teaching of Greek grammar. Memorizing the Dionysian-Theodosian scheme of fifty-six nominal declensions and thirteen verbal conjugations would have daunted even the most zealous Western student, who, in contrast, had easily learned Latin according to the comfortable system of five declensions and four conjugations. The same demand, however, apparently arose within the Greek-speaking world. The work of Nilos Diassorinos, Metropolite of Rhodes in the mid-fourteenth century, demonstrates that the process of simplification had started independently from contacts with the West. Diassorinos introduced the distinction between parisyllabic and imparisyllabic nouns, later taken up by Calecas, Chrysoloras, and all of the other Byzantine grammarians.144
Webb 1994, 88. Quoted in Geanakoplos 1988, 352. 144 The words σοσ2λλαβος and περιττοσ2λλαβος are attested already in the twelfth century. Förstel (1992, 25) quotes Etymologicum Magnum s.v. κ ας, which φυλ(ττει τν σοσ2λλαβον κλσιν, “follows the parisyllabic declension” (cf. also ss.vv. λ(ας and λας). 142 143
the greek curriculum
119
After Roger Bacon’s effort, the first conscious attempt to simplify the Greek grammar was made by Manuel Calecas at the end of the fourteenth century. Calecas, a Dominican and a supporter of the Union, applied to the Greek nominal inflection the five-declension system of Latin, a language that he knew well: the Greek declensions were determined by the endings of the genitive and of the nominative singular combined.145 Calecas’ grammar was in question-andanswer format and contained many paradigms and examples. Written between 1390 and 1403, it is almost contemporary with Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, but it is difficult to establish which of the two works influenced the other. The five-declension system according to the genitive singular appears also in an anonymous grammar attributed to Manuel Moschopoulos, the so-called Enchiridion Tubingense, but the lack of precise chronological elements prevents us from assessing the value of this text in the history of humanist Greek grammar. The many extant manuscripts and printed copies of Erotemata bear witness to the extraordinary success of this grammar book. Unfortunately, no manuscript provides any clue on the date or place of its composition. A terminus ante quem comes from a subscriptio in the Vatican MS. Palatinus gr. 116, to our knowledge the oldest extant copy of Erotemata. Guarino Guarini, who had bought the volume, noted the place and date of his purchase: Constantinople, March 1, 1406. There is no convincing evidence that Chrysoloras wrote his Erotemata before his arrival in Italy.146 In any case, the demands and questions of his Italian students certainly played an important role in the shaping of the work.147 145
Calecas’ first declension included all the imparisyllabic nouns with the genitive singular in -ος (our third declension), further divided according to the ending of the nominative (-ας, -α, -ης, -υς, -ις, -εις, -ων, -ους, -ην, -υν, -ιν, -ηρ, -ηξ, -υξ, -ιξ, -οιξ, -ιγξ, -υς, -λι, -υ). The other four declensions included the parisyllabic nouns with the genitive singular in -ου, -ης, -ας, and -α, respectively. See Bernardinello 1971–1972, 214. 146 According to Pertusi (1962, 347–349; 1980–1981, 198), Chrysoloras composed his Erotemata while teaching Jacopo Angeli in Constantinople before 1396 or Roberto Rossi in Venice between 1390 and 1391. On the Vatican copy (which also contains three of Aristophanes’ comedies), see Thomson 1976, 170 n. 9. 147 For example, Chrysoloras wrote, most probably at the request of Coluccio Salutati, a short treatise on breathings (Περ' πνευμ(των), printed after the text of Erotemata in the Florentine edition of 1496. Perhaps Chrysoloras wrote it to complete the meagre exposition of breathings in Erotemata. See Ullman 1955, 279ff.; Weiss 1977, 235; and Rollo 2003. Förstel (1992, 70) remarks that “[r]ien n’interdit, du reste, de penser que la redaction d’une grammaire élémentaire a été elle-même directement
120
chapter two
The reduction of the fifty-six nominal canons to ten and the clear exposition of the matter were among the reasons for the success of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata.148 It is difficult to say whether the elementary handbooks used to teach Latin in medieval schools, Ianua and Donatus’ Ars minor, or even their Greek translations, had exerted any influence on Chrysoloras’ exposition of Greek morphology. Scholars have answered this question in different and often contradictory ways.149 Since we do not know exactly how, when, where, and from whom Chrysoloras learned Latin, we cannot say whether he had access to Ianua or to any other Latin elementary schoolbook. Nor is there any evidence that Ianua or Donatus’ Ars minor ever circulated in Constantinople. In any case, humanists were aware that Chrysoloras’ work was different from a traditional Greek grammar book. In the prologue to what is usually considered the first printed edition of Erotemata (Adam von Ambergau, Venice 1471),150 the anonymous editor remarked that Chrysoloras had composed that booklet (opusculum) for the benefit of the Latins rather than for the needs of the Greeks themselves (magis ad Latinorum utilitatem quam ad ipsorum Graecorum necessitatem).151 An abridged edition and a Latin translation by Guarino— the so-called Erotemata Guarini—made Chrysoloras’ Erotemata accessisollicitée par les nombreuses questions d’un humaniste de l’entourage de Salutati, que ce soit à Florence ou à Constantinople.” 148 Robins (1993, 237), in fact, notes that “Chrysoloras’ grammar embodies the accepted tradition handed down from the Techne, with little or no theoretical discussion or explanation. This is not necessarily a defect, given the requirements of his pupils in whose interest he had originally composed it.” 149 Pertusi (1962, 349), following Sabbadini, affirmed that “l’ipotesi […] più sensata è che il Crisolora abbia appreso il latino col sussidio della Ianua e che si sia basato su questa grammatica […] per dare una nuova sistemazione alle declinazioni […] Su questo libro i Bizantini imparavano il latino come gli umanisti italiani imparavano il greco [on its Greek translation]”; (1980–1981, 198): “Molto probabilmente alla base della nuova sistemazione del Crisolora è da porre la cosiddetta Ianua, riduzione medievale dell’Ars minor di Donato, che ebbe anche l’onore di essere tradotta in greco, prima del 1305, dal famoso monaco Massimo Planude, e su cui i Costantinopolitani imparavano il latino.” See also Pontani 1996, 140. Contra Förstel (1992, 27 f.): since, as demonstrated by Schmitt (1966), the Greek translation of Ianua belongs to the fifteenth century, “[il] est […] formellement exclu qu’elle ait pu influencer la grammaire de Manuel Chrysoloras.” Moreover: “rien n’est plus étranger à la philologie byzantine que le recours à une autre langue pour mieux comprendre le grec.” In any case, the Latin environment, where Chrysoloras was living and operating, exercised a significant influence on his scholarship: see Pontani 1999, 257 ff. 150 The edition does not contain the place, the year, or the name of the printer. See Pertusi 1962, 324 and n. 1. 151 Quoted by Förstel 1992, 29.
the greek curriculum
121
ble to Latin-speaking students who wanted to learn Greek by themselves. Later manuscripts and printed editions of Erotemata show a tendency to incorporate into the original text material of different origin, both in the theoretical parts and in the paradigms.152 Two more grammars contributed to establishing Greek studies in the West some decades after Chrysoloras’ teaching in Florence: Theodore Gaza’s Introduction to Grammar (Εσαγωγ γραμματικς) and Constantine Lascaris’ Summary of the Eight Parts of Speech (Επιτομ τν κτ λγου μερν). Like Chrysoloras, Gaza and Lascaris were Byzantine emigrés teaching in Italy, but their works mirror the fundamental changes that had occurred in Greek studies after Chrysoloras’ time. In fifty years, Greek studies had spread all over the Western world. The council of Ferrara-Florence and the fall of Constantinople had multiplied the number of available, qualified Greek teachers. However, as Förstel has pointed out, the paradoxical result of this expansion of Hellenism was a regression in the influence of the Byzantines.153 Over the course of the fifteenth century, Italian humanists had attained a knowledge of Greek that had made them independent from Greek teachers. In a highly competitive job market, the ability of the Byzantines to teach ancient Greek was being questioned, since the Greek they spoke was “corrupted” and completely different from the pure classical language. Moreover, Chrysoloras’ Erotemata had met the immediate need for a handbook of Greek grammar, but had not gone beyond a very elementary level. The new cultural environment required grammars suitable for advanced students. Thanks to his outstanding knowledge of Latin—acquired in Ferrara, at the school of Vittorino da Feltre—Theodore Gaza of Thessalonica (1400–1475) was entrusted by Pope Nicholas V with the translation of Greek philosophical texts into Latin. Like Planudes, Gaza also translated Latin works into Greek: Cicero’s De senectute and the part of De republica known as the Somnium Scipionis.154 These translations were
152 The abridged editions of Erotemata, with the Greek text and Guarino’s Latin translation on parallel columns, usually contain between thirty-two and forty folios, whereas, in the Florentine edition of 1496, by Lorenzo de Alopa, the Greek text alone occupies sixty-four folios. See Percival 1975, 246; Pertusi 1962, 324 and 1980– 1981, 198; and Förstel 1992, 165, 176. For a comparison between the editio maior of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata (with the Greek text only, as in the editions of 1496 and 1498– 1500) and Guarino’s shorter Greek-Latin edition, see Bernardinello 1977, 123–125. 153 1992, 72. See also Monfasani 1990, 45–52. 154 See Förstel 1992, 81: “Cette partie de son oeuvre rappelle les traductions de
122
chapter two
probably meant as tools for the teaching of Greek, which Gaza successfully undertook in Mantua, Ferrara, and Rome. The first edition of his Εσαγωγ was printed in Venice in 1495 by Aldus Manutius; a partial Latin translation by Erasmus contributed to the circulation and the success of this work, especially in Central Europe during the sixteenth century. The structure, in four books with a first introductory book, was probably modeled on Donatus’ Ars. Constantine Lascaris of Constantinople (d. 1501) was both a teacher and a copyist of manuscripts, thus covering with his activity both stages of literary teaching in Byzantium: the theoretical study of grammar and the grammatical analysis of texts. Lascaris wrote his Greek grammar some time after 1458 for his pupil Ippolita Sforza, the daughter of Duke Francesco Sforza of Milan. As in Donatus’ Ars, a first book, a manual on the eight parts of speech, introduced a more extensive treatment of Greek grammar, which also included some notions on syntax. Published in Milan in 1476 by Dionysius Paravisinus, Lascaris’ grammar was the first book printed entirely in Greek. A Latin translation by Giovanni Crastone was printed alongside the Greek text in the edition of 1480 (Milan, by Bonus Accursius).155 The Greek and the Latin texts circulated together under the title Compendium octo orationis partium. Lascaris used the enunciative style for definitions and the erotematic form to introduce paradigms.156 His methodology, based on “progressive language learning,”157 was considered so effective by Renaissance and post-Renaissance teachers that, over the course of time, Lascaris’ grammar supplanted Chrysoloras’ Erotemata as the favorite textbook for learning Greek. The grammars by Chrysoloras, Gaza, and Lascaris show substantial differences. In general, Lascaris’ grammar is a development of Maxime Planude et de Démétrius Cydonès: elle fait de Gaza un humaniste de la ‘renaissance des Paléologues’ autant que de la renaissance italienne.” 155 The editio princeps of Lascaris’ grammar, edited by Demetrios Damilas, has been reprinted in 1966 (Amsterdam) and 1976 (Athens); Förstel (1992) has given a critical edition based on MSS. gr. 2590 and 2591 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. In the later Aldine editions (Venice 1495, 1502, and 1512), a progressively larger amount of material was added to the grammar. See Grafton-Jardine 1986, 104ff.; and Martínez Manzano 1994, 182 ff. (an updated synthesis in 1998, 133 ff.). 156 Questions are introduced with the formulas codified in the Byzantine erotematic tradition. For example: 8Ο Ανεας ποου μ ρους λγου στν; […] ποας πτ+σεως; μομαστικς dτις κα' ε5$ε>α καλε>ται, κ.τ.λ. (quoted by Förstel 1992, 92). 157 Förstel (1992, 93) points out that the material seems to be ordered according to mere association rather than with a precise logical plan.
the greek curriculum
123
Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, whereas Gaza’s work is more conventional. Their common features, however, qualify them as products of the Byzantine tradition rather than as original works.158 First of all, since they were meant as handbooks for beginners, their content, structure, terminology, and way of presenting the material closely recall the most famous Greek elementary grammar, Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη. As in Dionysius, the description and the classification of the letters of the alphabet introduce the treatment of the eight parts of speech. Because of their complexity and importance, nouns and verbs receive more attention than the other morphological elements. For each part of speech, the traditional sequence of definition-properties-paradigms is maintained. Secondly, all three works follow the rigid principle of analogy typical of Byzantine grammar, which leads to the creation of fictitious forms (such as the perfect τ τυπα, or the plural of proper names) for the sake of completeness. Simplification is programmatically pursued and “irregular” forms are often reduced to regularity.159 At the same time, irregularity, or anomaly, is also given an extensive treatment. Thirdly, the language taught in these grammars is the usual mixture of fifth-century Attic Greek, archaic Ionic dialect, and Hellenistic-Byzantine κοιν, without any focus on the history or the evolution of the language. There are, however, some deviations from traditional Byzantine grammar, since each grammarian felt free to modify the traditional pedagogical scheme according to the demands of his Western audience. The three works are often indicated as Erotemata in catalogues, but the question-and-answer format, so popular in Byzantine schoolbooks and still maintained by Chrysoloras, is considerably reduced in Lascaris’ grammar and absent in Gaza’s treatment.160 Chrysoloras reserves very little room for definitions and descriptive parts; Gaza, similarly, gives very schematic definitions, but his lists of categories See Förstel’s detailed comparative analysis of the three grammars (1992, 109ff.). For example, Lascaris makes the μι-verbs equivalent to contracted verbs (so τ$ημι becomes τι$ ω or τι$, etc.). Gaza reduces the verbal conjugations from thirteen to five (four of ω–verbs and one including all the μι–verbs). As for the third person plural of the perfect middle-passive, Gaza considers as regular the rare Ionic form τετ2φατο instead of the more common τετυμμ νοι εσν. See Förstel 1992, 112f., 116. 160 In general, it is worth noticing that in Chrysoloras’ Erotemata questions are much less numerous than in the traditional Byzantine erôtêmata of the fourteenth century. Their number, however, tends to increase in the later, enlarged editions of the grammar book. See Förstel 1992, 104 f. 158 159
124
chapter two
and paradigms are as exhaustive and complete as those of Lascaris. As for the parts of speech, the traditional order established by Aristarchus and Dionysius Thrax (noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, preposition, adverb, and conjunction) is often altered: Chrysoloras and Gaza deal with the article before the noun, and both Chrysoloras and Lascaris include participles in the category of verbs. Moreover, Chrysoloras deals with adverbs and conjunctions very concisely; instead, he gives a list of irregular verbs, a chapter on comparative adjectives, and one on patronymics. In Lascaris’ grammar, several chapters follow the part on conjunctions: on comparative adjectives, on the seven kinds of derivative nouns, on the twenty-four classes or species (ε@δη) of nouns,161 on punctuation, and on the syntax and the meaning of prepositions.162 7. Other Greek Grammars and Course Books In addition to the works by Chrysoloras, Gaza, and Lascaris, three more Greek grammars were available to students of Greek during the Renaissance: the works by Manuel Moschopoulos (above, 113), Manuel Calecas (119), and Demetrius Chalcondyles. A Byzantine refugee from Athens, Chalcondyles (1423–1511) taught in Perugia, Padua, Florence, and Milan and was very active in publishing Greek literary texts. The first edition of his Ερωτματα συνοπτικ4 τν κτ το: λγου μερν was printed in Milan around 1493.163 In any case, these works did not achieve the success of Chrysoloras’ and Lascaris’ grammars.164 Nor should we neglect to consider the large number of anonymous grammatical erôtêmata handed down in manuscripts and still awaiting a systematic study.165 Lascaris follows the treatment of nominal ε@δη in Dionysius’ Τ χνη (12, pp. 52–54 Lallot), but lists the ε@δη in a slightly different order; see Martínez Manzano 1994, 201. 162 Förstel (1992, 109f.) also describes the differences in the treatment of verbal properties (παρεπμενα). Lascaris lists five voices: active, passive, neuter, middle or common, and deponent. Gaza distinguishes between a deponent α5τοενεργητικν, such as μ(χομαι, and an α5τοπα$ητικν, represented by the verb π(σχω. 163 See Manoussos Manoussakas in Graecogermania 1989, 40f.; Wilson 1992, 95–98; and Staïkos 1998 [1989], 225–255. 164 According to Staïkos (1998 [1989], 234–236), Chalcondyles’ grammar was probably “a commercial failure,” like his edition of Isocrates’ speeches (Milan 1483). 165 For example, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 883 (described in Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 867–932, rec. Petrus Schreiner, in Bibliotheca Vaticana 161
the greek curriculum
125
Moreover, it should be noted that neither comprehensive manuals nor specific grammar books for an intermediate or an advanced level of Greek were ever produced in the Renaissance. Except for Gaza’s work, none of the Greek grammars written in the Renaissance resembles, for example, Guarino’s Regulae grammaticales or Priscian’s Institutiones for Latin.166 Over the course of time, however, changes became necessary for the three most important Byzantine-humanist grammars, in order for them to meet the demands of a wider and more proficient audience. Initially, these texts were entirely in Greek and often heavily abbreviated. They did not contain any treatment of syntax or any explanation of the most important linguistic phenomena.167 Chrysoloras himself, and especially Gaza and Lascaris, tried to make up for the insufficient and often vague information provided by their grammars with short essays, usually incorporated into the editions by printers. Latin translation, explanatory notes, and every kind of supplementary material (from the short treatises on specific grammatical matters to elementary readings) were often added to grammar books, which in this way became comprehensive and accessible textbooks for Greek courses.168 The first Greek grammar written by a Western scholar was the Institutiones Grammaticae by the Franciscan Urbano Bolzanio of Belluno, published in Venice by Aldus Manutius in 1497. A pupil of Lascaris, Bolzanio was heavily influenced by the Greek grammar of his teacher.169 An anonymous Greek grammar, handed down in Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, MS. 17 21 4 Aug. 4° and attributed 1988, 40–45) offers an interesting collection of texts for a complete Greek course. It contains an anonymous short treatise (perhaps a fragment) on the eight parts of speech; several works on orthography, dialects, and metrics; epimerisms; a lexicon and some glosses from other lexica; and the treatises on syntax by John Glykys, Gregory of Corinth, and Maximus Planudes, as well as Gregory of Nazianzus’ Disticha gnomologica. 166 See Percival 2002, 100. 167 The fourth book of Gaza’s grammar contained a treatment of syntax based on Apollonius Dyscolus, Michel Syncellus, and Maximus Planudes (see Donnet 1979). In turn, Constantine Lascaris, in the second book of his grammar (Περ' συντ(ξεως) tried to apply to Greek verbs the Latin distinction into genera and ordines (see above, n. 138). However, Jean Louis Vives, in his 1523 Epistola II de ratione studii puerilis (in Opera omnia, Valentiae Edetanorum 1782–1790, pp. 278–279), criticized Gaza’s syntax for its difficulty and Lascaris’ treatment as prolix and unsuitable for students. See De Torraca 2006, 233 n. 62 and 236 n. 70. 168 See Grafton-Jardine 1986, 103 ff. 169 On Bolzanio’s grammar, see Rollo’s extensive 2001 study.
126
chapter two
with some reservations to the humanist scholar Francesco Filelfo, represents a curious example of Greek erôtêmata in Latin. Rather than a systematic manual on Greek grammar, Filelfo’s book resembles a collection of notes taken by a student and partially revised by the master.170 The author took up the stereotypical material of the erotematic tradition and inserted the results of his own readings and speculations. He limited the question-and-answer format to definitions and expounded paradigms and rules concerning inflection systematically. In general, however, he followed Chrysoloras’ description of nominal and verbal inflections, with reference to Lascaris’ grammar as well. All definitions are in Greek and are followed by a word-for-word Latin translation introduced by the formula id est. However, Filelfo seems to be interested more in Latin style than in Greek grammar: he considers Greek as a necessary tool for restoring the original purity of the Latin language, which had been corrupted by the arbitrary transformations and deformations of the Middle Ages. Coming to terms with the Latin grammatical tradition and language seems to have been a fundamental concern of Western scholars who wrote grammars for the study of Greek. Paul Botley has demonstrated that the Greek schoolbooks, lexica, and collections or readings available during the Renaissance were usually a collaboration between teachers and printers and represented, therefore, a compromise between pedagogical principles and the demands of customers.171 The famous scholar, teacher, and printer Aldus Manutius (ca. 1450– 1515), for example, adopted from Quintilian and from his own teacher Battista Guarini, the son of Guarino, the idea of a close link between Latin and Greek.172 Aldus’ activity in the promotion of Greek studies 170 Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481) learned Greek in Constantinople from John Chrysoloras between 1420 and 1427 and married a member of the Chrysoloras family. He taught in Bologna and Milan from 1439 to 1481. On his life and scholarship, see Wilson 1992, 48–53; on his Greek grammar, see the extensive study by Cortesi (1986, 165 f.). 171 Botley (2002) has analyzed the production of Greek books by some printers in Milan, Venice, and Paris, concluding (218f.): “[It] is clear that only a very small part of the available Greek corpus was regularly used to teach Greek in the West before 1516 […] Most widely used in the classrooms were versified sententiae; the moral poems attributed to Pythagoras and Phocylides, and collections of gnomic verses.” 172 In the dedication of his edition of Theocritus to Battista Guarini, Aldus refers to his study of Greek in Ferrara. He was actually in that city during the late 1470s, perhaps until 1485. Aldus taught both in Ferrara and at Carpi, where he tutored the sons of Prince Alberto Pio, Alberto and Lionello Pio. Thanks to the princes of Carpi, Aldus became acquainted with their uncle, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and with
the greek curriculum
127
in Latin-speaking countries was manifold. Besides founding his “New Academy” (Νεακαδημα) with a group of scholars interested in Greek studies,173 Aldus specialized in the printing of Greek texts, both literary works and schoolbooks.174 In addition to the well-known Aldine editions of Greek texts, he published a large number of grammar books, Greek-Latin lexica, and dictionaries. One of his most significant contributions to the teaching of Greek was the compilation of a list of simple Greek texts to be read after the study of elementary grammar. The list included some prayers (the Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, Hail Holy Queen, and the Apostles’ Creed), the beginning of the Gospel of John, Pseudo-Pythagoras’ Carmina aurea, and Pseudo-Phocylides’ Sententiae.175 These elementary readings, all with a Latin translation, were usually appended to every Greek grammar printed by Aldus. The texts included in Aldus’ Greek syllabus resemble the elementary readings of Latin, which consisted of the same prayers, the “Psalter” (Salterio) or the Book of Hours (Libro d’ore), and Cato’s Disticha.176 Aldus gave an interesting sample of comparative linguistics in an essay on Latin and Greek diphthongs appended to his earliest edition of Constantine Lascaris’ Greek grammar (dated February 28, 1494, with the Greek text faithfully translated into Latin):177 he offered a list of parallelisms between Greek and Latin proper names taken from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, underlining the similarities and the differences between the two languages. Pico’s friends and fellow scholars, Politian and Ermolao Barbaro the Younger. See Lowry 1979, 51f.; and Davies 19992, 6. Aldus’ assumption of a close relationship between Greek and Latin language and literature exerted a deep influence on his printing activity; see Hexter 1998. 173 See Saladin 20042, 96–100; and Wilson 1992, 129ff., and 1992a, 33 f., on the inaugural lecture of Aldus’ New Academy by Scipio Carteromachus (Forteguerri). 174 On Aldus’ Greek press, see in particular the studies by Proctor 1900; Barker 19922; and Davies 19992, 10–13. 175 See Davies 19992, 14f.; Plebani 1994, 94 n. 119; and Botley 2002, 211. 176 On the Psalter and the Book of Hours, see above, 64; on Cato’s Distichs, see above, 52 ff. Aldus did not include Planudes’ translation of Disticha Catonis (below, 225 ff.) in the Greek elementary readings. Instead, the fact that he published the Greek Disticha together with Theocritus’ Idylls and Hesiod’s Theogony (Venice 1495) demonstrates that he considered them as suitable for a more advanced stage of the study of Greek. Aldus also published Greek translations of the Psalter and the Book of Hours in 1498 and 1505, respectively: this is perhaps another sign of his intention to establish a Greek curriculum parallel to the Latin one. See Plebani 1994, 82. 177 Aldus’ edition is basically a reprint of the edition of Bonus Accursius (Milan 1480), with the addition of corrections by Lascaris and Aldus himself. See Davies 19992, 17 f.
128
chapter two
In his Musarum panagyris (sic), Aldus expressed his idea of a combined Greek-Latin curriculum, which he made more explicit in his Latin grammar. In 1493, he published his Institutionum grammaticarum libri quattuor, a Latin grammar in question-and-answer format modeled on Donatus’ Ars and on Ianua, and influenced by the more advanced Rudimenta by Perotti and Doctrinale by Alexander of Villedieu.178 In the edition of 1508, Manutius included as an appendix a section on Greek letters, accents, and abbreviations, followed by the usual Greek elementary readings. The same texts were also printed with Manutius’ Greek grammar. It was published by Marcus Musurus after his death, in 1515, and fully respected the Byzantine-humanist tradition. Dedicated to Jean Grolier of Lyon, a minister of the King of France, this very rare book entirely in Greek apparently did not have a significant impact on Greek studies.179 Aldus’ Institutiones were published on March 9, 1493, by Andrea Torresano, who became one of Aldus’ partners in the establishment of his press. The incipit (In nomine Domini nostri Iesu crucifixi. Amen), the prayers, the layout, and the use of black and red letters made the book look like a liturgical text. Three editions followed—in 1501, 1508, and 1518—each with fundamental changes in style, content, and layout. See Lowry 1979, 61; Plebani 1994, 92; Dionisotti C. 1995, 95–96; and Jensen 1998. Like Ianua, Aldus’ grammar begins with a short poem in two elegiac distichs, in which the book praises itself for making the path to the knowledge of Latin short, easy, and pleasant: 178
Non mihi per scopulos aut devia parvus Iulus ducitur, aonias ebibiturus aquas. Et via per placidos colles, per florea rura hac iter ad Musas perbreve carpe, puer. In the introduction to the edition of 1501, Aldus expressed his dissatisfaction with existing grammars—in particular with Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale—which he considered “appalling” and “daunting” for students. As an alternative, he proposed a return to the ancient grammatical tradition and texts. The first question (Quid est Grammatice? Ars et professio quae usu, ratione atque auctoritate constat) introduces a series of other questions, marked with a black initial on the left margin. Aldus often adopts the typical formulas of grammatical catechisms (e.g., Da declinationem) as well. From the Florentine edition of 1519 onward, Aldus’ Institutiones were printed together with Erasmus’ De octo partibus orationis constructione libellus, as the elementary and the intermediate level of a Latin course, respectively. In some cases (e.g., the edition printed at Lyon by Gryphius in 1553), Aldus’ Institutiones were replaced with Donatus’ Ars minor or with Ianua. See Grendler 1984, 14, 23 f. 179 On Aldus’ Greek grammar (written and corrected many times by Aldus himself in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. P 35 sup.), see Rollo 2001, 183 n. 20. Aldus conceived another tool for students of Greek: with his Thesaurus cornucopiae et horti Adonidis, a compilation from thirty-four Greek and Byzantine grammarians, he intended to complement the Greek grammars available on the book market (the 1496 edition is partly reproduced by Lemke [1959]). However, only readers at ease with
the greek curriculum
129
A grammar entitled Institutiones grammaticae Graecae, written by Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and published in Tübingen in 1518, became extremely important for the history of Greek studies in Germany and in Central Europe; it was used in schools well into the eighteenth century. Melanchthon’s grammar is closely modeled on the works by Chrysoloras, Lascaris, and especially Gaza, but with a significant extension of the theoretical parts and an increase in the number of paradigms. Much more important is the constant comparison between Greek and Latin: Melanchthon considered the rules of Latin morphology and syntax, more familiar to Western students, as useful for understanding and memorizing those of Greek. The “practical” section of Melanchthon’s Greek course, in which the notions exposed in the first part were applied to a literary text, reinforced this bilingual approach: he provided lines 212–220 of the second book of the Iliad with a Latin translation and a grammatical commentary in catechistic format.180 Many other Greek grammars followed: for example, the Institutiones in linguam Graecam by a humanist and university professor from Brabant, Clenardus (Nicolaas Cleynaerts, 1493/4–1542), first published in Louvain in 1530 and printed more than three hundred times;181 and De omnibus Graecae linguae grammaticae partibus by Franciscus Vergara, published in Alcalá in 1537. Other important tools for the study of Greek were the lexica. The so-called Philoxenus, probably of the end of the sixth century, survived in a few libraries of South Italy and had no circulation outside of this area. The first humanists were forced to do without lexica and dictionaries and to rely on their personal word lists. In 1440, Guarino
the complex technical vocabulary of Greek grammar could use this book, which is entirely in Greek; see Wilson 1992, 136. 180 See Förstel 1992, 189–193. 181 According to Stevens (1950, 246), Clenardus’ grammar was successful thanks to its “clarity, conciseness, and the convenient arrangement of materials.” Clenardus also supplemented the texts he read in class with interlinear translations into Latin, word lists, and other tools to make learning easier. His Meditationes Graecanicae in artem grammaticam, often published together with the grammar book, consisted in a word-by-word translation and parsing of a letter of Basil the Great. In this way, Clenardus intended to create “a Christian basis for Greek teaching” (Grafton-Jardine 1986, 112). Clenardus’ grammar, which taught Greek in Latin, became the standard classroom text in sixteenth-century Venetian and Jesuit schools: see Grendler 1989, 265 f. Clenardus also wrote a Hebrew grammar (Louvain 1529) and a Latin grammar (Braga 1538). On Clenardus’ Latin grammar and pedagogy, see Swiggers 2001.
130
chapter two
composed a Greek-Latin lexicon, now lost, and a Dictionarium Graecum, doubtfully identified by Pertusi with the lexicon contained in Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS. philol. gr. 319.182 Greek-Latin lexica were also composed by Giovanni Crastone (Vocabulista), Varinus Favorinus Camers, and Giovanni Tortelli.183 8. Teaching Greek in Humanist Schools Poggio Bracciolini’s rediscovery of the complete text of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria (1416) restored to European culture the most complete pedagogical treatise of antiquity. The relevant place that Quintilian assigned to Greek in the education of the future orator justified, and even encouraged, the inclusion of Greek in the humanist school curriculum. In their letters, treatises, and speeches, humanist scholars often emphasized the cultural link between Greek and Latin, which offered the ideological framework for a Greco-Latin education: no good knowledge of Latin is possible without Greek, and vice versa.184 The most important document on theory and practice of the study of Greek in the Renaissance is the treatise De ordine docendi et studendi, written in Verona in 1459 by Battista Guarini, the son of Guarino. 182
662 f.
Pertusi 1980–1981, 198 n. 79. See also Sabbadini 1922, 33; and Thiermann 1996,
183 The lemmata contained in most of these lexica were derived from Byzantine lexica and explained with no reference to Greek authors. On Crastone’s lexicon, printed in 1478—and therefore the first printed Greek-Latin dictionary—see Stevens 1950, 242; Thiermann 1996, 664 ff.; Botley 2002, 203; and Sandy 2004, 188. Tortelli’s lexicon is incomplete; within an approximate alphabetical order similar to some medieval lexica, the words are grouped together according to their roots, suffixes, and meanings; see Cortesi 1979, 477 ff. On medieval lexica, see Weijers 1989, 149f. 184 Among the many examples (above, n. 4), see Gregorius Tiphernas in his oration on literary studies (Müllner 1899, 182 ff.): Nam, ut nec ego eos probo, qui Latina omnia a Graecis deducunt, sic eos vitupero, qui nihil volunt ab illis derivatum. […] Sed quidam, cum Graeca ignorent, […] dolent, insaniunt et, ne quid sibi deesse videatur, illa tamquam non necessaria damnant et insectantur; Ludovico Carbone in his oration for Guarino’s death (December 4, 1460; Müllner 1899, 92): Guarino would never have reached his outstanding knowledge of Latin (plenissimam latinae linguae cognitionem) nisi etiam Graecos fontes hauriret, a quibus omnia nostra fluxerunt; Francesco Barbaro in his letter to Jacopo Foscari (Müllner 1899, 208): Qui sine Graecorum admixtione se plane in Latinis eruditum putet, is magno se in errore versari […] Discat exemplo maiorum, quorum nullum videmus aliquod dignum memoria monumentum reliquisse, qui non aeque Graeca tenuerit atque Latina; etc. See also Pier Paolo Vergerio, De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus studiis adulescentiae 39 (Kallendorf 2002, 46–47; Woodward 19635, 106); and Enea Silvio Piccolomini, De liberorum educatione 42 and 61 (Kallendorf 2002, 182–183 and 208–209).
the greek curriculum
131
After emphasizing the importance of a thorough study of Latin grammar and of regular written and oral exercises, Battista proclaims the impossibility of a complete mastery of Latin “without a knowledge of Greek” (absque litterarum graecarum scientia: 15, 16). A great part of the Latin vocabulary, in fact, derives from Greek, and Latin literature has a Greek origin (17). Battista also includes some practical rules for teaching Greek. Despite his unconditional admiration for antiquity, Battista is forced to admit that Quintilian’s advice that children be taught Greek before Latin is inapplicable to modern times, when Latin itself is no longer a colloquial language (18): Quo pacto eam linguam discere possint, pro ingenioli nostri iudicio commostrabimus. Nec sane me fugit Quintilianum ut ab illis sumatur exordium praecipere, quod mihi ea ratione difficilius videtur: quia, cum ea nobis lingua naturalis non sit, nisi prius aliquod loquendi principium ex nostra habuerint, in ea perdiscenda pueri nescio quo modo deferentur. Atque ita mihi persuadeo Quintilianum sic praecepisse, quia suis temporibus latinam linguam omnes haberent, nec in ea tanta elaboratione opus esse. [I shall now indicate, as far as the judgement of my poor wit allows, how students may learn Greek. To be sure, it does not escape me that Quintilian instructs us to begin with the Greek authors. This seems too difficult to me for the following reason: Greek is not a natural language for us, so unless some beginning is first made in Latin, I do not know how children may be brought to learn Greek. So I persuade myself that Quintilian gave this advice because in his time everyone knew Latin, and there was no need to take great pains with it.]185
Students must acquire Greek after the basics in Latin (postea quam nostrarum fundamenta contingerant). Whereas the Greeks used to teach their language in a “confused and disorderly way” (confuse et inordinate), Battista recommends the use of a textbook, in particular the abridged version of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata by his father Guarino. Students should learn the general rules of inflection186 and memorize the irregular verbs “like the back of their hands” (tamquam ungues),187 stimu185 For this passage and the other quotations from Guarini’s work, I follow the text and the translation by Kallendorf 2002, 280–281. 186 Battista seems to encourage an active approach to the study of language, when he suggests that students “derive the tenses of the verbs from a given general principle” (verborum tempora generali quadam praeceptione derivare), as opposed to the widespread habit of learning forms by rote. However, the old custom persisted, as demonstrated by a letter of the Venetian Agostino Valiero (1531–1606). Valiero maintains that students should devote their time to learning by heart the basic rules (praecepta) of the Greek and Latin languages and should rely on the observations of scholars rather than try to observe phenomena by themselves (Müllner 1899, 285). 187 Kallendorf 2002, 282–283. Perhaps Battista had in mind a mnemonic device
132
chapter two
lated by frequent and careful questioning from their teachers (frequenti et diligenti praeceptoris interrogatione). When pupils master grammar on a decent level, they can read the Greek authors (19): first, the easier prose writers, in order for them to strengthen their command of grammar; then Homer, who is the prince of poets (poetarum principem), not difficult to learn (ad discendum non difficilis), and a source to all Latin writers, especially Virgil; and finally, the other authors of epic, tragedy, and comedy. Battista recommends that pupils also improve their Greek vocabulary (20). Writing is considered more effective than memory for learning Greek because of its complex orthography. For this reason, Battista strongly encourages students of Greek to translate from and into Latin: Ubi vero aliquantum progressi fuerint, tunc vel ex Graeco in Latinum vel ex Latino in Graecum vertere incipient; quo genere exercitationis proprietatem splendoremque verborum et promptitudinem linguae facillime comparabunt; multa enim quae legentem forte fallerent, transferentem nullo modo fugere possunt. [Indeed, when they have made some progress, they must then begin to translate either from Greek into Latin or from Latin into Greek. This kind of exercise readily yields a vocabulary marked by propriety and distinction as well as facility and readiness of tongue. For many things which may be invisible to a reader are impossible for a translator to overlook.]188
When learning Greek by themselves, students can use bilingual texts, in particular sacred books, with a faithful Latin translation, a method that, as Battista says, proved effective for “certain men” (quosdam: a possible reference to Ambrogio Traversari, who learned Greek with the help of bilingual copies of the Psalms and the New Testament).189 common in schools, the “mnemotechnical hands”: see Carruthers 1990, 19. An example is offered by the elementary Latin grammar in the fifteenth-century MS. C 678 of Uppsala (see above, 59 n. 178). For declensions, the anonymous decorator has represented the endings of the singular on the palm and those of the plural on the upper part of the bent fingers of a left hand: the thumb is for the nominative, the forefinger for the genitive, etc. More complex is the representation of verbal conjugations. Pupils probably used to write forms of inflection on their left hand. See Stolt 1979, 315–319, with plates 2–4; Asztalos 1989, 1. 20; and Gehl 1993, 89. The “symbolic-topological method” of locating concepts or images on a well-known sequence of real or fictitious places (loca) was recommended by Cicero, De oratore 2. 86–87, etc., and also in the Rhetorica ad Herennium attributed to Cicero, 3. 17. 30ff. On this subject, Bede wrote a treatise, De loquela digitorum (PL 90, 685–702). 188 Kallendorf 2002, 283–285. 189 In a letter to Francesco Coppola (quoted by Sabbadini 1922, 18–20; see also
the greek curriculum
133
It is easy, in fact, to pick up Greek vocabulary through a comparison with Latin (32). Reading each sentence aloud improves blood circulation, holds the reader’s attention, and makes it easier to understand and retain the text (33–34). Here Battista takes the advice that his father Guarino had given to the Marquis of Ferrara, Leonello d’Este, in one of his letters. In turn, Guarino had attributed it to his teacher, Manuel Chrysoloras.190 Battista’s work, both theoretical and practical, actually describes the methods used in his father’s school in Ferrara. On the other hand, there is no specific evidence of the way Greek was actually taught in most humanist schools. The method of the first Greek teachers is indirectly documented by their students’ notes. Of course, students had to learn the Greek alphabet first. The writing of Chrysoloras, their teacher, was in fact the model for the Greek writing of Leonardo Bruni, Palla Strozzi, Guarino Guarini, and others. Then came the study of grammar. MS. gr. 245 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris allows us to glimpse the methodology followed in classes. Fols. 77–87 contain a fragment of Calecas’ Greek grammar,191 introduced by a summary of the whole work in Latin. This Latin summary, perhaps written by Coluccio Salutati,192 seems to correspond to the first, introductory stage of the study of Greek: only after some time, when the student was able to read and understand Greek, would he approach the Greek text of the grammar book. The fact that, in the summary, Greek words are transliterated completely or written with alternating Latin and Stinger 1977, 19ff.), Traversari described the stages of his study of Greek. He began with a Psalter with the Latin translation alongside the Greek text: he compared each Greek word with its Latin equivalent and memorized it (Id igitur cum Latino conferre incepi atque notare singula tum verba, tum nomina et reliquas orationis partes, quidque singula significarent mandare memoriae ac vim verborum omnium tenere quantum fas erat). He did the same with the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles. Finally, he was able to approach the much more complex secular texts. Traversari used the same method in his teaching of Greek: see Stinger 1977, 20. 190 Müllner 1899, 224 f. Battista, however, does not mention the codicillum, which his father recommended as a means of improving vocabulary (below, 140). 191 The manuscript, copied in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, comes from the library of Cardinal Mazarin. It also contains some dogmatic works, a selection from Hesiod and Xenophon, the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia, some essays on grammar—for example, Guarino’s De diphthongis—and a collection of letters. See Bernardinello 1971–1972, 207 n. 3. 192 A signature (Colucius) seems to confirm this hypothesis: see Bernardinello 1971– 1972, 210.
134
chapter two
Greek letters and sometimes entirely in Greek, shows a progressive acquisition of the Greek alphabet that, therefore, followed a first viva voce approach to the pronunciation and the rudiments of lexicon.193 Grafton and Jardine have called our attention to a commentary on Chrysoloras’ Erotemata by Ponticus Virunius. Virunius’ Erotemata Guarini cum multis additamentis et cum commentariis latinis, published in Ferrara in 1509, show what seems to have been the actual practice in humanist classrooms: the text often contains the exhortations that a teacher would address to his students.194 Virunius read the grammar book in class, gave the Latin translation of each sentence, and commented on it with remarks on pronunciation and grammar. Frequent repetition and the use of images and metaphors made learning easier. In some cases—for example, when dealing with the Greek article—Virunius felt free to refer to the Italian vernacular instead of Latin, which lacks a definite article.195 Virunius’ commentary shows that humanist Greek grammar was based on a “process of dilution” of Byzantine grammar, which made the teaching of Greek in the West “more compact and less rigorous,”196 but suitable for the demands of a Western audience. After the study of grammar from a manual, students had to practice the notions they had acquired. Under the guidance of their teacher, they read Greek texts and translated them into Latin. From 193 Here are some examples quoted by Bernardinello (1971–1972, 209, nos. 1, 2, and 3) from fol. 77v: (for Δημοσ$ νης) dimosteneos and dimostenus, dimosthenεϊ and dimostenei; βμα / tribunal; συγκρεmεναι (sic) / coniunctae; ametabola / immutabilia, dilonoti / videlicet, timi / honor. Students were also slowly introduced to the use of abbreviations, very common in Greek texts. For example (ibid.): μετ’ λγον (abbr.) / metoligon id est post paululum. 194 Grafton and Jardine (1986, 107 ff.) quote Virunius’ commentary on the first sentence of Erotemata (Ες πσα διαιρο:νται τ4 ε@κοσι τ σσαρα γρ(μματα; Ες δ2ο): (on διαιρο:νται) Esto bono animo, et noli nunc quaerere quomodo declinatur, quoniam postea scies per te ipsum [Be of good cheer and do not ask me right now how this is declined; you will know how to do it yourself later on]; (on ες δ2ο) est responsio discipuli, qui non nugatur in schola, quando praeceptor legit, sed notat, scribit diligenter omnia, et ideo doctus doctissime respondit… [This is the answer of the student who does not waste time in school when his teacher is lecturing, but takes notes, writes everything down very carefully, and therefore, being well taught, answers questions very well] (quotations and translations in Grafton-Jardine 1986, 107). 195 For example: “Τ( nihil facit, nam graeci ponunt articulos propter has causas: sicuti dicimus in genitivo poetae del, dativo poetae al, graeci ponunt illos articulos, qui el, del, al significant, et aliquando partim significat” [Τ( has no meaning. The Greeks use articles for this reason: just as we say in the genitive poetae del, in the dative poetae al, the Greeks use the articles that mean el, dal, al. It also sometimes means “some”] (quotation and translation in Grafton-Jardine 1986, 107). 196 Grafton-Jardine 1986, 110.
the greek curriculum
135
the letters and notes of some German young men who went to Italy at the end of the fifteenth century to study Greek, it appears that the teaching of Greek, after the first elements of grammar and syntax, followed several stages: at first, students worked on the Greek text with the help of a translation, preferably interlinear, and if possible with a dictionary. A further step was to undertake a translation of the text on one’s own. Finally, the student would be able to compose Greek texts. Copying Greek works was also a useful way of acquiring familiarity with the language.197 The syllabus of the Hellenistic γραμματικο, taken up by the Byzantines, included Homer, Hesiod, some lyric and epigrammatic poets (especially Pindar and Theocritus), the tragic poets, and Aristophanes for poetry; the fables of Aesop, the historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon), and the orators (especially Demosthenes) for prose. According to Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη (1, p. 42 Lallot), the reading of literary texts took place in six stages: the reading itself (*ν(γνωσις), the explanation of the text and of its tropoi ( ξγησις), the interpretation of rare and obscure words (γλωσσν … *πδοσις), the identification of the etymology of the words ( τυμολογας ε_ρησις), the establishing of analogies (*ναλογας κλογισμς), and the critical judgment (κρσις).198 However, because of the different linguistic abilities of nonnative speakers of Greek, Byzantine scholars who taught Greek in Italy had to introduce significant changes in the selection of elementary texts. Manuscripts and printed editions show that the first Greek readings in humanist schools were the New Testament, Aesop’s fables, passages from Plutarch’s Moralia, the dialogues of Lucian, and the speeches of Demosthenes and Isocrates. As for poetry, students read Homer, Hesiod, or Theognis, some tragedies, Aristophanes, Theocritus or Pindar, and often epigrams from the Planudean Anthology as well. The availability of texts must have been a relevant factor in the teachers’ choices. Printers tried to meet the demands of teachers and students with small and cheap editions of Greek literary works, often complemented with a Latin translation, and with anthologies of easy readings.199 197 See Mondrain 1992. On translations of Greek texts produced in humanist schools, see Cortesi 1995, 151ff. Like their Latin colleagues, Byzantine teachers had their students exercise by means of the traditional progymnasmata, which included fictitious speeches and letters; see Hunger 1989, 78. 198 See Lallot’s commentary, on pages 73–82 of his edition. 199 See Grafton-Jardine 1986, 110. On Lucian in Renaissance classrooms, see Marsh
136
chapter two
First, the teacher expounded the life of the author and summarized the content of the literary work. Then he read the text in short sections and translated each of them word-for-word. He also gave an interpretation of the text, underlined the historical and mythological data it conveyed, and focused on its lexicon, style, and rhetorical figures.200 The parsing of each word of the text, however, absorbed most of the teachers’ energies: generally, Greek teachers applied the familiar method of epimerisms and schedography. For example, the marginal and interlinear glosses on five of Lucian’s dialogues in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Urbinas gr. 121, copied in Florence before 1403, are notes taken from Chrysoloras’ lectures. These notes mainly concern elementary morphology, in particular the distinction and the definition of the eight parts of speech. As in Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, syntax receives very little attention.201 MS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. gr. 3096 contains Politian’s own notes for his lectures on the Iliad and the Odyssey, held at the Florentine Studium from 1485 to 1490. Politian commented extensively on the grammar of the two poems, using an
1998, 7–14; and Deligiannis 2006, 31–61. The use of Lucian for beginners in Greek and before all other authors was recommended by Erasmus in his De ratione studii; see Stevens 1950, 243. Chrysoloras taught and translated in his school mainly prose texts of pagan authors; according to Hankins (2002, 178–181), Chrysoloras’ choice was dictated by obvious pedagogical reasons (prose is easier to read than poetry) and especially by the fact that, within a context dominated by religious controversies, analyzing ancient Greek secular works was less dangerous than reading religious works. 200 Some letters by Guarino Guarini and some manuscripts used in his cultural environment offer clear examples of Guarino’s method of reading Greek. First, he read the text: for example, part of Sophocles’ Ajax 552, χ(ρις χ(ριν τκτει, which sounded like charis charin ticti in the Byzantine pronunciation. Secondly, he translated it into Latin: gratia gratiam parit. Then he commented on it briefly, comparing the Greek poet Sophocles with the Roman Ovid: Quod nos dicimus ‘ex amore amorem gigni’ quodque Ovidius sensit, cum dixit: ‘ut ameris, amabilis esto’ (Ars Am. 2. 107). Guarino also practiced translation from Latin into Greek: Cicero’s aut bibe aut abi (Tusc. 5. 118) is translated i pine i apithi (] πνε ] Uπι$ι). Guarino’s commentary reads: Lex olim fuerat in Graecorum conviviis ut adeuntes vel biberent vel abirent; quam M. Cicero elegantissime, ut cetera, quinto Tusculanarum libro ad humanae vitae conditionem transtulit, admonens omnes quas vita ferret molestias aut fortiter ferendas aut morte fugiendas. See Sabbadini 1922, 21. 201 The Urbinas manuscript, which contains some of Lucian’s dialogues, was written by an anonymous Florentine pupil of Chrysoloras. The pupil copied the text from MS. Vat. gr. 87, which belonged to Chrysoloras himself, and filled the wide interlinear and marginal spaces with glosses in Greek and a partial Latin translation. The pupil’s little acquaintance with the Greek language and the “oral” character of Chrysoloras’ teaching explain the many mistakes interspersed in the Greek and Latin texts. See Berti 1985 and 1987; Förstel 1992, 61 f.; and Deligiannis 2006, 49f.
the greek curriculum
137
impressive number and variety of Hellenistic, late antique, and Byzantine works on grammar (Theodosius, Apollonius Dyscolus, Herodian, Moschopoulos, etc.), together with the grammars by Gaza and Lascaris, but no specific work on syntax.202 In 1493, Girolamo Amaseo, a twenty-six-year-old Paduan student of the arts, ran away from home to go to Florence and learn Greek. He described his experience in a long letter to his brother Gregorio. This letter constitutes one of the most interesting documents on the teaching of Greek in the Renaissance.203 Girolamo attended the school of Varinus Favorinus Camers (Guarinus), a pupil of Politian. Students began by reading, annotating, and summarizing the elementary textbook, Lascaris’ grammar (Constantinum omnem primo pernotavi […]; libellum mira dispositione ex Constantino, excerptis quibusdam necessariis, confeci). In order to practice his Greek writing, Girolamo copied (excribere) parts of Aristophanes’ Plutus: a particularly difficult exercise, considering the quantity of abbreviations and ligatures in manuscripts and in the first printed editions. Girolamo’s Greek class included sixteen students: a fifty-year-old poet, some thirty- of forty-year-old men, boys, and young men (iuniores […] ephebi). Some of them, like Girolamo himself, were from other cities. Besides attending a very intense study program, students had to cope with a lot of practical problems: bad and expensive food and accommodations, cohabitation with other people, and a lack of furniture in their dwellings. Every day, Varinus read thirty lines of the Odyssey in the morning, about twenty lines of Aristophanes’ Plutus in the afternoon, and forty lines of the Iliad in the evening.204 For each sentence, Varinus gave a word-for-word translation (verbum 202 According to Cesarini Martinelli (1992, 272), the fact that Politian used both grammar treatises based on the ancient classification of nouns in fifty-six declensions (Theodosius and Moschopoulos) and works that adopted the new ten-declension order (Gaza and Lascaris) added “a historical dimension” to his teaching of grammar and allowed him to “recover the best of the Byzantine exegetical tradition” (my translation). 203 Girolamo’s letter—handed down in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. A 59 inf., fols. 1–6—has been published by Pozzi (1966, 192–201). 204 In his preface to his edition of Aristophanes’ comedies (1498), Aldus explains that Aristophanes was taught at an elementary level because it was considered equivalent to the Latin Terence. MS. 31, 19 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence, which contains Plutus only, may be related to Varinus’ course. The text is full of interlinear glosses written by a fifteenth-century hand. The fact that even very simple words are translated reveals the work of a beginner, most probably of North Italian origin, because he often omits the reduplicated consonants; see Pozzi 1966, 214f.
138
chapter two
e verbo transferens) and then the rules of inflection (verborum et nominum inflexionem, si duriuscula est, reperit), etymologies, and figures of speech. After a second reading, Varinus questioned students about his lecture. A comparison of the notes taken by the pupils of the fifteenthcentury Byzantine and Italian teachers of Greek with those taken in sixteenth-century schools clearly reveals a shift of emphasis from rhetoric and style to moral and philosophical issues, even though elementary grammar still occupied a privileged place.205 The most demanding task facing students of Greek, however, was the translation of the Greek text into Latin. Chrysoloras encouraged a word-byword translation (ad verbum), but only as a preliminary tool, useful in the study of the language. At a more advanced stage, he promoted the more elaborate translation ad sententiam, faithful to the content and respectful of the style of the original.206 Unlike medieval versions from Greek into Latin, these translations were the result of a systematic study of Greek and reflected “a new philosophy of language, centered on words (verba) rather than on objects (res).”207 This meant a return to the ancient concept of translating as imitari and aemulari, although within a cultural milieu remarkably different from the bilingual environment of antiquity.208 Obviously, within the large number of Latin translations of Greek texts produced in the Renaissance, we should distinguish between those made for purely pedagogical purposes and those made to restore the original texts of the Greek writers (philosophers, scientists, theologians, or historians), and in this way to get rid of the many misunderstandings of the “barbarian” medieval translators such as, for example, the many translations of Plato’s texts made in the Florentine Neoplatonic circles (Bruni, Decembrio, Ficino) and the project of a library of Greek texts in Latin conceived by Pope Nicholas V. See Grafton’s observations (1981, 40ff.) on the school of Claude Mignault (Claudius Minos), who taught the humanities in Paris in the 1570s. 206 On Chrysoloras’ theory of translation—followed and codified by his pupil Leonardo Bruni, who introduced the new term traducere—see Weiss 1977, 236 f.; and Wilson 1992, 11ff. However, Berti (1998, 91 f.) has pointed out that the first humanist translations from Greek, although related to Chrysoloras’ school, did not represent a programmatic objective in Chrysoloras’ teaching: “L’impresa delle traduzioni oratorie, oggi diremmo letterarie, nasceva da dinamiche che erano tutte latine.” On humanist translations in general, see Sabbadini 1922, 23–26; Gualdo Rosa 1985; and Botley 2004. 207 Gualdo Rosa 1985, 181 (my translation). 208 Berti 1998, 87. 205
the greek curriculum
139
Whereas the importance of the scientific and philosophical translations has been acknowledged for a long time, many translations ad usum scholae made by teachers and students of the Renaissance still need to be studied. Over the course of time, the translation of Greek texts into Latin became the main purpose of the study of Greek. In spite of the development of Greek studies, Latin translations continued to be the most effective way to spread Greek culture in the West. In any case, the approach to Greek literature, both direct and indirect, had a huge impact on the burgeoning literature in vernacular languages.209 9. Schools of Greek The many texts and editions circulating in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries show that, by that time, Greek had become a part of the Western school curriculum. In fact, it was a slow and difficult process: in spite of the first humanists’ enthusiam, it took about one century for Greek studies to become permanently rooted in Western culture.210 The most famous schools of the Renaissance, those of Guarino da Verona in Ferrara and of Vittorino da Feltre in Mantua, were organized as boarding schools and attended by children of the North Italian aristocracy and upper middle classes. The boarding school or contubernium, in fact, represented the practical fulfillment of the humanist ideal of a global education, which involved not only learning, but also a cultured lifestyle.211 Within the traditional curriculum of the liberal
See Grafton and Jardine 1986, 120f. For example, Coluccio Salutati and Leonardo Bruni had to defend Greek studies against the attacks of the most conservative sector of the Catholic clergy, who were worried about a possible revival of paganism. In particular, Salutati and Bruni fought off the critiques of two Florentine priests, Giovanni da San Miniato and Giovanni Dominici, by using St. Basil’s twenty-second homily on the method of profiting from pagan literature. See the texts collected by Garin 1949, 17–45. See also Witt 1983, 408ff.; and Hankins 2002, 187. 211 Sani (1999, 349) emphasizes the experimental character of humanist schools and explains them as responses to the demands of emerging social classes for which the pedagogical offers from cities and states were inadequate. The pioneer of the “collegial” system, which in the late fourteenth century was extended to Italian universities, was Giovanni Conversini of Ravenna (1343–1408), who taught in several Italian cities (see Witt 1995, 186ff.). His model certainly exerted a great influence on the educational projects of three of his students, Gasparino Barzizza (1360–1430), 209 210
140
chapter two
arts, both Guarino and Vittorino assigned an important role to classical culture in general and to Greek in particular. Guarino Guarini (1370–1460) was a professional scholar, interested in all fields of classical civilization. He studied Latin in Padua and, between 1403 and 1408, Greek in Constantinople; then he taught both languages in Venice, Bologna, Florence, and Verona. In 1429, Guarino moved to Ferrara because Marquis Niccolò d’Este entrusted him with the education of his son Leonello. There he founded a school that became the core of a public Studium, which was transformed into a university in 1442.212 Guarino’s school included three stages of education: elementary, grammatical, and rhetorical. Some letters by Guarino and the treatise of his son Battista are our main sources on Guarino’s pedagogical activity. After learning to read, to write, and to master the first rudiments of Latin grammar (probably on Ianua), pupils at the second stage perfected their Latin morphology and learned syntax from Guarino’s Regulae grammaticales. Guarino also emphasized the importance of oral compositions in Latin, called themata, and encouraged students to build their vocabulary by writing down unknown words in a notebook (codicillum) and ordering them into categories of meaning. Greek was probably taught side-by-side with Latin and approached through Guarino’s abridged edition of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata: pupils read aloud, memorized rules of grammar, and did their exercises. Guarino regarded the study of the Greek authors as indispensable for Latin literature; thus, Virgil could be read only through Homer, Cicero through Demosthenes, etc. Greek texts were also used to learn sciences: for example, Strabo for geography and Ptolemy for astronomy. Greek, however, was considered essentially a written language: Guarino’s students translated from Greek into Latin and vice-versa, but apparently did not practice oral composition in Greek.213
Vittorino da Feltre, and Guarino da Verona. See Kohl 1988, 15. On Barzizza’s ideas and pedagogy, see Mercer 1979; and Marcucci 2002, 25–29, 46–48. 212 On Guarino’s life and work, see in particular Woodward 19674, 26ff.; and Wilson 1992, 42–47. On culture in Ferrara during the Renaissance and the role of the Este family, see Garin 1967, 72, 81–94; and Gundersheimer 1973, 81ff. 213 On Guarino’s pedagogy—which followed Quintilian’s project (in particular, Inst. or. 1. 4. 1; 9.1)—see Woodward 19674, 38ff.; Sabbadini 1922, 40–43; Garin 19762, 126ff.; Grafton-Jardine 1986, 1–17; Kohl 1988, 17 f.; Grendler 1989, 126–129; and Sani 1999, 355–361. The codicillum had been already recommended by Chrysoloras: see Bolgar 1954, 87.
the greek curriculum
141
After studying Latin in Padua with Gasparino Barzizza, Vittorino da Feltre (1378–1446) attended Guarino’s Greek lectures in Venice between 1415 and 1417. In 1423, Gianfrancesco Gonzaga, the Marquis of Mantua, entrusted him with the education of his children. In Mantua, Vittorino founded a boarding school called Casa Gioiosa or Ca’ Zoiosa, “The Joyful House,” and later Ca’ Zocosa, “The Playful House,” probably to emphasize a return to the Latin term for “school,” ludus. In Vittorino’s school, the children of the Marquis and boys from every social class were educated together; classes were attended, for example, by the Venetian aristocrat Francesco Barbaro, the Duke of Urbino Federigo da Montefeltro, and the philologist Lorenzo Valla. Vittorino directed his school for twenty-two years, until his death.214 Vittorino’s pedagogical program was largely inspired by Quintilian’s Institutio and Plutarch’s Περ' παδων *γωγς. His attitude toward education was much more moralistic and religious than Guarino’s: the study of classical literatures was a means and not an end in itself. In Vittorino’s “global” humanism, which reconciled classical tradition with Christianity, ancient Greek language and literature occupied a special place. In order to emphasize the unity of ancient civilization, Latin and Greek were studied together. Vittorino thought, in fact, that the knowledge of each language would make the other easier (quod utraque alterius cognitione facilior videretur).215 Vittorino himself taught both languages; for Greek, however, he relied on the help of native Greeks, to whom he offered room and board at his school. He hired, for example, George Trapezuntius in 1430, and, as already seen, Theodore Gaza between 1443 and 1446. Both earned a living as teachers of Greek and copyists of manuscripts for the school.216 214 Vittorino has left only a short treatise on Latin orthography and some letters (see Cortesi 1980, 77). His life, thought, and pedagogy can be reconstructed from the works and the letters of his friends and pupils: Francesco Prendilaqua, Francesco da Castiglione, Bartolomeo Platina, and Sassolo da Prato (Pesenti 1924, 255 ff.; texts and Italian translations in Garin 1958). On Vittorino, see Woodward 19635, 5–92, and 19674, 10ff.; Pesenti 1924, 1925; Garin 1949, 165–178; Müller 1969, 37–39 and 1984, 44–57; Agazzi 1981; Vasoli 1981; Mariani Canova 1981; Kohl 1988, 16f.; Grendler 1989, 129–132; Wilson 1992, 34–42; and Sani 1999, 351–354. 215 Platina in Garin 1958, 681. In a poem for Vittorino, the Venetian Gregorio Correr praises his “mixing of Greek with Latin” (miscere Graeca Latinis); see Pesenti 1924, 256. 216 Francesco da Castiglione in Garin 1958, 546. Also, Prendilacqua (Garin 1958, 600) mentions the presence of librarii graeci latinique at Vittorino’s school; both Greek and Latin texts, in fact, appear in the inventory of the books that one of his students, Gian Pietro da Lucca, borrowed from Vittorino on June 12, 1445 (published by
142
chapter two
In Vittorino’s school, Latin was the language of everyday conversation. As for Greek, Vittorino used Chrysoloras’ Erotemata in Guarino’s abridged and translated version.217 Greek classes were taught in Latin and quite early in the curriculum: when describing, in his Hodoeporicon, his visit to Vittorino’s school in 1433, Ambrogio Traversari mentions that the daughter of Marquis Gonzaga, Cecilia, already was able to faultlessly read, write, and decline Greek words at the age of seven.218 At a more advanced level, Virgil and Homer, Cicero and Demosthenes, Seneca’s tragedies and the Greek tragic poets were studied comparatively: the study of Greek literature had the main purpose of drawing parallels and complementing the reading of Latin authors. Pupils also approached Greek poetry through Hesiod, Pindar, Aristophanes, and Theocritus, and Greek prose through some historians, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and some Christian writers.219 Reading aloud, memorizing, and reciting the text previously explained by the instructor were the presuppositions of the methodology that Vittorino applied to both classical languages.220 Vittorino’s school remained an isolated example and did not survive long after the death of its founder. Although Ca’ Zocosa “did not produce any theoretical statement of educational principles or significant works of scholarship,”221 Vittorino succeeded in his experiment of bringing Greek education in general, and Greek language and literature in particular, into the school curriculum of a secondary school.222 Some sixty years after Vittorino’s death, Pope Leo X de’ Medici (1513–1521) took up a project of his father, Lorenzo the Magnificent, and founded in Rome the so-called Gymnasium Caballini montis, located on the slope of the Quirinale hill. The Gymnasium was the result of a broad and well-constructed plan of the Florentine pope—a pupil of Cortesi, 1980, 88–95). Other copyists employed by Vittorino were Girard of Patras and Peter the Cretan. See Pesenti 1925; Monfasani 1976, 24; and Wilson 1992, 35. 217 See Woodward 19674, 17. “Erotemata quedam” are in fact listed in the book inventory (see the previous note and Cortesi 1980, 90); see below, 203 n. 122. 218 Garin 1958, 704. Traversari was also impressed with Vittorino’s library; on Vittorino’s book collection, see Pesenti 1925, 15f.; and Wilson 1992, 35–40. 219 Sassolo da Prato in Garin 1958, 524; Platina in Garin 1958, 688. See also Woodward 19635, 49; and Wilson 1992, 35 f. 220 See Woodward 19635, 39ff. 221 Wilson 1992, 40. 222 Wilson 1992, 41. See also Woodward 19635, 224; and Pesenti 1924, 243. The Italian “liceo classico” (high school focusing on the humanities) is still largely modeled on Vittorino’s educational project.
the greek curriculum
143
Demetrius Chalcondyles and Janus Lascaris—to revive Greek studies in Rome. Leo gave the Cretan Marcus Musurus, a professor in Padua, the job of bringing to Rome ten or twelve Greek boys: they had to be educated in both Greek and Latin, together with Western boys.223 At first, the initiative was successful. Lascaris and Musurus taught Greek and Benedetto Lampridio of Cremona taught Latin. A publishing house was attached to the school, at the house of Angelo Colocci.224 Lascaris planned to found similar schools in Florence and Milan, but a lack of funds and the death of Leo X (1521) prevented him from carrying out his project. The Roman Gymnasium and the publishing house ceased all activities soon after 1519.225 Until the Jesuits made Greek a fundamental element of their syllabus,226 the study of Greek remained limited to a restricted élite of 223 Between 1490 and 1492, Lorenzo de’ Medici “the Magnificent” (1449–1492) entrusted the Greek emigré Janus Lascaris with the mission of bringing to Florence children from Greece. The project was abandoned after Lorenzo’s death; see Pagliaroli 2004, 215 ff. On the Greek Gymnasium in Rome, see Fanelli 1961; Manoussakas 1963; Barberi-Cerulli 1972; Tsirpanlis 1983, 507–511; Saladin 20042, 102–122; and Pagliaroli 2004 (with extensive bibliography). The cultural level of the Greek emigrés in Rome was considerably high: they included representatives of the Unionist party, such as Cardinal Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Gregory Melissenos, as well as members of the imperial family (e.g., Thomas Palaeologus, a brother of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI, who was granted an annual pension by Pope Pius II). On Greek culture in Rome during the Renaissance, see D’Amico 1983, 97; Stinger 1985; and Rowland 1998. 224 On Musurus’ activity in Rome, see Cataldi Palau 2004, 338–340. On Colocci’s commitment to promote Greek studies in Rome, see Rowland 1998, 185–189. 225 In 1518, after Musurus’ death and Lascaris’ departure from Rome, Arsenios Apostolis became the principal of the Gymnasium, but held his appointment for a very short time. The last books printed “ad Caballinum montem” bear the date of 1519. See Fanelli 1961, 390; Geanakoplos 1962, 186; and the list and description of books printed by the press of the Gymnasium in Saladin 20042, 119–122. On the Greek Gymnasium in Florence and Milan, see Pagliaroli 2004, 273–278. Little is known about the activity of the Greek students of the Roman Gymnasium after the college was closed: some of them became teachers and scholars in Rome or in Venice, whereas others returned to the Greek areas under Venetian rule, where they “created disturbances” in support of the Union of Florence. See Geanakoplos 1962, 45 n. 13; and Tsirpanlis 1983, 510f. 226 The first Jesuit school was founded in Sicily in 1548. Conceived as an experiment in mass education, Jesuit schools ended up teaching upper- and middle-class boys from ten to sixteen years old, with a background in Latin. After two preparatory years, pupils learned Greek grammar and metrics during the last three classes of a five-year course. Students learned Greek morphology from Clenardus’ grammar and later from the Institutiones de octo partibus orationis syntaxi et prosodia Graecorum by the Jesuit Jacob Gretser (first edition: Ingolstadt 1593). Gretser’s grammar was used in Jesuit schools until the nineteenth century. Pupils practiced their grammar by
144
chapter two
students: in particular, to those who could afford to continue their studies beyond a fair knowledge of Latin required in everyday life. The three cases here described show that the history of the revival of Greek studies in the West included both brilliant successes and disappointing failures. As Grendler remarks, “the number of humanists fluent in Greek […] and the number of students learning Greek may have been too small. One doubts if many more learned Greek elsewhere [than in Italy] in the late fifteenth or sixteenth centuries.” For a long time, in fact, “the study of Greek lingered at the periphery of the Latin syllabus […] Competence in Greek remained the province of scholars, not the goal of schools […] Mastering Greek did not seem worth the effort to the vast majority of Italian schoolboys, teachers, and parents.”227 Moreover, until the second half of the fifteenth century, very few Western scholars could claim to have a good knowledge of Greek. In general, the level of teachers and students was not high, as seen in the many mistakes and misunderstandings that can be found in their translations into Latin. Before the fall of the Byzantine Empire, even after Chrysoloras’ teaching in Italy, a stay in Constantinople was the best way to acquire a good knowledge of Greek for those who could afford it: for example, Guarino, Rinuccio Aretino, Francesco Filelfo, Giovanni Aurispa, Giovanni Tortelli, and Gregorius Tiphernas. Probably, some of these scholars also attended Byzantine universities, such as the Catholicon Mouseion;228 they contibuted to transplanting into Italy
reading some of Aesop’s fables and Isocrates’ To Nicocles, as well as passages from Pindar, Demosthenes, and other authors. The Jesuits’ Greek curriculum is described in the documents collected in the four volumes of the Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Iesu (ed. by L. Lukács, Romae 1965, 1. 99, 106, 175 f.; 2. 69, 71, 649f.; etc.). On Jesuit education, see Grendler 1989, 372 ff.; O’Malley 1993, 200ff.; Loach 2006; and De Torraca 2006, 221 f. 227 Grendler 1989, 125, 128. Cristoforo Landino (1424–1498) represents a striking case. Landino lectured on Cicero, Virgil, Horace, and other Latin authors at the Studium Florentinum, where he held the chair of rhetoric and poetry for about forty years. From a lack of references to Homer in his lectures on Virgil, it may be inferred, as Kallendorf suggests (1989, 144f.), that Landino did not know enough Greek to approach the Homeric text. 228 The Catholicon Mouseion, or Mouseion of the Xenon (Μουσε>ον το: Ξεννος), was founded at the end of the fourteenth century. Little is known about its curriculum and teaching. Among its teachers, sources mention George Chrysococces, John Chortasmenos, John Chrysoloras, George Scholarios, John Argyropoulos, and Michael Apostolis; Theodore Gaza and George Trapezuntius may have also taught there. See Staïkos 1998 [1989], 178–180.
the greek curriculum
145
the methods and contents of Byzantine education, which they had absorbed through direct contact with Greek teachers and students. The situation improved significantly with the migration of many Byzantine scholars to Italy around 1453. Unlike the first Greeks who had taught in Italy, these were mostly professional teachers. The opportunities to learn Greek multiplied and the quality of teaching improved: schools of Greek were founded in most Italian cities and chairs of Greek were established in the major universities. Politian was the first scholar educated exclusively in Italy; he rivaled the Byzantines for his knowledge of ancient Greek.229 The creation of Greek libraries and the invention of printing also contributed to the establishment of a market for Greek literary texts and schoolbooks. The death of Cardinal Bessarion, in 1472, deprived Greek emigrés of their great protector. However, during the last decade of the fifteenth century, a last generation of Greek teachers began to teach in Italy. Venice and Padua, along with Florence, became important centers of Greek studies. Teaching and translating were no longer the main tasks of these scholars: most of them—Arsenios Apostolis, Marcus Musurus, Demetrius Ducas, John Gregoropoulos, Janus Lascaris, Nicholas Vlastos, Zacharias Calliergis, etc.—also worked as supervisors of the printing of Greek texts.230 The sort of collective enthusiasm for Greek studies that had made Girolamo Amaseo and his classmates run to Florence ended at the beginning of the sixteenth century, with the death of the last Byzantine teachers of Greek. The outbreak of new wars and the economic crisis had relevant consequences on culture. A re-evaluation of the serious and austere Latin tradition was progressively gaining ground at the expense of Greek culture, which was considered more frivolous and pagan, and therefore ideologically more dangerous. According to Burckhardt, Greek scholarship in Italy decayed strikingly after 1520: were it not for Northerners like Erasmus, the Stephani, Guillaume Budé, etc., Greek studies in the West would have been short-lived.231 Actually, the teaching of Greek in Padua, Rome, See Hankins 2001, 1257. On Politian’s scholarship, see Wilson 1992, 100–113. See Monfasani 1990, 54–56. 231 Burckhardt 1990 [1860], 133–134: “The impulse which had proceeded from Petrarch and Boccaccio, superficial as was their own acquaintance with Greek, was powerful, but did not tell immediately on their contemporaries, except a few; on the other hand, the study of Greek literature died out about the year 1520 with the last of the colony of learned Greek exiles.” 229 230
146
chapter two
Venice, and on a lesser scale also in Verona, Ferrara, and Pavia, went well beyond that date. In the same way, the constant printing of Greek grammars, lexica, and literary texts demonstrates that there was still a stable demand for Greek books. The impact of the revival of Greek studies in the West cannot be calculated or given chronological limits. The study of the Bible encouraged by the Reformation stimulated an interest in Greek in Central and North Europe at the end of the fifteenth century. Paris became an important center of Greek studies: the Italians and the Greeks who taught there (Gregorius Tiphernas, George Hermonymos, and Girolamo Aleandro) introduced into that cultural environment the scholarship and pedagogy developed in Italy. Scholars like Johannes Reuchlin, Erasmus, Beatus Renanus, and Guillaume Budé bear witness to the effectiveness of their teaching.232 Greek was also used for purposes unrelated to scholarship. In his Traité de la conformité du langage français avec le grec (Paris, 1565), Henricus Stephanus (Henri Estienne) justified and encouraged the study of Greek in France in order to recover the real cultural roots of the nation. Stephanus urged his fellow countrymen to get rid of the Latin tradition and, in this way, of any link with Italy. Other scholars followed his example: between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many treatises were produced on the affinities of other modern languages (Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish, and English) with ancient Greek, often for purely political purposes.233 10. Teaching Greek in Greek: Michael Apostolis and the “Direct Method” As already noted, ancient Greek was a language of culture rather than a means of communication; it was studied not for itself, but in order to achieve a deeper understanding and a more appropriate use of Latin. The comparative study of the two languages, therefore, was encouraged. In spite of the increasing importance of the vernaculars, Latin was still the predominant language in education, and Greek instruction On Greek studies in North Europe after the Renaissance, see Grafton 2001. Trapp 1973, 10–14; and Rothstein 2006, 734–736. On Greek studies in France, see Stevens 1950; and Ford 2006. The superiority of the Greek language over Latin was implied in Budé’s Commentarii linguae graecae (Paris 1529); see Sanchi 2006, 54–56 and 98f. 232 233
the greek curriculum
147
continued to be carried out in Latin for a long time. Greek emigrés were supposed to teach in Latin: fluency in that language constituted an essential requirement for their employment. The major Renaissance Greek grammars were soon translated into Latin, and the translations were often printed alongside the Greek text. Finally, many Greek manuscripts with interlinear or marginal glosses in Latin show that a translation into Latin represented an important stage in the teaching of Greek. Several reasons may be given. Firstly, students usually approached Greek when they had already acquired at least a fair knowledge of Latin. Secondly, the first students of Greek in Florence came from areas where different languages or volgari were spoken, and Latin was the only language that they could share with each other and with their Greek teachers. Thirdly, Latin had a long and solid grammatical tradition, whereas the grammar of the vernacular languages was still far from being systematized. Vernaculars were reputed to be the languages of lower-class people, of everyday conversation, and of literature designed for pure entertainment.234 A singular document indirectly confirms the use of Latin in the teaching of Greek. Some time after the death of his patron Cardinal Bessarion (1472), the Cretan emigré Michael Apostolis (ca. 1420 – ca. 1480) wrote a long “Exhortation from Gortyna to Rome in Italy,” a discourse to the Italians on the state of Greek studies in Italy.235 Michael’s presupposition is that a systematic learning of Greek grammar is fundamental to acquiring a good background in the language:236 (46–51) Ε δ’ hσπερ τοGς 5μετ ρους πα>δας *ναδιδ(σκετε παιδαγωγο:ντες πρ?ς τ?ν iμ τερον, ο_τω δ κα' πρ?ς τ?ν Eμ τερον κπαιδε2ειν †ελατετε† τοGς α5τοGς κατ( τε στοιχε>ον κα' συλλαβν, λ ξιν τε κα' λγον κα' τουτου' τν δ αν κατ( γε βα$μδα κα' μ $οδον τεχνικν, *λλ4 μ κατ’ πδειξιν κα' φωνασκαν, ε@ητ’ 6ν τοιο:τοι ς τ?ν jΕλληνα λγον, ο;οιπ ρ στε ς τ?ν kτερον τ?ν iμν. [If you decide to teach your children our [the Greek] tongue in the same way that you instruct and educate them in your own language Percival 1975, 246. On the life of Michael Apostolis, see Geanakoplos 1962, 101ff. On Apostolis’ activity as a copyist and on his scriptorium, see Wittek 1953, 290–297; and Mioni 1976, 296. 236 The text is quoted from Anna Pontani’s edition (1996, 152–165, with an Italian translation) and in the English translation by Percival (2002, 93–95), which I have partially modified and made more faithful to the Greek text. 234 235
148
chapter two [Latin]—that is, beginning with the letters, then the syllables, the words, syntax, and the deeper meaning of the ideas involved, step by step by means of a systematic method and not by means of exhibition and merely by making sounds—then you would become as skillful in Greek as you are in your tongue.]
As Percival has pointed out, such statements do not mean that Apostolis is proposing “some sort of direct method of language teaching in which pupils are only exposed orally to the language that they are learning”: a preliminary training in grammar, in fact, is seen as essential.237 Instead, Apostolis criticizes the method used by Greek teachers in Italian schools. His main point is that, since Greek is taught in Latin and not in Greek, as it should be, Italians eventually acquire a poor knowledge of the language: (60–72) ο; γε το2τους Pτε λατινικς αε' προφ ρειν Sκατ ρω τ λγω κα' μ κατ4 φ2σιν κα' τρπον Sκ(τερον τ?ν α5το>ν. φ2σις δ3 κα' τρπος Sκατ ροιν στ' #ωμαϊστ' μ3ν τνδε, Sλληνιστ' δ3 διδ(σκειν τ?ν kτερον. […] Πσος δ χρνος νεγ νετο Uνω$εν Tς EμPς, ξ ο[ τ4 τν 8Ελλνων *σκε>τε κα' κπαιδε2εσ$ε, κα' ο5δε'ς iμν στιν εmς ο5δ’ γ νετο ο5δ’ ,σται […] Wστις ρ$ς κανονζειν κα' τυμολογε>ν ε@σεται ] kνα λγον συγγρ(ψασ$αι *πταιστ' ] τ? γο:ν Xττον Iπ(ντων καλς προφ ρειν κα' διδ(σκειν Sτ ρους τ4 μεμυημ να διδ(γματα […]; [You permit them to teach both literatures [Latin and Greek] in the Latin language and not in accord with what is natural and peculiar to each particular tongue. The natural method of teaching Latin is in Latin, but the other literature [Greek] should be taught in Greek […] See how much time has elapsed since you began to cultivate Greek, and yet there is nobody among you, nor has been nor will there be […] who knows the rules of grammar and etymology, or who can compose a discourse without error, or, at the very least, express himself correctly and teach others what he has learned.]
The use of Latin as a point of reference and the continuous switching from Greek to Latin and vice versa prevent students from improving their Greek and render them unable to compose a Greek text without mistakes. Thus, Apostolis proposes that Latin be restricted to the elementary stage of teaching, that of the rudiments of the language. At a more advanced level, reading Greek authors in Latin and translating them into that language “destroys the choice of words, and above all the grace of expression of the words,” as if one “hear(s) a lyre playing which is false and discordant” (119, 124–125): 237
Percival 2002, 95.
the greek curriculum
149
(144–147) Wταν γ(ρ τις τν Ιταλν #ωμαϊκς *ναγιν+σκει τ?ν jΟμηρον ] Δημοσ$ νην κα' Θουκιδδην ] κα' Uμφω τ φιλοσφω, τνα τς 8Ελληνικς παιδεας κομζονται τ?ν καρπν, Wτι μ νο:ν μνον, τ?ν κα' βαρβ(ροις κοινν; [Whenever an Italian reads Homer, Demosthenes, or Thucydides in Latin, or the two philosophers [Plato and Aristotle], what fruit does he gain of Greek culture? All he acquires is the bare meaning that even barbarians can understand.]
Apostolis may have presented such a gloomy picture of the state of Greek studies in Italy in order to reach his goal, an appointment as professor of Greek; we know, however, that his hopes were frustrated. His opinion, antithetical to that of Battista Guarini and other humanist teachers, was perhaps ahead of his time: today we know that it is possible to learn a foreign language by being directly exposed to it and without any intermediary. However, Apostolis’ harshly critical remarks enable us to glimpse the state of Greek studies in Italy at the end of the fifteenth century. Translations allowed students to compare the morphology, syntax, and lexicon of Greek and Latin, and therefore to pick up the vocabulary and phraseology of the language that they were learning. This exercise was necessary in order to fill the gaps of an insufficient preparation in Greek lexicon and syntax, due to a lack of adequate tools, such as advanced textbooks or dictionaries. Apostolis rejected the teaching of Greek as a dead language, but apparently no other option was available.
chapter three DONATI GRAECI
The translations of the Latin Ianua into Greek, or Donati graeci, and their use as grammar books for the study of Greek should be viewed in the context of the revival of Greek studies in the West as described in the previous chapter. As we have seen, that revival developed within Florentine culture between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and later spread throughout Italy and Europe. Determining time and place of origin of the Greek Donati is not an easy task. Probably, as Schmitt has supposed, one of the Greek versions (a) was initially an interlinear translation of Ianua, which later was put together as a proper grammar book and used as such.1 Theoretically, then, anytime after the twelfth century—the time of the origin of Ianua—and anyplace where Greeks needed to learn Latin would be possible candidates. The analysis carried out in the following two chapters will not solve this problem but at least will allow us to set precise boundaries to the field of investigation. Two factors are certain. First, the title of the Greek translation, Erotimata (sic) Guerrini, in MS. Conventi Soppressi gr. 106 (C) of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence, suggests that the use of one of the Greek Donati as a grammar book may have begun or continued after the publication of the edition of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata with the Latin translation of Guarino Guarini. Secondly, most of the manuscripts handing down the Greek Donati seem to be related to Venice and its colony, Crete, i.e., to a bilingual environment where there was great demand for learning and mastering both Latin and Greek. Unfortunately, the sources presently available do not convey information that is more precise.
1
Schmitt 1966, 269 and n. 10.
152
chapter three 1. In Search of the Greek Donatus
A catalogue of the Library of Christ Church at Canterbury from 1170 mentions a Donatus graece along with a Donatus anglice: it is the only Greek book in a list of 223 titles. In a catalogue of the same library of ca. 1300, however, the “Greek Donatus” does not appear, even if the number of books owned by the library amounts to about 3,000. The Greek Donatus of Canterbury was perhaps a Greek grammar similar to Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη γραμματικ or a product of the Byzantine tradition of erôtêmata. The text, therefore, may have been entirely in Greek.2 Ising, on the other hand, has suggested that the book was a bilingual copy of Donatus’ Ars minor, which was in Latin with Greek terms written above or alongside the Latin text, in the interlinear spaces or in the margins.3 In any case, this mysterious Donatus graece bears witness to the interest that Irish and British monks had in Greek culture. It would be tempting to connect this Greek Donatus with the books brought to England by the Greek monks Theodore and Hadrian in the seventh century (above, 88–89 n. 42), but no evidence supports this hypothesis. Faint traces of a Greek Donatus appear in the later centuries. In his Chronica maiora of 1252, Matthaeus Parisiensis (Matthew Paris, 1200– 1259), a monk of St. Alban, mentioned the translation of a grammar from Greek into Latin by a French master, Joannes, who called his translation Donatus graecorum: Memoratus insuper magister Joannes quoddam scriptum transtulit de Graeco in Latinum, in quo artificiose et compendiose tota vis grammaticae continetur; quod idem magister Donatum Graecorum appellavit.4 [The aforementioned master John translated from Greek into Latin a work, in which the whole essence of grammar is contained skillfully and concisely; the master himself called it “Donatus of the Greeks.”]
“Magister Joannes” is probably Joannes de Basing, or John of Basingstoke, one of the adiutores of Robert Grosseteste. In about 1240, Basingstoke was sent to Athens, where he spent some time learning Greek and collecting books. We cannot establish which Greek grammar John translated into Latin or if he also intended to compose a Schmitt 1979, 101 f. Ising 1970, 24. 4 Edited by H.R. Luard, London 1880, 5. 286. See Ising 1970, 29 n. 39; and Schmitt 1979, 103. 2 3
donati graeci
153
Greek grammar for Latins: the Franciscan monk Roger Bacon made the same attempt a little later and independently. At any rate, the fact that the grammar John translated was in Greek prevents us from identifying it with the Greek Ianua, which is a translation from Latin into Greek. The existence of Donati graeci is attested to more frequently during the Renaissance. In the fifteenth-century MS. Vaticanus gr. 1527, which contains some anonymous schedê based on Moschopoulos’ schedography, a small strip of paper pasted on one of the flyleaves (Ir) reads Donatus g(rae)cus optimus.5 In a letter of 1429, Stefano de’ Porcari made it known to his friend Ambrogio Traversari that the humanist Gaspare da Verona wished to obtain from him a copy of a Donatus graecus. Upon his return from Spain to Italy in 1465, the humanist Angelo Decembrio was robbed of his books. We do not know if Angelo succeeded in recovering them; in any case, he provided an inventory of the stolen books in a letter to Duke Borso d’Este of Ferrara. The books included many Latin texts (Horace, Ovid, Pliny, etc.), some Greek texts in Latin translation (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, etc.), two Greek-Latin dictionaries, and a Donatus antiquissimus in graeco. A Donatus graecus was part of the inventory of the books of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494), where it is listed among the “quinterni desligati in charta bona”: it was perhaps an incomplete text, of which only unbound quires were extant.6 All of these factors lead us to suppose that in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance “Donatus graecus” meant not only the Greek translation of Ianua, but also several other elementary Greek grammar books. The Greek Ianua itself was often associated with the 5 Described by Ciro Giannelli in Codices Vaticani graeci. Codices 1485–1683, in Bybliotheca (sic) Vaticana 1950, 84–87. 6 See Schmitt 1975, 211f. and 1979, 107. On Angelo Decembrio’s book list, see Celenza 2004a, 54–56 and n. 59. In addition to a Donatus graecus, Decembrio lists “pleraeque scripturae optimae grece in grammatica percipienda”: his library may have included more than one Greek grammar. On “quinterni” (Lat. quiniones) in Pico’s catalogue, see Rizzo 1973, 42 f. Most of Pico’s library was destroyed by a fire in 1587; it contained about 1250 books, both printed and manuscript, on various subjects and included about 157 Greek volumes, partly from the library of the Byzantine emigré Manuel Adramythenos. See Kibre 1936, 3 ff. In addition to a printed edition of Lascaris’ grammar (no. 885 of the catalogue edited by Kibre), Pico owned three anonymous Greek grammars (nos. 52, 54, and 925). Pico’s “Donatus graecus” is listed as no. 1575.
154
chapter three
Byzantine erôtêmata—as witnessed by the title of codex C—and considered a tool for the study of elementary Greek, as the presence of other, more advanced grammatical works in many of its manuscripts demonstrates. The common use of the name “Donatus” for elementary grammar books prevents us from identifying these Donati graeci with Greek translations of Aelius Donatus’ Ars or of Ianua. We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that Donatus’ Ars was also translated into Greek sometime in late antiquity or in the Middle Ages. In his commentary on Donatus’ Ars minor, Sedulius Scottus tried to explain and comment on Donatus’ definition of the pronoun (Ars maior 2. 11, p. 629 = Ars minor 3, p. 588 Holtz: Pronomen est pars orationis quae pro nomine posita tantundem paene significat personamque interdum recipit) by means of its Greek translation: Unde hic locus melius in Graeco legitur: κα' πρσωπον σ$’ Wτε *ναδ χεται.7
Since this definition is peculiar to Donatus and because its Greek equivalent does not occur in any of the Greek grammars known to us, Holtz has suggested that it may come from a Greek translation of Donatus’ Ars minor.8 On this question, however, any hypothesis is possible. 2. The Four Donati graeci or Pylai The Donati graeci treated in the present study are Greek grammars translated from, or modeled after, the Latin Ianua.9 Just as Ianua was named after its incipit (Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem), we may call its Greek versions with the plural of the Greek word 7
Sedulius’ commentary on Donatus’ Ars minor, together with his commentaries on Priscian and Eutyches, has been edited by B. Löfstedt, CCCM 40 C, Turnhout 1977. The passage quoted is at 29. 9f. Other passages of Sedulius’ commentaries confirm that he knew some Greek: an excursus on Greek verbal conjugations (Comm. in Eut. 89. 94–93. 85) and the Greek translation and etymology of fuga, triumphus, and stomachus (ibid. 113. 42). Also, Sedulius often employed Greek terms, followed by a Latin translation, to explain Latin grammar (cf. Comm. in Don. 6. 1, 13. 78–80, etc.). On Sedulius’ knowledge of Greek, see Traube 1891, 42 ff.; and Berschin 1988 [1980], 142–144. 8 Holtz 1989, 160. 9 Both Krumbacher (18972, 545) and Wendel (1950, 2242) maintain that the original of “Planudes’ ” translation was Donatus’ Ars minor.
donati graeci
155
equivalent to ianua: Pylai (Π2λαι). In fact, π2λη is the first word of version a, which begins with the word-for-word Greek translation of the short poem that opens the Latin Ianua (π2λη εμ' το>ς *μα$ σι το>ς πι$υμο:σι πρ+την τ χνην, etc.), as well as the first word of the poem written at the beginning of versions b and d (π2λην *πλαν τς γραφς nς 6ν $ λQη, etc.). None of the extant Greek Donati has ever been published. During the Renaissance, no printer deemed them worthy of an edition, nor did modern scholars show any interest in them, except for Wolfgang Oskar Schmitt: he made Pylê a the object of his dissertation, which he defended in 1966 at Humboldt Universität of Berlin. As an appendix, Schmitt presented a critical edition of the text, based on the six manuscripts known at that time: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr. 5 (A); Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Barberini gr. 10 (B); Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MSS. Conventi Soppressi 106 (C), Gaddi 182 (G), and Redi 15 (R); and Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci 72 (O).10 Schmitt published the results of his research in some articles, allowing us to get an idea of the value and depth of his work. At the end of a paper read in 1972 at the International Conference of Classical Studies in Bucharest, Schmitt announced the imminent publication of a book with the same title: Donati graeci. Zum Griechischstudium der italienischen Humanisten.11 His promise, however, has remained unfulfilled. The five manuscripts discovered after Schmitt’s edition have completely changed our perspective. First of all, they have revealed that, in addition to the Donatus (Pylê a) described and edited by Schmitt, at least three more Greek grammars of the Donatus-type were circulating during the Renaissance;12 the differences between the four Greek Donati are so significant that they cannot be considered as belonging to the same tradition. Secondly, whereas all of the manuscripts known to Schmitt belong to the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries, two of the new manuscripts allow us to establish for two versions (Pylai b and c) a terminus ante quem at the beginning of the fifteenth century: Venice, 10
n. 14.
Schmitt also knew MS. Vaticanus gr. 1388 (V), which contains Pylê b; see below,
11 Schmitt 1975, 213 n. 1. Schmitt used the plural Donati, considering the two main variants of Pylê a (x and R: see below, 172 ff.). 12 Of course, new discoveries will be possible as the cataloguing of the extant Greek manuscripts and the creation of data banks for the study of manuscripts proceed.
156
chapter three
Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. 9 (M), and Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr. 234 (P). Thirdly, MSS. Paris. Bibl. Nat. gr. 2594 (N) and Vat. Ottoboni gr. 206 (Q) convey important information on the use of the Pylê for the study of Greek; also, Q attests to the circulation of Pylê a in Northeastern Italy (Veneto) at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Eight of the eleven manuscripts so far identified (A, B, C, G, N, O, Q , and R) contain Pylê a, which is apparently a word-for-word translation of an Ianua longa. The picture offered by version a is complex. By taking into account errores coniunctivi and separativi, Schmitt has divided the six manuscripts known to him into two main groups: R and the “p-group” (named “x” in the present edition), which included the other five (A, B, C, G, and O). Two of the manuscripts recently discovered, N and Q , might be added to this group. No manuscript, however, can help us solve what Schmitt indicated as the main problem in the critical edition of the text: the search for an “archetype.”13 All the extant manuscripts belong to the same period; moreover, most of them reveal traces of contamination with copies belonging to different branches of the tradition, as is typical of schoolbooks. Manuscripts M and V (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 1388) have transmitted Pylê b, where the Latin Ianua constitutes the framework of a regular Greek grammar that employs material from Theodosius’ Canons and excerpts from other Greek grammarians. Schmitt knew only MS. V; after examining the manuscript by means of a microfilm, Schmitt concluded that V’s text was a combination of a Greek translation of a Latin Ianua independent from Pylê a and a Greek erotematic grammar.14 Schmitt correctly remarked that, unlike version a, the Greek grammar written in V is “impeccable.” He also sensed a relationship—already suggested by Pertusi—between V and the Greek grammar of codex O attributed to Zacharias Calliergis (i.e., 13 Schmitt 1966, 156: “Die Untersuchung der Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse der Handschriften […] mit dem Ziel, den Text des Archetypus zu rekonstruiren, erweist sich aus mehreren Gründen als äußerst schwierig.” From Giorgio Pasquali onwards, however, modern classical philology has put into a different perspective the importance of the “archetype” in textual criticism and has attributed much more importance to the history of the text itself; see above, XXI. 14 Schmitt 1966, 109–109a n. 16: “Es handelt sich […] um eine Kombination des lateinischen Pseudo-Donatus […] und der von P. Egenolff veröffentlichten Erotemata grammatica ex arte Dionysiana oriunda (veröffentlicht als Beilage Progr. Mannheim 1879/1880).” Schmitt certainly refers to Egenolff’s Erotemata Tubingensia, which are strikingly similar to b’s text.
donati graeci
157
our Pylê d); Schmitt, however, did not reach any conclusion on this question. Another detail makes manuscript V interesting. From the name of Lorenzo Valla on fol. 79r: Egregio viro d(omi)no Laure(n)tio Vallensi, it may be inferred that this copy of Pylê was sent to, or made for, the famous humanist, and, therefore, that a version of the Greek Ianua was used by the first Florentine humanists in learning Greek.15 However, Schmitt has suggested that the bifolio 79–94 might have been taken from another manuscript and used to wrap the quires containing the text of Pylê b, which is copied on fols. 80–93. Mariarosa Cortesi’s study of the watermarks of the manuscript has confirmed Schmitt’s hypothesis.16 The second copy of Pylê b, manuscript M, raises an interesting question about the relative chronology of Pylê a and b. Since b represents a significant improvement when compared with a, it would be logical to infer that b was made after a, in order to make up for the flaws of the original, rough translation of the Latin Ianua. But M is contemporaneous with, or even earlier than, most of the manuscripts containing version a. If we consider that the transmission of ancient texts is often purely fortuitous, the lack of any a-manuscripts from before the fifteenth century does not mean, of course, that they did not exist. However, the manuscripts presently available lead us to suppose that the two versions originated almost at the same time, although in different cultural environments. Pylê c has been handed down in one manuscript (P). The section on verbs is based on an Ianua longa probably earlier than the original of Pylê a, in which definitions received much attention and lines from medieval grammars in verse were included; this applies also to the section on nouns, of which only a Greek-Latin glossary remains. The word-by-word translation from Latin, however, is limited to definitions; in fact, c’s verbal paradigms have been taken from the same source as those of Pylai b and d. This source was probably a Greek translation and adaptation of Ianua’s section on verbs, where, for example, the Latin pluperfect and the “double tense” perfectpluperfect were replaced with the aorist. The other six sections of Pylê 15 See, for example, Stevens (1950, 240): “Valla and many other Italian humanists had used [to learn Greek] a little Latin grammar called Janua, translated into Greek by Maximus Planudes in the thirteenth century.” 16 See below, 203.
158
chapter three
c have been taken from other Byzantine grammatical texts. An extensive word-for-word Latin translation has been written in bright red ink in the interlinear spaces of sections 2–8; since the Latin and Greek texts sometimes do not coincide, we may suppose that the translator relied on his mnemonic knowledge of a different Ianua-text or that the Latin translation was added from an edition of Ianua that was similar, but not identical, to the original Latin text of P. Like Pylai b and c, Pylê d is a miscellaneous grammar. Pylê d has been transmitted in the O-manuscript together with Pylê a, under the name of Zacharias Calliergis (Z); in this fragmentary Greek Donatus, definitions are taken from Pylê b or its source, whereas paradigms of nominal declensions are probably derived from a literal translation of an Ianua brevis. We can certainly exclude the authorship of the Cretan scholar and editor Zacharias Calliergis: the compiler, probably a Greek, supplied the paradigms of nominal inflection from a Latin Ianua with the help of a bilingual dictionary. The incompleteness of the text and the frequent mistakes and misunderstandings would suggest that Pylê d was a draft rather than a complete grammar. The following paragraphs offer a more detailed description of the four Greek Donati and their manuscripts.17 3. Pylê a: The Manuscripts The eight manuscripts of Pylê a so far identified can be dated between the end of the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth centuries. The following abbreviations will be used (the asterisk indicates the manuscripts that I have seen personally): A B C G N O
*Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr. 5 *Vatican City, Biblioteca ApostolicaVaticana, MS.Barberini gr.10 *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Conventi Soppressi 106 *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Gaddi 182 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. gr. 2594 *Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci 72, fols. 266r–313r
17 The following remarks provide general information on the content of manuscripts and on their external aspects related to the transmission and use of the Greek Donati (layout, marginalia, Latin glosses, etc.) and do not claim to offer a complete palaeographical and codicological analysis, which I leave to experts in the field.
donati graeci
159
Q *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Ottoboni gr. 206 R *Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Redi 15. In most manuscripts, Pylê apparently represents the initial stage of a course of Greek grammar. In fact, it is often followed or preceded by more complex grammatical works and by other material of diverse origin for the study of Greek, such as exercises or simple readings. Like most grammatical manuscripts, those of Pylê generally are small and written with no aesthetic pretensions. Their wide margins provide room for additions and for the translation of single words or entire sentences. The decoration is poor and usually restricted to rubricated initials, asterisks, and other devices intended to favor memorization of the text. Finally, a form like Δον(δος (Ντον(δος) instead of Δον(τος in the titles of six manuscripts hints at the weakening of the stops in modern Greek and at the same time reproduces the Venetian pronunciation of the name Donatus, “Donado”; the exchange t / d, in fact, is still frequent in the modern dialects of the Northeastern part of Italy. A MS. gr. 5 of the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome (formerly C. 4. 12: paper, mm 210 ×143, fols. 153)18 is apparently a handbook for the study of Greek at the elementary and intermediate levels. The manuscript is the result of two volumes bound together. The first (fols. 1r–133v) was written between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It contains Pylê (fols. 1r–51v) and the canons of some masculine nouns and of the nine verbal conjugations. The second part (fols. 134r–153v), written in the fifteenth century, contains some prayers in Greek (the Apostles’ Creed, Hail Mary, the Lord’s Prayer, the Minor Doxology, etc.) and the first book of Theodore Gaza’s grammar. 18 Described by Giorgio Muccio and Pio Franchi de’ Cavalieri in Index codicum Graecorum bibliothecae Angelicae, Firenze–Roma 1896, pp. 35–36. Fol. 1r shows an incomplete index in Latin, the mark of the library of Cardinal Domenico Passionei (1682– 1761), and the number “XIII” written by the librarian, Filippo Vitale. Passionei, appointed protobibliothecarius of the Vatican library by Pope Benedict XIV in 1741, was a bibliophile and a collector of Latin and Greek manuscripts. Many of his Greek books came from the library of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza (1518–1564). Passionei’s library was incorporated into the Biblioteca Angelica, the first public library in Rome, which was founded by the Augustinian priest Angelo Rocca (1545–1520) and open to the public in 1614. See Enea Piccolomini in the introduction to the catalogue quoted above, 10–20; Grendler-Grendler 1984, 4; and Grafinger 1997, 69.
160
chapter three
Pylê is written in a square, upright, and very conservative hand, which imitates the minuscule of the ninth and tenth centuries. The hand has been identified as being that of Michael Lygizos. Born at Cydonia, Lygizos was a pupil and a friend of Michael Apostolis (above, 147 ff.), with whom he kept an assiduous correspondence. He was active as a scholar and as a scribe in Crete, specifically in Rethymnon, Candia, and Gortyna, between 1465 and 1475. He also copied the text of Pylê in O and part of Q.19 The text of Pylê, entitled γραμματικ Δον(δου γραμματικο:, is written in columns of 23–26 lines; the right-hand part of the page is usually left blank, perhaps for a translation, notes, and glosses. As an aid to memory, short titles and bigger initial letters, occasionally rubricated, mark the beginning of the paragraphs or sections of the grammar book. Punctuation divides the text into short sections. In spite of its many mistakes and omissions,20 this manuscript is one of the most valuable copies of Pylê a. The writing is accurate; the text has been improved by a second hand, which corrected a lot of mistakes, mostly due to iotacism. B MS. Barberini gr. 10 (I. 10) of the Vatican Library is a small manuscript (paper, mm 146 ×110; 68 fols., sixteen lines per page) containing the text of Pylê (fols. 1r–65r), followed by some short texts (fols. 65v–68r) that qualify the manuscript as a schoolbook.21 The title of Pylê, Γραμματικ Δον(δου μικρ4 μετ4 γλωττησ$ε>σα (sic) κ τς τν 8Ρωμαων γλ+σσης πρ?ς τν 8Ελ(δα (sic) παρ4 κυρο: Μαξμου το: Πλανο2δη (cf. R), can hardly be read because of the bad condition of the first pages of the manuscript. The title Donati grammatica graece appears on one of the flyleaves. The watermarks allow us to date the manuscript to the mid-fifteenth century;22 however, B is actually the result of the work of many See Vogel-Gardthausen 315; and Gamillscheg-Harlfinger I A, 151–153. For example, A often omits διατ, τ, and διτι in questions and answers, as well as οmον at the beginning of lists of examples. Obsolete or rarely used forms (e.g., some vocatives) are often omitted. 21 Described by Valentino Capocci, Codices Barberiniani graeci, vol. 1: Codices 1–163, in Bibliotheca Vaticana 1958, 10–11. With its 10,041 Latin, 595 Greek, and 160 Oriental manuscripts, the Barberini library was the largest book collection of the seventeenth century. It was incorporated into the Vatican library in 1902. See De Nicolò 1985, 32 f. 22 Of the watermarks identified by Capocci, one (a flower: fols. 4, 5, 10, etc.) does not correspond to any known watermark. The second (two crossed arrows: fol. 64) is 19 20
donati graeci
161
hands of different times. The text is written in a fluent and very legible writing, with many capital and enlarged letters. Schmitt has found traces of four hands in the text of Pylê. The hand that wrote the sections on prepositions and conjunctions (fols. 62r–65r) is probably contemporaneous with the hand of the previous part. At least two later hands added a lot of corrections and glosses in the margins and in the interlinear spaces. There are clear traces of a collation of B with a manuscript of the group of A, N, O, and Q.23 Several lost pages were replaced by pasting other leaves to the quires (e.g., fol. 2 and fols. 55bis–61). On fol. 65r, after the chapter on conjunctions, the explicit reads: τ λος σGν Θε& Iγ&ω το: Ντον(δου το: 8Ρωμαου. We cannot exclude the possibility, however, that B originally contained an appendix, like its cognates C and G.24 A late-sixteenth-century hand added the short religious texts that we find in fols. 65v–67r. In fol. 68r, a short grammatical catechism on the Greek alphabet and accents written in Latin, inc. In quot dividuntur viginti quattuor littere, concludes the manuscript. C MS. Conventi Soppressi 106 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (AF 2882, formerly MS. 80 of the Benedictine abbey of Santa Maria or Badia Fiorentina) is a paper manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century. It measures mm 148 ×205 and contains 161 folios with some blank pages (122–124 and 155–156). The manuscript has been badly damaged by humidity.25 The text of Pylê is written on fols. 125r–154r, twenty-two lines per page. The writing is a regular minuscule, slightly inclined to the left; the long oblique strokes of delta and chi break its uniformity. Sometimes the copyist has disposed declensions or conjugations in charts (e.g., in fols. 136r–137v, similar to Briquet’s nos. 6269 (Venice 1454, Barcelona 1456, Venzone 1456) and 6271 (Venice 1462). The third (scissors: fol. 65) resembles no. 3661 Briquet (Venice 1438). 23 Schmitt 1966, 125 f. The hands that corrected and improved the text are hardly distinguishable from each other. In fact, Schmitt (128 n. 47) recognizes “weitere Hände” besides the copyists but remarks that “wieviel Hände insgesamt Eintragungen und Verbesserungen vorgenommen haben, läßt sich schwehr sagen.” Fols. 2 and 10v show traces of at least three hands. 24 See Schmitt 1966, 124. 25 Described by Del Furia in Supplementum alterum ad catalogum codicum manuscriptorum Graecorum, Latinorum, Italicorum… Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, s. l., s. a., I. 2, 787 ff., and by Enrico Rostagno and Nicola Festa, “Indice dei codici greci Laurenziani non compresi nel catalogo del Bandini,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 1 (1893), 131–232: 153.
162
chapter three
containing the conjugation of *γαπ). The first pages have a sober ornamentation: the Latin and the Greek titles are separated by a band with a floral pattern. The same pattern decorates the initial letters of each paragraph on the first page, whereas simple rubricated initials mark the beginning of each section of the text on the following pages. In fol. 154r, the last words of Pylê form an upside-down triangle. The anonymous copyist also inserted short titles before each section most certainly in order to make memorization easier. The words Erotimata Guerrini that appear on top of fol. 125r, before the Greek title (Γραμματικ σGν Θε& Iγ&ω Δων(του τιν?ς Ιταλικο: μεταγλωττισ$ε>σα γρεκς), allow us to suppose that the copyist has associated or confused the Greek Pylê with the edition of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata by Guarino Guarini. However, it is more probable that the reference to Guarini did not concern the supposed authorship of the grammar: like Donatus for Latin, Chrysoloras-Guarini’s Erotemata were presumably synonymous with Greek elementary grammar. In this manuscript, Pylê follows the second and third books of Constantine Lascaris’ Greek grammar, and is followed, in turn, by two short liturgical Greek texts: the Σ2μβολον το: Iγου Α$ανασου (157r–158v) and the Ε5λγησις τς τραπ ζης, το: γε2ματος κα' το: δεπνου (158v–161v). A note in the lower margin of fol. 1r, usui D(omini) Laur(entii) Lucalberti Flor(entini), mentions one of the readers, if not the purchaser, of the manuscript: the Florentine humanist and Hellenist Lorenzo Lorenzi or Lorenzano, who taught logic, physics, and medicine at Florence and Pisa from 1479 until his death in 1502.26 However, the analysis of the watermarks suggests that the manuscript was copied some time during the last twenty years of the fifteenth century, presumably in Venice.27
26 See Cosenza 1962, 3. 1947 f., 5. 989f. Lorenzi has been confused with the Venetian Laurentius Lauretanus (Λαυρ ντιος Λαυρετανς), or Lorenzo Loredan, who copied part of MS. R (see below, 172): see Vendruscolo 1995, 338. After Lorenzano’s death, the manuscript became part of the library of the Badia Fiorentina, whose manuscripts were incorporated into the Biblioteca Laurenziana in 1810; see Schmitt 1966, 130 and n. 53. 27 For example, the watermark (a scale) of fols. 131–134 and 144–145 is similar to Briquet 2590, which is attested to in Nordlingen 1491 and Venice 1496 and 1499. That of fols. 20–21 and of the fifth quire (33–40) resembles Briquet 2588, i.e., Treviso and Venice 1483. That of the eleventh quire (81r-88v, coinciding with the end of one of Constantine Lascaris’ books), Briquet 2512, has been located in Venice 1494 or 1496.
donati graeci
163
G MS. Gaddi 182 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (formerly 926: paper, mm 155 ×204, 59 folios, some of which were misplaced in the binding)28 may be dated from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Therefore, G is one of the most recent manuscripts of Pylê a. G was part of the library of the Florentine aristocrat Angiolo de’ Gaddi, a collector of manuscripts and occasionally a copyist.29 The manuscript does not offer any clue to its origin. However, the watermarks hint at an area in Northeastern Italy.30 G contains the text of Pylê only, without the prologue but with an extensive Latin translation and a complete appendix. The Greek text was written by one hand, thirteen lines per page. The writing is clear and legible but not elegant; letters are separated and slightly inclined to the right. A Latin translation (Gl1) was written in a late Gothic cursive, perhaps by the same hand, in the wide interlinear spaces up to fol. 25v. From 25v to 44r, the Latin text is written in sections and inserted in the Greek text, in spaces left blank for this purpose (Gl2). These insertions generally make up for the parts of Ianua omitted in the Greek translation. No translation or supplement is offered from fol. 44r, where the section on participles begins, until the end of Pylê: at that stage, students were probably proficient enough in Greek and did not need any more pedagogical support. On the other hand, the fact that the rubricated initial letters appear only in the first half of the text suggests that the work was left incomplete. The Latin title Libellus grammatices (fol. 1r) is a later addition. On fol. 59v, the last words of Pylê form a triangle similar to that of C. G’s Greek text is full of omissions and mistakes: the text is related to B and C, but is of inferior quality (see below, 175); similarities to After the third quire (fol. 24), the correct sequence is: 25, 39, 35–38 34, 32–33, 26–31, 40, etc. 29 For a description of the manuscript, see Angelo Maria Bandini, Bibliotheca Leopoldina Laurentiana seu Catalogus manuscriptorum qui iussu Petri Leopoldi […] in Laurentianam translati sunt […], vol. 2, Florentiae 1792, 177; and Enrico Rostagno “Indicis codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae supplementum,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 6 (1898), 129–166: 150f. no. 45. On Angiolo de’ Gaddi and his library, incorporated into the Biblioteca Laurenziana in 1755, see Baron 1968, 225. 30 The watermark of the third quire (fols. 25–32: three mountains surmounted by a cross, a typically Italian watermark) is similar to Briquet 11699, Padua 1432, or 11727, which is found in Pistoia 1457–1461 or in Venice 1462–1466. The watermark of the second quire (fols. 9–16: a head of a unicorn) resembles Briquet 15760 or 15785, both from Treviso between 1343 and 1362, but very common in the Veneto throughout the fifteenth century. 28
164
chapter three
R’s text, although not significant, also can be found.31 G’s interest lies especially in the Latin translation (Gl). It is difficult to establish whether this translation was already in G’s original or was added by G’s copyist. In any case, combining the Greek and the Latin texts could have been particularly useful for the Latins who wanted to learn Greek from Pylê: in this way, both texts were available for a quick and easy comparison of forms and paradigms. The interlinear Gl1 is a literal Latin translation of the Greek text, even if some discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts suggest that some parts of Gl1 were not made ex novo to fit in with G’s text.32 N MS. gr. 2594 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris is a paper codex of the fifteenth century. In its 233 folios, it contains what may be defined as a complete Greek elementary course:33 in addition to Pylê (fols. 6v– 46r) and the Greek translation of Cato’s Disticha (46v–62v), it includes some short anonymous works on orthography, prosody, word order, syntax, and style, together with excerpts from collections of σχ δη (for example, one entitled *ρχ σοφας φβος κυρου, on fols. 175–187) and from the grammatical works of Anastasius Sinaites, Michael Syncellus, George Choeroboscus, John Tzetzes, Michael Psellus, and Theodore Prodromos. At the end of the book, there are some texts of moral and religious content that were probably meant to be read after the study of grammar: part of Gregory of Nazianzus’ second oration on Easter, followed by an explanation of the references to history and For example: both G and R omit the declensions of Βιργλιος (1. 94–96), ,ργον, Fερε2ς, πλις, *ν(γνωσις (117–138), γνατον (244–248), and μεσημβρα (274–276), as well as the vocative of μς (4. 111). Both manuscripts give the present subjunctive of *κο2ω, 4ν *κο2ω (2. 517–521(b): iποτακτικς %μοως ABCNOQ). Other errores coniunctivi are *γαπPσ$ε for *γαπ&σ$ε (2. 203), γεν σ$ωσαν for γιν σ$ωσαν (2. 838), and πολλν for πολ2ν (8. 27). 32 Gl is sometimes faithful to the Greek text: for example, 1. 252: hoc species for τ? 1 ε=δος; 257: hoc res for τ? πρ(γμα; etc. A bizarre case is at 1. 16, where τρε>ς *ρ$ρικα' *ντωνυμαι is rendered with tria articularia et pronomina: the final syllable of *ρ$ρικα was probably taken as the conjunction κα and translated into Latin. On the other hand, on 1. 1, the opening question ποιητς ποου μ ρους λγου στν; νματος is translated 31
with the nominative instead of the genitive (Poeta quae pars orationis est? Nomen), as is typical of Ianua. On 1. 98, in the excursus on the vocative of the second declension, Gl1 disregards the incorrect τς ληγο2σης of G’s text and writes desinentibus, which corresponds to the correct reading το>ς λγουσιν. For a complete list of discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts of G, see Schmitt 1966, 144ff. 33 A concise description in Henri Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, vol. 3, Paris 1888, 9–10.
donati graeci
165
legends contained in his text, the prophecies of the Seven Sages on the incarnation of Christ, and a short collection of moral sentences. In the first part (fols. 1–186), the writing is a regular cursive that imitates the “Fettaugenmode-Stil.” The copyist has been identified with Michael Souliardos. Born in Nauplion, he began his activity in Crete: he was at Cydonia from 1477 to 1484. After moving to Nauplion and Methone, Souliardos left Greece for Italy (1491 or 1492) and was in Florence between 1494 and 1496. Souliardos’ last dated manuscript belongs to 1508 or 1509.34 It is difficult to say where N was copied: the analysis of the watermarks did not provide any useful information.35 However, the fact that the N-text shows similarities with the “Venetian/Cretan” A, O, and Q rather than with the “Florentine” recensio (B, C, and G) suggests that Souliardos used a copy of the text circulating in the Venetian colonies. The original title of Pylê cannot be read in the photographic reproductions, but in the upper left margin of fol. 7v a later hand added Δον(του γραμματικ συνοπτικ. The decoration is sober: on the first page, over the title, there is a band with floral patterns surmounted by a cross. The initials of Π2λη and Ποιητς are also decorated. Red ink is often used for initials and even for entire sentences. The writing is small and compressed: each page contains thirty-one lines. Unlike the other manuscripts of Pylê, there are no wide margins or interlinear spaces and the page is quite crowded, but the text is copied only on the verso of the folios; the facing recto is left blank, presumably for a Latin translation.36 Translations of single words or entire sentences appear, on the other hand, in the margins and in the interlinear spaces of the text of Cato’s Distichs, showing that the manuscript comes from an area where Latin was important in the teaching of elementary Greek. One of the most interesting features of this manuscript is the number of marginal notes and reference marks added by a later hand: dotted crosses indicate the definitions, maniculae and more or less com34 On Souliardos, who calls himself Αργε>ος or Λ(κων or Σπαρτι(της, see VogelGardthausen 318–320; and Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1A, 155, and 2A, 148. I follow Lobel’s reconstruction of Souliardos’ activity (1933, 54–56). 35 The watermarks have been checked for me by Henri D. Saffrey, whom I warmly thank. The watermark—a scale, very common in Northern Italy—is the same throughout the manuscript, but does not seem to correspond precisely to any of the watermarks described by Briquet and Piccard. 36 See Webb 1994, 96.
166
chapter three
plex asterisks mark the changes of topic, whereas short titles anticipate the content of the sections that follow. In particular, the corrector was aware of the difference between the perfect and the aorist and indicated this in the margins. For example, he wrote ο[τος κα$’ jΕλληνας *ριστος beside the “perfect and pluperfect subjunctive passive” 4ν διδαχ$ etc. (2. 341(a): fol. 21v) and beside the “pluperfect optative active” ε@$ε *κο2σαιμι etc. (2. 512: 24v); he also wrote *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας beside the “perfect and pluperfect optative” ε@$ε $ελσαιμι etc. (2. 644(b): 27v), the “perfect indicative active” β(σταξα (2. 686(b): 27v), etc. O MS. Barocci 72 of the Bodleian Library at Oxford is a paper manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century. Like N, it contains a collection of material to be used in schools for the study of Greek at the elementary and intermediate levels. In fact, the manuscript consists of eighty-six “units,” perhaps originally intended to be used as separate schoolbooks.37 However, the texts contained in O’s 333 folios concern a much wider range of subjects than those contained in N: morphology, syntax, and style, as well as prosody and metrics, with copies of Hephaestion’s Enchiridion, Herodian’s De dichronis, De figuris poeticis attributed to Tryphon, etc. Some texts—for example, Hephaestion’s treatise on metrics—occur more than once. The book also provides students with a lot of information on Greek language and culture: the voices of animals, the calendar, as well as the names of patriarchs, the Apostles, the Seven Sages, etc. Among the readings, we find one speech and one letter by Libanius introduced by Eunapius’ biography, an anonymous essay on the twelve labors of Heracles, Annaeus Cornutus’ De natura deorum, Palaephatus’ Historiae incredibiles, and some short poems, including a distich from Palladas. This manuscript belonged to the library of the humanist and mathematician Francesco Barocci or Barozzi.38 In 1629, Barozzi’s collecSee Schmitt 1966, 152 ff., and 1977, 279. The manuscript has been described by Henry O. Coxe, Bodleian Library Quarto Catalogues, vol. 1: Greek Manuscripts, Oxford 1969, 117–125 (reprint, with corrections, of the edition of 1853: Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae pars prima recensionem codicum Graecorum continens, confecit Henricus O. Coxe, etc.) 38 Born in 1537 at Candia, in Crete, to a noble Venetian family, Barozzi was a humanist and a mathematician, who was also interested in philosophy and occult sciences; he studied and taught at the University of Padua. Accused of heresy and apostasy, in 1583 and 1587 he went on trial before the Inquisition; the exact charges are not known. At Rethymnon, in 1562, Barozzi founded the “Accademia dei Vivi” 37
donati graeci
167
tion, which had been inherited and expanded by his nephew Jacopo, was purchased by Sir William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke and Chancellor of Oxford University, who donated it to the Bodleian Library. Pylê, entitled γραμματικ Δον(δου μικρ4 μεταγλωττησ$ε>σα (sic) κ τς τν 8Ρωμαων φωνς πρ?ς τν 8Ελλ(δα παρ4 κυρο: Μαξμου το: Πλανο2δη, is copied on fols. 266r–305v and 310r–313r. Each page con-
tains twenty-one lines and has wide margins; the use of initial letters, short titles, and punctuation is similar to what we find in A.39 Probably because of the misplacement of two quires in the binding process, the text of Pylê is interrupted by part of the Greek translation of Cato’s Distichs (306r–309v) with plenty of glosses in Greek. Indeed, Pylê a is not the only Latinate elementary grammar included in the manuscript: Pylê d is also written on fols. 229r–264v and attributed to Zacharias Calliergis. Of the different hands of the manuscript, two have been identified. Fols. 1–105 were copied by Andreas Donos, who was probably from Crete: he was active between the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries. In 1495, he was in Sicily, at Messina, perhaps as a member of the circle of Constantine Lascaris. In any case, he spent much time in Crete, where he taught Francesco Barozzi. Fols. 266–313, which include Pylê and the Distichs, were copied by the Cretan Michael Lygizos, the copyist of A and part of Q.40 The owner of the manuscript, its Cretan copyists, Calliergis’ name, and the Greek glosses on Cato’s Distichs refer to the Cretan cultural environment. This manuscript, therefore, is an interesting document on the study of ancient Greek in the Venetian colony of Crete.41
(Academy of the Living) in order to promote the return to Crete of all the intellectuals who had left the island; later, Barozzi founded two more academies in Crete. Little documentation on Barozzi’s academies survives: most documents may have been destroyed after his second trial, in order to protect the other members. Barozzi himself spent most of his life in Venice, where he died in 1604. See Spiazzi 1964; Bancroft-Markus 1982–1983, 50–60; and Panagiotakis 1988, 191. 39 Unlike A and like N, however, O contains several glosses specifying that forms like *κο:σαι, *κουσ$εη, $ελσαιμι, and χ(ρην are aorist and not perfect (for example, on fols. 290v and 291r: *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας). These marginal notes, less frequent than N’s, have been added by a later hand. 40 On Donos, see Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1A, 32 f.; on Lygizos, see above, 160. 41 The part with Pylê may have been copied in Crete or in Venice; in fact, the watermark of the folios with Pylê are similar to Briquet 5159 (Venice 1476).
168
chapter three
O is not without mistakes and omissions; however, it is a very valuable copy of the text of Pylê a. The text shows traces of corrections, for the most part by the copyist himself. Q Together with R, the Vatican MS. Ottoboni gr. 206 (formerly V. I. 7; paper, mm 132 × 210, 294 folios) is the only manuscript of Pylê a precisely dated. A subscriptio on fol. 292v reads, in fact: ,τους ςpπγo μην?ς o μαου τετ(ρτη, “the fourth of May of the year 6983,” corresponding to 1475.42 The hand of the first part of the manuscript, containing Pylê a, has not been identified; it is, however, very similar to that of Michael Lygizos, who wrote the second part of the manuscript (fols. 186–292).43 This manuscript contains the tools necessary for the study of elementary Greek: the Greek alphabet explained in Latin, lists of abbreviations, and prayers in Greek (the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Minor Doxology, etc.). Pylê (fols. 6av–55v) and the first book of Cato’s Distichs (56r–62v) are followed by excerpts from the Canons of Theodosius of Alexandria, from Theodore Gaza’s grammar, and from Moschopoulos’ Erotemata. The text of Pylê is very similar, although not identical, to that of A. However, the extraordinary interest of Q lies in the information that it conveys on the circulation of Pylê in the vicinity of Venice at the beginning of the sixteenth century and on the actual use of this grammar in learning elementary Greek. On top of fol. 6av, where Pylê begins, we read some words written in an almost completely faded sepia ink: Die 22 Octobris 1510 anno salutis Franciscus Hyazchas Plato incepit dare operam literaturae graecae Corneliani oppidi procul Taurisio 15000 passuum. Agens aetatem 35 annorum.
This is followed by the list of the Greek diphthongs in a Latin transliteration according to their pronunciation:
42 Described by Ernest Feron and Fabiano Battaglini, Codices manuscripti Graeci Ottoboniani Bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti etc., Romae 1893, 120f. The library of Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni, who became Pope Alexander VIII in 1689, was incorporated into the Vatican library in 1748. Ottoboni’s library included some of the books of Christina, Queen of Sweden (collected in France and in Rome) as well as those of Cardinal Sirleto (many of which are from Calabria) and the Altemps family. Many of the Ottoboniani Greek manuscripts came from Mount Athos. See De Nicolò 1985, 29f. 43 See Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1 A, 153.
donati graeci
169
e
af
i
ef
i
u
αι
αυ
ει
ευ
οι
ου
The question about the identity of “Franciscus Hyazchas Plato” cannot be answered. Like Girolamo Amaseo some years before (above, 137), he may have left his native country to study the humanities in more prestigious Italian cultural centers.44 It is not surprising that he was no longer a young man, if we consider that some of Girolamo’s classmates in Florence were in their forties or in their fifties. The place where Hyazchas studied, Cornelianum oppidum, was almost certainly Conegliano Veneto, which is actually about fifteen miles (28 Km) from Taurisium (i.e., Treviso).45 Because of its close contacts with Treviso and Venice, Conegliano had a solid cultural tradition. The famous teachers and literates Giovanni Conversini and Pietro da Asolo had taught there between 1371 and 1381. Moreover, between 1367 and 1374, Petrarch’s sojourn in Padua and Arquà, in the Euganean Hills, had sparked interest in literary studies. In 1398, Conegliano’s territory became part of the Republic of Venice: the absorption of the culture and the customs of the capital allowed the city to reach its apogee in the second half of the fifteenth century. However, in 1510, when Hyazchas was undertaking his study of Greek, Conegliano was no longer a prosperous city. A plague had broken out, weakening the city to such an extent that, in 1511, it was conquered by the army of the League of Cambrai 44 So far, I have not been able to find evidence of the name “Hyazchas” elsewhere, nor do I have any clue about its root, its origin or its meaning. “Plato” may be a nickname, perhaps inspired by Neoplatonic philosophy. Together with Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism had become popular in the Veneto, thanks to Nicolaus Leonicus Thomaeus, who taught in Padua from 1497 for about ten years (see Monfasani 1990, 63 f.; and Grendler 2002, 297 f.). Also, Padua’s school of civil and canon law attracted many students from northern and central Europe to the Veneto; for example, between the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries one thousand Hungarians studied at Padua. See Plumidis 1971, 132; Walter 2000, 122; and Grendler 2002, 37– 38. 45 In antiquity and in the Middle Ages, the toponym Cornelianum indicated several places in Italy (Cornegliano Landense near Milan, Cornigliano near Piacenza, and Corneliano d’Alba in Piedmont), in Dalmatia (Mons Cornelianus, now Cornio), and in France (Corneillan in Gers, Corneilhan in Hérault, and Corneilla-de-Conflent in Pirenées Orientaux). Taurisium or Tarvisium may indicate Tabriz, in Armenia (see Blanchet-Ganchou 2005, 74–76), but here it refers, most probably, to the city of Treviso, in the Veneto. In medieval documents, Conegliano Veneto and Treviso are usually mentioned as Coneclanum and Tarvisium respectively; Hyazchas may have chosen to “archaize” their names. See TLO 2. 1. 419; and Orbis latinus 1. 574, 3. 458.
170
chapter three
(1508–1516). Conegliano did not recover its prestige until the Venetian reconquest, in 1512.46 In Q , Pylê is written in columns of twenty-six lines per page; like Lygizos’ writing, the writing of the Greek text is square and archaizing. In the first four pages we have a faithful Latin translation, clearly and accurately written, placed beside the Greek text. From fol. 9r onwards, however, we find only glosses alongside the Greek text. The hand and the pale sepia ink that was used belong to Hyazchas himself; he also tried to separate the words of the Greek text with vertical strokes. Hyazchas translated some of the definitions into Latin; more often, however, he gave the Latin meaning of the nouns or the verbs, or the corresponding Latin tense of the verbal forms only. He also followed the same method with the canons of the parisyllabic nouns written in fols. 63r–161v.47 Some mistakes—for example, qλς glossed with piscator and Uν$ρωπος, abbreviated ανος, confused with Uνους and translated with demens—demonstrate that Hyazchas used the book for the independent study of Greek, perhaps with the help of a bilingual dictionary. R MS. Redi 15 of the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence (paper, mm 211 ×135, fols. 205), from the end of the fifteenth century, is the result of the binding of several texts written by at least ten different hands. It contains, for example, excerpts from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, Epictetus’ Enchiridion, Plutarch’s Consolatio ad Apollonium, Eratosthenes’ letter to Ptolemy, and Michael Apostolis’ letters to Gemistos Plethon. Part of this heterogeneous material was to be used for learning Greek.48 Pylê is neatly written on fols. 111r–151r (or 116r–156r, taking into account the blank pages) in a typical fifteenth-century cursive. The presence of decoration, although very simple (a large band over the title, Alexandrian capital letters for the title, and some decorated initials), as well as the layout (twenty-five lines per page) suggest that the text was not copied to serve exclusively as a schoolbook. Several corrections can be observed in the margins and in the
46 On the culture and history of Conegliano and its environs, see Gargan 1965, 85 ff.; Grendler 1985a, 191; De Mas 1972; and Caniato-Baldissin Molli 1987, 20–25. 47 For example: α@αξ aiax, $ο(ς thoas, κοχλας klimax, λ βης lebes, χρ2σης fenerator, Uδωνις nomen p(ro)p(rium), μ(ντις vates, χαρεις gra(ti)osus, πηλε2ς peleus, etc. 48 The manuscript has been described by Rostagno and Festa (above, n. 25), 219f. See also the thorough analyses by Vendruscolo (1995) and Speranzi (2007, 433–438).
donati graeci
171
interlinear spaces; some are by the copyist himself, but most of them are by a later hand. In any case, Pylê marks the beginning of the second section of the book, which is dedicated to school texts. Pylê is entitled Γραμματικ Δον(του μεταγλωττισ$ε>σα κ τς τν 8Ρωμαων φωνς πρ?ς τν 8Ελλ(δα παρ4 κϋρο: Μαξμου το: Πλανο2δη. It is followed by Planudes’
translation of Cato’s Distichs (152r–166v). The hand of the Distichs is different from that of Pylê, but is identical to the hand that wrote two elementary texts: the sentences attributed to Phocylides (see above, 127) and a riddle in epigrammatic form (AP. 14. 110: fols. 167r–176r). Another hand wrote a section on prayers (e.g., Te Deum laudamus: τ? παρ4 το>ς Ιταλο>ς λεγμενον νδενδ ω λαουτ(μους, sic), while two different hands added the Pseudo-Homeric Batracomyomachia and Philostratus’ Imagines 1–17.49 The manuscript, previously no. 130 in the library of the Monastero degli Angeli in Florence (Monasterii Angelorum on fol. 1r), belonged to the Camaldolite Petrus Candidus (Pietro da Portico), who between 1491 and 1496 was in Crete to learn Greek and was in close contact with Apostolis’ circle. Pylê a was probably one of the grammars that Candidus used to acquire his knowledge of the language. According to the subscriptio on fol. 151r, Pylê was copied by George Gregoropoulos: Θεο: τ? δρον κα' Γεωργου πνος το: Γρηγοροπο2λου τ(χα κα' Θ2του. Gregoropoulos, a priest ($2της), was at Candia some time before 1479. Gregoropoulos uses a regular minuscule with capital and enlarged letters; he carefully divides the text into shorter units and often disposes paradigms in tables.50 More Cretan hands can be identified in the manuscript: e.g., Thomas Bitzimanos, who copied the corpus of Apostolis’ letters to Plethon;51 and Antonios Damilas (Antonius Mediolanensis), a notary in Crete, who copied Epictetus’ Enchiridion.52 49
See Rostagno and Festa, loc, cit. On Gregoropoulos’ family, see Kaklamanis-Lambakis 2003, 24–27. See also Vogel-Gardthausen 72–73; Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1 A, 54f.; Vendruscolo 1995, 358 n. 86; and Speranzi 2007, 437. On Gregoropoulos’ writing, see Melandri 1999, 118– 128. 51 Vogel-Gardthausen 150; and Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1 A, 88. 52 The glosses on Epictetus’ Enchiridion, which Rostagno had attributed to Politian, were added by Petrus Candidus (see Gionta 2004). On Antonios Damilas, who also worked for the humanist Francesco Filelfo, see Vogel-Gardthausen 32–34. He was the brother of Demetrios Damilas (i.e., “da Milano,” from Milan), who migrated to Italy from Crete and worked in Milan (1475–1484), Florence (1484–1490), and Rome (1490–1510). Demetrios, who was also a printer, has been identified by Canart 50
172
chapter three
All the hands so far identified belong to the scriptorium of Michael Apostolis; therefore, the Redi manuscript can be considered a product of this cultural environment. On the other hand, another subscriptio on fol. 50v (χειρ' δ’ μο: Λαυρεντου Λαυρετ(νου) tells us that the text of Eratosthenes’ letter to Ptolemy was copied in Venice (8Ενεταις) on December 5, 1489 ( αυπ$o *π? τς Χριστο: γεννσεως μην?ς Δεκεμo βρου εo) by Lorenzo Loredan.53 The watermarks indicate that the paper was produced in Crete and in Venice and/or in the nearby area at the end of the fifteenth century.54 R reached Florence in 1496, when Petrus Candidus returned from his sojourn in Crete.55 Therefore, R bears witness to the transmission of Pylê a from Crete to Florence by the end of the fifteenth century. 4. Pylê a: Toward a Stemma Codicum My analysis of the manuscripts of Pylê a has confirmed and reinforced the conclusions reached by Schmitt in his dissertation. The manuscripts of Pylê a can be divided into two main groups: the first includes A, B, C, G, N, O, and Q , and the second consists of R only. R’s text belongs to the Pylê a-type because it is a literal translation of an Ianua longa, but it often differs from the other manuscripts, which I will define as the x-group, in the order and in the number of paradigms as well as in the language of the Greek translation.56 For example: (1977–1979, 282 ff.) as the Librarius Florentinus, an anonymous copyist whose hand has been recognized in many manuscripts now at the Biblioteca Laurenziana. See Geneakoplos 1976, 203; and Branca 1983, 172. A detailed analysis of Demetrios’ life and printing activity can be found in Staïkos 1998, 137–176. 53 Born in 1476 to a prestigious Venetian family, Lorenzo Loredan was a student of Giorgio Valla, who taught at the School of San Marco from 1485 to 1500. Through Valla, he became acquainted with Politian. Loredan died in 1526. See Vendruscolo 1995, 340–342. 54 For an analysis of R’s watermarks, see Vendruscolo 1995, 358 n. 86; and Speranzi 2007, 432. 55 After Candidus’ death (1513), his library was incorporated into the library of the Monastero degli Angeli. On Candidus’ books, see Scapecchi 1994; Melandri 1999, 116f.; and Speranzi 2007, 429–449. 56 For a complete list of differences between x (p) and R, see Schmitt 1966, 158– 167. Some similarities between R and b’ s text (for example: a 1. 18–21(b) = b 1. 17–18; a 4. 17–25(b) š b. 4. 13–15) may be derived from the presence, in R’s original, of variae lectiones taken from b’s source, or, more probably, from the affinity between R’s original and b’s source.
donati graeci pr. 6 1. 8, 10, 12 1. 40 1. 71 1. 157–162 1. 163–221 2. 107 2. 167 2. 241–247 2. 379–383 2. 455, 480, 731, etc. 2. 763 2. 767–794 3. 19 3. 22 4. 104–108 5. 11 5. 13–14 6. 22–23
διδ(ξω x *ρ$ρικ x π$εν; x α5τς x
173
διδ(ξει R μα *ρ$ρικ R π$εν λ γεται; R τα2της R
om. x om. R sγ(πηκαν x *γαπη$σεσ$αι x
sγαπκασιν R *γαπPσ$αι R
om. x om. x μ λλοντος x βασταχ$μεν … βασταχ$σιν x
% μ λλων R βασταχ$ησμε$α … βασταχ$σονται R
om. x Wπερ x ν … ρους x
dπερ R ες … ρους R
om. x πτσιν x Sκατ ρας x διδαγμ νως x ε5μρφως x
πτ+σει R *μφοτ ρας R σοφς R Tραως R
etc.
It is possible that R’s original was a Latin Ianua either earlier or later than that of x, but very similar to it.57 In any case, some similarities and some errores coniunctivi between R and all, or some, of the manuscripts of the x-group led Schmitt to consider as probable (“wahrscheinlich”) a common origin for all the extant manuscripts of Pylê a.58 We cannot exclude that such similarities may be due to 57
There will be no solution to the problem of the relative chronology of the two originals until the history of the text of Ianua becomes sufficiently clear. Here are some examples, taken from the treatment of nominal inflection. At 1. 40, x uses the objective statement (νομαστικ λ γεται *π? το: νομ(ζειν, κ.τ.λ.), whereas R has a question (νομαστικ δ3 π$εν λ γεται; *π? το: νομ(ζειν, κ.τ.λ.): a difference that can also be found, for example, when comparing some printed editions of Ianua, e.g., p and v (see above, 30 n. 89). At 1. 73, concerning the endings of the first declension, together with ποιητς, ποιητο: R also gives the nominative and genitive of μο:σα (like the p-edition). For the fifth declension, R replaces πστις (fides: 1. 267–268) with λπς (spes, which actually appears in the p-edition: 1. 269–273). Finally, R does not give the inflection of the nouns Uρματα (arma), τ(ρταρος (Tartarus), ο5ρανς (coelum), λιμν (portus, instead of porrus), ,δεσμα (epulum), and κρμυον (cepe: 1. 319–350). 58 Schmitt 1966, 167: “Trotz die zahlreichen Unterschiede […] gibt es eine Reihe von Übereinstimmungen und gemeinsamer Fehler, welche die gleiche Herkunft für alle überlieferten Textträger wahrscheinlich machen.” Here are some examples (a complete list in Schmitt 1966, 167–169): 1. 92 το>ς μαιστροις BCGNOR (instead of
174
chapter three
pure coincidence or to contamination between manuscripts. In general, however, if compared with the other three extant Donati graeci, the texts of both groups of manuscripts of Pylê a are homogeneous: the similarities between the two groups are much more numerous than their differences. This homogeneity consists mainly in the choices made by the translator(s) when rendering the Latin text. In the chapter on verbs, for example, both x and R translate the Latin verb lego in *ναγιν+σκω (“to read”), whereas the other Donati graeci use the Greek λ γω, despite the different meaning (“to say, speak”). In both x and R we observe the same confusion between aorist and perfect indicative or between the passive and the middle voices.59 Both x and R translate the Latin pluperfect with the corresponding Greek tense, which is rare in classical Greek and almost nonexistent in late Greek. Moreover, both x and R lack the translation of the forms of μ μνημαι (memini) and the impersonal conjugations of σ$ω (edo) and πορε2ομαι (eo). On the other hand, all manuscripts of Pylê a agree in translating the Latin perfect participle lectus with the aorist active *ναγν+σας. These similarities have led me to present both texts together as Pylê a and to attempt the reconstruction of an original hypothetical Ianua, on which both x’s and R’s original may have been based. Within the x-group, some sub-groups can be easily identified. First of all, MSS. B, C, and G are closely related to each other: these manuscripts contain readings that distinguish them from R and from the rest of the x-group.60 For example:
μαtστορσι); 2. 844 ε@$ε γνομαι, γνεσαι, γνεται codd. (instead of γεγενημ νος ε@ην, ε@ης, ε@η, as Schmitt corrected); 8. 10–11: the translation of the Latin exemplum Cicero solus
Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solus igitur Cicero patriam servavit (cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 16. 12, GL 3, 101) reads in all manuscripts Κκερος (sic) μνος Κατελνα τQ σοφRα α5το: νκησεν κα' τν πατρδα εσωκσατο (sic) μνος το>νυν Κκερος τν πατρδα φ2λαξεν. The words κα' τν πατρδα εσωκσατο (AQ , εσικσατο BG, εσικσαντο C, εσοκσατο N, εσοικσατο OR) were probably taken from a double version of patriam servavit, later incorporated into the original text of Pylê a. 59 The merger of the aorist and the perfect started in the Hellenistic age. According to Horrocks (1997, 118), it may reflect the influence of Latin; see also Debrunner 1969 [1954], 115–116. For the replacement of the middle voice with the passive, see Horrocks 1997, 54, 188. 60 For example, in BCG the interrogative pronoun quae is translated with τ instead of πο>α or τνα (cf., e.g., 1. 3) and the personal pronoun sui with α5το:, pl. Sαυτν, instead of α5τς and ο[ (4. 40ff.; see below, 194). Remarks such as κατ4 Λατνους and κατ4 Γραϊκο2ς are usually omitted, as well as the identical forms in the declensions of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles. See Schmitt 1966, 174–179 and 179–182.
donati graeci 1. 1 1. 30–31 1. 36 1. 286 2. 55(a) 2. 157 2. 190 2. 314 2. 825 2. 883 2. 888 etc.
175
% ποιητς BCG ποιητς alii *ναγιν+σκω, Uδικος … *δικα alii *ναγιν+σκεις BCG τ BCG τνες alii μικρ BCG μικρ( alii δαεται BCG δεομ νη ANQ , δ εται OR *γαπη$ε> BCG *γαπη$εην AQ , *γαπσοιτο NOR sγ(πημαι om. BCG δεδδακται BCG δεδδακτο alii γνεσαι BCG γνQη alii παρακεμενος BCG iπερσυντ λικος alii πορευ τω BCG πορευ σ$ω alii
On the other hand, the presence of errores separativi and of readings peculiar to each manuscript suggests extreme caution in formulating any hypothesis of derivation of these manuscripts from each other. For example: 1. 7 1. 277 2. 56(a) 2. 57(a) 2. 224–225 2. 438(a) 2. 890 2. 892–893 etc.
α5τ B εο B πρ$εσιν B προσ$σεται B sγαπ+με$α B *νεγν+σκειν B πορε2$ησο B πορευ$μην B
ταυτ C ει C προτ$ησιν C προστε$σεται C sγαπμε$α C *νεγν+σμην C πορευ$ση C πορευ$ομην C
α5το: G εG προσ$ ττει G προσ$ τεται G sγαπομε$α G *νεγν+μην G πορευ$ση σ2 G πορευ$εμην G
It is worth noticing that, in most cases, C offers the correct reading. Also, B and C often agree against G; for example: 1. 1 1. 13 1. 15 2. 87 2. 240 2. 556 4. 60 etc.
τ μ ρος BC δ2ο BC παντοου BC αiτο: BC *γαπη$σεσ$αι BC *κο2σοιτο BC συν ρχονται BC
ποου μ ρους λγου G
om. G παντς G α5τ? G *γαπσεσ$αι G *κουσ$σοιτο G συν χεται G
176
chapter three
Among the other manuscripts of the x-group, A (and its close relative, Q) and N have several readings in common with BCG;61 for example: 1. 72 2. 14 2. 57 2. 88 2. 114(a) 2. 199 2. 672–680 etc.
% … ποιητο: om. ABCGQ *πολυπαντικο: ABCGQ Uλλου #ματος ABCGQ λαλο:ντα ABCGQ τοGς om. ABCGQ *γ(πα ABCGQ
2. 413 2. 575 2. 851 3. 11(a) etc.
*ν γνωσ$αι BCGN *ν γνωσται alii sκουσμ νοι εσν om. BCGN γνεσαι, γνονται BCGN γνQη, γνηται alii *δι(βατον BCGN *μετ(βατον alii
*πο$ετικο: alii Uλλ&ω #ματι alii λαλο:ν alii *γαπο: alii
om. ABCGQ
Sometimes both A(Q) and N agree with the BCG-group; for example: 1. 99 2. 67(a) 2. 415 2. 489 2. 563 etc.
α;τινες ABCGNQ γνεται ABCGNQ μ λλοντος ABCGNQ ,χει om. ABCGNQ *κουσ$ ων ABCGNQ
ο;τινες BmO συντ$εται alii % μ λλων alii *κουστ ων O
However, many of these common readings may have originated independently. Much more relevant are the similarities between A and O:62 these two manuscripts, copied by the hand of Michael Lygizos, represent an individual sub-group within x. In particular, A contains
61
The most frequent case is the translation of nominativus with ε5$ε>α instead of
νομαστικ; see Schmitt 1966, 174.
A agrees with both O and R, for example, in the declension of παρ$ νος (1. 151–156) with both the feminine and the masculine article (% κα' E παρ$ νος, which corresponds to Ianua’s hic et hec virgo), instead of E παρ$ νος only; or in the use of the masculine form of the adjectives defining the categories of conjunctions (8. 4ff.: συμπλεκτικς, *$ροιστικς, λογικς, etc., scil. σ2νδεσμος) instead of the feminine of BCG, which is the result of a faithful translation from Latin (coniunctio). See Schmitt 1966, 183–186. On the other hand, in the definition of the “neuter gender” of verbs (2. 9–10), A and R have ποιε> ξ α5το: πα$ητικν, whereas O reads ο5δεν?ς κρατε> σημασαν, as in b 2. 7–8; this may be a case of varia lectio or of a collatio with a manuscript of Pylê b. 62
donati graeci
177
a more recent and improved version of Pylê a than BCG.63 Several elements allow us to recognize a deliberate attempt to improve the quality of the text: sometimes A omits forms that can be considered as redundant or superfluous in a basic introduction to Greek morphology, such as some obsolete vocatives (e.g., that of Π(σχα, 1. 54) or the forms of the neuter adjectives or pronouns coinciding with those of the masculine. The corrections of B (Bm) and the two manuscripts unknown to Schmitt, N and Q , also belong to the same sub-group. Bm agrees with O in several cases; for example:64 1. 27 1. 72
*π? το: BmO (and R) ποιητς ποιητο: BmO
κ το: alii ποιητς το: ποιητο: NR,
1. 94–96 2. 11 2. 56(a)
Κυργλιος etc. BmO *μφοτ ρων BmO Sαυτν BmO
Βιργλιος etc. alii *μφοτ ρας alii α5τ? AQ , α5τ& BCG, α5τ& Sαυτν R Uλλο #μα alii
2. 496–497(b) 2. 679 2. 679–680 etc.
om. ABCGQ
Uλλ&ω #ματι BmO (and R) ν χρσει δ3 om. BmO προστακτικς γκλσεως BmO ν … προσ+π&ω om. BmO
προστακτικ ,γκλισις alii
Q is closely related to A; the mistakes, omissions, and lectiones potiores that the two manuscripts have in common suggest that they may derive from the same original (k).65 However, Q offers an improved 63 For the “good readings” of BCG, see the critical apparatus and Schmitt 1966, 192 n. 102. 64 Schmitt (1966, 187 f., n. 101) includes a list of readings common to B’s marginalia and O, and concludes: “Es muß offen bleiben, ob etwa die Vorlage von O die Quelle der Korrekturen in B ist, wie sich auch nicht entscheiden läßt, ob etwa eine Abschrift von Bb (= Bm) als Vorlage für O diente.” The first hypothesis seems to be more probable, but the lack of more precise elements regarding the history of the text does not encourage any final conclusion. 65 For example, both A and Q call the deponent verb *πολυπαντικν (*πολιπαντικν A, but *πο$ετικν NOR: 2. 13). Both A and Q omit the accusative and vocative neuter plural of ε5δαμων (1. 202 and 203), the “ablative” plural of π νης (1. 207– 208), the vocative singular of ο=κος (1. 235), the vocative plural of ,δεσμα (1. 345–346), etc. On the other hand, like O and N, Q contains the definition of the future tense, which A omits (2. 46–47). A comparison between AQ and the other manuscripts of the same group gives us some clues about the probable original of AQ (k). At 2. 155, the perfect-pluperfect optative impersonal of *γαπ(ω is ε@$ε sγ(πηται in N and O; A omits the form and Q writes ε@$ε sγα, followed by a blank space. Similarly, at 2. 159,
178
chapter three
version of A.66 On the other hand, the copyist of Q , or an almost contemporary hand, seems to have inserted some readings of A into the text of Q.67 Indeed, the fact that part of manuscript Q was written by Michael Lygizos, who wrote A and O, and that both the writing and the layout of Q’s Pylê resemble that of A rather than that of O, encourage the hypothesis that A and Q come from the same environment or even from the same scriptorium, whereas O may represent an earlier copy of the same text. As for N, it undoubtedly belongs to the same group as AQ and O, but is related more closely to O than to AQ; for example: 2. 152 2. 175 2. 644–646 2. 686–689 2. 690–691 2. 735 2. 879–882 3. 78–103 etc.
*γαπησ(σ$ω NO dτις NO ε@$ε $ελσαιμι κ.τ.λ. NO β(σταξα κ.τ.λ. NO βαστ(κειν κ.τ.λ. NO βαστ(χ$ην NO πορε2$ην κ.τ.λ. NO
*γαπη$τω AQ dπερ AQ ε@$ε τε$ελκοιμι κ.τ.λ. AQ βεβ(στακα κ.τ.λ. AQ βεβαστ(κειν κ.τ.λ. AQ βεβ(σταγμαι AQ πεπρευμαι κ.τ.λ. AQ
om. AQ
A gives the imperfect subjunctive impersonal 4ν *γαπ (sic) and for the perfect, at 161(a), simply writes ε@ην, but Q writes 4ν *γαπ (with blank space) and 4ν *γαπημ νος (sic, but s- in the interlinear space) ε@η. At 2. 423, where all manuscripts have 4ν *ναγνωσ$Q, both A and Q have simply 4ν *να; etc. Thus, the original was perhaps defective or illegible in some parts, and each copyist tried to fill its gaps independently or else “suspended his judgement.” 66 Q offers διδαγμεν στατος as an example of the superlative, which A omits (1. 282). Unlike A, Q gives, for example, the vocative plural of τποι (1. 325) and the dative of the verbal adjectives (“gerund”) of γνομαι (γενητ &ω: 2. 870) and χαρομαι (χαρητ &ω: 2. 956). At 2. 427–428, Q has the correct reading (% παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ναγνωσ$ναι. μ λλοντοςZ *ναγνωσ$σεσ$αι), whereas A—probably for a “saut du même au même”—has % παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ναγνωσ$σεται. In the same way, Q does not have either A’s lengthy omissions on 2. 566–582 (the complete indicative passive of *κο2ω) and 2. 610–612(a) (the plural of the pluperfect subjunctive passive of *κο2ω, missing also in O and in BCG), or A’s repetition of the declension of Eμ τερος (4. 133–141). 67 At 1. 306 and 310, Q wrote το>ς τρισ and το>ς τ σσαρσιν, but added the feminine article τα>ς in the interlinear space, perhaps from A, which has το>ς, τα>ς τρισ and το>ς, τα>ς τ σσαρσιν (το>ς τρισ, τα>ς τρισ, το>ς τρισ and το>ς, τα>ς, το>ς τ σσαρσι O; το>ς, τα>ς τρισ and το>ς τ σσαρσιν N). At 2. 60, Q has *λλ’ νδ ον, which is N’s reading, later changed into A’s *λλ4 δ ον in the interlinear space. At 3. 45, 46, and 57(a), only the forms of the feminine (τς *ναγινωσκο2σης, τQ *ναγινωσκο2σQη, and τα>ς λεγο2σαις) are added in Q’s interlinear space from A, which lacks the neuter.
donati graeci
179
However, the many peculiar mistakes and omissions reduce the importance of this manuscript for the constitutio textus.68 In conclusion, as is clear from the following chart, the manuscripts presently available allow us to distinguish two main branches of the tradition of Pylê a: x and R. The original of x, α, should be meant not as an archetype in Lachmann’s sense, but as a sort of ideal Greek translation of a Latin Ianua longa that may or may not have given origin to all the extant texts, but that contains features common to all of them; in the same way, the Latin translation printed below, facing the Greek text, will hardly correspond to an existing exemplar of Ianua. The x-branch includes two groups: a “Florentine recensio” (y), to which BCG belong, and a “Venetian/Cretan recensio” (z) that includes ABmNOQ.69 In turn, BmNO must be distinguished from AQ , which probably are derived from the same original (k). It is also clear, however, that no manuscript is a direct original or a direct copy of another, and no branch or group is exempt from interpolations from other branches or groups.
68
Like AQ , for example, N omits the vocative feminine and neuter singular of
σχυρς (1. 174) and the dative neuter plural of χλιοι (1. 314), as well as the declension
of the relative pronoun (4. 121–132), etc. N also contains the same definition of the
γ νος ο5δ τερον (genus neutrum) of verbs (2. 9–10). Like AOQ , N omits the “ablative” singular of πτωχς (1. 212–213). On the other hand, N does not contain the section on
the irregular nouns (1. 319–351). At 2. 565–568, N gives the first three passive principal parts of *κο2ω—*κο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εται—as active (!) participles. Some readings appear in N only; for example, 2. 94–96 in N reads qπαντα τ4 *παρ μφατα, *νυπστατα, $ετικ4 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων κλπονται, whereas the other manuscripts have qπαντα τ4 *παρ μφατα, *νυπστατα, $ετικ4 κα' iπο$ετικ4 *ρι$μοGς κα' πρσωπα κλεπουσι. At 2. 252–259 and 309–313, for the perfect (παρακεμενος) indicative active and passive of διδ(σκω, N has the perfect δεδδαχα and δεδδαγμαι, whereas all the manuscripts of the same group have the aorist δδαξα and διδ(χ$ην. At 3. 51–53, in addition to % *ναγιν+σκων κ.τ.λ., N also has the complete declension of the singular of the present participle of λ γω (O has the nominative % λ γων, E λ γουσα κα' τ? λ γον only). 69 I have chosen “Florentine” and “Venetian/Cretan” as conventional names, considering first of all the (supposed) places of circulation of the manuscripts related to each category.
180
chapter three
The Stemma codicum of Pylê a (x-group)
5. Pylê a as a Grammar Book: The Variable Parts of Speech Both x and R offer a translation faithful to the letter of their Latin originals. This faithfulness allows us to reconstruct a Latin original text very similar in content to the still surviving Ianuae longae and in style to the “vulgate” Ianua, represented, for example, by the Pescian edition of 1492 (p: see above, 30 n. 89). Any inference from these data, however, will remain pure hypothesis until a careful study of the manuscripts and printed editions of Ianua allows us to shed light on the number of its variants and on their circulation from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and until a search for the Latin original of Pylê a is seriously undertaken. In any case, if, as it seems, the Greek translation was based on an expanded Ianua, then it was made at a time when, and at a place where, copies of Ianua longa were still circulating and had not yet been replaced by the brevis version.70 The fact that each Latin word usually is rendered in the same way encourages the assumption that the translator(s) used a bilingual
70
See Black 2001, 50f.
donati graeci
181
dictionary. The Greek grammatical terms used in Pylê a generally coincide with those of the grammar books, erôtêmata, and schedê of the Byzantine tradition, but it is difficult to say whether the translator(s) found them in dictionaries or lexica or had learned them in school, as would have been the case with Greek native speakers. In any case, the many non-literary forms suggest that Pylê a was the product of an environment where Greek was spoken as well as read. If Pylê a was really conceived as a Greek grammar, we must consider it a failure. In fact, its author(s) did not attempt to solve the contradictions of a Greek grammar completely modeled on Latin. Thus, for example, the article is not considered as a part of speech and is replaced with the interjection, which Greek grammarians regarded as a category of the adverb. In Pylê a, Greek nouns have six cases— the regular five cases and the ablative (*φαιρετικ, scil. πτσις), corresponding to *π + genitive—have no dual and can be divided into five declensions according to the endings of the genitive singular.71 In the same way, Greek verbs belong to four conjugations; they have neither a middle voice nor an aorist tense (although the term *ριστος appears in some manuscripts), but they may have a future imperative, an imperfect and future subjunctive (in R), a gerund, a gerundive, and a supine. The paradigms used to explain the five Greek declensions and the four conjugations are the literal translations of the paradigms of Ianua. Here is how Pylê a presents the five nominal declensions: first declension (genitive singular: -αε): % ποιητς E μο:σα τ? Π(σχα % κα' E προσλυτος % Αβρα(μ % Πριαμδης % Ανεας
hic poeta haec musa hoc Pascha hic et haec advena hic Abraham hic Priamides hic Aeneas
71 The nominative is called νομαστικ in O and ε5$ε>α in all the other manuscripts. Dionysius Thrax used both terms (12, p. 52 Lallot: E μ3ν ρ$ [scil. πτσις] νομαστικ κα' ε5$ε>α); thus, they were considered to be interchangeable. The original text(s) of Pylê a probably gave both readings. However, νομαστικ occurs in definitions (cf. 1. 40 νομαστικ π$εν λ γεται; etc.) and is etymologically closer to the Latin nominativus than ε5$ε>α. A trace of the original reading can perhaps be found at 1. 191, where even A and Q have E νομαστικ.
182
chapter three
second declension (genitive singular: ι κτεταμ νον, “lengthened,” Lat. productum): % κ2ριος % $ες τ? σκαμνον % μαtστωρ % Βιργλιος
hic dominus hic deus hoc scamnum hic magister hic Vergilius
third declension (genitive singular: ις συνεσταλμ νον, “with a short vowel,” Lat. correptum): % πατρ E μτηρ τ? ,ργον % κα' E Fερε2ς (sic) E πλις E *ν(γνωσις % κα' E Uν$ρωπος % *ναγνωστς % κα' E παρ$ νος % πιστμων % πPς κα' E πPσα κα' τ? πPν % σχυρ?ς κα' E σχυρ4 κα' τ? σχυρν % σχυρτερος κα' E σχυροτ ρα κα' τ? σχυρτερον τ? κσμιον % κα' E ε5δαμων κα' τ? εuδαιμον % π νης % πτωχ?ς κα' E πτωχ κα' τ? πτωχν E δ2ναμις
hic pater haec mater hoc opus hic et haec sacerdos haec civitas haec lectio hic et haec homo hic lector hic et haec virgo hic sapiens72 hic et haec omnis et hoc omne hic et haec fortis et hoc forte hic et haec fortior et hoc fortius hoc monile73 hic et haec et hoc felix hic pauper hic et haec et hoc inops74 haec vis
fourth declension (genitive singular: ους or ου κτεταμ νον):
72 In R only. Sapiens is included among the paradigms of the third declension in the Ianua of Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15972 (J: see below, Appendix II). 73 Schmitt (1966, 57 n. 61) suggested decus, which, however, is not attested to in any copy of Ianua. Conversely, monile is in the Ianuae longae of MSS. Strozzi 80 and Paris. lat. 15972. 74 Π νης and πτωχς, missing in G and R, are complete in ABmNOQ , whereas B and C give the singular % π νης and the plural οF πτωχο.
donati graeci E ψις E χερ τ? ο=κον τ? κ ρας τ? γνατον
183
hic visus haec manus haec domus hoc cornu hoc genu
fifth declension (genitive singular: ει διηρημ ναι συλλαβα, “separated syllables,” Lat. divisae syllabae): τ? ε=δος τ? πρ(γμα E Eμ ρα E πστις E λπς E μεσημβρα
haec species haec res hic vel haec dies haec fides haec spes75 hic meridies
Even an excursus on the vocative of the names in -ius of the second declension is translated into Greek and included in the text, although it does not apply to Greek nominal inflection.76 Adjectives and adverbs, grades of comparison, and numerals, which were part of the first chapter of Ianua, were also translated into Greek, together with some irregular nouns: Uρματα (arma: plural only),77 τπος (locus: heterogeneous), Τ(ρταρος (Tartarus: heteroclite); ο5ρανς (caelum: heteroclite); λιμν (portus, most probably a misunderstanding of porrus or porrum: heterogeneous), ,δεσμα (epulum: heteroclite), and κρμυον (cepa or cepe: heterogeneous). More importantly, the place of each noun and adjective within the system of Greek declensions according to version a can be explained only by referring to their Latin equivalent. The genitive singular of ποιητς, μο:σα, Π(σχα, and of all Greek nouns of the first declension does not end in -αε, nor does the genitive singular of the nouns of the second declension end in ι, etc. The Greek nouns in Pylê a are nothing but a transposition of the Latin nouns of Ianua. The fact that both the
75 In R only. Spes is declined among the paradigms of the fifth declension in some Ianuae breves and in the Ianuae longae of MSS. 404 of the Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile in Padua (U; see above, 30 n. 89) and Paris. lat. 15972 (J). 76 The Greek text of this excursus, which appears in x only (1. 97–103), is heavily corrupted and very difficult to correct. See below, 514f. 77 In Byzantine Greek, Uρμα, borrowed from Latin, is used as “weapon” (cf. Sophokles, s.v.).
184
chapter three
translation and the paradigms given are generally correct suggests the use of a manual on Greek nominal inflection. Identifying this tool, however, is almost impossible.78 The frequent occurrence of the words κατ4 Λατνους (“according to the Latins”) demonstrates that the translator(s) or some readers of Pylê a were aware of the limits of such a presentation of Greek morphology. An example of such awareness occurs after the observation that the distinguishing feature of the third declension is the genitive singular in short -is: someone added that this rule applied to Latin rather than to Greek, for “in Greek it is different” (*λλ4 το:το μ3ν κατ4 ΛατνουςZ κα$’ jΕλληνας δ3 ο5χ ο_τως ,χει). If not written by the translator himself, this short comment may have been a marginal note by a reader that was later incorporated into the text. The question *γαπ τ μ ρος λγου στν; (“what part of speech is *γαπ?”) introduces the section on verbs. Four paradigms are used to explain the four Greek conjugations according to Pylê a: *γαπ, διδ(σκω, *ναγιν+σκω (a late form of *ναγιγν+σκω), and *κο2ω, which correspond to the Latin amo, doceo, lego, and audio. As the distinctive feature of each conjugation (συζυγα, coniugatio), Pylê a refers to the vowel before the ending of the second person singular of the present indicative, i.e., before s “or before ris in Latin” (πρ? το: ς ] πρ? το: ρις κατ4 Λατνους). Here are the four verbal conjugations according to Pylê a, with their characteristic vowel and the verbs chosen as paradigms: πρ+τη δευτ ρα τρτη τετ(ρτη
α κτεταμ νον ε κτεταμ νον ι συνεσταλμ νον ι κτεταμ νον
*γαπ, -RPς, *γαπμαι, -RP διδ(σκω, -εις, διδ(σκομαι, -Qη *ναγιν+σκω, -εις, *ναγιν+σκομαι, -Qη *κο2ω, -εις, *κο2ομαι, -Qη
The treatment of each verb does not differ from the Latin original. The names of moods and tenses are taken from the Greek grammatical tradition that prevailed from the time of Dionysius Thrax onward. Like Ianua, Pylê a presents each of the four regular conjugations by voice (γ νος), mood (,γκλισις), and tense (χρνος):
78 On the use of dictionaries and grammars in the grammatical treatises of the Middle Ages, see Dionisotti 1982, 114f.
donati graeci
185
I. νεργητικν, scil. γ νος (genus activum): 1. %ριστικ, scil. ,γκλισις (modus indicativus): a. νεστ+ς, scil. χρνος (tempus praesens) b. παρατατικς (praeteritum imperfectum) c. παρακεμενος (praeteritum perfectum) d. iπερσυντ λικος (praeteritum plusquamperfectum) e. μ λλων (futurum).79 Both the active and passive voices of *γαπ(ω and *κο2ω are introduced with a list of its principal parts that recall those given for the Latin verbs. The following forms are given for the active (2. 99–101): the first three persons of the present (*γαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRP, Lat. amo, amas, amat) and of the perfect indicative (sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκε, Lat. amavi, amavisti, amavit); the second and third persons of the present imperative (*γ(πα, *γαπ(τω, Lat. ama, amet); the aorist and the perfect infinitive (*γαπPν, sγαπηκ ναι, Lat. amare, amavisse); some forms of the verbal adjective in -τ ος (*γαπητ ον, *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ων, handed down by all manuscripts, whereas Ianua had amandi, amando, amandum); the accusative and genitive of the verbal adjective in -τς (*γαπητν, *γαπητο:, Lat. amatum, amatu); and the nominative masculine singular of the present and future participles (*γαπν κα' *γαπσων, Lat. amans et amaturus).80 The present, imperfect, pluperfect, and future active of each verb are given. As for the παρακεμενος, the perfect, Pylê a shows the traditional confusion between aorist and perfect for the rendering of the Latin perfectum.81 In Pylê a, the problem is usually solved in favor of the perfect, but the aorist often replaces missing and obsolete forms of the perfect. The fact that the translator(s) of Pylê a considered the aorist and the perfect as interchangeable mirrors the changes that the 79
On the origin of the Greek grammatical terminology, see Lallot’s commentary on Dionysius’ Τ χνη γραμματικ (pp. 161–179 of his edition). 80 R respects the original Latin text much more closely than x. In x, the present and perfect infinitives, *γαπPν and sγαπηκ ναι, are replaced with the aorist *γαπPσαι and the first person singular of the perfect optative *γαπκοιμι, but R’s *γαπν and *γαπηκ ναι show traces of the original readings. Moreover, ABCNQ conclude the list with *γαπPτε, which may have been added to the forms of the imperative and later incorporated into the text. 81 See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 54, GL 2, 415: Sciendum, quod Romani praeterito perfecto non solum in re modo completa utuntur, in quo vim habet eius, qui apud Graecos παρακεμενος vocatur […], sed etiam pro *ορστου accipitur, quod tempus tam modo perfectam rem quam multo ante significare potest.
186
chapter three
Greek language had been undergoing since the Hellenistic age: tenses had lost their qualitative value. On the other hand, the fact that in Pylê the perfect, which is already rare in New Testament Greek, represents an alternative to the aorist may be due to the conservatism of the teaching of grammar in schools, which favored the survival and the transmission of forms no longer existing in the spoken language. Thus, for the Latin perfectum we have the Greek perfect sγ(πηκα and *ν γνωκα as well as the aorist δδαξα and aκουσα.82 As for the pluperfect, much more common in Latin than in Greek, it is sometimes confused with the aorist passive: sγαπκειν, *νεγν+κειν, sκο2κειν, but διδ(χ$ην (written διδ(χ$ειν in C and G). 2. προστακτικ (imperativus): a. νεστ+ς (praesens) b. μ λλων (futurum) The present imperative has four persons: the second and the third, both singular and plural. Unlike Latin, Greek does not have a future imperative, but Priscian seems to encourage the use of the Greek perfect or “past” (praeteritum) imperative to express the idea of a command in the future.83 This means that, whereas in most manuscripts the text reads % μ λλων ο5κ ,χει κατ4 τοGς Γραϊκο2ς, R gives the aorist imperative, e.g., 2. 114–116(b): *γ(πησον, *γαπησ(τω, *γαπσατε, *γαπησ(τωσαν (the first two persons are also quoted in a marginal note in B). 3. ε5κτικ (optativus): all forms are introduced by ε@$ε (utinam): a. νεστς κα' παρατατικς (praesens et praeteritum imperfectum) b. παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικος (praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum) c. μ λλων (futurum). Latin and Greek grammar coincide in the “double tenses” and in the future of the optative (cf. Theod. Can., GG 4.1, 68–69); Greek also acknowledges an aorist optative. For the present/imperfect and 82 For docui etc., N has δεδδαχα κ.τ.λ. (2. 253–257(b)). In O, R, and in a marginal note in B, however, the copyists noted that the perfect δεδδαχα was obsolete: % παρακεμενος δεδδαχα (δ διχα R) Uχρηστος. Most manuscripts (ABCGOQR), in fact, give the aorist δδαξα. As for audivi etc. (2. 496ff.), the aorist aκουσα κ.τ.λ. is adopted by BCGNOR, whereas A and its relative Q have the perfect *κκοα. The text of R reads: % παρακεμενος UχρηστοςZ ν χρσει δ3 *ριστος, οmονZ aκουσα, κ.τ.λ. 83 Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 41, GL 2, 406: Apud Graecos vero etiam praeteriti temporis sunt imperativa, quamvis ipsa quoque ad futuri temporis sensum pertineant, ut sνε&+χ$ω E π2λη, “aperta sit porta”; videmur enim imperare, ut in futuro tempore sit praeteritum.
donati graeci
187
the future, Pylê a uses the present and the future optative, respectively (e.g., 2. 117 ε@$ε *γαπ&μι and 123 ε@$ε *γαπσοιμι, Lat. utinam amarem and utinam amem). For the perfect/pluperfect, on the other hand, the ambiguity between perfect and aorist leads to different solutions. Thus, we have the perfect *γαπκοιμι (120) as well as the aorists διδ(ξαιμι (276), *ναγν+σαιμι (379), and *κο2σαιμι (512).84 4. iποτακτικ (subiunctivus): as in Theodosius’ Canons (GG 4. 1, 73– 76), all forms are introduced by (ν (Lat. si, instead of Ianua’s cum): a. νεστ+ς (praesens) b. παρατατικς (praeteritum imperfectum) c. παρακεμενος (praeteritum perfectum) d. iπερσυντ λικος (praeteritum plusquamperfectum) e. μ λλων (futurum). In Latin, the subjunctive has five tenses, which include a future subjunctive—unknown to modern school grammar—that is actually a future perfect indicative.85 In R, in fact, the translation strives to maintain the Latin system in Greek, most of the time by simply adding (ν to the tenses of the indicative. Thus, in addition to the regular present subjunctive ( 4ν *γαπ -RPς, 4ν διδ(σκω -Qης, etc.), there is also an imperfect ( 4ν sγ(πων, 4ν δδασκον, etc.), a perfect ( 4ν sγ(πηκα, 4ν δδαξα, etc.), a pluperfect ( 4ν sγαπκειν, 4ν διδ(χ$ην, etc.), and a future, which corresponds to the aorist subjunctive ( 4ν *γαπσω -σQης, 4ν διδ(ξω -Qης, etc.). The manuscripts of the x-group, on the other hand, usually depart from Ianua by adopting the Greek system, where the subjunctive has only three tenses (cf. Theod. Alex. Can., GG 4. 1, 72–76): νεστς κα' παρατατικς ( 4ν *γαπ -RPς, etc.), παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικος ( 4ν *γαπκω, 4ν *κο2σω [sic]), and *ριστος κα' μ λλων, “aorist and future,” which in Pylê a becomes μ λ84 The choice between aorist and perfect may vary according to the manuscripts. For example, the “perfect and pluperfect optative” active of $ λω is ε@$ε τε$ηλκοιμι (perfect) in AQ and ε@$ε $ελσαιμι (aorist) in the other manuscripts (2. 644ff.). For the other verbs, see charts 8–20 (below, 557–559). The authors of N and O apparently knew the difference between the perfect and the aorist. For example, at 272 ff., in N we read: κατ4 δ3 jΕλληνας *ριστος % παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντελεικς (sic): ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμι, etc., and in O: % παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντελικς (sic): ο5κ ,χει. 8Ο *ριστοςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμι, etc. 85 See Donatus, Ars minor 4 (595 f. Holtz) and Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 43 (GL 2, 408): Subiunctivus, cum apud Graecos coniuncta habeat tempora, apud nos divisa habet omnia, quomodo indicativus.
188
chapter three
λων only ( 4ν *γαπσω, 4ν διδ(ξω). Choices, however, are not always consistent. Whereas R offers a complete paradigm for the four conjugations, the manuscripts of the x-group, for example, give only the present and future of διδ(σκω, the present of *ναγιν+σκω, and the present and “past” (or future?) of *κο2ω.86
5. *παρ μφατος (infinitivus):87 a. νεστς κα' παρατατικς (praesens et praeteritum imperfectum) b. παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικος (praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum) c. μ λλων (futurum). In Greek and in Latin, the tenses of the infinitive express both the time and the aspect of an action.88 For the past, the usual hesitation between aorist and perfect leads, for example, to sγαπηκ ναι and *νεγνωκ ναι, but διδ(ξαι and *κο:σαι. II. *νυπστατον (impersonale): third person singular, middle-passive or passive, of each mood and tense of the active voice (I. 1–5). The impersonal voice is omitted for διδ(σκω, πορε2ομαι,and σ$ω. For the future and the aorist, which have both the middle and passive voice, the passive is generally used. In addition, a future imperative is given for *γαπ(ω,89 whose impersonal subjunctive has the five Latin tenses: a present ( 4ν *γαπη$Q), an imperfect ( 4ν sγαπPτο),90 a perfect ( 4ν sγαπημ νος ε@η [sic], probably for Qv, but sγ(πηται R), a pluperfect ( 4ν sγαπημ νος προwπηρχεν [sic], but sγ(πητο R), and a future ( 4ν sγαπημ νος ,σται [sic], but *γαπη$σεται R). As is the case with the active, the subjunctive of the impersonal verbs is generally created with (ν and the indicative. The perfect, pluperfect, and future subjunctive of *γαπ(ω in the x-group are closely modeled on the Latin forms cum amatum sit, cum amatum esset, and cum amatum erit. The form 4ν *κο2σω (2. 527(a) ff.), given as a perfect/pluperfect but actually more appropriate as a future, is perhaps the result of a misreading (“saut du même au même”). 87 The title of the section on the infinitive, *παρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων, translates Donatus’ Ars minor 4 (594 Holtz): infinitivo modo numeris et personis. 88 See Donatus, Ars minor 4 (594 Holtz); and Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 43, GL 2, 409f. 89 Missing in G. AQ have the aorist imperative passive *γαπη$τω, BC the future optative passive *γαπη$σοιτο, and NOR the aorist imperative middle *γαπησ(σ$ω, which also appears as a marginal reading in B. 90 Written *γαπ(τω in BC. A has *γαπ and the other manuscripts *γαπPται. 86
donati graeci
189
6. a. $ετικ4 ] μετοχικ4 νματα (gerundia vel participialia nomina)91 b. iπο$ετικ( (supina) c. μετοχα (participia). Gerunds and participles follow the impersonal voice because, as Priscian notes, they have cases but not tenses and can be used both as active and as passive, “which is unsuitable to verbs” (quod alienum est a verbo). As the Greek equivalent of the Latin gerund, Priscian indicates either the infinitive preceded by the article or the verbal adjective in -τ ος; the latter applies when the gerund has a passive meaning and expresses the idea of obligation (and becomes a gerundive, according to school grammar).92 Thus, Pylê a gives the “gerund” of *γαπ(ω (*γαπητ ον, *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ων) and *κο2ω (*κουστ ον, *κουστ &ω, *κουστ ων). As for the supine, it is specified that “there are no supines for the Greeks” (2. 173: iπο$ετικ4 κατ4 ΓραϊκοGς ο5κ ,χει), with the exception of the verb *κο2ω, for which a supine is found in the verbal adjective in -τς (*κουστν, *κουστο:).93 For *γαπ(ω, the active present and future participles (*γαπν, *γαπσων) are indicated as being derived from the active verb; for *κο2ω, however, we find *κουσ$ες and *κουσμενος. But R, with scrupulous faithfulness to the original Latin text, adds that, “for the Latins” (κατ4 Λατνους), the present participle is derived from “the first person singular of the imperfect indicative, amabam” (2. 177– 179: κ το: πρ+του προσ+που το: παρατατικο: ριστικς γκλσεως, *μ(μπαν): by changing bam into ns, one obtains amans (τροπQ τς μπ4μ ες νς ποιε>ται Uμανς). The future participle can be obtained by adding rus to the second form of the supine, amatu (2. 180–181: κ το: δευτ ρου iπο$ετικο:, οmον *μ(του, προσ$κQη το: ρους γνεται *ματο2ρους). This rule is not repeated for the other verbs because it probably was meant to be generally valid. The introductory sentence $ετικ4 ] μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:τα is the faithful translation of Ianua: gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec, which is, in turn, a quotation from Donatus’ Ars minor 4 (p. 594 Holtz). 92 Inst. gramm. 8. 44, GL 2, 409: “legendi legendo legendum,” “lectum lectu,” infiniti vice […] funguntur, quod solet apud Graecos articulis coniungi. Itaque pro infinito, qui coniungitur genetivo casui articuli apud Graecos, nos utimur in “di” terminatione, quae similis est genetivo nominis, “legendi,” το: *ναγνωστ ου κα' το: *ναγιν+σκειν κα' το: *ναγιν+σκεσ$αι. See also ibid., 47, 411. 93 The endings reproduce the Latin -um and -u. For Priscian (Inst. gramm. 8. 48, GL 2, 412), the Latin supine corresponds to the Greek infinitive preceded by the article: 91
190
chapter three
III. πα$ητικν (passivum): same moods and tenses as the active (I. 1–5). A list of the principal parts opens the section on passive verbs. That of the x-group (2. 182–184(a): *γαπμαι, *γαπRPZ *γαπη$ε'ς εμ, ε=[ς], στZ *γαπσαιZ *γαπη$ναιZ *γαπη$ες) reproduces approximately Ianua’s list (amor, amaris vel amare, [amatur]; amatus sum es est; amare, [ametur; amari]; amatum esse vel fuisse; amatus [et amandus]), whereas R again reveals the work of a translator more faithful to the original (2. 182–185(b): *γαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπPταιZ sγ(πημαι, sγ(πησαι, sγ(πηταιZ *γαπ, *γαπ(σ$ωZ *γαπPσ$αιZ sγαπσ$αι, but *γαπη$σεσ$αι). In R, the passive voice also includes a future imperative for *γαπ(ω and *κο2ω.94 In the treatment of the indicative, Pylê a uses the same moods and tenses that were used for the active. For the perfect, Pylê a gives the perfect middle-passive sγ(πημαι, *ν γνωσμαι, and aκουσμαι, but the aorist διδ(χ$ην.95 As for the optative, the subjunctive, and the infinitive, we observe the same ambiguities that we find in the active. For the perfect-pluperfect optative, the x-group uses the aorist optative passive; for the future, the same manuscripts use the future optative passive (but the middle for *κο2ω). In the conjugation of the subjunctive passive, R preserves the five-tense system ( 4ν *γαπμαι, sγαπ+μην, sγ(πημαι, sγαπμην, *γαπη$σομαι; etc.). For the perfectpluperfect subjunctive, the x-group has the improbable 4ν sγ(πημαι, but also the aorist subjunctive passive 4ν διδαχ$, 4ν *ναγνωσ$, and 4ν *κουσ$. The future subjunctive literally is created ad hoc by adding the endings of an aorist subjunctive middle to the stem of the aorist passive: 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι, 4ν *ναγνωσ$σωμαι.96 The perfect-pluperfect infinitive passive corresponds either to the perfect middle (sγαπσ$αι) or to the aorist passive (διδαχ$ναι, *ναγνωσ$ναι, *κουσ$ναι). “oratum” πρ?ς τ? παρακαλε>ν κα' πρ?ς τ? παρακαλε>σ$αι, “oratu” τ& παρακαλε>ν κα' τ& παρακαλε>σ$αι aτοι τQ παρακλσει. 94 In R, the future imperative passive of *γαπ(ω, which x omits, is an imperative aorist middle: *γαπσου (for *γ(πησαι), *γαπησ(σ$ω, *γαπσασ$ε, *γαπησ(σ$ωσαν, which should correspond to Ianua’s amator tu, amator ille, [amemur], amaminor (sic), amantor. For *κο2ω, both R and the x-group give the imperative aorist passive: *κο2σ$ητι, *κουσ$τω, *κο2σ$ητε, *κουσ$τωσαν, corresponding to Ianua’s auditor tu, auditor ille, [audiamur], audiminor, audiuntor. 95 However, N has δεδδαγμαι, etc. 96 Very interesting, for example, is the future subjunctive passive of βαστ (βαστ(ζω) as handed down by R: forms derived from the future ( 4ν βασταχ$σομαι, βασταχ$σQη, βασταχ$σεται) are followed by forms modeled on the aorist ( 4ν βασταχ$μεν, βασταχ$τε, βασταχ$σιν).
donati graeci
191
In Ianua, the question Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? introduced the perfect participle and the gerundive or future participle passive. The latter, however, does not have a corresponding form in Greek. The translator of the x-group omits the passive participles of *γαπ(ω and διδ(σκω; in the case of *ναγιν+σκω, he solves the problem with the usual formula (το:το δ3 κατ4 Λατνους, κα$’ jΕλληνας δ3 ο5χ ο_τως ,χει). For *κο2ω, he gives sκο2σ$ης (for *κουσ$ες) and *κουσμενος. On the other hand, R correctly offers sγαπμενος and *γαπη$ησμενος, and continues with a description of the formation of the perfect participle and the gerundive κατ4 Λατνους (2. 243–247). In Pylê a, as in the Latin Ianua, a number of irregular verbs follow the four regular conjugations. They are the translation of the Latin verbs. In the x-group, the order is $ λω (volo), βαστ(ζω or βαστ (fero), σ$ω (edo), γνομαι (fio), πορε2ομαι (eo), and χαρομαι (gaudeo). In R, χαρομαι follows σ$ω and πορε2ομαι is omitted. The verb εμ (sum) is found in different locations in the manuscripts of the group.97 For the third part of speech, the participle (μετοχ), the explanation faithfully reproduces that of the Latin participle. Between the x-group and R, there are slight variations in the order of the properties and in the definitions. For example, in the x-group the significationes (σημασαι) of the participles and their intended paradigms are:98 νεργητικ = *γαπ (*γαπν) πα$ητικ = *γαπμαι (*γαπ+μενος) κοιν = γκληματζομαι99 ( γκληματιζμενος) ο5δετ ρα = πορε2ομαι (πορευμενος) *πολειπαντικ = δι+κω (δι+κων) ο5δετ ρα πα$ητικ = χαρομαι (χαιρμενος) ο5δεμα = δ2ναμαι (δυν(μενος)
activa = amo (amans) passiva = amor (amatus) communis = criminor (criminatus) neutra = eo (iens) deponens = sequor (sequens, secutus) neutropassiva = gaudeo (gaudens) nulla = possum (potens)
In N, εμ is placed at the end of the grammar, after the section on conjunctions. A and Q omit it; in O it follows $ λω, and in B it is written in the lower margin of the folio that contains the final part of $ λω (37v). In R, it immediately follows the four regular conjugations, but in an incomplete form. In any case, additions like κοινς or Αττικς for some forms show the direct influence of a Greek grammar on the translation from Latin. 98 Perhaps the Latin original of x did not contain the last part of the usual formula Cuius significationis? … Quare? Quia a verbo… venit, quod est illud: …, inde venit… 99 A derivative from ,γκλημα, “accusation,” γκληματζω appears in a papyrus of the third century C.E. (see LSJ, s.v.). The participle γκληματιζμενος occurs, for example, in Joseph Genesius’ Βασιλε>αι, 1. 16. 17 (tenth century; ed. by A. LesmüllerWerner and J. Thurn, CFHB Series Berolinensis 14, Berlin 1978). 97
192
chapter three
R shows the same examples, but following an order similar to the “vulgate” Ianua (p): νεργητικ, πα$ητικ, ο5δετ ρα, ο5δετ ρα πα$ητικ, κοιν, and *πολειπαντικ; the last one, ο5δεμα, is omitted. The Latin paradigm, legens, is translated as *ναγιν+σκων.100 Like Ianua, Pylê a gives the complete declension of the present, the aorist (*ναγν+σας), and the future participles (*ναγν+σων) in all three genders and in the singular and the plural. R also adds the present participle middle-passive, *ναγινωσκμενος, as a replacement for the Latin gerundive (“future participle passive”) legendus.101 Moreover, the x-group replaces the plural of the present (οF *ναγιν+σκοντες, etc.) with the present of λ γω, which is similar to the Latin form but different in meaning (οF λ γοντες, etc.). The x-group answers the conclusive question about the declension of the participle with a very brief remark: it has little to do with x’s last paradigm (the future participle *ναγν+σων) and rather refers to the Latin perfect participle (lectus) and gerundive (legendus): Ποας κλσεως; Πρ+της κα' δευτ ραςZ κ μ ρους $ηλυκο: πρ+της, κ μ ρους *ρσενικο: κα' ο5δετ ρου δευτ ρας.
The answer is much more complex in R and shows one more time its faithfulness to a Latin original very close to the Pescian Ianua (p): Ποας κλσεως; Τρτης. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ νικ ες ¯ις¯ συνεσταλμ νον λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον % *ναγιν+σκων, το: *ναγιν+σκοντοςZ κα' οuτω kτεραι μετοχα' λγουσαι ες α¯ ν¯ ς¯ κα' ες ε¯ν¯ ς¯ εσ'ν κλσεως τρτηςZ αF δ3 kτεραι μετοχα εσιν πρ+της κα' δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ τν Sνικν λγει ες α¯ ε¯ κα' ες ¯ι, οmον το: *ναγν+σαντος, τς *ναγνωσ(σης, το: *ναγν+σαντος.
= (p) Cuius declinationis? Tertie. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in is correptum desinit, ut legens, legentis. Et sic alia participia desinentia in ans vel in ens sunt declinationis tertie. Alia vero participia sunt prime et secunde. Quare? Quia genitivus singularis desinit in e et in i, ut lecti, lecte, lecti.
The differences between x and R in the chapter on the pronoun (*ντωνυμα) confirm that slightly different Latin editions were used. The x-group leaves out the questions on the ε@δη (species), whereas R 100 Q preserves a trace of a translation of the Latin legens with the masculine % *ναγιν+σκων only; all the other manuscripts treat the participle as a three-ending
adjective, as it is in Greek. However, all manuscripts lack the feminine form of the genitive and “ablative” plural (*π?) τν λεγουσν. 101 The future middle *ναγνωσμενος could be confused with the present *ναγινωσκμενος. Additionally, R is not very accurate in giving the declension of the future
donati graeci
193
mentions both the ε=δος πρωττυπον (species primitiva) and the ε=δος παρ(γωγον (species derivativa). The question on the γ νος (genus) leads to two different definitions. Here is the text in x, as reconstructed by Schmitt: Ποου γ νους; ΠαντοουZ *λλ’ ν τ&δε τ& τπ&ω *ρσενικ?ν ] $ηλυκ?ν ] ο5δ τερον. Διατ; Διτι ο_τως στ'ν κε>νο &xτινι κεκλληται.
= Cuius generis? Omnis; sed in hoc loco masculinum vel femininum vel neutrum. Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adhaeret.102
On the other hand, R’s definition echoes Pylai b and d: Ποου γ νους; ΠαντοουZ κατ4 τπον *ρσενικο:, $ηλυκο: κα' ο5δετ ρου, κα$+ς στι τ? iποκεμενον τς γραφς.
The important definition of the πρσωπον (persona) also receives a different treatment. R’s text closely resembles that of the Pescian Ianua, whereas x adds some details about the meaning of the first and second persons: x
R
Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι σημανει πρPγμα ;να δι’ α5το: λ γηται. Ποου προσ+που; Δευτ ρου. Διατ; Διτι σημανει πρPγμα ;να ε@ς τινα Uλλος λαλQ. Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτων προσ+πων, πλν τς γ+, dτις στ' πρ+του, κα' σ2, dτις στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν παρηγμ νων *π’ α5τν.
Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του ] δευτ ρου ] τρτου. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτων προσ+πων, πλν τς γ+, dπερ στ' πρ+του, κα' τς σ2, dπερ στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν κλητικν πτ+σεων τν Sτ ρων, α;τινες εσ' προσ+που δευτ ρου.
= Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Quia significat rem ut per se ipsam loquatur. Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? Quia significat rem ut ad aliquem alius loquatur. Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? Quia omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est primae, et tu, quod est secundae, et quae ab illis derivantur.
= Cuius personae? Primae vel secundae vel tertiae. Quare? Quia omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est primae, et tu, quod est secundae, et vocativis casibus aliorum, qui sunt personae secundae.
active *ναγν+σων, where forms of the aorist mix with those of the future, because of the confusion between the suffixes -σαντ-/-σοντ- and -σασα-/-σουσα-. 102 The definition of the x-text is similar to what we find in p: Cuius generis? Masculini vel feminini vel neutri. Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adheret.
194
chapter three
The Greek translation does not modify the general structure of the chapter in Ianua, which, in turn, took up Priscian’s division of the pronouns into four modi (τρποι) based on the ending of the genitive singular or on the declensions to which they belong (above, 39). However, the Greek translation of Ianua’s Latin pronouns is not uniform in all manuscripts of Pylê a, as the following chart will show. In particular, the different translations of the third-person pronouns and possessive adjectives show how complex the matter was considered in Greek grammar: πρ+τος τρποςZ
γ+-Eμε>ς modus primus: σ2-iμε>ς α5τς x, (α5το:-Sαυτν BCG)103 ο[ R
ego-nos tu-vos sui
δε2τερος τρποςZ
κε>νος ο[τος α5τς x, Sαυτς (sic) R % om. α εmς Wλος om. x, Wς ] Wσπερ, Wστις R
modus secundus:
ille iste ipse hic104 is unus totus quis, qui
τρτος τρποςZ
μς σς Wς ο[ οm k ποιητικς BmO, Wς dς W CG, om. al., % Wς, E d, τ? Wν R Eμ τερος iμ τερος
modus tertius:
meus tuus suus
***
modus quartus:
τ ταρτος τρποςZ
iμ τερος x
noster vester nostras vestras105
In B, however, E νομαστικZ α5τς is added in the margin (Bm). As already noted, hic replaced the Greek article in Latin. 105 No Greek translation is given for the rare Latin pronouns and adjectives nostras, -atis and vestras, -atis, “of our/your country” (cf. cuias, “of which country”): these pronouns, which did not have corresponding forms in Greek, were simply omitted in the translation. However, x borrows from the Latin original the definition of the fourth pronominal mode, “which follows the third declension” and gives the declension of iμ τερος (omitted by G; cf. d 4. 78–85), whereas R mentions νοστρ(ς 103 104
donati graeci
195
6. Pylê a as a Grammar Book: The Invariable Parts of Speech and the Appendix The treatment of the last four parts of speech—πρ$εσις (praepositio), πρρημα (adverbium), δι($εσις (interiectio), and σ2νδεσμος (coniunctio)—is much more condensed than that of the previous parts and confirms the general picture of Pylê a discussed in the previous paragraph. As for the question introducing the section on prepositions, either ν (ABCNOQ , *ν G) or ες (R) translate in or ad, which is found in most editions of the Latin Ianua.106 Four lists of prepositions are given, each introduced by the common formula δς (da) and following the roughly alphabetical order of the Latin text: a) prepositions taking the accusative: ες ( ν x = ad), πρς (apud), πρ (ante), κατ( (adversus), κ2κλ&ω (circum), γγ2ς (circa), *ντ (contra), κτς (extra), ντς (intra), μεταξ2 (inter), πλησον (iuxta), ξ ναντας (ob), δι( (per), παρ( (prope), κατ( (secundum), μετ( (post), π ρα (trans), π(νω (supra), γυρ$εν (circiter), kως (usque), ,γγιστα (penes).107 b) prepositions taking the ablative (sic): *π (a, ab), σ2ν (cum), ν+πιον (coram), λ($ρRα (clam), κ (e), ξ (ex), γγ2ς (prope), δημοσRα (palam), Uνευ (sine), δχα (absque). c) prepositions taking both the accusative and the ablative (sic): ν (in), iπ (sub), π(νω (super), iποκ(τω (subter). and βεστρ(ς (sic) among the παρ(γωγαι *ντωνυμαι (pronomina derivativa). Schmitt proposes Eμεδαπς and iμεδαπς, which were considered as pronouns by Priscian after Apollonius Dyscolus (GG 2. 2, 254ff.). 106 The confusion between ν and ες is a typical feature of late Greek; see Sophokles, s.v. A discrepancy between the Greek translation and the Latin original text can be detected in the definition of the preposition. Pylê a takes up Ianua’s definition asserting that the preposition “is put before the other parts of speech” (προτ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου). According to the Latin text, prepositions can either be placed near the word (per appositionem) or they can form a compound with it (per compositionem). In the Greek text, appositio and compositio are inverted and both terms, σ2νταξις and ,ν$εσις, are explained with synonyms: δι4 σ2νταξιν ] σ2ν$εσιν, aγουν δι’ ,ν$εσιν τουτ στι β(σιν (“by composition or combination, or by insertion, i.e., sequence”). This discrepancy shows the traces of a Latin original different from the common forms of Ianua. However, the juxtaposition of synonyms may also be due to the simple insertion of different translations of the same Latin words in the text of Pylê a. 107 Needless to say, there is no consistency between the Latin and the Greek prepositions. For example, πρ, κ2κλ&ω, *ντ, κτς, ντς, μεταξ2, πλησον, π ρα, π(νω, and kως take the genitive instead of the accusative; γγ2ς, ξ ναντας, γυρ$εν, and ,γγιστα are adverbs only.
196
chapter three
d) prepositions occurring only in compounds ( ν συν$ σει, in compositione). Here the Latin forms are simply transliterated into Greek: δι (di-), δις (dis-), ρε (re-), σε (se-), αν (an-), κον (con-). The question ν:ν τ μ ρος στν; (nunc quae pars est?)108 introduces the chapter on the adverb, which appears quite dissimilar in the two branches of the tradition of Pylê a. However, the “starke Unterschiede” shown by Schmitt109 are actually more apparent than real and reflect the common variations that can be found in several editions of the Latin Ianua. The most evident differences concern the order and the number of examples quoted. With the usual formula δ?ς πιρρματα σημασας + genitive + οmον + examples (Lat. da adverbia significationis + genitive + ut + examples), R lists twenty-two categories (σημασαι, significationes) of adverbs, compared to the nineteen of the x-group. The names of the categories may vary, but the examples quoted are generally the same in both x and R.110 A comparison of x and R with a Latin (standard) text shows that not all of the Latin examples were translated into Greek: the translator(s) may have left out what could be considered as a doublet, a synonym, or something too difficult to translate. The short part on the interjection ( νδι($εσις) begins with a question on φε: (= heu); as in Ianua, σημασα (significatio) is its only property. However, the treatment of the Greek interjection is much shorter than in Latin. The x-group mentions only the σημασα *λγητικ (dolens): βαβα, ο5α, φε:, φε: μοι. R has ο5α and ο@μοι, but adds two more
Nunc is a common variant of tunc; hence the Greek ν:ν. Schmitt 1966, 166. 110 Both x and R list the following categories (given here in alphabetical order): *$ροσεως (congregandi), *ρι$μο: (numeri), *ρνητικ( (*ρνητικς R = negandi), δεξεως (demonstrandi), διακρσεως (discretivi), δισταγμο: (διστ(ξεως R = dubitandi), κλογς (eligendi), ρωτηματικο: ( ρωτσεως R = interrogandi), κλητικς (vocandi), %μοι+σεως (similitudinis), μ+σεως (iurandi), ποιτητος (qualitatis), ποστητος (quantitatis), συγκατα$ σεως (βεβαι+σεως R = confirmandi or adfirmandi), συγκρσεως (comparandi), τπου (τοπικς R = loci), χρνου (χρονικς R = temporis). Four of R’s categories are missing in x: σχ2ος (intentivi), παρακελε2σεως (hortandi), συγχωρσεως (remissivi), and τ(ξεως (ordinis), whereas the adverbs *ποκρσεως (respondendi) and ε5κτικς (optandi) appear in x only. Among the adverbs of time, both x and R have σμερον, χ$ ς, ν:ν, and νεωστ for hodie, heri, nunc, and nuper, but x adds αuριον (cras) and R Uρτι (modo). Docte and pulchre, adverbs of quality, are translated διδαγμ νως and ε5μρφως in x, and σοφς and Tραως in R. 108 109
donati graeci
197
categories: $αυμαστικ (mirans), with παπα and φε:, and φοβητικ (timens or expavescens), with 6τ Uτ, a transliteration of the Latin at at. In the final chapter of Pylê a, the conjunction (σ2νδεσμος) is introduced with the question κα' τ μ ρος στν; (Et quae pars est?). Both x and R list thirteen ε@δη (species) in the same order: σ2νδεσμος: συμπλεκτικς συναπτικς *$ροιστικ?ς ] λογικ?ς ] εσακτικς συνεκτικς ατιατικς διαζευκτικς iποσυνεκτικς λογικς εσακτικς ναντιωματικς *πορηματικς παραπληρωματικς iποκοριστικς
coniunctio: copulativa adiunctiva collectiva vel rationalis vel illativa continuativa causalis disiunctiva subcontinuativa effectiva discretiva adversativa dubitativa completiva diminutiva
Both the conjunctions and the examples are accurately translated from Latin.111 R treats the other two properties of the conjunction, σχμα (figura) and τ(ξις (ordo), more extensively and more faithfully to the Latin text than does x, even if the examples pertaining to these properties are reduced to the essentials.
111 However, the sentence quoted to explain the παραπληρωματικ?ς σ2νδεσμος (coniunctio completiva: 8. 31–33), which in Ianua reads Aeneas quidem fuit pius, Ulixes vero astutus, in ANQ became Ανεας μ3ν iπρχεν ε5σεβς, Ιουλιαν?ς δ3 *σεβς (ο5δαμς OR, om. BCG). We may wonder if the substitution of Ulysses by Ιουλιανς was due to confusion between the two names (which roughly coincide in their first letters: uli-, iuli-) or to an edition of Ianua where “Julian” (most probably Julian the Apostate, Roman emperor from 361 to 363, who abjured Christianity to return to paganism) was quoted as an example of impiety (impius), as opposed to Aeneas’ pietas. The adjective *σεβς in the Greek text justifies this hypothesis. The example quoted for the ε=δος ναντιωματικν (species adversativa) corresponds to that quoted in Ianua (8. 26–29): γ πολGν χρνον δο2λευσ( σοι, *λλ4 σG ,χεις ε@ς με κακαν (ego multo tempore servivi tibi, tu tamen habes me odio). However, with the exception of AQ , all manuscripts add three more examples: γ *ναγιν+σκω, σG δ3 κοιμPσαι; ν4 ,τρωγα 6ν ε=χα; and χαρεται Πραμος 6ν τολμRP. These examples actually correspond to the Latin examples for the species distributiva (ego lego, tu vero dormis) and for the species abnegativa (comederem si haberem, and gaudeat—or gaudet—Priamus si audeat). Neither category is included in the Greek translation. See Schmitt 1966, 206.
198
chapter three
In MSS. C and G, an appendix follows the treatment of the parts of speech. Its structure is very similar to that of the Latin editions and, at the same time, its language and style echo Byzantine erôtêmata. Three questions are asked for each part of speech: definition (τ στιν …; = quid est…?), properties (τ στιν @διον …; = quid est proprium…?), and etymology (π$εν ε@ρηται …; = unde dicitur…?). 7. The Other Donati graeci: Pylai as Compilations, or Donati compositi The analysis of Pylê a has highlighted the weaknesses of a Greek grammar that faithfully reproduces a grammar conceived for the teaching of another language. As the following chapter will explain, there are many reasons to believe that Pylê a did not originate as a Greek grammar but as an interlinear translation of the Latin Ianua. Pylê a was not conceived for Latins studying Greek, but for Greeks studying Latin and in need of a translation of their elementary Latin grammar book into their own language. On the other hand, the other three Donati were consciously and deliberately conceived as schoolbooks: each of them represents a different attempt to adapt to Greek the method used to teach Latin elementary morphology. Therefore, although still highly imperfect, Pylai b, c, and d belong to the wide category of Renaissance pedagogical “experiments” for the teaching of Greek, which also include, for example, Chrysoloras’ grammar of Filelfo’s Greek erôtêmata in Latin (above, 119 ff.); all of these texts represent attempts to reconcile the Byzantine and the Latin grammatical traditions for the benefit of Western students. The Greek Donati preserve the Latinate scheme of the five nominal declensions and the four verbal conjugations, with all the features that we have already seen in Pylê a, including the confusion of declensions, moods, and tenses. In fact, some sections of these grammars reproduce Latin Ianuae to the letter. Pylai b, c, and d give the parts of speech in the same order as in Ianua; there is still no consideration of the article, the dual number, and the middle voice; nouns, adjectives, and pronouns still have an “ablative,” verbs have a “future imperative,” etc. There are, however, some improvements in the treatment of verbs, such as the distinction between aorist and perfect.112 Another 112
Some confusion, however, was still possible. For example, c gives the aorist
donati graeci
199
important element separates these three Donati from Pylê a: in some cases, the anonymous compilers tried to make up for the flaws in the treatment of Greek grammar through Latin by replacing some sections of the original Ianua with excerpts from other Hellenistic and Byzantine grammatical texts. Thus, these unknown grammarians still used Ianua as a framework, probably because their students could learn Greek more easily thanks to their familiarity with the Latin elementary book. This aspect constitutes the strength of these grammars, when compared with Pylê a, as well as their weakness: the incapacity of the anonymous author(s) to make a complete break with the Latin text is the main reason for the failure of the “compilation Donati” as Greek grammars. On the other hand, the authors employed authentic Greek grammatical material for some sections—e.g., b’s section on prepositions—where a Latinate treatment would have been ineffective because of the differences between the two languages. As with medieval Latin grammarians, Greek teachers and grammarians of the Renaissance could rely on some sort of stock material when assembling their schooltexts according to the demands of their classes.113 For example, in the sections on nouns, b’s and d’s definitions have a common source, whereas the two texts present different paradigms. More importantly, all three grammars use the same source for the treatment of verbal inflection. Most probably, Pylai b, c, and d were produced in a Western environment with a keen interest in learning Greek and with a good availability of Greek books. The data emerging from the analysis of the manuscripts seem to point to Venice and Crete, but further research is still needed to confirm or reject this hypothesis. Because of their similarities in structure, Pylai b, c, and d are treated together. However, since each Pylê represents an individual work and shows specific aspects, each text has been edited separately.
optative passive of *γαπ as ε@$ε sγαπημ νος ε@ην, etc. (2. 147–148), which is actually a perfect. 113 For example, MS. P can be considered a compilation of material for the elementary teaching of Greek: see below, 205 f. A serious study of the anonymous Greek grammatical compilations that, like the three Pylai here analyzed, are contained in Renaissance manuscripts has not been undertaken yet.
200
chapter three 8. The Manuscripts of the Donati compositi
Two manuscripts have handed down the text of Pylê b: M V
*Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. 9 *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 1388.
Their text is rather homogeneous and may derive from a common archetype, even if, as is the case with Pylê a, neither manuscript is the original or a copy of the other. The hands that copied both manuscripts belong to the first half of the fifteenth century. Both M and V have Italian origins. M is clearly related to the Veneto, precisely to Padua. Conversely, V seems to be a product of the environment of Mantua, but the watermarks of the paper used suggest that Central Italy is also possible as its place of origin. M Like most of the manuscripts of Pylê a, the fifteenth-century MS. gr. X. 9 of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice (formerly 1271; paper, mm 220 × 145, fols. 142) looks like a Greek coursebook. Pylê occupies fols. 1r–42v, and it is neatly written on sixteen lines per page, with wide margins and interlinear spaces. The text of Pylê b probably ended with the chapter on the adverb; interjections and conjunctions were omitted. The manuscript also contains a “very accurate summary” (σ2ντομος σαφην στατος) of a grammar attributed to Manuel Moschopoulos (fols. 60r–123r), Theodore Prodromos’ σχ δη μυς (136v–139v), and some short essays on grammar (139v–142v). Greek elementary readings are also included. Planudes’ Greek translation of Cato’s Distichs has Greek glosses between the lines and the Latin text written in the margins by a more recent hand (43r–59r). Some sentences attributed to Demosthenes, Socrates, Nicocles, Alexander the Great, and others, as well as six fables of Aesop and other authors, the Capita admonitoria attributed to Agapetus, and four letters of Libanius (123v–136v) complete the readings for practicing Greek grammar.114 114 The manuscript has been described by Elpidio Mioni in Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices graeci manuscripti, vol. 3, Roma 1972, 45–46. The damages caused by humidity make it difficult to read some parts of the manuscript. For example, the Latin text written alongside the Greek Cato is unreadable. The Greek interlinear glosses of the Distichs explain Planudes’ high poetic style by means of words similar to the language of prose (but not in δημοτικ); for example, the short sentence τ?ν
donati graeci
201
M was copied by Nicholas Phagiannis, active during the first half of the fifteenth century, who left his subscriptio on fol. 123v: Φαγι(ννου δευτερευντου Νικολ(ου τ(χα κα' Fερ ως.115 Phagiannis did not intend to write a luxurious book: there is no decoration, apart from some rubricated titles and initials.116 The writing is a round and regular minuscule with many capital letters and some enlarged letters, especially at page ends. The text contains many mistakes caused by iotacism and by confusion between long and short vowels. The foliation is continuous,117 but at least one folio is missing between fols. 36 and 37. M was brought into the Marciana library in 1782. The manuscript was formerly volume 216 of the library of the monastery of San Giovanni di Verdara (in Viridario) in Padua. From a note on fol. 142v, we learn that the book was part of the bequest that Ioannes Calphurnius, “who taught rhetoric in Greek and Latin,” made to that library in 1503.118
κα$ηγητν δ δι$ι is glossed with τ?ν διδ(σκαλον φοβο:, and τ? *ποχρν κ($ευδε with τ? πρ πον κοιμο: (instead of κοιμ: see b 2. 124). The Capita attributed to Agapetus of
Constantinople (sixth century) can be read in PG 86, 1165 ff. 115 See Vogel-Gardthausen 360. On Phagiannis’ subscriptiones in other manuscripts, see Politi 2000. M’s watermark (anvil with hammer) resembles 5953 Briquet (Venice 1416–1426). 116 For example, at the beginning of the active conjugation of *γαπ, the formula κα' πλη$υντικς (et pluraliter) and the names of moods and tenses are rubricated. Later, however, the rubrication is limited to some initials and disappears with the beginning of διδ(σκω. 117 The fifth quire (marked with an ε ¯o on the recto of the first and on the verso of the last folio) includes fols. 33–40 and is complete. 118 Io. Calphurnius oratoriam artem graece latineque docens librum hunc Can.cis (=canonicis?) Reg(ularibus) s. Io(annis) in Viridario devotus legavit ut inde profitiens lector sit gratus. MCCCCC3 (sic). Giovanni Perlanza dei Ruffinoni, also known as Ioannes Calphurnius (Giovanni Calfurnio), was lecturer of rhetoric in Padua from 1486 until his death in 1503 and devoted himself to the study and correction of Greek texts. Of the 229 manuscripts of his library, 71 were Greek. The monastery of San Giovanni di Verdara, a Benedictine foundation of 1221, was taken over in 1430 by the Canonici Regulares Lateranenses, a religious order open to cultural and spiritual reforms. Two decades later, the monks began to collect a library that became quite large, thanks to the donations of Giovanni Marcanova (1467), Pietro da Montagnana (1478; see below, 258 n. 84), and Calphurnius (1503). The Marciana Library has only a part of the volumes from Verdara; the rest ended up in several Italian libraries and in London, Oxford, Paris, Bern, and Copenhagen. See Sambin 1956; Pertusi 1980–1981, 193, 236ff., 259f.; and Vitali 1982.
202
chapter three
V MS. Vaticanus gr. 1388—formerly no. 84 of the library of Cardinal Fulvio Orsini—is composed of three manuscripts bound together.119 The first part (fols. 1r–45r) contains Theognis’ γνμαι; the second part (51r–76r) contains Aristotle’s Poetics. Pylê occupies the last folios of the manuscript (79v–93r); in the index written on one of the flyleaves (fol. IIr), it is called Ερωτματα (corr. in -ματα) τ4 λεγ(μενα Δουν(τω (sic), whereas on fol. 80r, where the Greek text begins, a later hand has added γραμματικ το: Δον(του μετενεχ$ε>σα Sλληνιστ. Pylê’ s text is incomplete: part of the chapter on prepositions and the chapters on adverbs, interjections, and conjunctions are missing; however, V’s text is much more correct than M’s. Pylê is copied on the full page, on twenty-seven lines. The writing is neat and accurate and resembles the archaizing “τν 8Οδηγνstyle.”120 There is no decoration, apart from a band with an interlaced pattern on the page where the Greek text begins, as well as some rubricated initials at the beginning of each section. The copyist of the second and third parts of the manuscript—i.e., of Poetics and Pylê—has been identified with Girard of Patras, who was active during the first half of the fifteenth century; one of the manuscripts bearing his signature—Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. 69,1, which contains part of Plutarch’s Lives—was copied in Mantua in 1431.121 In fact, Girard worked as a Greek copyist for the school of Vittorino da Feltre. This issue raises the question of the relationship between Aristotle’s Poetics and Pylê b, and, more importantly, of the possible use of Pylê b at Vittorino’s school. Aristotle’s text was part of the curriculum in Vittorino’s school, and the work of Girard of Patras certainly belongs to that context.122 However, there seems to be 119 Although its first two parts have repeatedly been the object of study, this manuscript has never been fully described. The words ex libris Fulvii Ursini appear at the bottom of fol. IIr. Orsini’s library became part of the Vatican library under Pope Clement VIII, in 1602; see De Nicolò 1985, 28. On Orsini’s Greek manuscripts (now MSS. Vaticani gr. 1288–1421), see De Nolhac 1887, 143–190 (on V: 168 n. 1); and Devreesse 1965, 334. 120 See Harlfinger 1977, 332 and tab. 5. 121 On Girard of Patras (Γυρ(ρδος κ Πατρν Παλαιν, which Bandini translated “Ex Antiquis Patribus”), see Vogel-Gardthausen 96f.; Gamillscheg-Harlfinger 1A, 65; and Wilson 1992, 38. In the first part, containing Theognis’ sentences, their editor Douglas Young (Lipsiae 19712) recognized the hand of Janus Lascaris, but his hypothesis has been rejected by Canart (1977, 364 n. 5). On Janus Lascaris as a copyist, see in particular Mondrain 2000, 417 ff. 122 See above, 141f. and Cortesi 1980, 98–99 and 2000, 411. Cortesi mentions two more manuscripts of Poetics written by Girard: MSS. Laur. 60, 21 and α.T.8.3 (=
donati graeci
203
little connection between Pylê b and Casa Gioiosa: whereas the paper of the second part of V comes from Northern Italy, the third part (Pylê) was written on a kind of paper that, thanks to its watermark, may be located in Central Italy.123 The analysis of the watermarks has contributed to the discrediting of another legend associated with this manuscript. The words Egregio viro d(omi)no Laure(n)tio Vallensi, which appear on fol. 79r immediately before the text of Pylê, had led various scholars—from De Nolhac to Sabbadini—to assume that parts two and three of the manuscript were commissioned by the humanist Lorenzo Valla, who, therefore, used Pylê b to learn Greek.124 Poetics and Pylê may have been copied in Mantua, and then they may have reached Valla through Giovanni Tortelli. If this is true, a terminus ante quem for the text would be Valla’s death, that is, between 1455 and 1458. However, the bifolio wrapping Pylê, fols. 79 + 94, shows the same watermark of part two and apparently has nothing to do with the paper of Pylê.125 On the verso of fol. 79, a hand wrote the prologue of the Latin Ianua (Ianua sum, etc.) with an interlinear Greek translation and the beginning of the Latin text, from Poeta quae pars to cuius generis. It is highly improbable that 79v was written by Valla’s hand. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful that Valla used Pylê b to learn Greek. He learned Greek in Rome with Giovanni Aurispa in 1420/1 and with Rinuccio Aretino in 1425, but we do not know anything about the grammar book(s) he used.126 The third Donatus graecus known to us is another grammatical compilation. It has been handed down in one manuscript: gr. 100) of the Biblioteca Estense in Modena. Pylê b could even be the “Erotemata quedam” mentioned in the inventory of Gian Pietro da Lucca (see above, 142 n. 216). 123 Cortesi 2000, 410 n. 50: for Poetics, three mountains with a cross; for Pylê, a M-letter similar to Briquet 8348–8349, i.e., Central Italy between 1412 and 1427. 124 De Nolhac 1887, 168 n. 1: “Il faut sans doute rattacher à Lorenzo Valla le 1388 […] or tout au moins la seconde partie de ce manuscrit,” even if “le nom (Laurentio Vallensi)” is “dans un grattage.” Sabbadini 1922, 18: “La grammatichetta latina, che io ho chiamato Ianua, era stata tradotta in greco da Massimo Planude nel secolo XIII, e su quella traduzione taluni, tra cui il Valla, si procacciarono un’elementare cognizione di greco.” 125 See Schmitt 1977a; Wilson 1992, 38; and Cortesi 2000, 410 n. 50. Elsewhere (70) Wilson shares Schmitt’s skepticism, but notes that “it would make good sense for the author of the Elegantiae to own such a text [i.e., Pylê], and probably any work associated with the name of a famous grammarian was eagerly examined at the time owing to the lack of good reference books.” 126 See Schmitt 1977a, 430f.
204 P
chapter three *Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr. 234.
P MS. Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 234 (formerly C 90; paper, mm 140 ×120, fols. 102), a miscellaneous manuscript, is a book for the study of Greek in a Latin-speaking environment. The title of the whole manuscript, Theodori Prodromi de accentibus et alia quaedam grammatica, appears on fol. 1v, followed by the ex libris of the Palatine Library.127 Henry Stevenson has assigned to the fifteenth century;128 the watermarks allow us to establish Venice as the probable place of origin of its greatest part and the years 1410–1415 as a terminus post quem.129 This date makes MS. P one of the earliest known manuscripts of the Greek Donatus. A Venetian, certain Mattia, filled P’s blank pages and spaces with all sorts of doodles, drawings, and probationes pennae.130
127 Sum de bibliotheca quam Heidelberga capta spolium fecit & P.M. Gregorio XV. trophaeum misit Maximilianus utriusque Bavariae dux et C.S.R.I. archidapifer et princeps elector. Anno Christi 1623. This manuscript, probably purchased in Venice, originally was part of the library of the German banker and bibliophile Ulrich Fugger (1526–1584), who, burdened by debts, sold his books to Count Palatine Ottenrich (1560). In 1620, during the Thirty Year War, the Catholic Duke Maximillian I of Bavaria defeated Frederick V, Elector Palatine and leader of the Protestant forces. The ca. 3,500 volumes of the Palatine library were part of the booty, and the Duke offered them to the papacy. In 1623, the Palatine library was incorporated into the Vatican library; the librarian and scholar Leo Allatius (Leone Allacci) supervised the operation. In a recently rediscovered letter to Giovanni Francesco Guidi, papal nuncio in Brussels from 1621 to 1627, Allacci documented the difficulties of his task (“faticha immensa”) and the high costs of the operation: see Canfora 2003, 60. Some manuscripts were returned to Germany during the nineteenth century, but the bulk of the collection is still in the Vatican library. See Biedl 1937; Grendler-Grendler 1984, 2; De Nicolò 1985, 28; and Berschin 1997, 9. 128 Codices manuscripti Palatini graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae descripti […], Romae 1885, 127–128. Traces of an original foliation, in ink, are still visible in the right-hand upper margin of the recto of each folio, under numbers written in pencil more recently. The structure of the quires is irregular, probably because of the loss and addition of some folios in the volume; however, no gap can be detected either in the content or in the original foliation (presumably added after the binding of the volume). When the volume was re-bound, fols. 91–96 were misplaced after 97–102. 129 The watermark of fols. 1–15 and 86–102 is similar to VII 971 Piccard (Die Ochsenkopf-Wasserzeichen, vol. 2. 2): Venice 1405–1410. That of fols. 19–76 (in particular 21–22) resembles 2399 Briquet: Venice 1409–1415. That of fols. 77–85 (in particular 79–80) is similar to Briquet 15654: Florence 1409–1410. 130 As Stevenson remarks in his description (127), the manuscript contains “plurima [folia] calamo Matthiae cuiusdam foede deturpata.” Doodling on schoolbooks has been common at every time and place: in his Piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo (Venice 1585), Tommaso Garzoni mentions the “scarabozzi” (Ital. scarabocchi)
donati graeci
205
P consists of several parts written by different hands and bound together. Pylê c occupies fols. 48v–82r. As in other manuscripts, Planudes’ translation of Cato’s Distichs follows the grammar, but here the Greek Cato is limited to the sententiae and the first book. Much more interesting are the works on Greek grammar that precede Pylê. The first part (fols. 1–15) contains a treatise on breathings by Theodore Prodromos, two short lexica in verse (one in political verse and one in dodecasyllables), and the grammar attributed to Cyril of Alexandria. In the second part (fols. 16–44), we find eight grammatical texts; in the wide interlinear spaces, a word-for-word Latin translation was written in bright red ink, probably by the same hand that wrote the Greek text.131 These texts include: a chart of the Greek conjugations, some of Theodosius’ canons of masculine nouns, and short essays on articles, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, letters, and the eight parts of speech, taken from many sources132 and introduced by bright red titles. These essays were not aimed at building up a systematic grammar, but constituted a basic stock material for any teacher of Greek: as the section on adverbs in Pylê b demonstrates (below, 220), that children used to make on their Donati; see Ortalli 1996, 81. The author of P’s doodles, however, was probably and adult. His name, Mattia, appears on fol. 1r: “Questo liber opia de Mattia.” On fol. 95v, the same hand added “Questo liber e opre de mi mano.” On fol. 13r “Questo Liber” is repeated, in capital letters written in black ink; the initial Q has on its left side the face and the hand of a man brandishing a sword. On fol. 94v, Mattia several times begins a letter to a “Messer Anzolo” (the Venetian form of the Italian name “Angelo”), whom he calls “benegnisimo sigior mio” (my most benevolent lord), apparently to recommend a servant to (“viy sia recomanda uno nostro servidor,” sic). On fol. 95v, we learn that “Anzolo imperatore” will take a trip “in arbia” (i.e., either to the Arbia valley, in Tuscany, or to “Arabia”). On fol. 100v, some women are mentioned: “Gatarina, Lucia, Joanna, Giulia.” Also, human heads and hands, the sun and the stars, a landscape with ships (Venice?), and a stylized representation of a tournament appear in the pages of the manuscript. 131 The Latin interlinear translation is written in a small cursive Gothic script of the kind used for documents of ordinary administration until the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, heavily abbreviated and in stark contrast to the large and rough Greek script. A case of confusion between the two scripts (6. 3: semper, in Latin, among the Greek adverbs of time) demonstrates that the same hand wrote both the Greek text and the Latin translation. The translation of the Greek adverb ν+πιον (6. 6) into the Latin presentialiter, a typical term of law documents, suggests that the copyist was a Western public official (perhaps a νοτ(ριος: see below, 252 n. 66). 132 For example, the chapter περ' συζυγιν / de coniugationibus, on fols. 16r-17r, is basically a paraphrasis of Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη. The chapter on articles (περ' Uρ$ρων / de articulis), on fols. 20r-20v, is similar to the Scholia Marciana on Dionysius’ Τ χνη (GG 3, 417), as well as to Moschopoulos’ Erotemata.
206
chapter three
teachers could incorporate each of these essays separately into any Greek schoolbook. Pylê c, a Donatus-type grammar, was added to this heterogenous grammatical material without a specific title. The text is written on the full page, on sixteen-seventeen lines per page. Some parts of P’s text have been corrected with the help of a manuscript from another Pylê, most probably a. The writing belongs to a Western hand133 and is thick, square, easily legible, and without any aesthetic pretension; additionally, the manuscript contains no decoration. Like all the texts of this section, the text of Cato’s Distichs also has an interlinear Latin translation. Clearly, the book was used in an environment in which the teaching of Greek took place in Latin. The last of the Greek Donati so far identified, Pylê d, is written in MS. O: Z
*Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci 72, fols. 229r–260r.
Z Pylê d constitutes one of the many works included in MS. O, which, as already discussed (above, 166), contains many texts for the study of Greek grammar. The grammar, entitled Περ' γραμματικς κατ’ πιτομν Ζαχαρου το: Καλι ργη (sic), is copied in 27-line columns, on the left side of the folios; most probably, the right side was left for a translation. Also, the many blank spaces left in the columns probably were to be filled with a Latin translation or supplement, as in G. However, no glosses or marginalia appear in the text. Z seems to be written by two different hands: the first uses a round cursive with a sharp contrast between strokes and round letters; the second hand, which appears in fol. 236v, is similar to the first, but uses a smaller and more inaccurate writing. Few red initials at the beginning of paragraphs demonstrate some aesthetic pretensions; however, the text is laid out with little care and is full of mistakes. The shape of some letters (e.g., mu often like a Latin m and iota with the dot on top) hints at two Latin scribes. A later hand has inserted few corrections in the interlinear spaces. The watermark of fols. 230–235 (a scale), similar to 2594 Briquet (Venice 1500), suggests that this text was copied later than the Pylê a contained in the same volume.
133
My thanks to Monsignor Paul Canart for this information.
donati graeci
207
Z’s grammar is incomplete: of the chapter on verbs, only part of the passive conjugation of *κο2ω and the irregular inflection are extant, while only a few notes remain of the chapters on prepositions and conjunctions. At least one quire seems to be missing between fols. 236v and 237r, and fols. 253–256, which originally followed the missing quire(s), have been misplaced in the binding; as a result, part of the chapter on verbs follows the treatment of the pronoun and the beginning of the section on prepositions. We may doubt whether Z is what remains of a complete grammar or is just a draft of it, as the few lines and many blank spaces in the chapter on conjunctions may suggest. In any case, this short Greek grammar shows all the distinguishing features of a Donatus-type grammatical compilation. The title attributes this “grammatical epitome” to Zacharias Calliergis, but his authorship is out of the question. Born in Rethymnon, in Crete, to a noble family probably related to some of the ruling dynasties of Byzantium—such as the Lascarides or the Ducades— Zacharias Calliergis (ca. 1473 – ca. 1524) was a scribe, a scholar, and a printer. He moved to Venice in about 1490, where, with Nicholas Vlastos and Anna Notaras, he founded the first Greek publishing house.134 However, because of the difficult economic conditions created in Venice by the League of Cambrai, in 1514 Calliergis moved to Rome, where he worked for the Greek gymnasium (above, 142f.) and founded a Greek publishing house with the support of the banker Agostino Chigi.135 Calliergis probably spent his last years as a copyist; his last manuscript, MS. Vat. Ottoboni gr. 89, dates from 1524.
134 In order to preserve Greek-Byzantine heritage in the West, Vlastos and Calliergis conceived the ambitious project of publishing the whole corpus of ancient Greek and Byzantine literature, as well as liturgical books useful for the Greek community in Venice. These books, intended to last for generations, were mostly luxury products intended for a market completely different from Aldus Manutius’ audience. Other Cretan scholars participated in the project: among them, Marcus Musurus and John Gregoropoulos. From 1498 to 1514, Calliergis’ publishing house, whose logo was a two-headed eagle, issued several important texts: e.g., the Etymologicum Magnum and Simplicius’ commentaries on Aristotle. 135 Calliergis’ publishing house in Rome concentrated on literary texts, lexica, and grammatical treatises: editions of Pindar and Theocritus with scholia (1515 and 1516), Chrysoloras’ Erotemata (1522), Phrynichus’ and Thomas Magister’s works on the Attic dialect, Chalcondyles’ treatise on the Greek tenses, and Favorinus’ GreekLatin lexicon (1523). On Calliergis’ life and works, see Cosenza 1962, 1. 784f., 5. 376; Geanakoplos 1962, 201–222 and 1976, 180, 204; Barberi-Cerulli 1972, 74; Mioni 1973;
208
chapter three
Calliergis was known for his grammatical works, also: he wrote a very traditional catechism on the eight parts of speech entitled Erotemata,136 and other short grammatical treatises on specific subjects.137 Also, his long activity in the West would have been impossible without a sound knowledge of Latin. For all these reasons, it is hard to believe that Calliergis could write a defective grammar like Pylê d,138 which seems to be a collection of notes by a teacher or a student rather than a real grammar book oriented toward a pedagogical project. Therefore, we should consider the Epitome attributed to Calliergis as another anonymous Greek grammar modeled on the Latin Ianua and composed according to the same criteria as Pylê b and c. Manoussos Manoussakas in Graecogermania 1989, 75 f.; Staïkos 1998 [1989], 391–449; Rowland 1998, 220 f.; and Pagliaroli 2004, 238 n. 1 (with extensive bibliography). 136 Calliergis’ Erotemata apparently had very limited circulation. They have been handed down by only three manuscripts, all of the sixteenth century: Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine, MS. gr. 1361; Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, MS. C. II. 21; and Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS. 43. D. 31. My observations are based on the (often barely readable) photographic reproduction of the manuscript of the Corsiniana library. Calliergis’ Erotemata respect the traditional patterns of a Byzantine-humanist elementary grammar. After dealing with letters and syllables, the work analyzes the article (and the relative pronoun) and the other parts of speech: noun, verb, pronoun, preposition, adverb, and conjunction. The participle is considered a part of speech but does not receive separate treatment. Calliergis introduces each chapter with a question: % (?) / Ανεας / τ2πτω / γ+, etc. ποου μ ρους λγου στν, etc. Then he describes at length the properties of each part of speech. For the Greek nouns and verbs, Calliergis adopts Chrysoloras’ classifications with some modifications. It is also interesting that paradigms are often presented in charts. 137 The sixteenth-century MS. Vat. Ottoboni gr. 173 contains several works on Greek syntax (Nicholas Sophianos and Apollonius Dyscolus), prosody (Porphyry), and orthography. On fols. 117r-121v, Calliergis’ short essays on Greek letters, syllables, numbers, etc. have been copied. The translation into Italian attached to the last short essay, concerning the names of the months (Zenaro, Febraro, etc.), hints at a Northeastern Italian environment. There follows (fol. 122) a list of definitions on prosody: Calliergis put together definitions by Moschopoulos, Choeroboschus, Theodore Gaza, and himself. On fols. 123r-127v, we find Calliergis’ two short essays on prosody and on accentuation in nominal inflection. 138 For example, Calliergis would never have confused res with rex (translated βασιλε2ς, for the fifth declension) nor claimed that the genitive of the first declension ends in -ου on the ground of ποιητς (gen. -ο:), μο:σα (gen. -ης), ξ νος (gen. ξ νου, ξ νης), and Π(σχα (gen Π(σχα). Moreover, Schmitt (1975, 208, 210) observed that it would be odd for Calliergis to write a Greek grammar relying on Ianua instead of, for example, Chrysoloras’ Erotemata or one of the many grammars that he himself had printed. Calliergis probably knew Ianua and may have known Pylê b in Crete, in Venice, or in Padua, where he seems to have spent the years between 1500 and 1509 (MS. M had been in San Giovanni di Verdara since 1503: see above, 201). See Mioni 1973, 751; and Manoussakas in Graecogermania 1989, 76.
donati graeci
209
9. The Donati compositi as Grammar Books Pylai b, c, and d preserve the structure and the general plan of the Latin Ianua: the parts of speech are introduced and described in the same way and in the same order and definitions are reduced to the essentials, whereas a considerable number of paradigms and examples are offered. However, among the three Donati compositi, Pylê b is the most successful attempt to adapt a Greek translation of Ianua to the demands of Westerners who wanted to learn Greek. Thus, for example, the anonymous compiler of Pylê b, on the one hand, maintains the Latin five-declension system, gives the ablative, and omits the dual of Greek nouns; on the other hand, he makes the system “compatible” with the actual Greek nominal inflection. The four verbal conjugations are preserved but modified in order to fit into the Greek verbal system, although the paradigms used are still a translation of the Latin amo, doceo, lego,139 and audio. Of the irregular verbs, b considers εμ only. Chapter 5 presents an extensive treatment of prepositions that, as the formula στ ον Wτι suggests, was taken from a Byzantine grammar. A probable source is Moschopoulos’ Erotemata, whereas the examples coincide with those employed by Michael Syncellus, Gregory of Corinth, and George Scholarios in their grammatical treatises; thus, Pylê b’s section on prepositions may come from the “stock material” of various origins that was available to Byzantine grammarians.140 Similarly, the chapter on adverbs corresponds to those in Moschopoulos’ and Chrysoloras’ Erotemata; both grammarians, in turn, took up the corresponding section in Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη (19, p. 60 Lallot). Also, the same section appears, in a more correct and extended form, among P’s grammatical material in the Περ' πιρρημ(των/De adverbiis in fols. 21r–22r. It is worth noticing that V’s text contains only Pylê b’s treatment of the first four parts of speech and ends at the beginning of the section on prepositions, i.e., exactly where these “Byzantine” additions begin. Therefore, we may suppose that the Ianua-based chapters on the last four parts of speech had been lost, or were omitted, already in the “archetype” of both M and V and that M derives from a branch of the tradition where those parts were replaced with other material. Pylai b, c, and d use λ γω instead of *ναγιν+σκω. MSS. Vat. gr. 279 and Vat. Urbinas gr. 151 contain two anonymous treatises on Greek prepositions that present striking similarities to Pylê b’s chapter. 139 140
210
chapter three
It is possible that M’s recensio originated in an environment where this material was available, i.e., in an area where Byzantine grammar books circulated; this may not have been the case with the “Western” MS. V.141 The two manuscripts show some differences in the text. There are few errores coniunctivi, in addition to common mistakes that may have originated independently: 1. 103 1. 116–117 2. 47 2. 53 2. 361 etc.
διδαγμεν στερος ε5δαμων … ε5δαιμονεστ(τη μνην ο5δεμιPς *κουσ$σεται
συγκριτικ+τερος MV
om. M, in marg. add. V1 μνον MV ο5δενς MV *κουσ$σομαι MV
Much more significant are the different readings. A few examples will suffice: 1. 1 1. 8 1. 18, 21, al. 1. 29–30 1. 39 2. 13–14 2. 35 2. 55 2. 193 etc.
νομα M Uρ$ρον τ? % M προσφ ρει, -φ ρεται M *μεταβ(τως συντ(σσεσ$αι M E ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α M πα$ητικν M αυτ?ν Uλλο M λγον M προστακτικ ,γκλισις M
νματος V τ? % Uρ$ρον V προφ ρει, -φ ρεται V *μετ(βατον συντασσμενον V E ε5$ε>α V νεργητικν V Sαυτν Uλλ&ω V πρPγμα V προστακτικ?ς V
V often presents lectiones potiores and a more accurate orthography In V, Pylê does not have its poetic prologue. An anonymous hand wrote in fol. 79v the Latin text of Pylê a’s poem with an interlinear translation into Greek. This translation differs from that of Pylê a in several respects, just as an interlinear, word-for-word version may differ from a translation with some literary pretensions.142
141 It is worth noticing that Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, in its earliest extant version (MS. Vat. Palatinus gr. 116), ends with the chapter on prepositions and does not account for the other three parts of speech. Similarly, the last three chapters may have never been included in V’s elementary grammar because the teacher who used V probably considered the study of adverbs, interjections, and conjunctions as useless or suitable for a more advanced level. 142 For example: line 2, nec sine me: ο5 χωρ'ς μο: V, κα' χωρ'ς μο: Pylê a; peritus:
donati graeci
211
In M and Z, Pylê is introduced by a poem in eight rather accurate tonic paroxytone dodecasyllables:143 Π2λην *πλαν τς γραφς nς 6ν $ λQη ρ$ς διελ$ε>ν κα' συναρι$μωμ νως π(ντων *κριβς τν μο' γινωσκ τω, ξ xν *μ μπτως ε@σεται κρναι λγον. Πτσιν *ρι$μ?ν ε=δος σχμα κα' γ νος σοφ& λογισμ& τοιγαρο:ν προσερχ σ$ω κα' παιδοτρβQη κ(ραν iποκλιν τωZ ο_τω γ4ρ δρ ψεται καλν π(ντων Uκρον.
[Whoever wants to enter the unwavering door of the art of writing correctly and methodically, should accurately learn all of my contents, from which he will know how to judge the style irreproachably. Therefore, let him apply himself with wise reasoning to case, number, species, figure, and gender, and let him bow his head to the master; for thus he will reach the highest pitch of all beauty.]
Most probably, this poem was not composed for Pylai b and d. It can be read with some difficulty in fol. 356v of the fourteenth-century MS. Vat. gr. 468.144 But it is also written in N, in fol. 40v, after the conjugation of εμ and the explicit of Pylê a, and with the indication chartula iambica on the left margin. The poem may have been composed earlier, as an introduction to another grammatical text; its stereotyped content made it possible to add it to any grammar.145
πεπαιδευμ νος V, πιστμων a. Lines 4–5 his quae flectuntur partibus insinuo. / Pono modum
reliquis, quod competat optime pandens: V: οmς qτινα κλνονται μ ρεσι δεικν2ω. Τ$ημι τρπον το>ς λοιπο>ς, τ? συν ρχεται *ρστως δεικν2ων, a: το>ς iποταττομ νοις τε μ ρεσιν γκολπ κατ4 τ?ν τρπον τν λοιπν, n συμφωνε> *ρστως μφανζων. V has τ instead of the relative pronoun W. Line 6, manet: πιλεπεταιV, μ νει a. Line 7, ergo: Uρα V, W$εν a; studiumque tibi. adice: σπουδν τε σοι πρσ$ες V, πρσχες τ& πιτηδε2ματ σου a; lector: c *ναγινσκον V, c … *ναγνστα a. Line 8 celeri studio: μετ4 συντμου σπουδς V, συντμ&ω *σκσει a; potes: δ2νασαι V, δυνσQη a. 143 On Byzantine dodecasyllables, see Maas 1973 [1903]. 144 Described by Robert Devreesse, Codices Vaticani graeci, II: codices 330–603, Romae 1937, 240–242. There is an apparent relationship between M and the Vatican manuscript, which contains theological works by Anastasius Sinaites, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ephraem Syrus, etc. A careful codicological examination would tell us if fol. 356 was added later to the volume as a flyleaf, as I suspect it was. 145 In his description of M, Mioni mentioned Z as a possible source of the poem, but denied Calliergis’ authorship observing that codex noster [M] fere uno saeculo Calliergem praecedit (46).
212
chapter three
On the other hand, Pylê c is a bilingual grammar and, as such, much more dependent on the Latin model; as in Pylê a, in fact, a faithful respect for the Latin original required the creation of forms ad hoc, usually according to the same method observed in R.146 An extensive Latin translation was written in the interlinear spaces after the copying of the Greek was concluded. Each Latin word has been carefully written above the corresponding Greek term; in this way, as is the case with G, readers could benefit from a direct and immediate comparison between the two languages. The Greek text reproduces its Latin original almost to the letter, in spite of syntactical differences between the two languages. However, the Latin text is not a translation of the Greek: it seems to come from an edition of Ianua very similar, but not identical, to Pylê c’s original.147 The Greek translation does not contain any literary pretension: Pylê c’s language contains many forms of the lexicon and the grammar of the spoken language.148 Also, c often differs from a and bd in the grammatical terminology.149 The question ποιητς ποου μ ρους λγου στν; introduces the chapter on nouns in Pylai b and d; c’s first section survives only in a bilingual glossary copied before the section on verbs. Definitions are almost identical in b and d: they may have been derived from a common source that probably was based on a translation of the first section of an Ianua different from a. In fact, the order of the definitions of nouns’ properties generally coincide with Pylê a, but b and d are much more concise and often use a different language. For example, this is the definition of the genus compositum in a (1. 27–28): Ποου γ νους; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Εκ το: α στερητικο: μορου κα' τ? δκαιος συντ$εται Uδικος. 146 Here are some peculiar forms in Pylê c’s Greek verbal system: the pluperfect optative active of *γαπ as ε@$ε *γαπκοιμι; the aorist subjunctive passive of *γαπ as 4ν sγαπ$ην, and the future subjunctive passive (!) as 4ν sγαπημ νος ,σομαι; the aorist subjunctive active of διδ(σκω as 4ν δδαξα; the future as 4ν διδ(ξω; etc. 147 Thus, for example, the Latin eo quod is translated τ& Wπερ (τ cod.), and in proferendo becomes ν προφ ρειν. However, Pylê c adds from some Greek grammar that #μα, “verb,” comes from #, a form of λ γω; above #, the Latin translator incorrectly wrote verbero, which corresponds to the Latin etymology given by Priscian (and by Ianua’s appendix). Also, sometimes the terms imperfectum and perfectum are reversed in the Latin version. 148 For example, the Latin exulo and nubo are translated with #φομαι (cod.: a form created on #πτω) and στεφανο:μαι (a clear reference to the Orthodox marriage; see PGL, s.v. στεφανω). 149 For example, c calls the verbal voices δια$ σεις, while a and bd use γ νη (Lat. genera).
donati graeci
213
In b (1. 24–25) and d (1. 24–25), it is called σχμα σ2ν$ετον (figura composita) and is defined in this way:150 Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Απ? το: δκαιος νματος συνετ $η *δκως (Uδικος d).
On the other hand, the definition of the genus incertum, called Uδηλον in a and *τελεωτον in b and d,151 offers an interesting case: Pylê b and d coincide ad verbum with R (a 1. 18–21(b) = b 1. 1–18, d 19–20): Ποου γ νους; Αδλου. Διατ; Διτι ο5δε'ς λγος τελειο> το:το, *λλ4 μνη E ποησις τν παλαιν ν το>ς στχοις δι4 γ νους προφ ρεται.
Pylê c’s lost section on nouns corresponded to the beginning of a “Priscianic” Ianua, or Ianua longa, where definitions were given much more room. From the glossary at the beginning of Pylê c we may infer, for example, that c 1 contained the etymology of νομα (cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 2. 22, GL 2, 57): Unde dicitur (5: ε@ρηται, λ γεται) nomen? A νμω, tribuendo (7: *π? †δ δομ(ον)†), fit noma et adiecta (6: προσ$ σει) o νομα, vel a notamen (10: νεμετικν), eo quod (8: τ& Wπερ) hoc notamus (9 ν μω, ν μεις) substantiam (11: ο5σα) vel qualitatem (12: ποιτης).
Like a, Pylê b acknowledges five nominal declensions, based on the endings of the genitive singular. However, the following chart shows that its system represents a significant improvement over Pylê a. The nouns in brackets are quoted in the nominative and genitive after the definitions: first declension (genitive singular: -ου δφ$ογγον: ποιητς, Χρ2σης, ξ2λον): % ποιητς % Π ρσης τ? ξ2λον
second declension (genitive singular: ος: Α@ας, αyλαξ, βμα, φις, Eδ2ς): 150 Pylê b continues: κα' *π? το2του kτερον νομα παρασ2ν$ετον λεγμενον, *δικα. Because in d’s text this sentence belongs to the definition of the σχμα παρασ2ν$ετον (1. 26–28), we may assume that the two definitions merged in b’s manuscript tradition. 151 This rare adjective properly means “unfinished, incomplete, imperfect” and belongs to philosophical language. See LSJ, s.v.
214
chapter three % Α@ας % αyλαξ
third declension (genitive singular: ης: μο:σα, δψα, σοφ): E μο:σα E δψα E σοφ
fourth declension (genitive singular: ας: μα>α, 8Ρ α, Εuα): E μα>α E 8Ρ α
fifth declension (genitive singular equal to the nominative: Αβρα(μ, Αδ(μ, Νε, Ααρ+ν): % % % %
Αβρα(μ Αδ(μ Νε Ααρ+ν
The author(s) of Pylê b retained some nouns from the Latin Ianua— poeta, musa, and Abraham—but organized the Greek nominal inflection according to a system similar to Chrysoloras’ Erotemata.152 Like Chrysoloras’ work, b’s choice of paradigms reveals a clear influence of Theodosius’ Canons. Rather surprisingly, the “fifth declension,” which includes only names taken from Hebrew and therefore not inflected, is represented by more paradigms than the other groups; this hints perhaps at the interests of b’s author(s) or audience, for whom the reading of the Greek Bible could be the main reason for learning Greek or the favorite means of achieving this goal (this applies also to Εuα, “Eve,” mentioned for the fourth declension). Conversely, Pylê d offers a faithful translation of the section on nouns of an Ianua brevis; this may confirm its late date. The definitions
152 Pylê b combines the masculine nouns of the first declension and the nouns of the second declensions, which Chrysoloras kept separated, but divides the feminine nouns of the first declension—the second according to Chrysoloras—into two groups (stems in α¯ ; stems in α˘ and η). In spite of their variety, the nouns with the genitive in -ος—our third declension, which Chrysoloras divided into six groups—receive very brief treatment.
donati graeci
215
coincide with b’s, but are not related to the paradigms in three cases out of five:153 first declension (genitive singular: -ου δφ$ογγον: ποιητς, Χρ2σης, Π ρσης): % ποιητς E μο:σα % ξ νος κα' E ξ νη τ? Π(σχα
hic poeta haec musa hic et haec advena hoc Pascha
second declension (genitive singular: ου μακρν: κ2ριος, $ες, διδ(σκαλος, $ρνος): % % % %
κ2ριος $ες διδ(σκαλος $ρνος
hic dominus hic deus hic magister hoc scamnum
third declension (genitive singular: ης: μο:σα, δψα): % E % %
πατρ μτηρ κα' E Uν$ρωπος qπας κα' s qπασα κα' τ? qπαν
hic pater haec mater hic et haec homo hic et haec omnis et hoc omne
fourth declension (genitive singular: ος: Α@ας, Μ(μας, Θας): E χερ τ? κ ρας τ? βλ μμα % *κο2ων
hec manus hoc cornu hic visus hic auditus
153 The paradigms that are quoted correspond almost completely, for example, to the Ianua of MS. B vi 8 of the Biblioteca Queriniana in Brescia (mid-fifteenth century: cf. Black 2001, 375): poeta, musa, advena, Pascha; dominus, deus, magister, scamnum; pater, mater, homo, omnis; visus, manus, cornus; and dies, meridies, res. The compiler of Pylê d probably was a Greek and relied on a bilingual dictionary; this may explain the confusion between res and rex and the presence of βασιλε2ς among the fifth-declension nouns. As for *κο2ων, he may have confused the noun auditus, gen. auditus, “hearing,” with the participle auditus -a -um, “heard,” and then may have rendered it incorrectly with a Greek present participle.
216
chapter three
fifth declension (genitive singular: ας: Eμ ρα, μεσημβρα): E Eμ ρα E μεσημβρα % βασιλε2ς τ? ε@δος
hic et haec dies hic meridies hic rex (for res) haec species
As for Pylê c, from the glossary that replaces the section on nouns and from the elements found in the other Pylai, we may infer that it certainly contained the declensions of ποιητς (poeta: 1. 24), μο:σα (musa: 25), προσλυτος (advena: 27), and Π(σχα (Pasqua: 28), and probably of ψυχ (anima: 26).154 For the second declension, only κεκορημ νος is mentioned (saturatus: 30). The third declension certainly included ε5δαμων (felix: 41), πPς (omnis: 42–50), σχυρς (fortis: 51), σχυρτερος (fortior: 52), and other nouns; the fourth included ψις and *κο (visus and auditus: 60) and κ ρας (cornu: 62), and the fifth πρPγμα (res: 63). Other nouns may have been quoted to explain a rule, but not declined, as is often the case with Ianuae longae. Also, like a, Pylê c contained a treatment of numeral adjectives that does not appear in b and d.155 As for the degrees of comparison of adjectives and adverbs, b correctly mentions δεδιδαγμ νος (1. 105), which, however, becomes διδαγμεν στερος, διδαγμεν στατος, and διδαγμ νως etc. as an adverb. The adjectives ε5σεβς and ε5δαμων (1. 113–118), which were also in c (1. 86–95), correspond to the Latin felix and pius, which were included in some editions of Ianua. The adjective πρτος, itself a superlative, is quoted with a comparative and a superlative, πρτερος and πρ+τιστος (b 1. 109–110).156 For πολ2ς, which is missing in a, b gives the adverbs πολ2, πλεινως (late form of πλε>ον), and πλειστ(κις, “mostly, very often” (instead of πλε>στα: b. 1. 112, cf. c. 1. 105–107). The three adverbs derived from μικρς are λαττνως (late form of the comparative ,λασσον with the Attic -ττ-, here treated as a positive), and In the thirteenth-century Ianua of MS. Par. lat. 15972 (J), anima is declined among the nouns of the first declension at fol. 110r, and is also mentioned at fol. 109v as an example of figura simplex: Quot sunt figure nominum? Tres. Que? Simplex ut anima, composita ut magnanimus, decomposita ut magnanimitas. 155 Here and elsewhere, Pylê c seems to be derived from an Ianua longa-text earlier than a’s and similar to that of MSS. J (Par. Bibl. Nat. lat. 15972) and S (Laur. Strozzi 80: see above, 28). 156 Πρτερος and πρτος are considered a comparative and a superlative derived from the preposition πρ. The form πρ+τιστος, attested already in Homer, becomes common in late Greek: see LSJ, s.v. 154
donati graeci
217
λαττοτ ρως (created on the previous one), whereas the superlative is μικροτ(τως (b 1. 120–121). Αγαπ is also used by the Donati compositi, as well as by Pylê a,
to introduce the section on verbs. The beginning of this section is lost in d, whose text starts with the future optative passive of *κο2ω. Here again, the part that b assigns to definitions is much shorter than in version a. Pylê b mentions four conjugations. The first three are distinguished according to the vowel(s) preceding the ending of the second person singular of the present indicative, whereas the fourth conjugation includes all the μι-verbs: πρ+τη δευτ ρα τρτη τετ(ρτη
α εις (sic), η οι -μι, μαι
*γαπ, -RPς, *γαπμαι, -RP διδ(σκω, -εις, διδ(σκομαι, -Qη; λ γω, -εις, λ γομαι, -Qη χρυσω, -ο>ς, χρυσο:μαι, -ο> τ$ημι, τ$ημαι; ;στημι, ;σταμαι; δδωμι, δδομαι; ζε2γνυμι, ζε2γνυμαι.
By adopting the same method of Ianua, Pylê b introduces within the Greek verbal system a distinction based on the ending of the second person singular. In this way, all the categories of non-contracted verbs can be reduced to one, the second, which includes the verbs ending in -εις/-Qη. There is also room for the contracted verbs in -(ω (*γαπ(ω) and in -ω (χρυσω). The contracted verbs in - ω are not included: they probably were considered as part of the second conjugation because, apart from the accent, their endings coincide (φιλ, φιλε>ς and φιλο:μαι, φιλQ). Additionally, b’s author may have been forced to omit them in an attempt to preserve the four-conjugation system of Latin. In Pylê c, the chapter on verbs is derived from an Ianua longa. Like the Ianua of MS. Laur. Strozzi 80, for example, Pylê c’s original contained detailed definitions taken from Priscian, as well as mnemonic verses taken from medieval grammars. For example, two lines from Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale (976–977) conclude the description of the genus neutrum passivum (semi-deponent verbs): Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in preteritis perfectis et in hiis que derivantur ab eo retinet literaturam passivorum, in ceteris autem neutrorum; et sunt quinque verba neutra passiva, sicut dictum est: gaudeo cum fio, soleo simul audeo, fido:157 quinque, puer, numero neutra passiva tibi do,
157
Cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 61, GL 2, 420. In Alexander’s text, the order of the
218
chapter three
which in Greek becomes (c 2. 23–28): Ποας δια$ σεως; Ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι ν το>ς παρ&ωχημ νοις κα' το>ς τετυπωμ νοις *π’ α5το: συν χει γραφν πα$ητικν, ν το>ς ξς δ3 τν ο5δετ ρωνZ κα εσι π ντε #ματα ο5δ τερα πα$ητικ(, Tς ε@ρηταιZ χαρομαι σGν γνομαι, ε@ω$α %μο: τολμ, π πεισμαιZ π ντε μειρ(κιον *ρι$μ& ο5δ τερα πα$ητικ( σοι δδω (sic).
The same lines occur, in a reverse order, in MS. Strozzi 80 (fol. 8v). In the treatment of verbal inflection, the similarities between the three Donati compositi become more evident; in fact, there are good reasons to suppose that the source of the three texts was a treatise on Latin verbs in Greek.158 As we have already seen, this treatise was probably based on a translation of Ianua’s section on verbs, but the translator(s) rendered lego with the Greek λ γω and replaced the pluperfect with the aorist. Thus, the verbal system described by the Greek Donati becomes an interesting mixture of Latin and Greek grammar: Westerners could practice Greek conjugations by using verbs with which they were familiar and, in this way, they could learn by comparing the forms of both languages. The influence of Latin elementary grammar on the verbal paradigms of Donati compositi, however, is very strong. Here, too, verbs are usually introduced with a list of principal parts. The voices include the active, the passive, and the impersonal; significantly, the middle voice is not mentioned and is often confused with the passive.159 Also, there is no attempt to create forms expressly to make the Greek verbal system match the Latin one, except, perhaps, for the “future subjunctive,” for which translators adopt the same solutions as Pylê a verbs in the first lines is slightly different (audeo cum soleo, fio quoque gaudeo, fido); the anonymous compiler of Ianua c probably relied on his memory to quote Alexander’s line. 158 In fact, the three texts present some readings that may come from their common source: *γαπο: for *γαπ (b 2. 124, c 2. 140), and ,σ$ω … ,σ$ωσαν for ,στω … ,στωσαν in the conjugation of the present imperative of εμ (b 2. 419–420, c 2. 472– 473, and d 2. 21–22; cf. a 2. 679–680). 159 Sometimes the anonymous translator(s) hesitated over whether to use a middle or a passive and gave them both, as is the case with the future infinitive passive of λ γω and *κο2ω: λεχ$σεσ$αι ] λ ξεσ$αι (b 2. 323 and c 2. 363) and *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι (b 2. 409 and c 2. 458). In the same way, the future participles are λεχ$ησμενος ] λεξμενος (b 2. 325 and c 2. 365) and *κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος (b 2. 411–412 and c 2. 460–461; d has only the infinitive passive and does not consider participles in the conjugation of *κο2ω).
donati graeci
219
( (ν + future indicative, or nonexistent forms of future with a -σω / -ση suffix).160 Of λ γω and other polythematic verbs, only the forms with the “regular” stem are usually given, with no mention of supplementary forms. In the question that begins the chapter on participles, λ γων replaces a’s *ναγιν+σκων; c has no paradigms, whereas b and d give the declension of the present active λ γων and the perfect middlepassive λελεγμ νος, which corresponds to the Latin present and perfect participles. However, Pylai b and d adapt the original description of the Latin participles to the Greek system by including the right suffixes for the active voice: -ων for the present “and the imperfect” as well as for the future, -ας for the aorist, and -ως for the perfect. Also, the examples that Pylai b and d give for the voices (called γ νη or δια$ σεις) are less faithful to Latin grammar than Pylê a’s example, but fit the Greek system much better. The middle voice is not considered: νεργητικν (active) = *γαπ (*γαπν) πα$ητικν (passive) = *γαπμαι (*γαπ+μενος) ο5δ τερον (neuter) = κ($ημαι (κα$μενος) κοινν (common) = χαρζομαι (χαριζμενος) μεταβατικν (deponent) = πορε2ομαι (πορευμενος).161
In the chapter on pronouns, Pylai b and d have two elements in common with R: the reference to and the definition of the ε@δη— πρωττυπον and παρ(γωγον (species primitiva and derivativa)—omitted by x, and the definition of the γ νος παντο>ον, which coincides ad verbum with R’s definition. Pylê c contains general definitions only, which apply both to Greek and to Latin. On the other hand, in this chapter, Pylai b and d distance themselves remarkably from both the Latin Ianua and Pylê a. Unlike a, the Donati compositi do not consider Ianua’s division of pronouns into four “modes” (τρποι). Instead, b and d divide the seventeen Greek pronouns into three categories: six primitive, eight derivative, and three compound pronouns. Starting from the personal pronouns γ+, σ2, and ; (the very rare nominative 160 As for the future imperative, often called μ λλων *ριστος, the aorist imperative is always used. The second and third persons singular are followed by the pronouns (e.g., Uκουσα συ, *κουσ(σ$ω κε>νος), as in the Latin original, where the two forms are identical (audito tu, audito ille). 161 In c, κτ[ε]νομαι (Lat. largior) replaces χαρζομαι and *κολου$ (Lat. sequor) replaces πορε2ομαι, while a sixth significatio, the ο5δ τερα πα$ητικ (Lat. neutralis passiva or neutropassiva), is added with χαρομαι (Lat. gaudeo).
220
chapter three
of the reflexive ο[),162 which are given in the singular, dual, and plural, b and d give the possessive adjectives pertaining to each pronoun, and then describe the demonstrative pronouns and adjectives. Also, b and d offer the complete declensions of the personal pronouns, of the demonstrative κε>νος, ο[τος, and α5τς, and of the possessive μς, σς, and Wς. The three Donati compositi differ in the treatment of prepositions. The c- and d-texts preserve the Latin distinction of prepositions according to the cases they take (accusative, ablative, or both), even if it does not apply to Greek. Pylê b’s chapter begins with Ianua’s question ( ν ποου μ ρους λγου στν;) and adopts Ianua’s general definition of the πρ$εσις, but, as already observed, is completely independent of the Latin model. After the division of the eighteen Greek prepositions into two groups—(προ$ σεις) μονοσ2λλαβοι and δισ2λλαβοι, originally in Dionysius Thrax (18, p. 62 Lallot)—Pylê b treats each preposition in detail, in the same order that we see in Dionysius163 and with particular emphasis on the changes in meaning according to the cases it takes. The lacuna between M’s fols. 36v and 37r, which occurred before the pages of the manuscript were numbered, resulted in a loss of the treatment of part of the section on πρ, the whole section on *ν(, and the beginning of that on κατ(. In the three Donati compositi, the chapter on adverbs begins with the question ν:ν ποου μ ρους λγου στν, which corresponds to Pylê a. However, each text deals with this part of speech independently from the others. As already seen, b’s chapter was probably taken from Moschopoulos’ Erotemata. It is also significant that the distinction between IπλP and σ2ν$ετα πιρρματα (simple and compound adverbs) goes back to Dionysius Thrax, as do most of the categories acknowledged by Pylê b, which retain the same examples and the same order as Dionysius (Ars gramm. 19, pp. 62–64 Lallot). The text of Dionysius’ Τ χνη, therefore, offers a valid support for the emendation of this part of Pylê b, which is full of mistakes and omissions. Pylê c acknowledges twenty-three classes of adverbs, and Pylê d acknowledges nineteen: in both texts, the adverbs’ names and the examples 162 Dionysius Thrax (Ars gramm. 17, p. 60 Lallot) mentions this form, which, however, is “a fiction grammaticale” (Lallot, p. 204). Sophocles’ fragment 471 Radt, quoted by Apollonius Dyscolus, contains the pronoun ; twice. However, as Lallot remarks: “la forme hí est, dans les faits, pratiquement inexistante—sauf dans les traités de grammaire.” 163 The only exception is the sequence πρς—πρ, which reverses Dionysius’ order.
donati graeci
221
quoted for each category are related to Ianua. As in all Latinate Greek grammars, the interjection—called σχετλιασμς in c and παρεμβολς πρρημα in d—has its place among the eight parts of speech. The chapter on conjunctions, missing in b, is reduced to a few lines in d. In the c-text, it coincides with Dionysius Thrax’s treatment of conjunctions (20, pp. 64–66 Lallot) and, more precisely, with the section in the anonymous grammar attributed to Basil the Great.164 This confirms the diverse origin of the material contained in the Donati compositi. 10. The Language of the Greek Donati: Between Greek and Latin As Greek translations from Latin that were produced independently, from different originals and, probably, at different times, the four Greek Donati show many differences in terms of language and style. In the sections more closely derived from Latin, the Donati compositi appear as completely independent from Pylê a, as, for example, in the following passages taken from the sections on pronouns in all four texts: a 4. 23–28(a): Ποου προσο+που; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωνυμαι εσ'ν τρτων προσ+πων, πλν τς γ+, dτις στ' πρ+του, κα' σ2, dτις στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν παρηγμ νων *π’ α5τν. b 4. 13–15, c 4. 13–16, and d 4. 12–15: Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' πPσαι αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτου προσ+που, χωρ'ς το: γ+, Wπερ στ' πρ+του, κα' το: σ2, Wπερ στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν κλητικν πτ+σεων κα' τν ξ α5τν παραγομ νων.165 Ianua longa (MS. Laur. Strozzi 80, fol. 24v): Cuius persone? Prime. Quare? Quia omnia nomina et pronomina [et pronomina] sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est prime, et tu, quod est secunde, et hiis que derivantur ab eis, que sunt prime et tertie, secunde et tertie, et vocativis casibus aliorum qui sunt secunde persone.
All in all, in the four Donati graeci the specific language of the discipline, grammar, is used correctly. Formulas like τ μ ρος (ποου μ ρους) λγου στν or στ ον Wτι κ.τ.λ. belong to the language of Schulgrammatik 164 There are also similarities between c’s text and the treatment of conjunctions in George Scholarios’ grammar, presumably because of the use of the same source(s). 165 Pylê c omits πPσαι before αF *ντωνυμαι, while d has τρτου instead of πρ+του and τ4 *ντωνυμα (sic) instead of (πPσαι) αF *ντωνυμαι.
222
chapter three
as well as their Latin equivalents quae pars orationis est and sciendum est. Unlike the translations of Ianua into vernacular languages, the Greek Donatus did not require the creation of a “metalanguage” to describe grammatical phenomena. In fact, most of the grammatical terminology used in Pylai appears already in Dionysius’ Τ χνη and had been employed in grammatical work from that time onward. However, the translators of Pylai—and especially those of Pylê a—had to solve the problem of rendering into Greek Latin terms that did not correspond to any category of Greek grammar. The easiest solution, the linguistic calque, is often adopted in Pylê a. The following examples provide some interesting observations: A. Ablativus = *φαιρετικ: the name “ablative,” ablativus, appears for the first time in Quintilian (Inst. or. 1. 4. 26). In the fourth century, Dositheus solved the problem of translating the ablativus casus, which does not exist in Greek grammar, with *φαιρετικ or *πενεκτικ (18, p. 35 Bonnet, etc.), or *ποκομιστικ (23. p. 51 Bonnet); the term *φαιρετικ prevailed among later grammarians. B. The genera verbi: as already considered, in the Greek Donati Greek verbs lack the middle voice (μεστης), which is generally confused with the passive. On the other hand, elementary Latin grammar acknowledges eight genera, “voices” (above, 33). From Dionysius Thrax onward, the genus activum and passivum had had their Greek equivalent in (γ νος) νεργητικν and πα$ητικν. Also, translating (genus) neutrum, neutrum passivum or passivum neutrum with (γ νος) ο5δ τερον, ο5δ τερον πα$ητικν or πα$ητικ?ν ο5δ τερον, as well as commune with κοινν and nullum with ο5δ ν, was an easy and obvious operation. Conversely, no Greek term was available for deponens. Pylê a solves the problem in two ways: with the calque *πο$ετικν (BmONR), which was used also by Constantine Lascaris,166 and with the more refined *πολιμπαντικν (ABCGQ: *πολυπαντικν codd.), from *πολιμπ(νω, a form of *πολεπω, “leave, abandon.” Pylai b and d use μεταβατικν, which literally means “able to pass from one place to another, transitional”; grammarians use it for “transitive,” i.e., “not reflexive.” We may explain the misunderstanding by 166 As Schmitt has pointed out (1966, 216), Lascaris’ use of the definition of *πο$ετικ?ν πα$ητικν for verbs like γνομαι demonstrates that Latin grammar eventually
influenced the Greek grammar of the Renaissance.
donati graeci
223
considering that deponent verbs are passive but constructed as transitive, i.e., with the accusative.167 Pylê c uses either *πολιμπαντικν (translated deponentalis: 3. 26) or the extravagant *ντι$ετικν, which means “opposite” (2. 20). C. Intransitivus = *μετ(βατος or *δι(βατος: Apollonius Dyscolus (cf. LSJ, s.v.) uses *μετ(βατος or *διαββαστος. The former is also found in most manuscripts of Pylê a as well as in b, d, and c 4. 17. On the other hand, BCG and c 3. 13 have *δι(βατος, which is a calque from the Latin in-trans-itivus.168 D. Impersonale = *νυπστατον: Greek grammar does not consider the impersonal use of verbs as a separate voice; therefore, this verbal category lacks a specific Greek term. For this reason, Pylai b and d translate the Latin verbum impersonale in #μα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον (“verb not expressing a specific person”) and #μα μ ,χον πρσωπον (“verb that has no person”), respectively. However, Planudes uses the adjective *πρσωπος to define verbs like χρ, πρ πει, aκουσται, etc. (τ4 *πρσωπα #ματα: De gramm. 49. 9 f., 47. 18 ff.; Synt. 146. 35 f.). Pylê a translates Ianua’s verbum impersonale in #μα *νυπστατον: the adjective means “without substance” and is very common in Christian writings (see PGL, s.v.). The confusion between πρσωπον and iπστασις may be due to the frequent occurrence of the two terms as a iunctura in religious texts (see PGL, s.v. iπστασις). Pylê c takes up b’s formula (2. 304), but “contaminates” it with a’s *νυπστατον (2. 112: #μα *νυπστατον μ … πρσωπον) and Planudes’ *πρσωπον (2. 212). E. Gerundium = $ετικν: the use of $ετικν as “gerund” is explained by Dionysius Thrax, who refers to $ετικ4 πιρρματα as the neuter forms of the verbal adjectives in -τ ος (9. 32, p. 64 Lallot), corresponding to the Latin gerundive (perhaps considered as equivalent to the gerund because of the similarity of the forms).
167 This definition only partially applies to πορε2ομαι, which Pylai b and d quote as an example of a deponent verb (b 3. 31; d 3. 30): πορε2ομαι used with a direct object, in fact, is rare. In the section on verbs, Pylê b adds πα$ητικν to μεταβατικν (2. 13). 168 Gregory of Nyssa and Proclus use *δι(βατος as “not to be passed” and refer it to the division between the impenitent and the good; cf. PGL, s.v.
224
chapter three
F. Supinum = iπο$ετικν: the Greek iπο-τ$ημι was probably intended as a calque of sub-ponere, from which supinum derives. G. Interiectio = νδι($εσις, σχετλιασμς, παρεμβολς πρρημα: Greek grammarians did not consider the interjection as an independent part of speech. Dionysius Thrax included words indicating fear, pain, sadness or joy in the categories of the σχετλιαστικ4 πιρρματα, the adverbs expressing anger or complaint (παπα>, ο:, φε:), the $αυμαστικ(, expressing astonishment (βαβα>), and the πιρρματα παρακελε2σεως, expressing exhortation (ε=α, Uγε, φ ρε).169 Dionysius’ classification, although modified and improved, continued to be used until the late Byzantine period.170 Late antique glossaries, Charisius, and Priscian suggest that the Greek term for interiectio was σχετλιασμς,171 whereas Dositheus’ bilingual grammar has παρ ν$εσις, “insertion,” taken from the language of rhetoric (64, p. 98 Bonnet).172 The translator(s) of Pylê a, who probably did not know the specific term for interiectio, constructed νδι($εσις by means of the individual elements making up the word: with a purely formal process, inter-iectio becomes ν-δι(-$εσις.173 Pylê d’s παρεμβολ also means “insertion” (cf. παρεμβ(λλω, “insert, interpose,” Lat. immitto, intericio). Instead, Pylê c uses the Greek grammatical term σχετλιασμς. H. Conjunctions: Dionysius Thrax (20, p. 64ff. Lallot) divided Greek conjunctions into eight groups: (σ2νδεσμοι) συμπλεκτικο, “copulative,” διαζευκτικο, “disjunctive,” συναπτικο, “connective,” παρασυναπτικο, “subconnective,” ατιολογικο, “causal,” *πο[ρ]ρηματικο, “dubitative,” συλλογιστικο, “syllogistic,” and παραπληρωματικο, “expletive.” See Ars gramm. 19.15, 20, and 24, pp. 62–64 Lallot. See the references collected by Schmitt 1966, 250f. n. 111. 171 Priscian, Inst. gramm. 15. 40 (GL 3. 90): Interiectio tamen non solum quem dicunt Graeci σχετλιασμν, sed etiam voces quae cuiuscumque passionis animi pulsu per exclamationem intericiuntur. Other quotations in Schmitt 1966, 251 n. 113–115. 172 On παρ ν$εσις, the “insertion” of a sentence into another, see Quintilian, Inst. or. 9. 3. 23. The term was also used as synonymous with π ν$εσις, which means the insertion of letters into a word; see LSJ, s.v. 173 Schmitt (1966, 254 and n. 126) also proposes a second explanation, based on the meaning of δι($εσις as affectus. In grammar, δι($εσις usually means the “voice” of a verb, i.e., the relationship between the subject and the action, as shown by two significant passages by Macrobius (GL 5. 652. 6–8) and George Scholarios (Gramm. 382. 2 f.). Since the interjection is related to affection, states of mind, etc., the translator(s) also may have taken into account the semantic value of δι($εσις. 169 170
donati graeci
225
Pylê c takes up Dionysius’ section on conjunctions, but adds the category of (σ2νδεσμοι) ναντιωματικο, “adversative.” In Pylê d, only a list of names survives of the section on conjunctions, and it is difficult to determine if they correspond to Dionysius’ model or to some other source. Pylê a employs the terms συμπλεκτικς, διαζευκτικς, συναπτικς, *πορηματικς, and παραπληρωματικς;174 as for the other categories, the Latin original has exerted a decisive influence. As we already have seen, Ianua takes up Priscian’s categories, which, in turn, are a translation from the Greek of Apollonius Dyscolus. Pylê a often presents a different Greek retranslation of the names of those categories. For example, the Greek συλλογιστικς, which Priscian translated with collectiva, became *$ροιστικς in Pylê a (from *$ροζω, “to collect,” etc.).175 Priscian’s coniunctio continuativa is rendered by συνεκτικς (cf. συν χομαι, “to continue,” συνεχς, “continuous,” etc.), although it actually corresponds to the σ2νδεσμος συναπτικς; but Pylê a uses συναπτικς for the adiunctiva. In the same way, coniunctio subcontinuativa becomes iποσυνεκτικς, which is clearly a calque from Latin, but corresponds to the παρασυναπτικς of Dionysius and Apollonius. 11. The Greek Cato The similarity between the Greek Pylê and the Latin Ianua is enhanced by the fact that, in the manuscript tradition, Pylê is often followed by Planudes’ Greek translation of Cato’s Disticha, so as Ianua is either written or printed before Cato’s Latin text. Pylê a and Cato can be found together in part of the “Cretan” group—N, O, and Q—and in the Cretan-Venetian R. MSS. M of Pylê b and our only copy of Pylê c, P, also include both texts. Like Pylê a, the Greek Cato also eventually was used for a purpose that was not intended by the translator. Most probably, Planudes translated the Distichs uniquely in order to spread knowledge of one of the favorite Latin readings throughout Byzantium. Like generations of scholars, students, and readers in the West, Planudes and his readers may have liked Cato’s Distichs for their moral content and their simple and straightforward way of expressing the basic principles of ancient ethics. The Byzantines knew Cato mainly from the 174 175
Ατιολογικς (ατι+δης in Apollonius Dyscolus) is replaced with ατιατικς. Apollonius Dyscolus uses *$ροιστικς as “copulative” (see LSJ, s.v.).
226
chapter three
portrait that Plutarch gave of him, in parallel with Aristides: Cato the Elder had the reputation of being a strict moralist and a man of great stature. However, the large number of manuscripts handing down the Greek Cato show that, in the Renaissance, it achieved great success not as a treatise on morality, but as an elementary reading of Greek.176 The time and place of Planudes’ translation have been discussed at length. In his translation, in literary Greek, Planudes strives to respect the original text as faithfully as possible. However, many misinterpretations of the Latin text and many mistakes in the Greek version seem to prove that this was one of the first of Planudes’ translations. He may have done it long before his diplomatic mission to Venice in 1296; Planudes’ later versions from Latin—for example, that of Boethius’ Consolatio—are in fact much more accurate.177 Although we have no specific evidence, it is tempting to suppose that Planudes tackled the Latin Pseudo-Cato immediately after completing his study of elementary Latin grammar in Byzantium.178 Thus, the Distichs may have been the first Latin reading for him, as they used to be for many Western pupils. Planudes may have conceived the project of translating this text as both an exercise for practicing his Latin and a way to make accessible to Greek readers the moral issues it contains. Although not very faithful to the original text,179 Planudes’ translation succeeded in conveying its moral message. From this point of view, Planudes’ use of the Homeric hexameter and language to render the Latin text reveals not only a search for a highly refined style, but also an attempt to connect the Latin morality to the moral values of the Homeric epos, the foundation of the Greek tradition.180
176 See Schmitt 1967 (with an overview of Cato the Elder’s fortune in Byzantium); and Ortoleva 1991, 98. 177 Turyn 1973–1974, 13. Ortoleva (1992, XII–XVIII) has recognized a first, rough experiment in a Greek version of Cato’s Distichs handed down in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS. gr. 551. 178 Copies of Cato’s Distich may have been circulating in thirteenth-century Constantinople, occupied by the Latins from 1204 to 1261; see Ortoleva 1989, 106 n. 6. On Latin books in Byzantium, see below, 232 f. 179 “Mehr Nachdichtung als Übersetzung” according to Hunger (1978, 2. 68). Schmitt (1967, 332) interprets Planudes’ freedom in translating Cato’s work as an attempt to “Hellenize” it: in Planudes’ translation, Schmitt finds “bewußten Änderungen, die […] davon zeugen, daß es Planudes trotz der Übersetzung um die Schaffung eines originalen griechischen Literaturwerks ging, in dem lateinisches Kolorit vermieden werden sollte.” 180 See Opelt 1986; and Ortoleva 1991, 95.
donati graeci
227
The Planudean translation met with a fair degree of success in the Byzantine world. In the fourteenth century, Manuel Gabalas and Macarios Chrysocephalos included Planudes’ translation in their personal volumes (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS. theol. gr. 174 and Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. 83, respectively). The Greek Cato was also inserted in a schoolbook that circulated throughout the Greek world during the Turcokratia.181 But it was during the Renaissance that the work reached its widest diffusion: in the fifteenth century, it was copied in about one hundred manuscripts. The combination of the Greek Cato with elementary Greek grammars—Pylê, Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, the grammar of Manuel Calecas, and others—182 is undoubtedly of Western origin. This parallelism between the Latin and Greek elementary curricula was most probably intentional. In manuscripts written in and for the Byzantine environment, the Latin text rarely appears. Rather, translations into δημοτικ are usually related to the text: the Distichs, in fact, were studied mainly for their content. For example, in the fifteenth-century MS. Athous Iviron 159, the Greek text is written on the recto of the page, while the verso is left blank for the Latin text. However, only the first section of the work, with the sentences, was translated. The rest is left blank: this is perhaps an indication that the original Latin text was not perceived as important. Some manuscripts—in particular Oxford, Bodleian Library, MSS. Barocci 71 and 72 (O)—contain prose paraphrases in Byzantine κα$αρε2ουσα, most probably school exercises.183 On the other hand, in Western manuscripts, the Greek text is usually copied with wide margins and interlinear spaces. The Latin text, generally written alongside or between the lines of the Greek one, is functional to the study of the Greek grammar and syntax, which, as we have seen already, took place by comparing the forms of both languages. Constantinides 1982, 88f. See Schmitt 1966, 273; and Plebani 1994, 77. 183 See Louisides 1956; Schmitt 1977, 279; and Ortoleva 1991a, 1992a, and 1995. Ortoleva concludes his detailed analysis of the marginalia in manuscripts of Cato’s Distich with the following remark (1992a, 276): “Siamo di fronte a un’opera di tale successo da imporre un continuo lavoro di mediazione tra essa e il suo pubblico, di cui gli scholia, le glosse, le συντ(ξεις, le parafrasi e le traduzioni non sono che altrettanti momenti, ciascuno finalizzato a rendere il più comprensibile possibile il messaggio del Catone ai suoi lettori, sempre mutevoli con il passare del tempo e il variare dei contesti socio-geografici.” 181 182
228
chapter three
The editio princeps of the Greek Cato was printed in Venice in 1495 by Aldus Manutius, together with Theocritus’ Idylls, Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, and the Sayings of the Seven Sages. Almost all of the editions that followed reproduced the text printed by Aldus.184 In 1609, Joseph Justus Scaliger published in Paris his own translation of Cato’s Distichs into Greek: he thought, in fact, that the “traditional” Greek Cato was too defective to be the work of a scholar like Planudes. Scaliger’s Notae were printed in many editions until the eighteenth century and contributed to the decline of Planudes’ translation as a school text, a decline that could not be stemmed when Greek classical authors became part of the school curriculum.
184 On the editions of Planudes’ Cato, see Boas 1931; and Ortoleva 1991, 98 and 1992, XXIV–XXVII.
chapter four THE GREEK DONATI AND THEIR CONTEXT
This chapter will try to answer several questions raised by the Greek Donati as translations from Latin and as grammar books used to learn Greek. First of all, Pylê a’s attribution of three manuscripts to the Byzantine scholar Maximus Planudes involves questions about the authorship of this translation and the context or the environment within which it was produced: we may wonder if the “Planudean hypothesis” is completely unfounded or contains some element of truth. Secondly, the analysis of the manuscripts of the Greek Donati has revealed their connections with the Venetian/Cretan environment between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; probably, then, these grammars responded to particular demands of a particular cultural milieu. Thirdly, the fact that the Greek Donati apparently originated at a time when the rediscovery of Greek studies in the West and several pedagogical experiments in search of the Greek textbook were taking place leads us to reflect on how they actually could be used either in schools or for the self-study of Greek. The conclusions reached in this chapter do not claim to be final: further research on manuscripts will certainly contribute to modifying and improving these data, and thus will give us a clearer picture of the study of Greek in peripheral areas during the Renaissance. 1. Latin in Byzantium Modern scholarship has emphasized that the translatio of Greek culture to the West during the fifteenth century was the result of a long process of mutual approach between the two sides of the Mediterranean: while in the West Greek culture was arousing more and more interest among the first humanists, the cultural élite of Byzantium were rediscovering Western culture.1 1 Cf. Ostrogorsky 19692 [19633], 375: “Fate had willed that Byzantium should come into close relationship with the Western world soon after the fellowship of the
230
chapter four
Greeks and Latins had coexisted in the Roman Empire, although they were well aware of their differences. With few exceptions (for example, Diocletian and his successors), the Romans had never made any effort to achieve linguistic unification between the two parts of the empire, which remained divided into two well-defined linguistic areas. Moreover, Latin and Greek had two distinct areas of application. Latin was the language of the administration and the army, and Greeks who wanted to pursue a military or an administrative career had to learn it. On the other hand, Romans learned Greek because it was a language of culture as well as a lingua franca for trade and exchanges. However, after the dissolution of this cultural unity in the seventh century, the knowledge of Greek in the West and of Latin in the East gradually vanished, except for in a few areas (South Italy), in particular environments (the imperial chancery) or among social groups (merchants) that maintained contact with the Byzantine Empire.2 The lack of understanding of the respective languages was just a sign of the broader political and religious gaps that divided the two worlds. A change in the relationship between Byzantines and the Western world occurred in the eleventh century. In Byzantium, the successors of Emperor Basil II (976–1025) were unable to face the social and economic transformations that were affecting the structure of the Empire, as well as the increasing external menace from Normans, Turks, and Slavs. Thus, being open to the emerging powers of the West was a necessity rather than a choice. The influence exerted by the West culminated in the introduction of Western customs in the Byzantine court during the reign of Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180); the Western princesses who married into the Byzantine court3 and Churches (which at this period included intellectual contacts) had been disrupted [with the schism between Rome and Constantinople in 1054]. Hatred and contempt were the feelings that the Byzantine and Western lands felt for each other, and closer acquaintance only strengthened this antagonism. Nevertheless, from this time onwards the influence of the West began to make itself felt in Byzantium in many ways, both culturally and politically.” After the essential study by Setton (1956), the contribution of Byzantine culture to the Renaissance has been the principal object of some important studies by Geanakoplos (1962, 1976, 1988) and Pertusi (1962, 1964, 1980–1981). 2 See the literary sources collected by Geanakoplos 1984, 202–225 and 356–381. Fisher (1990, 5–27) offers a well-documented survey of the relations between Latins and Greeks from the Hellenistic age to Byzantium. 3 On Manuel Comnenus and the West, see Gallina 2003[1980]. Regarding mar-
the greek donati and their context
231
the members of the diplomatic missions from both sides acted as a trait d’union between the two cultures. Even though the fourth Crusade (1203) and the creation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204– 1261) marked a break in friendly relations between East and West, these events also brought the two worlds closer to each other. On the one hand, the Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates (ca. 1150– 1217), who witnessed the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders, perceived the difference between the Byzantines—the new “people of God” and a beacon of civilization—and the greedy, vulgar, and ignorant Westerners.4 On the other hand, with the significant increase in diplomatic activity, political, religious, and cultural ties became deeper. From the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by Michael VIII Palaeologus (1261) to the Turkish conquest of Constantinople (1453), relations between Byzantium and the West fluctuated between open hostility and benevolent tolerance. However, even the frequent religious dissension contributed to mutual knowledge. The Westerners who had permanently settled in territories of the Byzantine Empire became the main interlocutors of Byzantium in economy, politics, and culture. Thus, in the fourteenth century, Demetrius Cydones could insist on the similarities between Greeks and Romans, who were formerly “both like citizens of one city, the Church” (Tσπερ μιPς πλεως Uμφω τς Εκκλησας ντες πολ>ται).5 He urged his fellow countrymen to look at the elements in common (origin, law, and usages), rather than at the causes of dissension between themselves and the Latins. riages between members of Byzantine and Western ruling families, see KazhdanEpstein 1985, 178. Western customs that the Comnenian emperors introduced to the Byzantine court, such as jousts and knightly tournaments, survived for centuries in spite of the general hostility of the Byzantine population; see Nicetas Choniates, Chron. 4. 4. 3 ff.; and Nicephorus Gregoras, Hist. Byz 1. 482 ff. (ed. by I. Bekker and L. Schopen, Bonn 1829; English translation in Geanakoplos 1984, 323). 4 Latins attributed to Greeks (Graeculi) adulatio, levitas, facilitas, libertas, libido, superbia, and even fallacia and perfidia, as opposed to the Roman gravitas and probitas. Greeks, in turn, considered Latins as β(ρβαροι, as evident, for example, from the following passage of Nicetas Choniates’ Chronicle (10. 6. 8): “The accursed Latins […] lust after our possessions and would like to destroy our race […] Between them and us there is a wide gulf of hatred, our outlooks are completely different, and our paths go in opposite directions” (translation in Ostrogorsky 19692 [19633], 390). See KazhdanEpstein 1985, 169; Angold 1989; Harris J. 1995, 39–40; Kolbaba 2000; and Koder 2002. Byzantine literary sources usually attribute impudence (ταμτης), wickedness ( πιορκοσ2νη), and arrogance (*λαζονεα) to Latins; see Hunger 1987, 22–42. 5 Demetrius Cydones, To the Orthodox Greeks, in Mercati 1931, 401, 43 ff.
232
chapter four
The last period of the Byzantine Empire was noted for a flourishing of culture, often defined as “Palaeologan Renaissance.”6 The protagonists of the new revival of classical studies were scholars like Maximus Planudes, Theodore Metochites, George Pachymeres, Nicephorus Gregoras, Demetrius Triclinius, and Demetrius and Prochorus Cydones. However, unlike other similar “renaissances” of Byzantine cultural history, Palaeologan culture was remarkably open to the West.7 The religious controversies, and in particular the continuation and the exacerbation of the controversy about the Union, caused an increase in Greek translations of Latin theological works. The supporters of the Union tried to demonstrate to their opponents the legitimacy of their claims about the main theological issues at stake (the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as well as from the Son, the existence of Purgatory, and the primacy of the Roman papacy) by appealing to the authority of the Western Church Fathers and theologians. Therefore, Manuel Holobolos (ca. 1245-between 1310 and 1314) produced a Greek translation of two works by Severinus Boethius, De hypotheticis syllogismis and De topicis differentiis; his contemporary Maximus Planudes (ca. 1255–1305) translated Augustine’s De Trinitate, and De duodecim abusivis saeculi, which had been attributed to Cyprian or to Augustine.8 In the fourteenth century, Demetrius Cydones (ca. 1324– 1397/98) translated Thomas Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles and works by Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter of Poitiers, and Ricoldo da Monte Croce; his brother Prochorus (ca. 1330–1368/69) worked on texts by Thomas Aquinas, Hervaeus Natalis (Hervé Nédélec), Jerome, 6 “Palaeologan revival of learning” according to Geanakoplos (1988, 351). For a detailed analysis of the intellectual life in Byzantium during the Palaeologan age, see Wilson 19962, 228–268; and Mergiali 1996. 7 On the so-called Macedonian Renaissance, which took place after the end of the Iconoclastic controversy, see Lemerle 1971. 8 For an overview of the Greek translations of Latin theological works, see Nikitas 2001 (with extensive bibliography), Benakis 2003, Garzya 2004, and Bianconi 2004, 549ff. On Holobolos’ life and works, see Treu 1896 (on the translations from Latin see 553 f.). Both works have been edited by Demetrios Z. Nikitas (De hypotheticis syllogismis: Göttingen 1982; De topicis differentiis: Athens 1990), who maintains Holobolos’ authorship. See Fisher 2002/3, 80. Planudes’ translation of Augustine’s fifteen books of De Trinitate has been edited by M. Papathomopulos, I. Tsavari, and G. Rigotti, Athens 1995 (see also Maltese 2004), and that of De duodecim abusivis saeculis by G.N. Giannakis in Δωδ νη 3 (1974), 219–256. These translations may have been commissioned by Emperors Michael VIII or Andronicus II, since the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was fundamental in the debate on the Union. See Wilson 19962, 230; and Fisher 2002/3, 79.
the greek donati and their context
233
and Boethius.9 Manuel Calecas (d. 1410), a student and friend of Demetrius Cydones and a translator of acts of Councils, undertook the Greek version of Boethius’ De Trinitate and Anselm’s Cur Deus homo.10 One of the last voices, in the fifteenth century, was that of George Gennadios Scholarios (ca. 1405 – ca. 1472), who became the first patriarch of Constantinople under the Turks. He translated Thomas Aquinas’ De fallaciis, De ente et essentia, and Commentarium in de anima libros, and works by Peter of Spain and Gilbert de la Porée. Scholarios also wrote a Greek summary of Thomas’ Summa contra gentiles.11 Maximus Planudes’ activity as a translator demonstrates, however, that secular Latin literature also roused some interest in the Palaeologan cultural milieu: he made works by Ovid, Cicero, Macrobius, Boethius, the Pseudo-Cato, and perhaps Juvenal accessible to Greek readers. Another effect of the Western influence on the culture of the Palaeologan age was a new flourishing of the novel inspired by Western models, in particular by chivalric literature, written in vernacular languages.12 Translations from Latin also demonstrate that Latin texts were somehow available in Constantinople, perhaps in the Dominican and Franciscan monasteries, which functioned as important centers of cultural exchange for Byzantine and Western scholars.13 The many 9 On Demetrius’ translations, see Beck 1959, 733–735. Prochorus’ translations from Latin have been analyzed by Mercati 1931, 28–40; see also Beck 1959, 737 f. 10 Beck 1959, 741; see also Mergiali 1996, 134f. On Calecas as a grammarian see above, 119. 11 Beck 1959, 762. On Thomas of Aquinas’ reception in Byzantium, see Papadopulos 1974; and Podskalsky 1974 and 1977, 173 ff., 180–230. 12 Six romances were translated into Greek, probably in Greek lands under Western rule after the Latin conquest of Constantinople. A detailed analysis of these works can be found in Cupane 1995, 9–39, and Beaton 19962, 135 ff. Like most medieval translations, these novels are faithful to the content of the Western originals, but reproduce their style freely. Some modifications in content were due perhaps to the demands of the Byzantine audience. On medieval translations, see Brock 1979, 70ff.; Chiesa 1987; and Folena 1991, 9–13. 13 Latin monasteries in Constantinople provided spiritual service for the members of the Latin communities residing in the city and, at the same time, functioned as centers for the spread of Western Christianity and culture in the Byzantine Empire: see Richard 1989, 50ff. The problem of Latin schools and libraries in Byzantium has been debated for a long time. In his own apology to the Orthodox Greeks, Demetrius Cydones declared that, when he decided to learn the Latin language (λατινζειν), he “sought for teachers and collected books, and all the rest was as it would be for a pupil attending school” (διδασκ(λους τε ζτουν κα' βιβλα συν λεγον, κα' π(ντα τzλλα vν Tς π' φοιτντι παιδ: Mercati 1931, 361, 62–64). Emperor John VI encouraged Demetrius to learn Latin in order to deal with Westerners without relying
234
chapter four
manuscripts that have transmitted these translations demonstrate that their audience appreciated them or that at least there was some interest in them. It is difficult to say if the translators reached their goals, since the goals themselves are not completely clear. Demetrius Cydones first approached Thomas Aquinas’ works when his teacher gave him a copy of the Summa contra gentiles to practice his Latin.14 The translations by Holobolos and Planudes are associated with their participation in the theological debates of their age as well as their teaching activity: we may regard the translation from Latin into Greek as an extension of a traditional rhetorical exercise, the paraphrasis between various linguistic levels of Greek. However, such translations were not conceived as simple school exercises.15 In the prefatory letter introducing his translation of De topicis differentiis, Holobolos expressed his motivations. He compared his translating Latin into Greek to “grafting” (μετεγκεντρζειν) a literary work “from the wild olive” ( ξ *γριελαου) of the Italians’ language, which is “unproductive in its literary texts on untrustworthy interpreters. Demetrius learned Latin from a Dominican monk at the Genoese colony of Pera (Philip of Pera, according to Mercati 1931, 514): see Kianka 1980, 60; and Glycofrydi-Leontsini 2003, 177 f. Therefore, teachers, books, and probably schools for learning Latin were available in Constantinople. Schmitt (1966, 13f.; 1968, 135) thinks that the availability of texts was the main element that influenced the choices of the translators, although he has to admit that “wir wissen leider so gut wie nichts über lateinische Bibliotheken und Bücher in Byzanz” (13, n. 37). 14 As Cydones reports in his oration To the Orthodox Greeks: βουλμενος δ μοι κα' τν πιστμην κα' τν δξαν συνα2ξειν [% διδ(σκαλος] δδωσι βιβλον, ;να δ τ? δυνατ?ν ν α5τ& γυμναζομην. The author of the “book” (βιβλον) was Thomas Aquinas, “a man who had eclipsed all his contemporaries for his knowledge of theology.” Cydones’ teacher intended to give him a tool for improving his Latin vocabulary, “so as school teachers (γραμματιστα) often urge children to collect the best of Homer and Hesiod.” Cydones soon took a great interest in the content of the book and undertook the difficult task (πνος) of translating it entirely; the Emperor himself encouraged him. As a result, he gained a better understanding of Latin culture and helped his friends overcome the typical Byzantine prejudices against Westerners: in fact, “the long separation had caused in both nations great ignorance of each other” (τ? γ4ρ πολGν χρνον *λλλων διεστ(ναι τ4 ,$νη πολλν *λλλων Uγνοιαν *μφοτ ροις ν $ηκεν). Cydones’ long passage can be read in Mercati 1931, 362–366. See Kianka 1980; and Mergiali 1996, 125–134. 15 See Fisher 2002/3, 103. In particular, Fisher (82 f.) considers Planudes’ translation of Cato’s Distichs as “a pedagogue’s jeu d’esprit,” whereas the two treatises by Boethius translated by Manuel Holobolos “assume an audience of mature students.” Fisher also points out the use of Holobolos’ translation of De topicis differentiis by the historian and rhetorician George Pachymeres (1242 – ca. 1310). On the fate of Planudes’ translation of the Distichs, see above, 227 f.
the greek donati and their context
235
and earthy in its speech” (μ τν λ ξεων γνιμον κα' … τς φρ(σεως χ$αμαλν), onto the “cultivated olive” (πρ?ς τν καλλι λαιον) of the Greek language, which is “evergreen, luxuriant […] and fruitful” (*ει$αλ τε κα' τηλε$ωσαν κα' … κατ(καρπον: cf. Ps. 51.10 and Rom. 11.17–24). For Holobolos, Greek philosophy does not need contributions from Latin sources, “no more than the great light-bringing sun needs […] the light of a lamp” (ο5δ’ % μ γας φωσφρος … λυχνιαου χρQζει φωτς). Thus, a translation of Boethius’ tract will allow Greeks to have “in superabundant degree” (iπερεκπερισσο:) what they already possess in sufficiency, “so that the nature of the rhetorically sophisticated works produced by the Italians might not entirely escape the notice of those who are also children of Ausonia [i.e., of Roman Italy] and who of all people are especially zealous to acquire literary works” (;να … τ4 παρ’ Ιταλο>ς σεμνολογο2μενα, τνα πεφ2κασι, μ π(νυ κα' τν Α5σνων πα>δας διαλαν$(νοιεν, οmς ε@περ τισ'ν Uλλοις E τν λγων κτσις ξαιρ τως π φυκε περισπο2δαστον).16 The idea of Latin literature as an enhancement of Greek tradition seems also to have inspired Planudes’ activity of translating. The fact that all the works he translated are based on Greek sources has led Elizabeth Fisher to remark that “to a Byzantine audience immersed in the study of classical Greek literature, these works […] represent an extension and reinterpretation of the Greek tradition,” since they “successfully amalgamate Greek philosophy or mythology into a new and challenging Latin cultural matrix.”17 Within a political and social context marked by the Greeks’ radical distrust of Latins and Latinophrones, the willingness of some Byzantine men of culture to be open to the Western world appears strange and sometimes even contradictory. Holobolos himself, who in the passage quoted above shows respect for Latin culture, reveals a completely different attitude elsewhere.18 The limited circulation of the translations from Latin into Greek before the Renaissance demonstrates that The text has been translated into English by Fisher (2002/3, 85–88 and 89–91), who reprints the Greek text as published by Manolis Papathomopulos (with Planudes’ translation of Boethius’ Consolatio philosophiae, Athens 1999). 17 See Fisher 2002/3, 98. 18 See Fisher 2002/3, 94f. Theological issues were important, but not exclusive, in another phenomenon of the last Palaeologan age, the conversions to Roman Catholicism of Byzantine men of culture such as Barlaam, Demetrius Cydones, and Cardinal Bessarion. They turned to the West because they saw it as a model of order, wisdom, and unity, in contrast to the lack of order and authority of the Patriarch and the Emperor of Constantinople in the last years of Byzantium: the West had inherited 16
236
chapter four
the effort was only partially rewarded.19 However, these scholars contributed to building a bridge between the two cultures, thus anticipating what became the most significant phenomenon of the humanist age; for example, Planudes’ translations into Greek, in spite of their many imperfections, were used by Italian humanists striving to learn Greek.20 The fall of Constantinople, on May 29, 1453, created quite a stir in the West. Men of culture saw the end of the Byzantine Empire as an irreparable disaster. It was the end of an entire stage of human history; the death of Byzantium was the death of the glory of ancient Greece. However, the idea of the West as the heir to Byzantium had already spread throughout Europe.21 the primacy and the role of guide of the civilized world that had once belonged to ˇ cenko 1961, 174 ff.; and Kolbaba 1995, 132 ff. Byzantium. See Sevˇ 19 Dekkers (1953, 231) reached this conclusion after a thorough analysis of the Greek translations of Latin patristic texts. 20 Cf. Krumbacher 18972, 544: “Die Übersetzungen des Planudes können nicht als Muster von Treue und stilistischer Gewandtheit gelten.” According to Gigante (1962a, 211f.), in fact, the quality of Planudes’ translations is much higher when he works on Latin texts based on Greek sources. Cardinal Bessarion praised Planudes’ translation of Augustine’s De Trinitate (Refutatio syllogismorum Maximi Planudae, PG 161, 317 D). However, the same translation was criticized in an anonymous Tractatus contra errores Orientalium et Graecorum of 1252, as well as by George Scholarios in his tract on the procession of the Holy Spirit of 1444/45: in both cases, ideological issues influence the evaluation of Planudes’ work. On the other hand, the humanist Ambrogio Traversari and the mathematician and astronomer John Dee (1527–1608) read and appreciated another of Planudes’ Greek versions, that of Boethius’ Consolatio. See Schmitt 1968, 131ff.; and Maltese 2004. 21 On the reactions to the Turkish conquest of Byzantium, see the literary documents collected by Pertusi (19902). We may wonder why there was no humanism and no Renaissance in Byzantium, where the classical tradition had never died out. It has often been emphasized that in Byzantium the heritage from the glorious past functioned as an obstacle rather than as a stimulus, clipping the wings of innovation, creation, and originality. As Pertusi remarked (1964, 506), except for Arethas of Caesarea (ca. 860 – ca. 932) and a few other scholars, the Byzantines did not have “the sense of discovery.” For Western humanists—with some exceptions—the works of the past were a starting point for their political, aesthetic, and moral reflections, whereas Byzantine scholars used the classics as repositories of models of good style or of effective arguments to reinforce their points in disputations or controversies. In particular, in Byzantium (499) “le opere dei classici sono semplicemente ‘riaccolte’ nel patrimonio culturale, reinserite nella tradizione, ricollocate nel posto che a loro spetta dal tempo degli Alessandrini”; (517) “I letterati bizantini. […] li riaccolgono nel vistoso patrimonio della loro cultura greca […] ma senza grandi entusiasmi, con lo stesso animo con cui un figlio molto ricco riceve in eredità un grosso patrimonio da conservare”; and (519) “Dal IX secolo in poi non ci fu più stacco con il mondo antico; non ci fu umanesimo e non ci fu rinascimento, perché non ci fu problema.”
the greek donati and their context
237
2. Maximus Planudes and the Greek Donatus In spite of Wendel’s authoritative remarks,22 it is now unquestionable that the Latin grammar that Planudes supposedly translated into Greek does not correspond to Donatus’ Ars minor. As previously discussed, the Greek Donatus is a late Byzantine translation of the medieval Latin schoolbook called Ianua. It was Remigio Sabbadini who recognized in the Latin Ianua the original of the Pseudo-Planudean Greek translation. He considered the only Greek version known at his time, Pylê a, as an anonymous fifteenth-century work related to the revival of Greek studies promoted by Manuel Chrysoloras and Guarino Guarini. Later, however, Sabbadini returned to the traditional hypothesis that the translator was Maximus Planudes.23 In his opinion, Planudes translated the elementary Latin grammar book into Greek in order to give the Byzantines a tool for learning Latin; during the Renaissance, Westerners also benefited from the Greek Ianua in learning Greek. The hypothesis of a Planudean authorship—commonly accepted from Krumbacher onwards24—has given rise to a great deal of speculation. The assumptions most frequently repeated are that Planudes translated the grammar book for his school where, in addition to Greek and sciences, Latin was also taught, and that the dialogical form and content of the Latin Ianua affected Planudes’ composition of a grammatical dialogue.25 The “Planudean” hypothesis may not look totally groundless if we consider that Pylê a is attributed to Planudes in three manuscripts—B, O, and R—representing three different branches of the tradition (see above, 179) and that one of these manuscripts, O, is one of the most valuable testimonies of the text. Moreover, imagining that Pylê a was translated and used in Constantinople would help to shed light on the complex issue of the study of Latin in Byzantium. Pylê a may have been the first schoolbook used See Wendel 1950, 2242. Sabbadini 1922, quoted by Pertusi (1962, 349): “La traduzione greca è di Massimo Planude […] e su di essa i Costantinopolitani imparavano il latino, come gli umanisti italiani del sec. XV vi imparavano il greco.” 24 See Krumbacher 18972, 545. 25 See Wendel 1950, 2207. According to Fryde (2000, 248), Priscian’s syntax influenced Planudes’ grammatical theory (on which see below, 241f.); however: “Planudes did not translate Priscian’s Institutiones Grammaticales into Greek. But he did translate the second best thing, the much shorter Latin Ars Minor by Aelius Donatus.” 22 23
238
chapter four
by Greeks who wanted to learn Latin; in the schools of Constantinople, teachers of Latin may have taught the first elements of Latin morphology by means of the elementary grammar book most commonly used in Western (Italian) schools, Ianua, and by its Greek translation. Such conclusions are attractive, but we must consider them with caution. First, and most importantly, there is no evidence that copies of Ianua circulated in Constantinople during Planudes’ time, i.e., between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Perhaps there were Latin schools in the Latin monasteries and within the communities of Venetian and Genoese merchants who had settled in Constantinople at the end of the eleventh century. More Latin schools may have been established in the Byzantine territory after the Latin conquest in 1204. For example, because of the difficulties he had obtaining a Greek secular education on his island, Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1283 to 1289, tried to study grammar and logic at a Latin school for some time.26 The most famous Latin cultural institution in Constantinople was the Dominican monastery of Pera, where Prochorus and Demetrius Cydones learned Latin in the fourteenth century. We have no idea, however, of the textbooks used in these schools, if there were any. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Byzantine “Latinists” of the thirteenth century, Manuel Holobolos and Maximus Planudes, ever taught Latin.27 A keen interest in Latin arose in Constantinople about fifty years after Planudes’ death; unfortunately, the documentation presently available does not allow us to establish a connection between Planudes and Holobolos and the translators of the fourteenth century. The monk Manuel-Maximus Planudes from Nicomedia lived in Constantinople during the tormented reigns of Michael VIII (1261– 1282) and Andronicus II Palaeologus (1282–1328). His literary activity was impressive. The interests of this polymath, a typical representative of Byzantine culture in the Palaeologan age, ranged from theology to mathematics, from grammar to geography, and from poetry to astronomy. He combined his religious life with scholarship and commitment to the most urgent political and theological issues of his age. His fre26 See above, 115, and Webb 1994, 83. On Gregory’s life and works, see Krumbacher 18972, 98f., 476f. 27 It is not clear, therefore, why Ortoleva (1991, 93) maintains that “caratteristica peculiare” of Planudes’ school was “l’insegnamento e la diffusione della lingua e della cultura latina.”
the greek donati and their context
239
quent contacts with the Latin world led him to take sides (indeed, ambiguously) in the debate over the Union28 and also fostered his interest in Latin culture. In 1296, Emperor Andronicus II sent him to Venice on a diplomatic mission to proclaim the non-involvement of the Byzantines in the crimes committed by the Genoese against the Venetians.29 It is difficult to establish whether he learned Latin under these circumstances or—as is more probable—the emperor appointed him to the mission precisely because of his knowledge of Latin, which he may have acquired in Constantinople.30 In any case, his journey to Italy put him in direct contact with Latin culture and perhaps gave him access to copies of the Latin works that he translated. Together with works related to the theological debate of his time, Planudes translated several of the most popular Latin literary works in the Middle Ages: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Heroides, and a selection from Ovid’s amatory works (Amores, Ars amatoria, and Remedia amoris); Boethius’ Consolatio philosophiae, with a Vita of the author appended; the part of Cicero’s De republica known as Somnium Scipionis and Macrobius’ commentary on it; the Disticha attributed to Cato the Elder; and perhaps Juvenal’s Satires.31 We do not know whether these trans28 On Planudes’ role in the controversy over the Union, see Constantinides 1982, 66–67. The “unionist” George Metochites, Demetrius Cydones, and Cardinal Bessarion (cf. PG 161, 309–317) rejected Planudes’ four Κεφ(λαια or Συλλογισμο against the Latins on the procession of the Holy Spirit. See Krumbacher 18972, 99; and Beck 1959, 687. 29 An act of retaliation by the Genoese against the Venetians in Constantinople had caused the killing of the Venetian officer Marco Bembo and of many Venetians. The Byzantine Emperor, who had not managed to keep the public order, was afraid of being accused of complicity with the Genoese by the Venetian government. See Nicol 1990 [1988], 282. 30 Planudes may have learned Latin at the monastery of Christ Akataleptos, which was probably the first Franciscan establishment in Constantinople. See Wilson 19962, 231; and Mergiali 1996, 38. 31 No absolute and relative chronological order of Planudes’ translations can be established with certainty. We know, however, that Planudes translated Augustine’s De Trinitate in or before 1281 and Boethius’ Consolatio before 1296 (Schmitt 1968, 130 n. 9; Fisher 2002/3, 93; and Maltese 2004, 209). The many editions of Planudes’ translations demonstrate that they have always attracted the attention of scholars. The significant increase in Planudean studies during the last decades has led to an improvement in the quality of the texts published. Ovid’s Metamorphoses: A. Ch. Megas, Thessalonica 1999 (a new edition is being prepared by M. Papathomopulos for the Academy of Athens: see Fisher 2002/3, 96 n. 55, as well as Fisher’s study of 1990); Ovid’s Heroides: M. Papathomopulos, Joannina 1973, 19762; parts of Ovid’s amatory works: P.E. Easterling and E.J. Kenney, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 1, 1965; Boethius’ Consolatio: A. Ch. Megas, Joannina 1996, and M. Papathomopulos,
240
chapter four
lations were intended as tools for teaching Latin in Planudes’ school, or were simply an attempt to spread throughout Constantinople some knowledge of books that were, so to speak, the best-sellers of the Latin Middle Ages. In any case, the texts chosen by Planudes seem to correspond to a generic interest in moral philosophy, astrology, and mythology, rather than to a precise cultural and pedagogical program.32 Planudes’ translations eventually were widely used in the Renaissance to teach Greek: this explains their rich manuscript tradition. Planudes was essentially a teacher and most of his works may be considered as the result of his teaching activity. He taught at the monastic schools in the cloisters of Chora and Akataleptos in Constantinople.33 Planudes was at home with several disciplines of the γAthens 1999; Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis: A. Pavano, Roma 1992; Macrobius’ commentary: A. Ch. Megas, Thessalonica 1995; and Cato’s Disticha: V. Ortoleva, Roma 1992. Of Planudes’ translation of Juvenal’s satires, only four lines are preserved, corresponding to Sat. 10. 19–22 (edited by S.B. Kugeas in Philologus 73 [1914], 318–319). Planudes wrote those lines in a marginal note to his translation of Boethius. The apparent contradiction that Planudes translated Ovid’s poetry in prose and Juvenal’s satires in verse is not decisive in negating his authorship of both translations. Other translations attributed to Planudes are either anonymous (Ianua and Caesar’s De bello Gallico) or by other authors (Cicero’s De senectute by Theodore Gaza, Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales by George Scholarios; etc.). See Schmitt 1966, 23–24; and Hunger 1978, 2. 68. 32 According to Wilson (19962, 231), Planudes’ main concern as a translator was to convey to his readers information about classical mythology, philosophy, and theology. Gigante (1962, 39–49) noted that Somnium, Commentum, and Consolatio built up a sort of trilogy concerning the destiny of the soul and the relationship between life on earth and the afterlife. The success of Cicero’s Somnium during the Middle Ages was mainly due to its visionary and apocalyptic tone, to its treatment of themes such as the immortality of the soul and contempt for human power, and in general to its Platonic Neopythagoric background. Macrobius’ Commentary was “a real Neoplatonic encyclopedia on the soul and its destiny” (ibid., 43; my translation). The work of Severinus Boethius, a Platonist who loved Aristotle, can be considered the first real affirmation of the Christian spirit implied in ancient pagan culture. The rediscovery of Ovid took place in the West at the same time, as an innovation and, perhaps, as a reaction against Virgil’s long-lasting predominance. It is interesting to note that the anonymous author of Disticha Catonis recommends the reading of Ovid—together with Virgil and Lucan—in the preface to book 2. Thanks to his biting satires, Juvenal also was held in great esteem as a moralist. Fisher, who basically agrees with Gigante’s interpretation (1990, 46), remarks that “the Latin works selected for translation by Planudes resulted from the intersection of Eastern and Western intellectual interests.” Bianconi (2004, 561) suggests that Planudes’ translations satisfied the demands of a Byzantine audience interested in Western culture as well as of Latins living in Byzantium and “probably unable to read their literature in the original language” (my translation). 33 From Planudes’ letters 28 and 67 (edited by M. Treu, Breslau 1890), it may be inferred that he taught at an imperial monastery (βασιλικ μον) with an imperial
the greek donati and their context
241
κ2κλιος παιδεα (including mathematics, astronomy, and geography),
but his main interests were in grammar and literature. He worked on Aesop, Plutarch, Theocritus, the tragic poets, Aristophanes, Thucydides, Hermogenes, Euclid, Diophantus, Aratus, and Ptolemy. He also produced compilations of texts to be used in schools, in which ancient Greek and Byzantine cultures were seen as indistinguishable and complementary: an anthology of classical and Byzantine epigrams and minor poetry, along with collections of passages from pagan and Christian writers, Aesop’s fables, and proverbs.34 Two works in particular show Planudes’ interest in grammatical studies: a dialogue on grammar (Περ' γραμματικς δι(λογος) and a treatise on the syntax of the parts of speech (Περ' συντ(ξεως τν το: λγου μερν).35 The dialogue does not offer a systematic treatment of grammar; rather, in the style of Plato’s dialogues, the contrasting positions of a Palaitimos (Old Stager) and a Neophron (New Thinker) help the author make his point on several aspects of morphology, syntax, and style. In general, Planudes is faithful to the traditional view of grammar as a form of literary and philological education useful in the study of literature. However, his theories on verbal tenses and nominal cases mark a significant improvement. Planudes did not just classify and describe the grammatical phenomena: he also tried to find their origin and to analyze their semantic and pragmatic aspects. This concept, although not explicitly stated, constitutes the theoretical background to many of Planudes’ assertions.36 In his work on syntax,
library (βασιλικ βιβλιο$κη), but the location of this school is controversial: see Constantinides 1982, 68ff. 34 See Krumbacher 18972, 543 ff.; Wendel 1950, 2230ff.; Hunger 1979, 2. 68ff.; Constantinides 1982, 81; Wilson 19962, 231ff.; Mergiali 1996, 34–42; and Fryde 2000, 226–267. On Planudes as a collector of epigrams, see Cameron 1993, 16f., 345 ff. 35 Both works have been published by G.L.E. Bachmann in the second volume of his Anecdota Graeca, Lipsiae 1828, on pp. 1–101 and 105–166, respectively. Planudes also wrote a tract on transitive and intransitive verbs (Περ' μεταβατικν κα' *μεταβ(των #ημ(των) and some parsing exercises (Επιμερισμο). The work on verbs, which enjoyed great success among the later grammarians, was partially edited by Gottfried Hermann in 1801, but still awaits a complete critical edition. The Επιμερισμο have been edited by S. Lindstam in Eranos 19 (1919–1920), 57–92. See Constantinides 1982, 79; and Guida 1999, 1–2, 21. 36 For example, according to Planudes the three oblique cases—genitive, dative, and accusative—originally had a local meaning, as demonstrated by the locative adverbs ο@κο$εν, ο@κοι, and ο@καδε, corresponding to κ τπου, ν τπ&ω, and ες τπον. Planudes maintains that cases, not prepositions, are “the principal markers of location and movement” (Robins 1993, 225). In the verbal tenses, Planudes stressed
242
chapter four
conceived as an appendix to the dialogue, Planudes also apparently incorporated parts of Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae translated into Greek.37 Therefore, Planudes’ innovative approach to grammar and interest in Latin grammar and literature may help explain why the Greek translation of a Latin grammar was attributed to him. With his detailed analysis of the language and the style of Pylê a, Schmitt has demonstrated that its translator(s) had a fair knowledge of both Latin and Greek: a knowledge on the level of either a Byzantine who knew Latin or a Westerner (perhaps an Italian?) who knew Greek. Nothing in the language and the style of Pylê a, however, hints at the deep mastery of literary Greek or the insight into Greek grammar of a scholar and a philologist like Planudes.38 On the other hand, there were several reasons to assign Pylê a to Planudes: he was the translator of Latin into Greek by antonomasia; he was the author of the Greek translation of Cato’s Distichs that usually followed Pylê in manuscripts and in the school practice; and, finally, he had access to Latin sources, including Ianua, in which dialogue was commonly used. In fact, he wrote a grammar in dialogical form, the Περ' γραμματικς δι(λογος. Even if we do not consider some phenomena—iotacism, wrong accentuation, psilosis, inconsistent use of σσ / ττ, etc.—that may be generally attributed to the manuscript tradition, it is undeniable that the text of Pylê a contains many non-literary forms in contrast with the style of Planudes’ authentic works. The most apparent discrepancy is the translation technique. Planudes’ translations from Latin into Greek were not word-for-word versions of the original. In order to convey the content and the style of the Latin texts to his Greek readers, Planudes did not refrain from considerable modifications of the text. Conversely, Pylê a is just a transfer of the Latin elementary grammar into Greek; the Latin moods, tenses, and word order are faithfully respected, even when they do not correspond to the Greek usage.39 There are frequent mistakes in the agreement of nouns, adjecthe importance of “aspect” together with “time.” Robins’ chapter on Planudes’ grammatical theory (1993, 201–232) is the most extensive study on this subject. 37 See Fisher 2002/3, 81. We cannot exclude the possibility, pace Buttmann (see Wendel 1950, 2209), that Planudes relied not on Priscian directly, but on Priscian’s Greek sources (Apollonius Dyscolus in particular). 38 “Mit Maximos Planudes […] haben die Donati Graeci nichts zu tun” (Schmitt 1975, 210). 39 Exceptions include a substantivized participle instead of a relative clause (8. 4
the greek donati and their context
243
tives, and pronouns, confusion in the sequence of moods and tenses, and “Latinizing” constructions that hardly make any sense in Greek.40 Thanks to his in-depth knowledge of both languages, Planudes certainly would have eliminated, in his translation, the contradictions implied in the faithful adaptation of the Greek morphology to Latin. Here are just a few examples of “non-Planudean” features of Pylê a’s language and style.41 In Pylê a’s first section, a non-classical form is the adjective διδαγμ νος (1. 283), corresponding to the modern Greek perfect participle of διδ(σκω; it is a literal translation of the Latin adjective/past participle doctus. As an adjective, διδαγμ νος has a comparative (διδαγμεν στερος = doctior), a superlative (διδαγμεν στατος = doctissimus), and an adverb with all degrees of comparison (διδαγμ νως κ.τ.λ. = docte, etc.). In fact, Pylê a usually forms comparatives and superlatives by adding the suffixes -τερος and -τατος to adjectives and does not consider the supplementary forms of the irregular adjectives. Thus, we have *γα$ς, *γα$+τερος, *γα$+τατος, μ γας μεγαλ+τερος μεγαλ+τερος, etc. In Pylê b (which, however, includes δεδιδαγμ νος) and in the fragmentary first part of c, the anonymous grammarians followed Greek grammar more faithfully. On the other hand, in his dialogue on grammar (p. 74), Planudes gives the supplementary forms only: *μενων, κρεττων, βελτων, and Uριστος, κρ(τιστος, β λτιστος; aττων (and χερων) and χεριστος (with κ(κιστος); μεζων and μ γιστος. As for verbs, Pylai do not consider the middle voice and often confuse it with the passive, whereas Planudes discusses the difference between middle and passive voices at length (pp. 8–12). Among Pylê a’s “irregular” verbs, βαστ and βαστ(ζω are equivalent to fero and χαρομαι to gaudeo. Planudes uses φ ρω (De gramm. 83, 9) and χαρω (91, 37). Both
quae copulat = % συμπλ κων), a substantivized neuter adjective intead of a purpose clause (8. 7 faciam ut prosit = ποισω τ? bφ λιμον), and presents translated with aorists or perfects (e.g. app. 6 significare = σημPναι; app. 8, al. dicitur = ε@ρηται; 3. 7–8 adhaeret = κεκλληται). Also interesting is bisantius translated with iπ ρπυρον (8. 35), the Byzantine gold coin introduced in the eleventh century and circulating until the end of the Empire (Ostrogorsky 19692 [19633], 484); according to contracts, iπ ρπυρον was the currency circulating in Venetian Crete. 40 Here are two examples: at 8. 48, the feminine αF λοιπα is referred to the masculine σ2νδεσμοι (cf. Lat. coniunctiones, feminine); and at 8. 27–28, the transmitted σG ,χεις με κακαν (κακς AQ) corresponds to tu habes me odio, but is anomalous in Greek. 41 A complete list in Schmitt 1966, 216ff., summarized in 1968, 142–144. I refer to differences between Pylê a’s and Planudes’ style only; the examples quoted do not claim to cover the vast topic of the non-classical forms in Pylê a.
244
chapter four
the “new” βαστ(ζω and the “old” φ ρω appear in Pylai c and d, which use χαρω instead of χαρομαι. Pylê a’s non-classical and often incorrect style prevents us from considering it as a work by Planudes. No other hypothesis about Pylê a’s authorship will be possible until new discoveries allow us to reach different conclusions. 3. Places of Origin The Greek Donati are most probably products of a bilingual environment, where the interaction between Latin and Greek was particularly intense. Until the Middle Ages, only South Italy and Sicily offered conditions favorable for the development of a Latin-Greek culture. Pylai seem to have circulated mainly in Italy, but no element in the transmission of the texts connects them to a South Italian environment. South Italy had its own tradition in the study of Greek grammar and played a significant role in the transmission of Byzantine schoolbooks—erôtêmata, schedê—and lexica. The process of Latinization of the Byzantine possessions in South Italy had begun after the Norman conquest in 1071. Some Norman and Swabian emperors had granted protection for Greek culture. Moreover, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries many Greek refugees had migrated from the Balkans to South Italy under the Turkish advance. However, neither factor had modified the cultural environment of the region: Greek culture managed to survive amid the prevailing Latin element—and still survives in some areas—but as a separate and isolated reality. As discussed in the previous chapter, many elements of the manuscript tradition of the Greek Donati refer to two other important meeting points between East and West: the Veneto and Crete. In 1082, along with other privileges, Emperor Alexius I Comnenus granted Venice a quarter in Constantinople; in the following centuries, the Venetian community in the Byzantine capital grew to about ten thousand inhabitants.42 The relations between Byzantines and Venetians, 42 On the Venetian community in Constantinople, see Dursteler’s 2006 excellent study. We may suppose that children born of Venetian families received some instruction in Latin and Italian as well as in Greek; teachers of Latin may well have used the same textbooks as their Western colleagues, in particular Ianua, but the lack of evidence for the circulation of Ianua in Constantinople warns against drawing any conclusion.
the greek donati and their context
245
indeed not always friendly, led to a substantial influence of Venice on Byzantine politics and economy. The disastrous fourth crusade, the sack of Constantinople, and the foundation of a Latin empire in the Byzantine territory (1204) represented the fulfillment of an old project on the part of the Western powers, the conquest of Byzantium; additionally, they represented the triumph of the commercial ability of the Venetians, who took maximum advantage of this situation.43 During the rule of the Palaeologan emperors, Venice managed to found an empire on the ruins of Byzantium. Crete, Corfu, Negroponte, Coron and Modon in Morea (Peloponnese), and other islands and ports in the Aegean became Venetian colonies. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, under the Turkish menace, many Byzantines found refuge in Crete and then made their way to Venice, attracted by the stability and order that the Western world apparently offered. In 1478, twenty-five years after the fall of Constantinople, the Greek community in Venice amounted to four thousand people; in 1580 their number had reached thirty thousand. Most of the Venetian Greeks were employed in the naval industry or were part of the military force as stradioti. Others worked in book production, which involved both the printing of books and the copying of manuscripts. The Venetian senate had granted them permission to keep their language, culture, and religion.44 The remarkable Greek presence influenced the usages, customs, and language of the city. Modern Greek was spread throughout Venice by Greek immigrants, and ancient Greek was transmitted through the rise of humanism and the printing of classical texts.45 The Greek community in Venice constitutes the background to the activity of the most famous printers of Greek books, Aldus Manutius and Zacharias Calliergis. On the other hand, we may reasonably infer that, for Venetian Greeks, learning Latin was not an option but a necessity. Before evolving into an independent Greek grammar, Pylê a may have been an interlinear translation of the Latin Ianua for Greek pupils who had to learn Latin in Venetian schools. Several documents show that Donatus or Donado, often with the Disticha Catonis, was also See Geanakoplos 1962, 15f.; and Nicol 1990 [1988], 526–528. In 1470, the community was assigned a chapel of the church of San Biagio; beginning in 1573, San Giorgio dei Greci became the Greek church of Venice. See Geanakoplos 1962, 53–70; Pertusi 1980–1981, 239–241; and Nicol 1990 [1988], 532– 534. 45 On the influence of Greek on the Venetian dialect, see Cortelazzo 1970. 43 44
246
chapter four
used in Venice as an elementary textbook for Latin, whereas there is no evidence of the use of Pylai for Greek.46 The teaching of Greek in Venice is not well documented. Certainly, the training of officers for the colonies required Greek for practical use. At the same time, the rise of Humanism in Padua and Florence, as well as the presence of Chrysoloras, Bessarion, and other Byzantine scholars, were powerful stimuli for Greek literary studies. However, we know little about Greek schools, teachers, and textbooks in Venice, at least until 1587, when all of the Venetian teachers were required to profess their Catholic faith before the bishop, providing detailed information about their schools, their students, and the books they used.47 Humanists coming from other cities—for example, Guarino da Verona—or private pedagogues opened the first schools of Greek, but it was not until between 1446 and 1450 that the Venetian government established a public school of “humanae litterae,” the Ducal Chancery School of San Marco (Gymnasium literarium), with a curriculum centered on grammar, rhetoric, Latin, and Greek; on the other hand, we have no information about the teaching of Greek at the other important Venetian school, the School of Rialto (Gymnasium Rivoaltinum), whose curriculum was based on logic, philosophy, mathematics, and theology. The university of Padua continued to be the favorite destination for Venetians desiring to learn law, sciences, and humanities; nevertheless, the first chair of Greek was established in Padua as late as 1463.48 As Grendler remarks, “the limited inter46 Some documents of Venetian booksellers, which are preserved in the Marciana Library and have been published by Brown (1891, 432 ff.), mention several “Donati” and “Donati in carta bona,” both bound and unbound (“libri sciolti”), sold between 1484 and 1487. Among the Greek books, we find several copies of the Psalms, Chrysoloras-Guarino’s Erotemata, Lascaris’ grammar, a dictionary (Vocabulista greco), Aesop’s fables, and some literary and medical texts, but no traces of a “Greek Donatus.” Documents and contracts concerning the employment of private teachers show that in the fifteenth century, Donatus and Cato’s Distichs constituted the core of elementary education (see above, 65 n. 202). See Pastore Stocchi 1980–1981, 106ff.; and Ortalli 1996, 24, 26. 47 The “Professione di fede richiesta agli insegnanti” is preserved in the Archive of the Patriarchal Curia in Venice and contains the professions of faith made by 258 Venetian teachers from April 30, 1587 to May 27, 1588; see Grendler 1985, 258, 272 n. 2. Lascaris’ grammar appears to be the most common Greek schoolbook. 48 Demetrius Chalcondyles, the first professor of Greek at Padua, held his appointment for about nine years (1463–1472). In his inaugural speech, Chalcondyles justifies at length the study of Greek by stressing the tight relationship between Greek and Latin culture, as well as the practical applications of Greek in politics and sciences; see Geanakoplos 1974. Slowly and with difficulty, in fact, humanist culture made its way
the greek donati and their context
247
est in Greek contrasts sharply with the preeminent role previously played by Venice in Greek printing and with Venice’s continuing role in Greek manuscript collecting and copying in the late sixteenth century. Apparently neither the presence of a large colony of Greeks and Cretans in Venice nor the Republic’s commercial contacts with the Eastern Mediterranean stimulated much interest in the language of ancient Greece.”49 For some decades, Cardinal Bessarion’s bequest of his rich library to the Republic of Venice (1472) did not bring about any significant improvement in the city’s Greek studies. Indeed, a keen interest in ancient Greek culture arose between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and concerned mainly members of the Venetian ruling class.50 into Venetian society, which was mostly devoted to business and maintained a very pragmatic view of education. Venetian culture inclined toward sciences and philosophy rather than rhetoric and literature. The government exercised strong control of education, and the most conservative circles reacted harshly to the spread of humanist culture. Some inventories of private libraries and records of bequests of books reveal that, in the middle of the fifteenth century, Venetian teachers still used medieval books only. On Venetian culture and schools, see Geanakoplos 1962, 38; Nardi 1971 [1957], 30ff.; Connell 1972; Logan 1972; Ross 1976, 522; Lowry 1979, 180–188; Pertusi 1980– 1981; Grendler 1985, 201–203, and 1989, 47 ff.; Ortalli 1996; and Cox 2003, 668ff. According to Lepori (1980, 604), the schools of Rialto and San Marco represented two different views of culture: “[L]a differenza esistente fra il Gymnasium rivoaltinum e la Scuola di S. Marco […] era […] la differenza fra indagine teorica (logica in particolare) e indagine linguistica, filologica e storica.” Incidentally, the professors of the School of Rialto were all Venetian, patrician, laymen, and graduates from Padua, whereas those of San Marco—with few exceptions—were non-Venetian and of nonnoble origin. 49 Grendler 1989, 48–49. 50 See Geanakoplos 1962, 39–40. As Cox has put it (2003, 677), the change in attitude to humanistic culture is probably related to “the gradual shift in patterns of patrician investment from maritime commerce to landed property in Venice’s mainland empire, and the patriciate’s consequent progressive cultural assimilation to the values of the aristocracy of the terraferma”; see also King 1986, 237 f. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, however, Lorenzo de’ Monaci, chancellor of Crete (d. 1428), voiced the reaction of conservative men of culture to the spread of Greek studies amongVenetian noblemen; the rejection of otium in a society oriented to business and political commitment, as well as the Venetians’ sense of superiority (or even hostility) toward the Greeks, may have inspired de Monaci’s attitude. The debate was probably still lively in 1494, when the aristocrat and humanist Pietro Bembo (1470–1547) addressed an oration in Greek to the senate of the city, in defense of Greek studies (edited by N.G. Wilson, Messina 2003). Bembo underlines, in particular, the practical utility of the Greek language for Venetian officers and the importance of the Greek tradition for Latin literature and sciences. Bembo’s oration—together with similar appeals by Chalcondyles (above, n. 48), Carteromachus, and others— may have contributed to the senate’s decision to establish a chair of Greek at the
248
chapter four
Crete, which became a Venetian colony in 1210, had a renowned cultural tradition that had existed since antiquity. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the many uprisings against the Venetian rulers made the political, social, and economic situations of the island extremely unstable.51 For a long time Latins and Greeks coexisted side by side, with religion and language functioning as the principal “ethnic markers” for the two communities.52 However, official documents from Crete show that, as the integration between the two groups progressed, ethnic distinctions gradually became less important; from the fifteenth century onward, for example, the case of Cretans of Latin descent who spoke Greek as first language was frequent. The distinction between the three languages spoken on the island— Greek, Latin, and Italian—persisted mainly because of their different fields of application. On the one hand, the Greek-speaking population outnumbered the Venetian conquerors; on the other hand, Latin was the language of law and administration, and Italian was spoken by Venetian officials and merchants constantly arriving on the island. Over the course of time, however, Greek replaced Latin and Italian as the administrative language and was used even by the local Catholic church.53 Little is known about Cretan schools. A school was founded in the monastery of St. Catherine in Candia (an offspring of the famous Sinaite monastery), probably by the mid-sixteenth century; we know nothing about the curriculum or the level of the education offered in this school, which was probably similar either to the schools of Latin monasteries in the cities, or to the schools of Greek monasteries in the countryside.54 Documents of the end of the fourteenth century conDucal Chancery School (1508). See Pertusi 1980–1981, 185–189, 209–210; and Wilson 1992, 125–127. 51 On the Venetian conquest and rule in Crete (Βενετοκρατα: 1210–1669), see Margaritis 1978, 17 ff.; Maltezou 1991, 17–25; Detorakis 1994 [1986], 143 ff.; Ravegnani 1998; and Ortalli 1998 and 2002. 52 See McKee’s 2000 outstanding study, 101ff., 169ff. 53 See Panagiotakis 1995, 296; and McKee 2000, 116. 54 According to Geanakoplos (1962, 46), the rudiments of ancient Greek, theology, religious music, philosophy, and rhetoric were taught at the school of St. Catherine, “the leading Greek educational center in Crete”; see also Panagiotakis 1988, 178 f. The fact that Marcus Musurus and George Logothetes served as monks and teachers at St. Catherine suggests that a high-level education was offered. Panagiotakis (1995, 290), in fact, emphasizes a general “comparatively high standard” of Greek education during the Venetokratia. This assumption, however, clashes with the data resulting from McKee’s thorough analysis of sixteenth-century notarial contracts (2000, 116).
the greek donati and their context
249
cerning the hiring of private teachers show that a bilingual culture had developed on the island, especially in the cities, thanks to the presence of Western teachers and professionals.55 The purpose of such culture essentially was practical, because public life and administration needed people able to communicate in Latin, Greek, and Italian.56 Fourteenth-century manuscripts copied in Crete show a clear influence of Western manuscripts in layout and decorations; many of them are bilingual.57 The Latin monasteries of the island, such as the Monastery of St. Francis in Candia, became important meeting points for the two cultures; their libraries contributed to spreading Latin culture in an often-hostile Greek environment. Famous scholars, such as Petrus Philarges, the future Pope Alexander V (1409–1410), and the humanist and businessman Lauro Quirini (ca. 1420–1475 or 1479), received their first Latin education on the island.58 Cretan teachers of 55 Pertusi (1961–1962, 371ff.) quotes some fourteenth-century documents from Crete, preserved in the State Archive of Venice (Archivio del Duca di Candia, collection “Notai di Candia”). These documents give us an idea of what elementary education on the island might have been like. Some documents concern the master “grammarian” Pietro di Narnia from Spoleto (magister, gramaticus, artis gramatice professor Petrus de Narnia, civis Spoletanus), who, in 1327, rented some houses to open some schools (373, 5). Other Western teachers are mentioned: e.g., Bartholomaeus de Hongulardis, a notary, who owned a collection of books (378, 17; on notaries as teachers of grammar see below, note 66, and Witt 1995a, 90f.), and Franciscus de Bancaria, who directed “schools of grammar and of other disciplines” (regens scolas in gramatica et aliis scientiis) (379, 18; see also McKee 2000, 116–118). “Grammar” probably means “Latin,” but it may also mean “Italian,” which was very important for trade (Gasparis 1994, 147 f.: the formula scrivere et legere vulgariter ad modum mercatorum refers to the “vernacular curriculum;” see above, 63). In fact, a Master Gentile of Arezzo, rector scholarum, is mentioned in three contracts of 1384 as a teacher of Latin and Italian (McKee 2000, 118f.). Greek was not neglected: on October 17, 1317, Papas Michael Pedhione committed himself to teaching Greek (licteram Grecam) for four years, for a salary of four hyperpera per year; his pupil, Emmanuel, son of Basil Catochopo of Candia, had to learn to “read any sacred book and write correctly” (taliter quod sciat calonarchiçare [sic] et legere in quibuslibet libris ecclesie et quod sciat scribere amodo) (Pertusi 1960–1962, 371, 1; and McKee 2000, 119). 56 On July 8, 1341, the Venetian senate granted to the rector of Pteleon a Latin scribe who knew Greek (Pertusi 1960–1961, 377, 16). Also, a document of 1347 shows that there was great demand on the island for physicians who knew Greek (379, 19). Westerners who moved to Crete usually learned Greek and approached Greek culture: as Raimondo Morozzo della Rocca remarks, at the end of Pertusi’s article (380), “[Si] scorge che l’elemento colto dell’Isola non è soltanto greco (ed ebraico), bensì anche latino […] Ma chi approdava a Candia per aprirvi una scuola desiderava a sua volta imparare e forse, già nel Trecento, era spinto dall’impulso di accostarsi alla cultura greca.” 57 See the extensive study by De Gregorio (1993). 58 See Branca 1977 and Panagiotakis 1995, 291. The Monastery of St. Francis was
250
chapter four
Latin probably followed the same methods and used the same textbooks as their colleagues in the West.59 Between the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, many Greek men of culture settled in Crete: they were especially Latinophrones seeking refuge, such as Demetrius Cydones, Manuel Calecas, and Maximus Chrysoberges; the South Italian Leonzio Pilato (above, 98 f.), the Tuscan Rinuccio Aretino, and others came to Crete to study Greek.60 However, it was only after 1453 that the increasing migration of refugees from Constantinople—and after 1460 from Morea as well—transformed Crete into “the main center of Hellenism in the old Byzantine world.”61 These emigrés were diplomats, merchants, or craftsmen; also, many of them were intellectuals and became teachers and copyists. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, rich families and monasteries owned large libraries and the book trade with Venice was intense. The many manuscripts copied in Crete or by Cretan hands at that time bear witness to the ability of the copyists to satisfy an increasing demand of Greek manuscripts from the West.62 The circulation of books from Crete to the West and vice versa was intense. Particularly productive was the scriptorium of Michael Apostolis and his son Arsenios-Aristoboulos in Candia. After some time, however, many Cretan copyists moved to the West, in particular to Venice, because
founded in the thirteenth century and lasted until the Turkish conquest of Candia (1669). In 1417, its library contained about three hundred manuscripts, mostly of Latin ecclesiastical authors; books of Greek philosophers and Church Fathers in Latin translation, as well as some Latin lexica (Hugutio and Brito) were also included. All books were in Latin, except for a copy of Gregory the Great’s dialogues in Latin and Greek. See Hofmann 1942; De Gregorio 1993, 110, 128; and McKee 2000, 120f. 59 Contracts from the end of the fourteenth century demonstrate the use of psalters as the first reading books for both Greek and Latin (above, 64; see also below, n. 66). Moreover, in his will from 1349, Marco Cavalcante recommends the chancellor of Candia to have his servant educated to become a priest; the servant will receive his freedom and a volume containing the glossed works of Prosper, Aesop, and Cato (above, 68f.); see McKee 2000, 119, 121. 60 See Pertusi 1960–1961, 367; Geanakoplos 1962, 47; and Panagiotakis 1995, 291. On Cydones’ sojourn and death in Crete, see Ganchou 2002. 61 Geanakoplos 1962, 48. Many studies have been devoted to culture in Crete under the Venetian rule (the “Cretan Renaissance”): see Geanakoplos 1976, 179 ff, and 200ff.; Holton 1991; De Gregorio 1993; Panagiotakis 1995; Manoussakas 1998, 443–446; and McKee 2000, 168–171. 62 See Geanakoplos 1962, 50; and Canart 1977a, 421–424. On Cretan copyists and manuscripts, see also Sicherl 1997, 191–195. On private and monastic libraries in Crete from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, see Mavromatis 1990, 465 ff.
the greek donati and their context
251
overpopulation and a lack of resources, as well as of cultural institutions on the island, made it difficult for them to earn their living. The transmission of Pylê a is perhaps related to this context. The Cretan Michael Lygizos made two copies of Pylê a, MSS. A and O, probably on commission: these copies may have been ordered from Italy or from Crete. MS. Q , partly copied by Lygizos himself, certainly belongs to the same environment. Michael Souliardos, the copyist of another manuscript of the same group, N, was a Cretan, as was George Gregoropoulos, who wrote R: part of this manuscript was indeed written in Crete.63 The Cretan MS. Oxon. Barocci 72 (O) demonstrates that the hypothesis of a Cretan circulation of Pylê a is plausible. The Greek glosses between the lines of Planudes’ translation of Cato’s Disticha allow us to consider this manuscript as a product of an environment where Greek was the language of study.64 In this environment, several translations of the manual of elementary Latin could circulate; one of them, for example, was used by the anonymous author of the Epitome attributed to Zacharias Calliergis (Pylê d), which was included in the Oxford manuscript (O) and bound together with other texts for the study of Greek. Although Venetian officers and merchants who settled in Crete eventually integrated into the Greek population, we may suppose that Latin and Italian schools existed on the island, especially in towns, where Westerners were more numerous. For example, a Catholic (Uniate) school was founded in 1462 in Candia, under the patronage of Cardinal Bessarion and with the support of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople; Michael Apostolis was the inspirer and the first teacher of the school, and other Cretan scholars served as instructors.65 From a collection of contracts from Candia concerning 63
Watermarks cannot give us any clue, because Cretan manuscripts were usually copied on Italian paper: see De Gregorio 1993, 126f. 64 Several manuscripts containing Planudes’ translations of Cato’s Disticha and Boethius’ Consolatio were copied in Crete by Michael Lulludes at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Some of these manuscripts contain both the Greek and Latin texts, and bear witness to the popularity of both works on the island. Moreover, the Greek Cato appear together with other grammatical texts in a miscellaneous schoolbook copied in Crete in the mid-fifteenth century, MS. Vat. gr. 1584: this fact confirms the use of Cato’s Distichs in Cretan schools. See De Gregorio 1993, 130ff., 150, and 187 n. 226. 65 In his letters, Apostolis often asks Bessarion to support the opening of schools in Crete and elsewhere (see the passages quoted in Pagliaroli 2004, 286 n. 1). The school
252
chapter four
the hiring of private teachers, we learn that Latin and Italian, as well as ancient and demotic Greek, were taught in Crete, along with arithmetic and calculus, which were useful for those wanting to become merchants.66 So as Venetians needed to learn Greek, Cretans needed to learn Latin, in order to have access to public offices or have a career in the administration of the island. Bilingual education, both in φραγκικ( (Latin and Italian) and #ωμαϊκ( (ancient and modern Greek), was available on the island: the fifteenth-century Cretan poet Leonardos Dellaportas reveals that, as a child, he attended a school that provided instruction in Greek and Latin.67 Many upper-class young men of Crete completed their studies in Italy; they had to be fluent in Latin, which was still the language of lectures, disputations, and conversation at Italian universities.68 For example, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, Cretans functioned throughout the sixteenth century, but it is difficult to evaluate its impact on Cretan culture. In fact, according to Panagiotakis (1995, 295), “Bessarion’s legacy would not have been looked upon favorably by the Orthodox population, who would have resented its ties with Rome.” See also Cataldi Palau 2004, 299–300. 66 The eight contracts published by Detorakis (1996, 38ff.) belong to the years 1551–1654, a relatively late date. However, they show that teachers still used the same books for elementary education that were used in Byzantium and in the West during the Middle Ages, such as the Octoechos and the Psalter (see Mavromatis 1990, 473; and McKee 2000, 119). For example, according to contract 5, teacher Paolo Siligardo was employed to teach τ4 Fερ4 γρ(μματα, τοGς ψαλμο2ς, τν κτ+ηχο κα' τ?ν ψαλτρα (sic); it is not clear if he was to teach in Greek or in Latin. On the other hand, contract 8 concerns the employment of Zorzi Protonotario as a teacher of Zorzi Sevastò, the son of Messer Maneas, for four years. Since, as a notary, he was supposed to be bior trilingual, he would teach γρ(μματα ρομεηκα και φραγγικα (sic), i.e., Greek and Italian. The boy had to learn to read and write (να διαβαζ κα' ν4 γραφ) in “vulgar” (βολγ(ρε), i.e., in δημοτικ, not in ancient Greek and Latin: κα' οχ’ ληνηκα μηδε την λατηνα μα *πλος βολγ(ρα και τουτο ρδεναριαμεντε και χι σουπερφλουαμεντε (sic). The mixture of Greek and Italian makes this text an interesting document showing the mutual influence of the two cultures (on the use of Greek, Latin, and Italian in Cretan bureaucratic acts during Venetian rule, see Gasparis’ 1994 detailed study). Moreover, the insistence on teaching the “vulgar” instead of the ancient languages leads us to infer that Latin and ancient Greek were actually taught in Crete. On the use of the terms Λατ>νοι and Φρ(γκοι in Greek texts, see Koder 2002, 37–39. 67 Dellaportas’ poem is quoted by Panagiotakis 1988, 168. The last two lines (political verses) read: Ες τ? σχολε>ο κ($ηκα, Κερ( μου, *π? μικρ$εν, ,μα$α τ(χα γρ(μματα φρ(γκικα κα' #ωμακα,
[Since I was just a child, I have sat at school, learning my letters, both Frankish and Greek] (translation by Detorakis 1988 [1916], 208). 68
Grendler 2002, 151f.
the greek donati and their context
253
represented the largest group among Greek students (natio ultramarina) at the university of Padua.69 Many Cretan students came from the College of St. Athanasius, founded in Rome by Pope Gregory XIII (1576), and later also from the College Cottunio in Padua (1653) or from the college that Padua’s alumnus Thomas Flanginis had established in Venice (ca. 1662). These institutions probably made up for the lack of public higher education in Crete: we may assume that, as late as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were no high schools on the island, or that students could not receive adequate preparation for advanced studies.70 In fact, in 1577 the Cretan Maximos Margounios (1530–1602), who studied in Padua, complained that no Greece had been left in Greece and no Athens in Athens: Italy was crowded with Greeks “who have not even learned grammar thoroughly; they are unworthy of their origin, or better, they are barbarians” (qui ne grammaticam quidem didicerunt, indigni sua origine, ac potius barbari).71 Apparently, then, little had changed from the gloomy description of Cretan culture that more than one century earlier (1462) the Venetian patrician Pietro Perleone had given to his friend Niccolò Sagundino (d. 1464), appointed Chancellor of Crete: he would live “ingloriously” (ingloriosus) at a place where his extraordinary learning and eloquence would count for nothing (ubi tuo sublimi ingenio tuaque praestanti doctrina et facundia dignum ostendisses profecto nihil), and his children would lose their good manners and receive a peasant’s education (ubi filii tui sine litteris, exuta urbanitate rusticitatem induissent).72 Probably, therefore, it was difficult to receive in Crete an education at the same level as in Italy: young men who wanted to pursue more advanced studies had no option but to go abroad.
69 See Fabris 1942, 126, 132 ff.; Plumidis 1971; and Fedalto 2001. On the ceiling of the entrance-hall of the University of Padua, it is still possible to see the coats of arms that about two hundred students from noble Cretan families had painted between 1542 and 1688. 70 See Panagiotakis 1988, 189: except from few cases, it was difficult to find in Crete good teachers of Latin and Italian. On the three Greek colleges, see Tsirpanlis 1980 and 1983, 511 ff.; Callegari 2001; and Karathanassis 2002. 71 Quoted by Fabris 1942, 133. Mavromatis (1990, 473) also mentions a letter by Martin Crusius, who, in 1576, complained about the situation of culture in Crete during the Venetokratia: there were no academies, scholars or teachers, but only elementary schools (scholae triviales) for children, who read nothing but the Psalter (see above, n. 66) and liturgical books. 72 Quoted by King 1986, 89 and n. 428.
254
chapter four
As already discussed (above, 87), many bilingual texts have been handed down from antiquity and the Middle Ages. However, except for Bacon’s grammar, no book was specifically created for the study of Greek as a foreign language: Chrysoloras had to create a Greek grammar for Latins almost ex nihilo. We may suppose that the lack of specific grammar books also affected the Greeks who wanted to learn Latin. The most important example of Latin grammar for Greeks, Dositheus’ Ars grammatica, apparently remained confined to Western scriptoria and did not circulate in the Byzantine world.73 If Greeks had to use the Latin elementary grammar, Ianua, to learn Latin, they may have needed a bilingual teacher, a literal translation of the book, or both. Pylê a, the Donatus translatus, may have been created to respond to this demand. As we already have noted, the Latin text on which Pylê a was based is similar to the older versions of the Latin Ianua rather than to its more recent editions. We may think that it took some time for the cultural innovations of the “center,” Venice, to reach the “periphery,” Crete, assuming that they ever did. Thus, while the new, shorter, and easier Ianua had already imposed itself on the Venetian book market, the Latin schools of Crete continued to use the old textbook, still in manuscript form and still very “Priscianic” in its content. The same can be said about the first two sections of Pylê c, based on a Latin text that devoted much more space than Pylê a to definitions and even contained mnemonic verses. The manuscripts that have handed down Pylê a show only the last stage of the evolution of this text into an independent grammar. Indeed, the attribution to Planudes in MSS. B, O, and R, as well as 73
Dositheus’ grammar has been handed down in three ninth-century manuscripts from St. Gall, together with other tools for the study of Greek, the so-called Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana (above, 87 n. 38). Born probably in the Eastern Roman Empire in the late fourth century, Dositheus followed in his grammar the tradition of Latin artes grammaticae and equipped the Latin text with a faithful Greek translation. However, a word-by-word translation appears only up to the end of the chapter on verbs (1–36 Bonnet); in the following chapters, only paradigms and forms are translated (37–53), whereas the last part is completely in Latin (54–64). On the style of the Greek translation, see Bonnet’s observations, XVIII f. The lack of a translation of the last chapters—which recalls, for example, the case of MS. G (see above, 163)— may be due to the manuscript tradition or may correspond to a deliberate choice by the author, who probably did not deem the Greek version necessary for students as they progressed in their study of Latin. As Bonnet remarks in his introduction (XIII), Dositheus’ intended audience was composed of “Grecs connoissants déjà le discours propre à la τ χνη γραμματικ”; for example, Dositheus did not include paradigms of nominal inflection because his readers most probably already knew them.
the greek donati and their context
255
C’s title, “Erotimata Guerrini,” and the fact that the Greek text was even re-translated into Latin in G, demonstrate that Pylê a was eventually perceived as a Greek grammar tout court. However, some elements of the text betray its original nature as an interlinear translation— probably made with the help of a bilingual dictionary—where the single word mattered more than the context. The first is Pylê a’s faithful respect of Ianua’s word order, which has very few exceptions; the second is Pylê a’s use of the same Greek term to translate the same Latin word and the use of the same syntax as the Latin original;74 and the third is the presence of “doublets” and gaps corresponding to terms and forms whose rendering in Greek may have created particular problems for the translator(s).75 The language of Pylê a is classical Greek, with occasional echoes of the lexicon and the morphology of Byzantine Greek; indeed, we cannot exclude that, in the passage from interlinear translation to a grammar, the text underwent some process of linguistic “normalization.” In any case, we do not know when or where Pylê a began to be used as an independent Greek grammar. Before the publication and the spread of printed editions of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, the need for Greek grammar books may have induced some teachers to adapt the rough translation of the Latin Ianua to the teaching of Greek.76 At that time, and for that purpose, expressions such as κατ4 Λατνους may have been added to the original of MSS. A, N, O, Q , and R: it
74 For example, the Latin original often influences the use of cases with prepositions. At 1. 99–100 (πλν τ4 κ2ρια νματα, Lat. praeter propria nomina), the Greek preposition would require the genitive instead of the accusative; a similar case is at 8. 20 ( π' τν γν, Lat. super terram), where π as “upon” should be accompanied by the genitive and not by the accusative. Also, the article, which is common in Greek but does not exist in Latin, is often omitted: e.g. pr. 1 πρ+την τ χνην, 2. 112, al.: ν δευτ ρ&ω … προσ+π&ω, 8. 32–33 Ανεας … Ιουλιανς, etc. Indeed, as Berti remarks (1987, 22), in an interlinear translation “il traduttore si trova non di rado in dubbio […] se mettere in rilievo le relazioni sintattiche che intercorrono tra le parole oppure far prevalere la considerazione degli aspetti morfologici dei singoli vocaboli.” 75 Cases of double translation: nominativus = (1. 36, v.l.) ρ$ aγε νομαστικ; a vocando = (1. 41–42) *π? το: προσαγορε2εσ$αι aγουν κεκλσ$αι; per compositionem = (5. 2) δι4 σ2νταξιν ] σ2ν$εσιν, etc. See Schmitt 1966, 257 f. Cases of omission include several verbal forms (e.g., the future imperative in x) and the Latin pronomina quarti modi, nostras and vestras, etc., which are left without any corresponding form in Greek, even if the definition of modus quartus appears in the section on pronouns. 76 On the printing of Greek grammars in the last thirty years of the fifteenth century, see Pertusi 1962, 326–328, and 1980–1981, 240; and Staïkos 1998 [1989], 118.
256
chapter four
is perhaps no accident that such additions do not appear in the earliest version of Pylê a, contained in MSS. B, C, and G. At any rate, by sometime between the beginning and middle of the fifteenth century, the text may have reached Venice, the Veneto, and North Italy. In particular, MS. B circulated within an environment where both versions of Pylê a were available; that environment was probably the Venetian area, where the manuscript may have been written. Over the course of time, Pylê a was probably used in classrooms and certainly for independent study of Greek (cf. Hyazchas’ remarks in MS. Q). At least one copy of the Greek Donatus a reached Florence from Crete (MS. R). During the Renaissance, cultural relations and interchanges between Venice and Florence were intense; any Venetian scholar who went to Florence or any Florentine who went to Venice, as well as any Cretan copyist who worked in both cities, could have functioned as a trait d’union.77 More complex problems arise from the three Donati compositi. Of the manuscripts that have handed them down, one is generically Northern Italian (V), two are probably from the Veneto (M and P), and one is from Venice or Crete, or has at least circulated in Crete (Z, in O). Thus, considering the data so far available, we may locate the origin and the circulation of these grammar books in the Northeast of Italy and, by extension, in Venetian Crete. In particular, part of the first section of the “Cretan” Pylê d represents a return to the practice of translating the Latin Ianua word by word, as in Pylê a. The other Donati compositi may have been used in any northeastern Italian school of Greek. In general, however, with the exception of the first two
77 Petrus Candidus, who brought MS. R from Crete to Florence (above, 172), had close contacts with the Venetian cultural environment; see Scapecchi 1994, 194. Also, in his 1493 letter to his brother Gregorio, Girolamo Amaseo (above, 137 f.) says that “a good many Greeks from Greece” (complures Graecos ex Graecia) were staying in Florence at Janus Lascaris’ home, where they were learning Latin (probably to become teachers of Greek) and copying Greek manuscripts (see Pozzi 1966, 194). Janus Lascaris (ca. 1455–1535) had learned Latin in Padua, where he had been sent by his patron, Cardinal Bessarion, from about 1463 to 1472 (see Staïkos 1998 [1989], 258). One of Lascaris’ students was the Cretan Marcus Musurus, who was in Florence from 1486 to 1493 before moving to Venice (on Musurus’ stay in Florence, see Pagliaroli 2004, 225 ff.; and Cataldi Palau 2004, 303–309). Lascaris’ Greek students may have benefited from a Greek translation of the Latin elementary grammar. Their demands may have led to a first word-by-word translation of Ianua, or may have contributed to bringing Pylê a to Florence, but nothing encourages us to consider these assumptions more than hypotheses.
the greek donati and their context
257
sections of Pylê c and of some parts of Pylê d, these Donati distance themselves from the Latin original in various degrees. The fact that, in Pylê b, some parts of the Latin model have been replaced with authentic Greek material suggests that a Greek teacher conceived it as a Greek grammar for his Latin students, using the Latin Ianua as a model. Pylê b’s section on nouns shows, in fact, a deliberate attempt to simplify further the system of declensions created by Chrysoloras and generally used in Greek humanist grammar. Pylê b’s four verbal paradigms are a translation of Ianua’s verbs, but with due attention to the Greek forms with no Latin equivalent and without the extravagant forms so common in Pylê a. Moreover, the compiler of Pylê b not only knew Greek grammar fairly well, but also was well versed in the most important Greek grammatical works or, more probably, had access to that grammatical “stock material” of different origins that manuscripts like P made available to Western teachers. Similarly, b’s and d’s initial poem, which also occurs in other manuscripts, seems to be a standard prologue for schoolbooks of grammar, circulating together with the other tools—charts, word lists, etc.—used in teaching Greek in Byzantine schools. As already noted (above, 200f.), the most important testimony to Pylê b, M, was most probably copied in the first half of the fifteenth century; the manuscript belonged to the Paduan humanist Ioannes Calphurnius, who bequeathed it to the library of the monastery of San Giovanni di Verdara, a “little Pantheon of humanists.”78 Greek became part of the curriculum of the university of Padua only in 1463; however, Greek scholars and books are documented in Padua by the fourteenth century.79 Moreover, the presence of Palla Strozzi80 and his protegées, John Argyropoulos and Andronicos Callistos,81 the sojourn Sambin 1972–1973, 816 (quoting V. Clan). See Pertusi 1990a [1977–1978], 242. 80 Palla di Nofri Strozzi (see above, 100) was one of the sponsors of Chrysoloras’ appointment in Florence and one of his first students. In 1434, when Cosimo de’ Medici regained power, Palla was exiled because of his hostility to Medicis’ rule. He moved to Padua, where he continued his Greek studies and opened his house to Byzantine scholars in Italy. Palla died in 1462 and bequeathed his library to the Benedictine monastery of Santa Giustina: a list of his books (unfortunately incomplete) is attached to his will in MS. B.P. 229 of the Biblioteca del Museo Civico in Padua, fols. 3r-4v (published by Cantoni Alzati 1983, 183–186). Other manuscripts have been identified by Diller (1961, 313–317) and Sosower (1984). 81 The Byzantine emigré John Argyropoulos (ca. 1416–1487) studied and taught in Padua from 1441 to 1444, when he presumably left for Constantinople. After 78 79
258
chapter four
of some Byzantine scholars,82 and the possible availability of private teachers certainly encouraged Greek studies in Padua much before that date..83 In fact, several Greek grammatical works were circulating in the city during the fifteenth century. As Bernardinello has observed, Paduan Greek manuscripts reveal an interest in grammar and, more importantly, an effort to improve the tools already available for the teaching of Greek, such as Chrysoloras’ Erotemata. Pylê b may be a product of this pedagogical “experimentation,” which, in turn, was supported by the availability of Byzantine grammatical text in the Paduan environment.84 Like the other Donati compositi and in spite of its imperfections, Pylê b represent the merging of the Latin and the Byzantine pedagogical traditions much better than Pylê a.
Byzantium’s fall to the Turks, he returned to Italy and taught at the Florentine Studium (1456–1471). Argyropoulos spent the last years of his life between Florence and Rome. Andronicos Callistos, born in Constantinople, taught in Padua, Bologna, Florence (after Argyropoulos’ departure), Milan, Paris, and London, where he died in 1487. See Pertusi 1980–1981, 236–239; Wilson 1992, 86–90, 114–118; and Staïkos 1998, 170, 177–204. 82 For example, George Trapezuntius (1395–1486: see above, 141), born in Crete, studied at Padua between 1416 and 1417; see Monfasani 1976, 10–12. 83 Indeed, as Bernardinello remarks (1977, 104–105), it is very unlikely that the Venetian senate would have established a chair of Greek in 1463 if the teaching of Greek in Padua had stopped with Argyropoulos’ departure nineteen years before (1444). According to Bernardinello, the gap was filled by the teaching of Pietro da Montagnana, the author of a revised edition of Ianua (see above, 47 f.) and “the firt Paduan humanist with an interest in public teaching of Greek” (1979, 42; my translation). 84 See Bernardinello 1979, 41–44. Of the eighteen Greek manuscripts dating from the Renaissance preserved in Padua, nine contain grammars or readings for school use. Pietro da Montagnana owned four Greek grammars: two anonymous (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr. 127, and Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. 13) and the grammars by Calecas (Marc. gr. X. 7) and Scholarios (Padua, Biblioteca Comunale, MS. C.M. 938). Montagnana translated Scholarios’ grammar into Latin, probably for his teaching of Greek (Marc. lat. XIV. 10). Moreover, MS. Marc. lat. XIII. 5 shows that Montagnana, probably dissatisfied with Guarino’s abridgment of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata, supplemented Guarino’s Latin translation with paradigms and examples omitted by Guarino and taken from the longer version (see above, 121 n. 152). See Bernardinello 1977, 110–125. Most probably, Montagnana intended to write a new Greek grammar for Latins; also, he may have played a role in the composition of Latinate Greek grammars like Pylê b.
the greek donati and their context
259
4. Using the Donati graeci in Schools: “Reutilization” and “Superimposition” If my hypothesis about the origin of Pylê a is correct, its use as a grammar book lay outside of its original purpose. Like Planudes’ translation of the Disticha Catonis, Pylê a underwent a process of “reutilization.” The publication of Chrysoloras’ Erotemata with Guarino’s Latin translation solved the problem of an effective textbook for the study of Greek, whether in classrooms, with private teachers, or by oneself. However, Pylê a could constitute an option at a time when, and in areas where, Chrysoloras-Guarino’s schoolbook was not available or was difficult to find. This may explain why Pylê a continued to be copied until the beginning of the sixteenth century, when many Greek grammars had been available on the book market for years. Compared with humanist grammars, Pylai offered the advantage of reducing the nominal declensions to five instead of ten and the verbal conjugations to four instead of thirteen or nine. Thus, part of their success may be due to their being a sort of compendia, which treated the subject matter concisely and briefly. Although there is no document or literary source to inform us of how Pylai were used in the teaching of elementary Greek, it is possible to draw some conclusions from the way texts are presented in manuscripts. Like Ianua, Pylai were probably studied in two stages: per lo testo e per lo senno, i.e., first. by simply reading the text, and then by understanding and memorizing it. All the manuscripts examined so far contain many devices intended to favor memorization: decorated initials, often rubricated, help distinguish the sections of the text at a glance; maniculae with pointing fingers, asterisks, etc. in the margins signal the most important parts; dots or commas usually divide the text into shorter units, cola and commata (Lygizos’ MSS. A and O, for example, use a very homogeneous system of punctuation); and the alphabets often found on the flyleaves of manuscripts were perhaps not only probationes pennae, but devices for memorization as well. Being entirely in Greek, Pylai needed to be taught by bilingual teachers. Students who decided to learn Greek usually knew Latin and built up their Greek on the basis of Latin. The translation of grammatical texts into Latin took place very early in the program. The wide margins and interlinear spaces (B, C, and G), the front pages left blank (N), and the layout in columns (A, M, and Q) suggest that, when laying out the text, copyists took it for granted that
260
chapter four
a translation would be added. In some cases (G and P), the Latin text was more or less directly incorporated into the Greek. Otherwise, students like Franciscus Hyazchas (above, 169) had to rely on a dictionary or other tools to understand the Greek text. In general, unlike the Greek Cato, there are no Latin glosses for Pylai. Instead of supposing a passive memorization, we may infer that these texts were explained with the direct or indirect help of the Latin Ianua. Students, who most probably tackled Greek after Latin, had memorized Ianua as students of elementary Latin. They already knew the definitions and the concepts that they found in Greek. In other words, when they read Ποιητς τ μ ρος στν; they knew that it corresponded to Poeta quae pars est; it was just a matter of expressing the same concepts in a different language, of “superimposing” the new form on the old and well-known one. Hyazchas probably needed to add an extensive Latin translation because, as a non-Italian, he may have learned Latin from a different textbook: Ianua-Pylê may have been completely new to him. The method of proceeding from the easier to the more complex and the catechistic form were both taken from Donatus and the tradition of Byzantine erôtêmata. The simplicity and the fair quantity of paradigms that Pylai contain may have contributed to their preservation. In any case, the rough and defective Pylai were not deemed worthy of printed editions, even in a book market like that of Venice, which was extremely receptive to Greek grammatical texts. Thus, over the course of time, while the Latin Ianua continued to hold its place as a privileged instrument for the teaching of Latin, the Greek Pylai were replaced with other more valid grammars and finally fell into oblivion.
text
DONATUS GRAECUS A
Siglorum Conspectus 1. Graeca A B Bm C G N O Q R x
Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, MS. gr. 5 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Barberini gr. 10 marginalia codicis B a pluribus manibus exarata Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Conventi Soppressi 106 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Gaddi 182 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. gr. 2594 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci 72 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Ottoboni gr. 206 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Redi 15 consensus ABBmCGNOQ
XV ex. XV XV–XVI XV XV–XVI XV XV ex. XV ex. XV ex.
B1, N1, O1, Q 1, R1 manus correctorum codicum B, N, O, Q , R Schmitt W.O. Schmitt, “Maximos Planudes, der lateinische Pseudo-Donatus (Ianua) und seine Übersetzung ins Griechische,” diss. Berlin, Humboldt-Universität, 1966, 1+–92+ (editio princeps).
donatus graecus a
264 2. Latina D Gl1 Gl2 H J p Ql1 Qlh S U [] ***
Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum versio Latina inter lineas codicis G textus Latinus cum textu Graeco exaratus codicis G Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Chigi lat. L.IV.98 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15972 Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis Savonarolae, die XXVIII mensis Septembris 1492) versio Latina iuxta textus Q exarata adnotationes manu Francisci Hyazchae Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 80 Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile, MS. 404 inserenda censui delenda censui lacunam statui
XV–XVI XV–XVI XV ca. 1260–1280
XV ex. 1510 XIV in. 1461
5
Π2λη εμ' το>ς *μα$ σι το>ς πι$υμο:σι πρ+την τ χνην κα' χωρ'ς μο: ο5δε'ς πιστμων ρ$ς ,σταιZ κα' γ4ρ γ νος κα' πτσιν, ε=δος, *ρι$μν τε κα' σχμα το>ς iποταττομ νοις τε μ ρεσιν γκολπ κατ4 τ?ν τρπον τν λοιπν, n συμφωνε> *ρστως μφανζων, κα' |ν ο5 διδ(ξω λ ξις ο5δεμα μ νειZ W$εν *ναγνωσκε κα' πρσχες τ& πιτηδε2ματ σου, c *μα$3ς [*ναγνσταZ κα' γ4ρ συντμ&ω *σκσει μα$ε>ν πολλ4 δυνσQη.
1. Περ νματος Ποιητς τ μ ρος στν; NΟνομ( στιν. Διατ στιν νομα; Διτι σημανει ο5σαν κα' ποιτητα δαν ] κοινν μετ4 πτ+σεως. Τ& νματι πσα παρ πεται; Π ντε. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα κα' πτσις. 5 Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; Απ? τς ποισεως. Ποου γ νους; Αρσενικο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει μα *ρ$ρικ *ντωνυμα, οmον %. Ποου γ νους; Θηλυκο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει μα 10 *ρ$ρικ *ντωνυμα, οmον E.
Inscr. Γραμματικ Δον(δου γραμματικο: A, Γραμματικ Δον(δου μικρ4 μεταγλωττισ$ε>σα κ τς τν 8Ρωμαων φωνς (γλ+σσης B) πρ?ς τν 8Ελλ(δα παρ4 κυρο: Μαξμου το: Πλανο2δη BOR, EROTIMATA GUERRINI Γραμματικ σGν $ε& Iγ&ω Δον(του τιν?ς Ιταλικο: μεταγλωττισ$ε>σα γραϊκς C, Libellus Grammatices G, Δον(δου 8Ρωμαου γραμματικ συνοπτικ (cetera non leguntur) N, Γραμματικ Δον(δου 8Ρωμαου Q 3 τε om. O 4 τε om. O | γκολπ] ν κλπω pr. 1 Π2λη ... δυνσQη om. G BCOR 5 κατ4 ... λοιπν in marg. add. N2 6 διδ(ξω] -ξαιμι N, -ξει R 7 τ& πιτηδε2ματι] τ(δε πιτηδε2ματα BC | σου om. R | *μα$3ς] - N 1. 1 ποιητς] % π. BCG | τ ... νομα] ποου μ ρους λγου στν; νματος GO, cf. 3 πο>α] τ BCG, τνα N 4 κα' om. O b 1. 1, d 1. 1 2 ποιτητα] -τον CG 7 α5τ&] α5τQ (-) B, ταυτ C, α5το: G 8 μα om. x | *ρ$ρικ *ντωνυμα om. G 9 α5τ&] -ο: G | μα om. x
Ianua sum rudibus primam cupientibus artem, nec prae me quisquam rite peritus erit; nam genus et casum speciem numerumque figuram iis quae flectuntur partibus insinuo. Pono modum reliquis, quid competat optime pandens, et quam non doceam dictio nulla manet; ergo legas studiumque tibi rudis adice lector:
5
nam celeri studio discere multa potes. 1. De nomine Poeta quae pars est? Nomen est. Quare est nomen? Quia significat substantiam et qualitatem propriam vel communem cum casu. Nomini quot accidunt? Quinque. Quae? Species, genus, numerus, figura et casus. Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. 5 Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Unde derivatur? A poesis. Cuius generis? Masculini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione unum articulare pronomen, ut hic. Cuius generis? Feminini. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione unum articulare pronomen, ut haec. 10
pr. 7 adice] adisce Ql1. 1. 1 poeta ... Nomen est] poeta que pars orationis est? Nomen Gl1
268
15
20
25
30
35
donatus graecus a
Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει μα *ρ$ρικ *ντωνυμα, οmον τ. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει δ2ο *ρ$ρικα' *ντωνυμαι, οmον % κα' E. Ποου γ νους; Παντοου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει τρε>ς *ρ$ρικα' *ντωνυμαι, οmον % κα' E κα' τ. Ποου γ νους; Αδλου. Διατ; Διτι ο5δεν?ς λγου βιαστικο:, Διτι οδες λγος τελειο τοτο, *λλ4 μνη Uδεια τν ποιητν λλ μνη πο ησις τ!ν παλαι!ν iπ? διαφρου γ νους προφ ρε[τα]ι. "ν τος στ χοις δι γνους προφρει. Ποου γ νους; Επικονου. Διατ; Διτι iπ? μιPς φωνς κα' Sν?ς Uρ$ρου σημανει ζ&α Sκατ ρας φ2σεως. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Εκ το: α στερητικο: μορου κα' το: δκαιος συντ$εται Uδικος. Ποου σχματος; Παρασυν$ του. Διατ; Διτι ο5 κα$’ αiτο: συντ$εται, *λλ’ *π? συν$ του νματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ Uδικος, *δκου, *δικα. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ονομαστικς. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς Διατ; Διτι στ' #μα *μεταβ(τως στιZ #μα *δι(β(τως συντ(σσεται μετ4 *** συντ(ττεται μετ4 νομαστικς πτ+σεως. ρ$ς πτ+σεως. (B) Πσαι εσ'ν πτ+σεις νομ(των; jΕξ. Τνες; Ονομαστικ, γενικ, δοτικ, ατιατικ, κλητικ κα' *φαιρετικ.
11–28 ο5δετ ρου ... Uδικος om. B 11 διτι om. A | α5τ& ] - C 12 μα om. x 13 προτ(σσονται] -τ(σσεται O | δ2ο om. GO 14 *ρ$ρικα' *ντωνυμαι] *ρ$ρικ *ντωνυμα O | κα' τ post E add. G 15 παντοου] παντ?ς G | διτι om. CO 16 οmον om. x 17–21 ποου ... προφ ρει] genus incertum in genus 18–21(b) διτι ... προφ ρει] cf. b 1. promiscuum mutavit R 18(a) διτι om. A 27 κ το:] *π? το: BmOR, κ τ? C 29 ο5 17–18 20(a) διαφρου] -ους CG 30 νματος] #ματος CG | Wπερ στ'ν] κα$’ αiτο:] ο5κ *π’ α5το: R, ο5 om. G τ στιν AQ 30–31 Uδικος ... *δικα] *δκου om. R, *ναγιν+σκω *ναγιν+σκεις BCG, Wπερ συντ$εται κ το: *ν4 κα' γιν+σκω, γιν+σκεις add. G, cf. 2. 65–67(a) 32–35(a,b) ποας ... πτ+σεως] codicum lectiones servavi 32(a) νομαστικς] ρ$ς ACGNQ 34(a,b) συντ(σσεται, -ττεται] συντασσμενον (-ττ) coniecerim, cf. b 1. 30(b), d 1. 29–30 et D (p) quia verbum intransitive positum construitur cum nominativo casu 36 εσ'ν 36–38 kξ ... ρ$α om. AQ 36 τνες] τ BCG | πτ+σεις] πτ+σεις εσ'ν AQ νομαστικ] ρ$ BCGNO, ρ$ aγε νομαστικ R 37 κα' om. BO
de nomine
269
Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia praeponitur ei in declinatione unum articulare pronomen, ut hoc. Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia praeponuntur ei in declinatione duo articularia pronomina, ut hic et haec. Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia praeponuntur ei in declinatione 15 tria articularia pronomina, ut hic et haec et hoc. Cuius generis? Incerti. Quare? Quia nulla ratione cogente Quia nulla ratio hoc perficit, sed sola auctoritas poetarum sed sola poesis veterum sub diverso genere profert. in versibus secundum genus profert. 20 Cuius generis? Promiscui. Quare? Quia sub una voce et uno articulo significat animalia utriusque sexus. Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. 25 Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? Ex in et iustus componitur iniustus. Cuius figurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia non per se componitur sed a composito nomine derivatur, quod est illud: iniustus, iniusti, 30 iniustitia. Cuius casus? Nominativi. Cuius casus? Nominativi Quare? Quia verbum intransitive est: verbum intransitive positum construitur cum positum construitur cum nominativo casu. nominativo casu. 35 Quot sunt casus nominum? Sex. Qui? Nominativus, genitivus, dativus, accusativus, vocativus et ablativus.
16 articularia pronomina] articularia et pronomina (ut *ρ$ικα' κα' *ντωνυμαι) Gl1 18–20(a) quia ... profert] quia nulla ratione cogente, sed sola auctoritas veterum genere protulit 23 sexus] sensus Gl1 27 ex in] ex (sic) Gl1, quia ... sub diverso genere protulit Ql1 30–31 quod ... iniustitia] quod est illud? Iniustus, iniusti, addita cia fit iniusticia a Gl1 Ql1 33–35(a) quia ... casu] quia est verbum intransitive construitur cum nominativo casu Ql1 36–37 quot ... vocativus] quot sunt casus nominum? Duo: nominativus et vocativus Ql1
270
40
45
50
55
60
donatus graecus a
Πσαι εσ'ν ρ$α; Δ2οZ νομαστικ κα' κλητικ. Πσαι εσ' πλ(γιαι; Τ σσαρεςZ γενικ, δοτικ, ατιατικ κα' *φαιρετικ. Ονομαστικ π$εν λ γεται; Απ? το: νομ(ζεινZ γενικ *π? το: γεννPνZ δοτικ *π? το: διδναιZ ατιατικ *π? το: ατιPσ$αιZ κλητικ *π? το: προσαγορε2εσ$αι aγουν κεκλσ$αιZ *φαιρετικ *π? το: *φαιρε>σ$αι. 8Η νομαστικ % ποιητςZ E γενικ το: ποιητο:Z E δοτικ τ& ποιητQZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ποιητνZ E κλητικ c ποιητ(Z E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ποιητο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF ποιηταZ E γενικ τν ποιητνZ E δοτικ το>ς ποιητα>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ποιητ(ςZ E κλητικ c ποιηταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ποιητν. 8Η νομαστικ E μο:σαZ E γενικ τς μο2σηςZ E δοτικ τQ μο2σQηZ E ατιατικ τν μο:σανZ E κλητικ c μο:σαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μο2σηςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF μο:σαιZ E γενικ τν μουσνZ s δοτικ τα>ς μο2σαιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μο2σαςZ E κλητικ c μο:σαιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μουσν. 8Η νομαστικ τ? Π(σχαZ E γενικ το: Π(σχαZ E δοτικ τ& Π(σχαZ E ατιατικ τ? Π(σχαZ E κλητικ c Π(σχαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Π(σχαZ πλη$υντικ4 ο5κ ,χει. 8Η νομαστικ % κα' E προσλυτοςZ E γενικ το:, τς προσηλ2τουZ E δοτικ τ&, τQ προσηλ2τ&ωZ E ατιατικ τν, τν προσλυτονZ E κλητικ c προσλυτεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το:, τς προσηλ2τουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κα' αF προσλυτοιZ E γενικ τν προσηλ2τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς προσηλ2τοιςZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ4ς προσηλ2τουςZ E κλητικ c προσλυτοιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν προσηλ2των.
38–39 om. N 38 τ post δ2ο add. G 40 π$εν om. x | λ γεται om. N 41 διδ42 προσαγορε2εσ$αι aγουν] προσκαλε>σ$αι ] C, προσαγορε2εσ$αι ναι] δδομαι C 43 πρ+τη κλσις in marg. add. O | νομαaεν G | *φαιρε>σ$αι] *φιερσ$αι BC 44 *π? om. B 45 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | στικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ ποιητν] ποιητικν A 47 τν ποιητν] το: ποιητο: BC 48 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 50 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 51 E ατιατικ τ4ς μο2σας om. G 53 ο5δ τερον in marg. add. C | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 53–54 E α54 E κλητικ c Π(σχα om. AQ | E *φαιρετικ *π? το: τιατικ τ? Π(σχα om. G Π(σχα om. G 55 πλη$υντικ4] παρατατικ?ν C 56 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 57 κα' post τ& supra lineam add. N2 | κα' post τ?ν supra lineam add. N2 57–59 E 58 το:, τς] τς supra lineam add. O, κα' post το: κλητικ ... προσηλ2τοι om. G supra lineam add. N2 59 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | οF κα' αF προσλυτοι] οF προσλυτοι κα' αF προσλυτοι AQ , οF προσλυτοι κα' αF προσλυτοι κα' αF προσλυται BC 60 το>ς, τα>ς προσηλ2τοις] τα>ς om. C, τα>ς προσηλ2τοις κα' προσηλ2ταις N, το>ς προσηλ2τοις κα' τα>ς προσηλ2ταις O 61–65 E *φαιρετικ ... *π? το: Πριαμδου om. G
de nomine
271
Quot sunt recti? Duo: nominativus et vocativus. Quot sunt obliqui? Quattuor: genitivus, dativus, accusativus et ablativus. Nominativus unde dicitur? A nominando; genitivus a generando; dativus a dando; accusativus ab accusando; vocativus a vocando; ablativus ab auferendo. Nominativo hic poeta, genitivo huius poetae, dativo huic poetae, accusativo hunc poetam, vocativo o poeta, ablativo ab hoc poeta; et pluraliter: nominativo hi poetae, genitivo horum poetarum, dativo his poetis, accusativo hos poetas, vocativo o poetae, ablativo ab his poetis. Nominativo haec musa, genitivo huius musae, dativo huic musae, accusativo hanc musam, vocativo o musa, ablativo ab hac musa; et pluraliter: nominativo hae musae, genitivo harum musarum, dativo his musis, accusativo has musas, vocativo o musae, ablativo ab his musis. Nominativo hoc Pascha, genitivo huius Paschae, dativo huic Paschae, accusativo hoc Pascha, vocativo o Pascha, ablativo ab hoc Pascha; pluralia non habet. Nominativo hic et haec advena, genitivo huius advenae, dativo huic advenae, accusativo hunc, hanc advenam, vocativo o advena, ablativo ab hoc, hac advena; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae advenae, genitivo horum, harum advenarum, dativo his advenis, accusativo hos, has advenas, vocativo o advenae, ablativo ab his advenis.
40 nominativo ... nominando] nominativus dicitur a nominando Ql1 Ql1 53 incipit Qlh: nominativo hoc pasca
46–47 post poetis desinit
40
45
50
55
60
272
65
70
75
80
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % Αβρα(μZ E γενικ το: Αβρα(μZ E δοτικ τ& Αβρα(μZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Αβρα(μZ E κλητικ c Αβρα(μZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Αβρα(μ. 8Η νομαστικ % ΠριαμδηςZ E γενικ το: ΠριαμδουZ E δοτικ τ& ΠριαμδQηZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ΠριαμδηνZ E κλητικ c ΠριαμδηZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Πριαμδου. 8Η νομαστικ % ΑνεαςZ E γενικ το: ΑνεουZ E δοτικ τ& ΑνεRαZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ΑνεανZ E κλητικ c ΑνεαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Ανεου. Ποας κλσεως; Πρ+της. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ Sνικ ες αε δφ$ογγον λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον % ποιητς το: ποιητο: κα' E μο:σα τς μο2σης. 8Η νομαστικ % κ2ριοςZ E γενικ το: κυρουZ s δοτικ τ& κυρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν κ2ριονZ E κλητικ c κ2ριεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κυρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κ2ριοιZ s γενικ τν κυρωνZ s δοτικ το>ς κυροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς κυρουςZ E κλητικ c κ2ριοιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κυρων. 8Η νομαστικ % $εςZ E γενικ το: $εο:Z s δοτικ τ& $ε&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν $ενZ E κλητικ c $ε Z E *φαιρετικ *π? το: $εο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF $εοZ E γενικ τν $ενZ E δοτικ το>ς $εο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς $εο2ςZ E κλητικ c $εοZ E *φραιρετικ *π? τν $εν.
8Η νομαστικ τ? σκαμνονZ E γενικ το: σκαμνουZ E δοτικ τ& σκα85 μν&ωZ E ατιατικ τ? σκαμνονZ E κλητικ c σκαμνονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: σκαμνουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 σκαμναZ E γενικ τν σκαμνωνZ E δοτικ το>ς σκαμνοιςZ E ατιατικ τ4 σκαμναZ E κλητικ c σκαμναZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν σκαμνων.
62–70 ordinem % Ανεας, % Πριαμδης, % Αβρα(μ praebet R 62 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 65 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 66 c Πριαμδη] -δα C 71 τα2της] α5τς x, cf. 104, al. | Sνικ om. 68 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 71–72 δφ$ογγον] διφ$γγου G 72 % ABCNQ , Sνικς O1 | ες] ες τν R 72–73 κα' ... μο2σης om. x 74 ... ποιητο: om. ABCGQ , ποιητς ποιητο: BmO νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 76 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 79 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 81 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 84 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 84–93 ordinem % μαtστωρ, τ? σκαμνον praebet R 86 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 87 το>ς σκαμνοις] τν σκαμνων G
de nomine
273
Nominativo hic Abraham, genitivo huius Abrahae, dativo huic Abrahae, accusativo hunc Abraham, vocativo o Abraham, ablativo ab hoc Abraham. Nominativo hic Priamides, genitivo huius Priamidae vel -dis, dativo huic Priamidae, accusativo hunc Priamidem vel -da, vocativo o Priamides vel -da, ablativo ab hoc Priamide vel -da. Nominativo hic Aeneas, genitivo huius Aeneae, dativo huic Aeneae, accusativo hunc Aeneam vel Aenean, vocativo o Aenea, ablativo ab hoc Aenea. Cuius declinationis? Primae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in ae diphthongum desinit, ut hic poeta huius poetae et haec musa huius musae. Nominativo hic dominus, genitivo huius domini, dativo huic domino, accusativo hunc dominum, vocativo o domine, ablativo ab hoc domino; et pluraliter: nominativo hi domini, genitivo horum dominorum, dativo his dominis, accusativo hos dominos, vocativo o domini, ablativo ab his dominis. Nominativo hic deus, genitivo huius dei, dativo huic deo, accusativo hunc deum, vocativo o deus, ablativo ab hoc deo; et pluraliter: nominativo hi dei vel di, genitivo horum deorum vel deum, dativo his deis vel diis, accusativo hos deos, vocativo o di vel dii, ablativo ab his deis vel diis. Nominativo hoc scamnum, genitivo huius scamni, dativo huic scamno, accusativo hoc scamnum, vocativo o scamnum, ablativo ab hoc scamno; et pluraliter: nominativo haec scamna, genitivo horum scamnorum, dativo his scamnis, accusativo haec scamna, vocativo o scamna, ablativo ab his scamnis.
65 hic Priamides sic in D (J) declinatur, ubi etiam pluraliter invenitur 72 desinit] finit secundum Latinos Ql1 74 nominativo hic dominus] nominativo o (hic super lineam) chirios et dominus Gl1
65
70
75
80
85
274
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % μαtστωρZ E γενικ το: μαtστοροςZ E δοτικ τ& μαtστοριZ 90 E ατιατικ τ?ν μαtστοραZ E κλητικ c μαtστωρZ E *φαιρετικ *π?
95
100
105
110
το: μαtστοροςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF μαtστορεςZ s γενικ τν μαϊστρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς μαtστορσιZ E ατιατικ τοGς μαtστοραςZ E κλητικ c μαtστορεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μαϊστρων. 8Η νομαστικ % ΒιργλιοςZ E γενικ το: ΒιργιλουZ E δοτικ τ& Βιργιλ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ΒιργλιονZ E κλητικ c ΒιργλιεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Βιργιλου. ΠPσα κλητικ στιν %μοα τς α5τς νομαστικς κατ4 Λατνους, οmον πατρ, c π(τερ, πλν ν το>ς νμασι τς δευτ ρας κλσεως το>ς λγουσιν ες ους, qτινα ποιο:σι τν κλητικν δι’ ναλλαγν ους ες εZ πλν τ4 κ2ρια νματα τ4 τν *νδρν τ4 ,χοντα ιZ πλν Sν?ς προσηγορικο: Wπερ ποιε> ο_τωςZ υF?ς υF Z *λλ4 μν kτερα ξετ(ζονται κατ4 το2του το: καννος. Κα' στ ον Wτι κ2ριον νομα λγον ες ους φελει πλεον(σαι τ? το2του κλητικ?ν μαν συλλαβν. Ποας κλσεως; Δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ Sνικ ες ι κτεταμ νον λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον % κ2ριος το: κυρου κα' % $ε?ς το: $εο:. 8Η νομαστικ % πατρZ E γενικ το: πατρςZ s δοτικ τ& πατρZ E ατιατικ τ?ν πατ ραZ E κλητικ c π(τερZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: πατρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF πατ ρεςZ E γενικ τν πατ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς πατρ(σινZ E ατιατικ τοGς πατ ραςZ s κλητικ c πατ ρεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πατ ρων.
89 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 91 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | μαtστορες] 92 μαtστορσι] -+ροις BCGNOR | μαtστορας ] -+ρους N 94–96 E -ωροι B 94 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | νομαστικ ... *π? το: Βιργιλου om. GR Βιργλι-] Ο5ηργλι- AQ , Κηργλ- B, Κυργλι- BmO 97–103 πPσα ... συλλαβν om. R 97 Λατνους] τοGς Λατνους C 98 π(τερ] πατρ ANOQ | ν om. G 98–99 το>ς λγουσιν] τς ληγο2σης x, corr. Schmitt 99 qτινα] α;τινες ABCGNQ , ο;τινες BmO, corr. Schmitt | ους] ες ους AQ 100 τ4 τν] τ4 om. O, τν bis G | τ4 ,χοντα] τν χντων x, corr. Schmitt | ι] ιους O 101 ο_τως x, del. Schmitt | υF?ς υF ] ε ABCNOQ , G, corr. Schmitt | *λλ4 μν kτερα scripsi, μ3ν kτερα Uλλα ABCNOQ , μ3ν kτερα Uλλον G, τ4 μ3ν kτερα Schmitt 102 κ2ριον νομα] κ2ρια 103 κλητικ?ν scripsi, $ετικ?ν ABGNOQ , νματα ABGQ | λγον] παραλγον C $εματικν C 104 Sνικ om. AQ 105 λγει] λγον BC | κατ4 Λατνους om. x 105–106 κα' ... $εο: om. x 107 τρτη κλσεως in marg. add. O | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 108 πατ ρα] -αν G | E κλητικ c π(τερ om. AQ 109 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ
de nomine
275
Nominativo hic magister, genitivo huius magistri, dativo huic magistro, accusativo hunc magistrum, vocativo o magister, ablativo ab hoc 90 magistro; et pluraliter: nominativo hi magistri, genitivo horum magistrorum, dativo his magistris, accusativo hos magistros, vocativo o magistri, ablativo ab his magistris. Nominativo hic Virgilius, genitivo huius Virgili, dativo huic Virgilio, accusativo hunc Virgilium, vocativo o Virgili, ablativo ab hoc Virgilio. 95 Omnis vocativus similis est suo nominativo, ut hic pater, o pater, praeterquam in nominibus secundae declinationis desinentibus in us, quae faciunt vocativum per mutationem us in e; praeter propria nomina virorum i habentia; praeter unum appellativum, quod facit ita: filius, 100 o fili; at vero alia reperiuntur contra hanc regulam. Et sciendum quod nomen proprium desinens in us debet superare suum vocativum una syllaba. Cuius declinationis? Secundae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in i productum desinit, ut hic dominus huius domini, et hic deus huius 105 dei. Nominativo hic pater, genitivo huius patris, dativo huic patri, accusativo hunc patrem, vocativo o pater, ablativo ab hoc patre; et pluraliter: nominativo hi patres, genitivo horum patrum, dativo his patribus, accusativo hos patres, vocativo o patres, ablativo ab his patri- 110 bus.
97 apud Latinos post nominativo add. Gl1 101 at vero alia] quidem aliqua alia Gl1 101–103 et ... syllaba] et notandum quod propria nomina desinentia in us debet superare suum positivum unam sillabam Gl1
276
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ E μτηρZ s γενικ τς μητρςZ E δοτικ τQ μητρZ E ατιατικ τν μητ ραZ E κλητικ c μτερZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μητρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF μητ ρεςZ E γενικ τν μητ ρωνZ E 115 δοτικ τα>ς μητρ(σινZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μητ ραςZ E κλητικ c μητ ρεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μητ ρων. 8Η νομαστικ τ? ,ργονZ E γενικ το: ,ργουZ E δοτικ τ& ,ργ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ? ,ργονZ E κλητικ c ,ργονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ,ργουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 ,ργαZ E γενικ τν ,ργωνZ E δοτικ 120 το>ς ,ργοιςZ E ατιατικ τ4 ,ργαZ E κλητικ c ,ργαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ,ργων. 8Η νομαστικ % κα' E Fερε2ςZ E γενικ το:, τς Fερ ωςZ E δοτικ τ&, τQ Fερε>Z E ατιατικ τν, τν Fερ αZ E κλητικ c Fερε:Z E *φαιρετικ *π? το:, τς Fερ ωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κα' αF Fερε>ςZ E γενικ 125 τν Fερ ωνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς Fερε:σιZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ4ς Fερε>ςZ E κλητικ c Fερε>ςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Fερ ων. 8Η νομαστικ E πλιςZ E γενικ τς πλεωςZ E δοτικ τQ πλειZ E ατιατικ τν πλινZ E κλητικ c πλιςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς πλεωςZ 130 κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF πλειςZ s γενικ τν πλεωνZ E δοτικ τα>ς πλεσινZ E ατιατικ τ4ς πλειςZ E κλητικ c πλειςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πλεων. 8Η νομαστικ E *ν(γνωσιςZ E γενικ τς *ναγν+σεωςZ E δοτικ τQ *ναγν+σειZ E ατιατικ τν *ν(γνωσινZ E κλητικ c *ν(γνωσιςZ E *φαιρετι135 κ *π? τς *ναγν+σεωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF *ναγν+σειςZ E γενικ τν *ναγν+σεωνZ E δοτικ τα>ς *ναγν+σεσινZ E ατιατικ τ4ς *ναγν+σειςZ E κλητικ c *ναγν+σειςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ναγν+σεων.
112 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 113 μητ ρα] -αν G | E *φ. ... μητρς om. 117 ο5δ τερον in CO 114 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | μητ ρες ] -αι R marg. add. C | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 117–138 om. GR 119 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 122 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | κα' E om. NO, E om. C | τς om. NO | τ& om. BC | τQ om. NO 123 τν om. NO 124 τς om. CNO | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | κα' αF om. NO 125 τα>ς om. NO | τ4ς om. NO 125–126 E κλητικ c Fερε>ς om. ABCOQ 128 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 129 c 130 νομαστικ] πλις] πλι desideratur, cf. tamen 218 c δ2ναμις et 226 c ψις ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 133 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 135 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ
de nomine
277
Nominativo haec mater, genitivo huius matris, dativo huic matri, accusativo hanc matrem, vocativo o mater, ablativo ab hac matre; et pluraliter: nominativo hae matres, genitivo harum matrum, dativo his matribus, accusativo has matres, vocativo o matres, ablativo ab his matribus. Nominativo hoc opus, genitivus huius operis, dativo huic operi, accusativo hoc opus, vocativo o opus, ablativo ab hoc opere; et pluraliter: nominativo haec opera, genitivo horum operum, dativo his operibus, accusativo haec opera, vocativo o opera, ablativo ab his operibus. Nominativo hic et haec sacerdos, genitivo huius sacerdotis, dativo huic sacerdoti, accusativo hunc et hanc sacerdotem, vocativo o sacerdos, ablativo ab hoc et hac sacerdote; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et haec sacerdotes, genitivo horum et harum sacerdotum, dativo his sacerdotibus, accusativo hos et has sacerdotes, vocativo o sacerdotes, ablativo ab his sacerdotibus. Nominativo haec civitas, genitivo huius civitatis, dativo huic civitati, accusativo hanc civitatem, vocativo o civitas, ablativo ab hac civitate; et pluraliter: nominativo hae civitates, genitivo harum civitatum, dativo his civitatibus, accusativo has civitates, vocativo o civitates, ablativo ab his civitatibus. Nominativo haec lectio, genitivo huius lectionis, dativo huic lectioni, accusativo hanc lectionem, vocativo o lectio, ablativo ab hac lectione; et pluraliter: nominativo hae lectiones, genitivo harum lectionum, dativo his lectionibus, accusativo has lectiones, vocativo o lectiones, ablativo ab his lectionibus.
117 nominativo hoc opus] nominativo hoc officium Qlh
115
120
125
130
135
278
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % κα' E Uν$ρωποςZ E γενικ το:, τς *ν$ρ+πουZ E δοτικ 140 τ&, τQ *ν$ρ+π&ωZ E ατιατικ τν, τν Uν$ρωπονZ E κλητικ c Uν$ρωπεZ
145
150
155
160
165
E *φαιρετικ *π? το:, τς *ν$ρ+πουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κα' αF Uν$ρωποιZ E γενικ τν *ν$ρ+πωνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς *ν$ρ+ποιςZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ4ς *ν$ρ+πουςZ s κλητικ c Uν$ρωποιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ν$ρ+πων. 8Η νομαστικ % *ναγν+στηςZ E γενικ το: *ναγν+στουZ E δοτικ τ& *ναγν+στQηZ E ατιατικ τ?ν *ναγν+στηνZ E κλητικ c *ναγνσταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: *ναγν+στουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF *ναγνσταιZ E γενικ τν *ναγνωστνZ E δοτικ το>ς *ναγν+σταιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς *ναγν+σταςZ E κλητικ c *ναγνσταιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ναγνωστν. 8Η νομαστικ % κα' E παρ$ νοςZ E γενικ το: κα' τς παρ$ νουZ E δοτικ τ& κα' τQ παρ$ ν&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν κα' τν παρ$ νονZ E κλητικ c παρ$ νεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κα' τς παρ$ νουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κα' αF παρ$ νοιZ E γενικ τν παρ$ νωνZ E δοτικ το>ς κα' τα>ς παρ$ νοιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς κα' τ4ς παρ$ νουςZ E κλητικ c παρ$ νοιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν παρ$ νων. &Η νομαστικ) * "πιστ+μων- γενικ) το "πιστ+μονος- δοτικ) τ/! "πιστ+μονι- α1τιατικ) τ2ν "πιστ+μονα- κλητικ) 3 "πιστ+μων- φαιρετικ) π2 το "πιστ+μονος- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) ο5 "πιστ+μονες γενικ) τ!ν "πιστημνων- δοτικ) τος "πιστ+μοσιν- α1τιατικ) το6ς "πιστ+μονας- κλητικ) 3 "πιστ+μονες- φαιρετικ) π2 τ!ν "πιστημνων. 8Η νομαστικ % πPς, E πPσα, τ? πPνZ E γενικ το: παντς, τς π(σης, το: παντςZ E δοτικ τ& παντ, τQ π(σQη, τ& παντZ E ατιατικ τ?ν π(ντα, τν πPσαν, τ? πPνZ E κλητικ c πPς κα' c πPσα κα' c πPνZ
139 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | κα' E om. x | τς om. x 140 τQ om. x | τν om. x 141 τς om. x | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 142 κα' αF om. x | τα>ς om. x 143 τ4ς om. x 145 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 145–150 om. R 145–162 om. G 146–148 τ& *ναγν+στQη ... E δοτικ om. O 147 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | οF] αF BC 148 *ναγν+σταις] -οις BC 151 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | % κα' om. BC, κα' om. R | το: κα' om. BC, κα' om. R 152 τ& κα' om. BC, κα' om. R | τ?ν κα' om. BC, κα' om. R 153 *π? om. N | το: κα' om. BC, κα' om. R 154 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | οF κα' om. BC, κα' om. R 155 κα' 157–162 om. x 158 c τα>ς om. BC, κα' om. R | κα' τ4ς om. BC, κα' om. R 160 πιστμοσιν] πιστμων] πιστμον desideratur, cf. tamen 198 c ε5δαμων 163 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 163–221 om. R 163 τ?] κα' -μνοις R 163–164 τς π(σης, το: παντς] το: παντς om. BCG 164 τQ π(σQη, τ& τ? G παντ] τ& παντ om. BCG 165 κα' c πPσα κα' c πPν om. BCG
de nomine
279
Nominativo hic et haec homo, genitivo huius hominis, dativo huic homini, accusativo hunc et hanc hominem, vocativo o homo, ablativo 140 ab hoc et hac homine; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae homines, genitivo horum et harum hominum, dativo his hominibus, accusativo hos et has homines, vocativo o homines, ablativo ab his hominibus. Nominativo hic lector, genitivo huius lectoris, dativo huic lectori, 145 accusativo hunc lectorem, vocativo o lector, ablativo ab hoc lectore; et pluraliter: nominativo hi lectores, genitivo horum lectorum, dativo his lectoribus, accusativo hos lectores, vocativo o lectores, ablativo ab his lectoribus. 150
Nominativo hic et haec virgo, genitivo huius virginis, dativo huic virgini, accusativo hunc et hanc virginem, vocativo o virgo, ablativo ab hoc et hac virgine; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae virgines, genitivo horum et harum virginum, dativo his virginibus, accusativo hos et has virgines, vocativo o virgines, ablativo ab his virgini- 155 bus. Nominativo hic sapiens, genitivo huius sapientis, dativo huic sapienti, accusativo hunc sapientem, vocativo o sapiens, ablativo ab hoc sapiente; et pluraliter: nominativo hi sapientes, genitivo horum sapientium, dativo his sapientibus, accusativo hos sapientes, vocativo o sa- 160 pientes, ablativo ab his sapientibus. Nominativo hic et haec omnis et hoc omne, genitivo huius omnis, dativo huic omni, accusativo hunc et hanc omnem et hoc omne, vocativo o omnis et o omne, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc omni; 165
139 nominativo ... homo] nominativo hic demens (Uνος ut Uνοος) Qlh 163 nominativo ... 165 vocativo ... omni] vocativo o omne] nominativo hic omnis, hec omnis et hoc omnia Gl1 omnis, ablativo ab hoc omni et ab hac omne Gl1
280
170
175
180
185
190
donatus graecus a
E *φαιρετικ *π? το: παντς κα' *π? τς π(σης κα' *π? το: παντςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF π(ντες, αF πPσαι, τ4 π(νταZ E γενικ τν π(ντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς πPσι, τα>ς π(σαις, το>ς πPσιZ E ατιατικ τοGς π(ντας, τ4ς π(σας, τ4 π(νταZ E κλητικ c π(ντες, c πPσαι, c π(νταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν π(ντων. 8Η νομαστικ % σχυρ?ς κα' E σχυρ4 κα' τ? σχυρνZ E γενικ το: σχυρο:, τς σχυρPς κα' το: σχυρο:Z E δοτικ τ& σχυρ&, τQ σχυρRP κα' τ& σχυρ&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν σχυρν, τν σχυρ4ν κα' τ? σχυρνZ E κλητικ c σχυρ3 κα' c σχυρ4 κα' c σχυρνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: σχυρο:, *π? τς σχυρPς κα' *π? το: σχυρο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF σχυρο, αF σχυρα, τ4 σχυρ(Z E γενικ τν σχυρνZ E δοτικ το>ς σχυρο>ς, τα>ς σχυρα>ς, το>ς σχυρο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς σχυρο2ς, τ4ς σχυρ(ς, τ4 σχυρ(Z E κλητικ c σχυρο' κα' c σχυρα' κα' c σχυρ(Z E *φαιρετικ *π? τν σχυρν. 8Η νομαστικ % σχυρτερος, E σχυροτ ρα, τ? σχυρτερονZ E γενικ το: σχυροτ ρου, τς σχυροτ ρας, το: σχυροτ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& σχυροτ ρ&ω, τQ σχυροτ ρRα, τ& σχυροτ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν σχυρτερον, τν σχυροτ ραν, τ? σχυρτερονZ E κλητικ c σχυρτερε, c σχυροτ ρα, c σχυρτερονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: σχυροτ ρου κα' *π? τς σχυροτ ρας κα' *π? το: σχυροτ ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF σχυρτεροι, αF σχυρτεραι, τ4 σχυρτεραZ E γενικ τν σχυροτ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς σχυροτ ροις, τα>ς σχυροτ ραις, το>ς σχυροτ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς σχυροτ ρους, τ4ς σχυροτ ρας, τ4 σχυρτεραZ E κλητικ c σχυρτεροι, c σχυρτεραι κα' c σχυρτεραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν σχυροτ ρων.
166 παντ?ς κα'] κα' om. A | κα' *π? τς ... παντς om. BCG 167 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 168 τα>ς π(σαις, το>ς πPσι] το>ς πPσοις BC, om. G 169 E 171 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 171–221 om. κλητικ ... π(ντα om. ABNOQ G 172 κα' το: σχυρο:] κα' om. ABCQ , το: σχυρο: om. BC 173 κα' τ& σχυρ&] κα' om. ABCQ , τ& σχυρ& om. BC | κα' post τ?ν σχυρν add. O | σχυρ4ν κα'] κα' om. ABCQ 174 κα' c σχυρ( om. ANQ | κα' c σχυρν om. ABCNQ 175 *π? τς σχυρPς] κα' *π? τς σχυρPς NO | *π? τς ... σχυρο: om. BC 176 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 176–177 τν σχυρνZ E δοτικ om. BC 177 τα>ς σχυρα>ς, το>ς 178 τ4 σχυρ4 om. BC 178–179 c ... σχυρ(] σχυρο>ς] το>ς σχυρο>ς om. BC c σχυρα' κα' σχυρο B, c σχυρ4ς κα' σχυρο C, c om. N 180 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 181–183 το: ... σχυρτερον om. BC 185 κα' *π? το:] κα' om. 187 τα>ς σχυροτ ραις, το>ς σχυροτ ροις] το>ς BC | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ σχυροτ ροις om. BC 188–189 E κλητικ ... σχυρτερα om. O 189 c σχυρτεραι om. C
de nomine
281
et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae omnes et haec omnia, genitivo horum et harum et horum omnium, dativo his omnibus, accusativo hos et has omnes et haec omnia, vocativo o omnes et o omnia, ablativo ab his omnibus. 170
Nominativo hic et haec fortis et hoc forte, genitivo huius fortis, dativo huic forti, accusativo hunc et hanc fortem et hoc forte, vocativo o fortis et o forte, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc forti; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae fortes et haec fortia, genitivo horum et harum et horum fortium, dativo his fortibus, accusativo hos et has fortes et haec 175 fortia, vocativo o fortes et o fortia, ablativo ab his fortibus.
Nominativo hic et haec fortior et hoc fortius, genitivo huius fortioris, 180 dativo huic fortiori, accusativo hunc et hanc fortiorem et hoc fortius, vocativo o fortior et o fortius, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc fortiore; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae fortiores et haec fortiora, genitivo horum et harum et horum fortiorum, dativo his fortioribus, accusativo hos et has fortiores et haec fortiora, vocativo o fortiores et 185 o fortiora, ablativo ab his fortioribus.
190
282
195
200
205
210
215
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ τ? κσμιονZ E γενικ το: κοσμουZ E δοτικ τ& κοσμ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ? κσμιονZ E κλητικ c κσμιονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κοσμουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 κσμιαZ E γενικ τν κοσμωνZ E δοτικ το>ς κοσμοιςZ E ατιατικ τ4 κσμιαZ E κλητικ c κσμιαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κοσμων. 8Η νομαστικ % ε5δαμων, E ε5δαμων κα' τ? εuδαιμονZ E γενικ το: ε5δαμονος, τς ε5δαμονος, το: ε5δαμονοςZ E δοτικ τ&, τQ ε5δαμονιZ E ατιατικ τν, τν ε5δαμονα, τ? εuδαιμονZ E κλητικ c ε5δαμων κα' c εuδαιμονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ε5δαμονος κα' *π? τς ε5δαμονος κα' *π? το: ε5δαμονοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF ε5δαμονες, αF ε5δαμονες, τ4 ε5δαμοναZ E γενικ τν ε5δαιμνωνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς ε5δαμοσιZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ4ς ε5δαμονας, τ4 ε5δαμοναZ E κλητικ c ε5δαμονες, c ε5δαμοναZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ε5δαιμνων. 8Η νομαστικ % π νηςZ E γενικ το: π νητοςZ E δοτικ τ& π νητιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν π νηταZ E κλητικ c π νηςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: π νητοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF π νητεςZ E γενικ τν πεντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς π νησιZ E ατιατικ τοGς π νηταςZ E κλητικ c π νητεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πεντων. 8Η νομαστικ % πτωχς, E πτωχ, τ? πτωχνZ E γενικ το: πτωχο:, τς πτωχς, το: πτωχο:Z E δοτικ τ& πτωχ&, τQ πτωχQ, τ& πτωχ&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν πτωχν, τν πτωχν, τ? πτωχνZ E κλητικ c πτωχ3 κα' c πτωχ κα' c πτωχνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: πτωχο:, *π? τς πτωχς, *π? το: πτωχο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF πτωχο, αF πτωχα, τ4 πτωχ(Z E γενικ τν πτωχνZ E δοτικ το>ς πτωχο>ς, τα>ς πτωχα>ς, το>ς πτωχο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς πτωχο2ς, τ4ς πτωχ(ς, τ4 πτωχ(Z E κλητικ c πτωχο, c πτωχα, c πτωχ(Z E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πτωχν. 191 ο5δ τερον in marg. add. C | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α BCN 193 νομαστικ] ε5196 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 196–197 το: ε5δαμονος, τς $ε>α ABCNQ 197 το: ε5δαμονος] το:, τς ε5δαμονος AQ , το: ε5δαμονος τς ε5δαιμνου BCN ε5δαμονος om. ABCQ | τ&, τQ ε5δαμονι] τ& ε5δαμονι, τQ ε5δαιμνQη, τ& ε5δαμονι N 198 τ? εuδαιμον om. ABCNQ | c ε5δαμων] cf. 158 (nominativus pro vocativo) 198–199 κα' c εuδαιμον om. ABCNQ 199 το: ... τς ε5δαμονος] το:, τς ε5δαμονος AQ , *π? το: ε5δαμονος κα' τς ε5δαιμνου N 199–200 κα' *π? το: ε5δαμονος om. ABCQ 200 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 200–201 αF ε5δαμονες] -μοναι BCN 201 τ4 ε5δαμονα om. AQ 203 c ε5δαμονα om. ANQ 204 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 205 π νης] π νητα BC 206–208 κα' πλη$υντικς ... *π? τν 207–208 E *φαιπεντων om. N | κα' πλη$υντικς ... *π? το: πτωχο: om. BC 209 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ANQ 210 τς πτωχς, το: ρετικ ... πεντων om. AQ πτωχο:] το: πτωχο: om. N | τQ πτωχQ, τ& πτωχ&] τ& πτωχ& om. N 211 τ? πτωχν om. N 212–213 E *φαιρετικ ... πτωχο: om. ABmNOQ 213 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ANQ 214–215 τα>ς πτωχα>ς, το>ς πτωχο>ς] τα>ς πτωχα>ς, τ4 πτωχ( BCN 216 c πτωχ( om. BC
de nomine
283
Nominativo hoc monile, genitivo huius monilis, dativo huic monili, accusativo hoc monile, vocativo o monile, ablativo ab hoc monili; et pluraliter: nominativo haec monilia, genitivo horum monilium, dativo his monilibus, accusativo haec monilia, vocativo o monilia, ablativo ab his monilibus. 195 Nominativo hic et haec et hoc felix, genitivo huius felicis, dativo huic felici, accusativo hunc et hanc felicem et hoc felix, vocativo o felix, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc felici; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae felices et haec felicia, genitivo horum et harum et horum felicium, dativo his felicibus, accusativo hos et has felices et haec 200 felicia, vocativo o felices et o felicia, ablativo ab his felicibus.
Nominativo hic pauper, genitivo huius pauperis, dativo huic pauperi, accusativo hunc pauperem, vocativo o pauper, ablativo ab hoc pau- 205 pere; et pluraliter: nominativo hi pauperes, genitivo horum pauperum, dativo his pauperibus, accusativo hos pauperes, vocativo o pauperes, ablativo ab his pauperibus. Nominativo hic et haec et hoc inops, genitivo huius inopis, dativo huic inopi, accusativo hunc et hanc inopem et hoc inops, vocativo o inops, 210 ablativo ab hoc et ab hac et ab hoc inopi; et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae inopes et haec inopia, genitivo horum et harum et horum inopium, dativo his inopibus, accusativo hos et has inopes et haec inopia, vocativo o inopes et o inopia, ablativo ab his inopibus. 215
191 nominativo hoc monile ] nominativo hoc ornamentum id est cosmion Qlh 204 nominativo 209 nominativo ... inops] nominativo hic hic pauper] nominativo hic pauper id est penis Qlh inops id est ptocos (sic) Qlh
284
220
225
230
235
240
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ E δ2ναμιςZ E γενικ τς δυν(μεωςZ E δοτικ τQ δυν(μειZ E ατιατικ τν δ2ναμινZ E κλητικ c δ2ναμιςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς δυν(μεωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF δυν(μειςZ E γενικ τν δυν(μεωνZ E δοτικ τα>ς δυν(μεσινZ E ατιατικ τ4ς δυν(μειςZ E κλητικ c δυν(μειςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν δυν(μεων. Ποας κλσεως; Τρτης. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ Sνικ ες ις συνεσταλμ νον λγει, οmον % πατρ το: πατρ?ς κα' E μτηρ τς μητρςZ *λλ4 το:το μ3ν κατ4 Λατνους, κα$’ jΕλληνας δ3 ο5χ ο_τως ,χει. 8Η νομαστικ E ψιςZ E γενικ τς ψεωςZ E δοτικ τQ ψειZ E ατιατικ τν ψινZ E κλητικ c ψιςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς ψεωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF ψειςZ E γενικ τν ψεωνZ E δοτικ τα>ς ψεσινZ E ατιατικ τ4ς ψειςZ E κλητικ c ψειςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ψεων. 8Η νομαστικ E χερZ E γενικ τς χειρςZ E δοτικ τQ χειρZ E ατιατικ τν χε>ραZ E κλητικ c χερZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς χειρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF χε>ρεςZ E γενικ τν χειρνZ E δοτικ τα>ς χερσνZ E ατιατικ τ4ς χε>ραςZ E κλητικ c χε>ρεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν χειρν. 8Η νομαστικ % ο=κοςZ E γενικ το: ο@κουZ E δοτικ τ& ο@κ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ο=κονZ E κλητικ c ο=κεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ο@κουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF ο=κοιZ E γενικ τν ο@κωνZ E δοτικ το>ς ο@κοιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ο@κουςZ E κλητικ c ο=κοιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ο@κων. 8Η νομαστικ τ? κ ραςZ E γενικ το: κ ρατοςZ E δοτικ τ& κ ρατιZ E ατιατικ τ? κ ραςZ E κλητικ c κ ραςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κ ρατοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 κ ραταZ E γενικ τν κερ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς κ ρασινZ E ατιατικ τ4 κ ραταZ E κλητικ c κ ραταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κερ(των.
217 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 218 c δ2ναμις] δ2ναμι desideratur, cf. tamen 220 τα>ς] το>ς BC 222 τρτη 129 et 226 219 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 223 κα' ... μητρς om. x κλσις in marg. add. O | ις] ς G, om. ABCGNOQ 223–224 *λλ4 ... ,χει om. R 225 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 226 c ψις] ψι desideratur, cf. tamen 129 et 218 227 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ | ψεσιν] ψαις C 229 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 230 χε>ρα] -αν BGNO 231 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 234–243 ordinem τ? κ ρας, % ο=κος praebet R 234–238 om. G 234 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 235 E κλητικ c ο=κε om. AQ 236 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 239 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 239–240 E ατιατικ τ? κ ρας] τ& (τ? C) κ ρασι BC 241 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ
de nomine
285
Nominativo haec vis, genitivo huius vis, dativo huic vi, accusativo hanc vim, vocativo o vis, ablativo ab hac vi; et pluraliter: nominativo hae vires, genitivo harum virium, dativo his viribus, accusativo has vires, vocativo o vires, ablativo ab his viribus. 220 Cuius declinationis? Tertiae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in is correptum desinit, ut hic pater huius patris et haec mater huius matris. Nominativo hic visus, genitivo huius visus, dativo huic visui, accusativo hunc visum, vocativo o visus, ablativo ab hoc visu; et pluraliter: nominativo hi visus, genitivo horum visuum, dativo his visibus, accusativo hos visus, vocativo o visus, ablativo ab his visibus. Nominativo haec manus, genitivo huius manus, dativo huic manui, accusativo hanc manum, vocativo o manus, ablativo ab hac manu; et pluraliter: nominativo hae manus, genitivo harum manuum, dativo his manibus, accusativo has manus, vocativo o manus, ablativo ab his manibus. Nominativo haec domus, genitivo huius domus, dativo huic domui, accusativo hanc domum, vocativo o domus, ablativo ab hac domo; et pluraliter: nominativo hae domus, genitivo harum domorum vel domuum, dativo his domibus, accusativo has domos, vocativo o domus, ablativo ab his domibus. Nominativo hoc cornu, genitivo huius cornu, dativo huic cornu, accusativo hoc cornu, vocativo o cornu, ablativo ab hoc cornu; et pluraliter: nominativo haec cornua, genitivo horum cornuum, dativo his cornibus, accusativo haec cornua, vocativo o cornua, ablativo ab his cornibus.
217 vis] virilitas Qlh 218–219 nominativo hae vires] nominativo hec virilitas id est danamis (sic) Qlh 224 sed istud quidem apud Latinos, apud Grecos non habetur post matris praebet Gl1 225 nominativo hic visus] nominativo hec facies id est opsis Qlh 229 nominativo haec 234 nominativo haec domus] nominativo hec manus] nominativo hec manus id est cheir Qlh familia et domus id est oicos Qlh 239 nominativo hoc cornu] nominativo hoc cornu id est cheras Qlh
225
230
235
240
286
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ τ? γνατονZ E γενικ το: γον(τουZ E δοτικ τ& γνατιZ E 245 ατιατικ τ? γνατονZ E κλητικ c γνατονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: γον(-
250
255
260
265
270
τουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 γναταZ E γενικ τν γον(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς γνασινZ E ατιατικ τ4 γναταZ E κλητικ c γναταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν γον(των. Ποας κλσεως; Τετ(ρτης. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ Sνικ ες ους ] ες ου κτεταμ νον λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον E ψις τς ψεως κα' τ? κ ρας το: κ ρατος. 8Η νομαστικ τ? ε=δοςZ E γενικ το: ε@δουςZ E δοτικ τ& ε@δειZ E ατιατικ τ? ε@δοςZ E κλητικ c εmδοςZ s *φαιρετικ *π? το: ε@δουςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 ε@δηZ E γενικ τν εδνZ s δοτικ το>ς ε@δεσινZ E ατιατικ τ4 ε@δηZ E κλητικ c ε@δηZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν εδν. 8Η νομαστικ τ? πρPγμαZ s γενικ το: πρ(γματοςZ E δοτικ τ& πρ(γματιZ E ατιατικ τ? πρPγμαZ E κλητικ c πρPγμαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: πρ(γματοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 πρ(γματαZ E γενικ τν πραγμ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς πρ(γμασινZ E ατιατικ τ4 πρ(γματαZ E κλητικ c πρ(γματαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πραγμ(των. 8Η νομαστικ E sμ ραZ E γενικ τς Eμ ραςZ E δοτικ τQ Eμ ρRαZ E ατιατικ τν Eμ ρανZ E κλητικ c Eμ ραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς Eμ ραςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ αF Eμ ραιZ E γενικ τν EμερνZ E δοτικ τα>ς Eμ ραιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς Eμ ραςZ E κλητικ c Eμ ραιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Eμερν. 8Η νομαστικ E πστιςZ E γενικ τς πστεωςZ E δοτικ τQ πστειZ E ατιατικ τν πστινZ E κλητικ c πστιςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τς πστεως. &Η νομαστικ) "λπ ς- γενικ) τ7ς "λπ δος- δοτικ) τ87 "λπ δι- α1τιατικ) τ)ν "λπ δα- κλητικ) 3 "λπ ς- φαιρετικ) π2 τ7ς "λπ δοςκα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) α5 "λπ δες- γενικ) τ!ν "λπ δων- δοτικ) τας "λπ σιν- α1τιατικ) τ ς "λπ δας- κλητικ) 3 "λπ δες- φαιρετικ) π2 τ!ν "λπ δων.
244 ο5δ τερον in marg. add. C | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 244–248 τ? γ246 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 247 E νατον ... *π? τν γον(των om. GR 248 *π? om. Q 249 τετ(ρτη κλσις in marg. add. O | κλητικ c γνατα om. A Sνικ om. ABCNORQ | ] om. R 250 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCG, post το: κ ρατος transp. AQ | κα' om. x 252 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 254 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 257 ο5δ τερον in marg. add. C | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 259 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 262 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 264 νο267 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 267–268 om. R μαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 269–273 om. x
de nomine
287
Nominativo hoc genu, genitivo huius genu, dativo huic genu, accusativo hoc genu, vocativo o genu, ablativo ab hoc genu; et pluraliter: nominativo haec genua, genitivo horum genuum, dativo his genibus, accusativo haec genua, vocativo o genua, ablativo ab his genibus. Cuius declinationis? Quartae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in us vel in u productum desinit, ut hic visus huius visus et hoc cornu huius cornu. Nominativo haec species, genitivo huius speciei, dativo huic speciei, accusativo hanc speciem, vocativo o species, ablativo ab hac specie; et pluraliter: nominativo hae species, genitivo harum specierum, dativo his speciebus, accusativo has species, vocativo o species, ablativo ab his speciebus. Nominativo haec res, genitivo huius rei, dativo huic rei, accusativo hanc rem, vocativo o res, ablativo ab hac re; et pluraliter: nominativo hae res, genitivo harum rerum, dativo his rebus, accusativo has res, vocativo o res, ablativo ab his rebus.
245
250
255
260
Nominativo hic vel haec dies, genitivo huius diei, dativo huic diei, accusativo hunc vel hanc diem, vocativo o dies, ablativo ab hoc vel ab hac die; et pluraliter: nominativo hi dies, genitivo horum dierum, dativo his diebus, accusativo hos dies, vocativo o dies, ablativo ab his 265 diebus. Nominativo haec fides, genitivo huius fidei, dativo huic fidei, accusativo hanc fidem, vocativo o fides, ablativo ab hac fide. Nominativo haec spes, genitivo huius spei, dativo huic spei, accusativo hanc spem, vocativo o spes, ablativo ab hac spe; et pluraliter: nomina- 270 tivo hae spes, accusativo has spes, vocativo o spes.
244 nominativo hoc genu] nominativo hoc genu id est gonaton Qlh 252 nominativo haec species] 257 nominativo haec res] nominativo hoc species Gl1, nominativo hoc eidos id est species Qlh 258 hanc rem] hoc res Gl1 nominativo hoc res Gl1, nominativo hoc pragma id est res Qlh 259 hae ... harum] hec ... horum Gl1 | has] hec Gl1 262 nominativo ... dies] nominativo hic dies Gl1, nominativo hec imera id est dies Qlh 267 nominativo haec fides] nominativo hec pistis id est fides Qlh
288
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ E μεσημβραZ E γενικ τς μεσημβραςZ E δοτικ τQ μεσημ275 βρRαZ E ατιατικ τν μεσημβρανZ E κλητικ c μεσημβραZ E *φαιρετικ
280
285
290
295
300
*π? τς μεσημβρας. Ποας κλσεως; Π μπτης. Διατ; Διτι τα2της E γενικ Sνικ ες ει διQηρημ νας συλλαβ4ς λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον τ? ε=δος το: ε@δους κα' τ? πρPγμα το: πρ(γματος. Πσοι εσ' βα$μο' συγκρσεως; Τρε>ς. Τνες; Θετικς, συγκριτικ?ς κα' iπερ$ετικςZ $ετικ?ς οmον διδαγμ νος, συγκριτικ?ς οmον διδαγμεν στερος, iπερ$ετικ?ς οmον διδαγμεν στατος. Διδαγμ νος, διδαγμεν στερος, διδαγμεν στατοςZ διδαγμ νη, διδαγμενεστ ρα, διδαγμενεστ(τηZ διδαγμ νον, διδαγμεν στερον, διδαγμεν στατονZ κα' ν πιρρματιZ διδαγμ νως, διδαγμενεστ ρως, διδαγμενεστ(τως. Μικρς, μικρτερος, μικρτατοςZ μικρ(, μικροτ ρα, μικροτ(τηZ μικρν, μικρτερον, μικρτατονZ κα' ν πιρρματιZ μικρς, μικροτ ρως, μικροτ(τως. Αλη$ς, *λη$ στερος, *λη$ στατοςZ *λη$ς, *λη$εστ ρα, *λη$εστ(τηZ *λη$ ς, *λη$ στερον, *λη$ στατονZ κα' ν πιρρματιZ *λη$ς, *λη$εστ ρως, *λη$εστ(τως. Κακς, χερων, κ(κιστοςZ κακ, χερων, κακστηZ κακν, χε>ρον, κ(κιστονZ κα' ν πιρρματιZ κακς, χειροτ ρως, χειροτ(τως. Αγα$ς, *γα$+τερος, *γα$+τατοςZ *γα$, *γα$ωτ ρα, *γα$ωτ(τηZ *γα$ν, *γα$+τερον, *γα$+τατονZ κα' ν πιρρματιZ *γα$ς, *γα$ωτ ρως, *γα$ωτ(τως. Μγας, μεγαλ τερος, μεγαλ τατος- μεγ:λη, μεγαλωτρα, μεγαλωτ:τημγα, μεγαλ τερον, μεγαλ τατον- κα "ν "πιρρ+ματι- μεγ:λως, μεγαλωτρως, μεγαλωτ:τως. Κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF δ2ο, αF δ2ο, τ4 δ2οZ E γενικ τν δ2οZ E δοτικ το>ς δυσ, τα>ς δυσ, το>ς δυσZ E ατιατικ τοGς δ2ο, τ4ς δ2ο, τ4 δ2οZ E κλητικ c δ2οZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν δ2ο.
274 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 274–276 om. GR 277 π μπτη κλσις in 278 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCGN marg. add. O | Sνικ om. x | ει ] ε G, εο BO 280–282 post 299 transp. R 280 βα$μο'] 278–279 κα' ... πρ(γματος om. x 281 $ετικ?ς] *πλο:ς inter lineas et in marg. add. Bm, cf. b 1. -ο: O | τ om. R 102 | συγκριτικ?ς οmον] οmον om. O 282 iπερ$ετικ?ς οmον διδαγμεν στατος om. A 283–299 ordinem *γα$ς, κακς, μ γας, μικρς, διδαγμ νος praebet R | διδαγμ νος 286 μικρ(] - BCG 289–291 om. R 293 κακς ... διδαγμεν στατος om. O om. B | κακς ... χειροτ(τως] χειροτ ρα, χειροτ(τη G | χειροτ(τως] κακιστ(τως R 297–299 om. x 300 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 301 τα>ς δυσ, το>ς δυσ] το>ς δυσ om. ABCGNQ 302 E κλητικ c δ2ο add. Schmitt
de nomine
289
Nominativo hic meridies, genitivo huius meridiei, dativo huic meridiei, accusativo humc meridiem, vocativo o meridies, ablativo ab hoc 275 meridie. Cuius declinationis? Quintae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in ei divisas syllabas desinit, ut haec species huius speciei et haec res huius rei. Quot sunt gradus comparationis? Tres. Qui? Positivus, comparativus 280 et superlativus; positivus ut doctus, comparativus ut doctior, superlativus ut doctissimus. Doctus, doctior, doctissimus; docta, doctior, doctissima; doctum, doctius, doctissimum; et in adverbio: docte, doctius, doctissime. 285
Parvus, minor, minimus; parva, minor, minima; parvum, minus, minimum; et in adverbio: parve, minus, minime. Verus, verior, verissimus; vera, verior, verissima; verum, verius, verissimum; et in adverbio: vere, verius, verissime. 290 Malus, peior, pessimus; mala, peior, pessima; malum, peius, pessimum; et in adverbio: male, peius, pessime. Bonus, melior, optimus; bona, melior, optima; bonum, melius, optimum; et in adverbio: bene, melius, optime. 295 Magnus, maior, maximus; magna, maior, maxima; magnum, maius, maximum; et in adverbio: magne, magis, maxime. Et pluraliter: nominativo hi duo, hae duae et haec duo, genitivo 300 horum duorum, harum duarum et horum duorum, dativo his duobus, duabus, duobus, accusativo hos duos vel duo, has duas et haec duo, vocativo o duo, o duae et o duo, ablativo ab his duobus, duabus, duobus.
274 nominativo hic meridies] nominativo hec mesimbria id est meridies Qlh 278 haec species] hoc species Gl1 281 positivus ut doctus] theticos id est positivus; syncriticos id est comparativus; ypertheticos id est superlativus. Theticos id est positivus, oion id est ut, didagmenos id est doctus 283 docta, doctior] didagmeni id est docta; didagmenesteri id est doctior, et cetera Qlh Qlh 286 parvus] micros id est parvus et cetera Qlh 289 verus, verior] alithis, alithesteros id est verus, verior et cetera Qlh 294 bonus, melior] agathos agathoteros bonus Qlh 300–304 nominativo ... duobus] nominativo hii, hee duo, hec duo, genitivo horum duorum, dativo his duobus, his duabus, ... ablativo ab his duobus Gl1
290
donatus graecus a
305 Κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF τρε>ς, αF τρε>ς, τ4 τραZ E γενικ τν
310
315
320
325
330
τρινZ E δοτικ το>ς τρισ, τα>ς τρισ, το>ς τρισZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ4ς τρε>ς κα' τ4 τραZ E κλητικ c τρε>ς κα' c τραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν τριν. Κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF τ σσαρες, αF τ σσαρες, τ4 τ σσαραZ E γενικ τν τεσσ(ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς, το>ς τ σσαρσινZ E ατιατικ τοGς κα' τ4ς τ σσαρας κα' τ4 τ σσαραZ E κλητικ c τ σσαρες, c τ σσαρες, c τ σσαραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν τεσσ(ρων. Κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF χλιοι, αF χλιαι, τ4 χλιαZ E γενικ τν χιλωνZ E δοτικ το>ς χιλοις, τα>ς χιλαις, το>ς χιλοιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς χιλους, τ4ς χιλας, τ4 χλιαZ E κλητικ c χλιοι, c χλιαι, c χλιαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν χιλων. ;Ιστον =τι π:ντα τ ρι4μητικ νματα "κ τεσσ:ρων >ως ?κατν ε1σιν ρι4μο πλη4υντικο κα @κλιτα. 8Η νομαστικ τ4 UρματαZ E γενικ τν *ρμ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς UρμασιZ E ατιατικ τ4 UρματαZ E κλητικ c UρματαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ρμ(των. 8Η νομαστικ % τποςZ E γενικ το: τπουZ E δοτικ τ& τπ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν τπονZ E κλητικ c τπεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: τπουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF τποιZ E γενικ τν τπωνZ E δοτικ το>ς τποιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς τπουςZ E κλητικ c τποιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν τπων. 8Η νομαστικ % τ(ρταροςZ E γενικ το: ταρτ(ρουZ E δοτικ τ& ταρτ(ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν τ(ρταρονZ E κλητικ c τ(ρταρεZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ταρτ(ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF τ(ρταροιZ E γενικ τν ταρτ(ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς ταρτ(ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ταρτ(ρουςZ E κλητικ c τ(ρταροιZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ταρτ(ρων.
305 κα' om. GR | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | οF ... τρα] οF κα' αF τρε>ς κα' τ4 306 το>ς ... τρισ ] το>ς, τα>ς τρισ ANQ (τα>ς inter lineas add. Q 1), τα>ς τρα R 307 τρε>ς om. G 309 κα' om. CGR | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ... τρισ om. BCG ABCGNQ | οF τ σσαρες] -ροις BCG, -ρεις Q 310 τα>ς ... τ σσαρσιν] τα>ς, το>ς om. BCGQ (τα>ς inter lineas add. Q 1), το>ς om. A | το>ς κα' τα>ς τ σσαρσιν post E ατιατικ perperam add. A 311 τοGς ... τ σσαρα] τοGς τεσσ(ρους κα' τ4ς τ σσσαρας κα' τ4 311–312 c τ σσαρες, c τ σσαρα om. ABCGQ τ σσαρα R | τ σσαρες ] -ρεις R 313–316 om. R 314 τα>ς ... χιλοις om. BC, 313 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ το>ς χιλοις om. ANQ 315 τ4ς χιλας, τ4 χλια om. BC | c χλιαι, c χλια om. 319–351 om. NR ABCQ 317–318 om. x 319 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGQ 322 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGQ 324–326 κα' πλη$υντικς ... *π? τν τπων bis 325 E κλητικ c τποι om. A praebet O 324 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGQ 327 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGQ 329 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGQ
de nomine
291
Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae tres vel tris et haec tria, genitivo 305 horum et harum et horum trium, dativo his tribus, accusativo hos et has tres vel tris et haec tria, vocativo o tres vel tris et o tria, ablativo ab his tribus. Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae et haec quattuor, genitivo horum et harum et horum quattuor, dativo his quattuor, accusativo hos et has 310 et haec quattuor, vocativo o quattuor, ablativo ab his quattuor. Et pluraliter: nominativo haec milia, genitivo horum milium, dativo his milibus, accusativo haec milia, vocativo o milia, ablativo ab his milibus. 315 Sciendum est quod omnia nomina numeralia a quattuor usque ad centum sunt numeri pluralis et indeclinabilia. Nominativo haec arma, genitivo horum armorum, dativo his armis, accusativo haec arma, vocativo o arma, ablativo ab his armis. 320 Nominativo hic locus, genitivo huius loci, dativo huic loco, accusativo hunc locum, vocativo o loce, ablativo ab hoc loco; et pluraliter: nominativo hic loci et haec loca, genitivo horum locorum, dativo his locis, accusativo hos locos et haec loca, vocativo o loci et o loca, ablativo ab 325 his locis. Nominativo hic Tartarus, genitivo huius Tartari, dativo huic Tartaro, accusativo hunc Tartarum, vocativo o Tartare, ablativo ab hoc Tartaro; et pluraliter: nominativo haec Tartara, genitivo horum Tartarorum, dativo his Tartaris, accusativo haec Tartara, vocativo o Tartara, 330 ablativo ab his Tartaris.
305–307 nominativo ... o tria] nominativo hii tres, hee tres, hec tria, genitivo horum triorum, ... accusativo hos has et hec tria, vocativo o tres et o tria Gl1 309–311 nominativo ... haec quattuor] nominativo hii quatuor, hee quatuor, hec quatuor, genitivo horum quatuor ... accusativo hos et has quatuor et hec quatuor Gl1 313 milia] chilioi id est mille Qlh 319 arma] armata id est arma Qlh 322 nominativo hic locus] nominativo hic topos id est locus Qlh 329–330 nominativo ... o Tartara] nominativo hi tartari ... accusativo hos tartaros, vocativo o tartari Gl1
292
335
340
345
350
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % ο5ρανςZ E γενικ το: ο5ρανο:Z E δοτικ τ& ο5ραν&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν ο5ραννZ E κλητικ c ο5ραν Z E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ο5ρανο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF ο5ρανοZ E γενικ τν ο5ραννZ E δοτικ το>ς ο5ρανο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ο5ρανο2ςZ E κλητικ c ο5ρανοZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ο5ρανν. 8Η νομαστικ % λιμνZ E γενικ το: λιμ νοςZ E δοτικ τ& λιμ νιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν λιμ ναZ E κλητικ c λιμνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: λιμ νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF λιμ νεςZ E γενικ τν λιμ νωνZ E δοτικ το>ς λιμ σιZ E ατιατικ τοGς λιμ ναςZ E κλητικ c λιμ νεςZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν λιμ νων. 8Η νομαστικ τ? ,δεσμαZ E γενικ το: δ σματοςZ E δοτικ τ& δ σματιZ E ατιατικ τ? ,δεσμαZ E κλητικ c ,δεσμαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: δ σματοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 δ σματαZ E γενικ τν δεσμ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς δ σμασιZ E ατιατικ τ4 δ σματαZ E κλητικ c δ σματαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν δεσμ(των. 8Η νομαστικ τ? κρμυονZ E γενικ το: κρομ2ουZ E δοτικ τ& κρομ2&ωZ E ατιατικ τ? κρμυονZ E κλητικ c κρμυονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κρομ2ουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ τ4 κρμυαZ E γενικ τν κρομ2ωνZ E δοτικ το>ς κρομ2οιςZ E ατιατικ τ4 κρμυαZ E κλητικ c κρμυαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κρομ2ων.
332 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ 332–351 om. G 333–336 το: ο5ρανο: ... 334 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABQ 337 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ *π? om. C 339 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ 342 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ 344 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ 345–346 E κλητικ c δ σματα om. AQ 347 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ 349 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCQ
de nomine
293
Nominativo hoc caelum, genitivo huius caeli, dativo huic caelo, accusativo hoc caelum, vocativo o caelum, ablativo ab hoc caelo; et pluraliter: nominativo hii caeli, genitivo horum caelorum, dativo his caelis, accusativo hos caelos, vocativo o caeli, ablativo ab his caelis. 335 Nominativo hic porrus et hoc porrum, genitivo huius porri, dativo huic porro, accusativo hunc et hoc porrum, vocativo o porre et o porrum, ablativo ab hoc porro; et pluraliter: nominativo hi porri et haec porra, genitivo horum porrorum, dativo his porris, accusativo hos porros et haec porra, vocativo o porri et o porra, ablativo 340 ab his porris. Nominativo hoc epulum, genitivo huius epuli, dativo huic epulo, accusativo hoc epulum, vocativo o epulum, ablativo ab hoc epulo; et pluraliter: nominativo hae epulae, genitivo harum epularum, dativo his epulis, accusativo has epulas, vocativo o epulae, ablativo ab his 345 epulis. Nominativo hoc caepe, genitivo huius caepis, dativo huic caepi, accusativo hoc caepe, vocativo o caepe, ablativo ab hoc caepi; et pluraliter: nominativo hae caepae, genitivo harum caeparum, dativo his caepis, accusativo has caepas, vocativo o caepae, ablativo ab his caepis. 350
332 nominativo hoc caelum] nominativo hic omios id est qui est unius nature (ο5νος ut Wμοιος) 337 nominativo hic porrus] nominativo hic limin id est portus Qlh 342 nominativo Qlh hoc epulum] nominativo hoc digma vel edigma id est morsus (,δεσμα ut δγμα aut ,νδηγμα) Qlh 347 nominativo hoc caepe] nominativo hoc cromyon id est cepa Qlh
294
donatus graecus a 2. Περ A+ματος
Αγαπ τ μ ρος στ; 8Ρμα στ. Διατ στι #μα; Διτι μετ’ γκλσεων κα' χρνων στ' σημαντικ?ν [μετ’] νεργεας ] π($ους. Τ& #ματι πσα παρ πεται; Οκτ+. Τνα; Γ νος, χρνος, ,γκλισις, ε=δος, σχμα, συζυγα, πρσωπον μετ’ *ρι$μο:. 5 Ποου γ νους; Ενεργητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες ο λγον ποιε> ξ αiτο: πα$ητικν. Ποου γ νους; Πα$ητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες ορ λγον κατ4 Λατνους κατ(γεται *π? το: νεργητικο:. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι ες ο λγον ο5 ποιε> ξ α5το: 10 πα$ητικν. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι ες ορ φ2σει λγον *μφοτ ρας συν χει σημασας, aγουν νεργητικν κα' πα$ητικν. Ποου γ νους; Απο$ετικο:. (NOR) Απολιμπαντικο:. 15 Διατ; Διτι ες ορ φ2σει λγον μαν μ(λιστα συν χει σημασαν. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ν το>ς παρ&ωχημ νοις κα' το>ς 20 τετυπωμ νοις *π’ α5τν ,χει γρ(μμα πα$ητικν, ν το>ς ξς τε τν ο5δετ ρων. Ποου γ νους; Πα$ητικο: ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι 25 ν νεργητικ& γρ(μματι πα$ητικν σημασαν ,χει. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δενς.
Πο ου γνους; Οδετεροπα4ητικο. Διατ ; Διτι "ν τος παρ/ωχημνοις κα τος πεποιημνοις π’ ατ!ν κρατε γραμματικ)ν πα4ητικ!ν, "ν τος "ξ7ς τε τ!ν οδετρων. Πο ου γνους; Οδετρου πα4ητικο. Διατ ; Διτι ε1ς ο λ7γον πα4ητικ7ν κρατε σημασ αν. Πο ου γνους; Οδετρου οσι δους.
2. Inscr. περ' #ματος AO, UλλοZ #μα B, kτερον #μα C 1 λγου post μ ρος add. C 2 μετ’ del. Schmitt 3 τνα] τ ABGQ 4 μετ’ *ρι$μο:] *ρι$μν A 5 ες om. G | ο] ω ABmRQ , fort. servandum 7 κατ4 Λατνους om ABCGOQR 9–10 ο5 10 πα$ητικν] -ο: N ... πα$ητικν] ο5δεν?ς κρατε> σημασαν BmO, cf. b 2. 7–8 11–15 ordinem γ νος *πολιμπαντικν, γ νος κοινν praebent BG 11 διατ om. A | *μφοτ ρας] -ων BmO 12 aγουν ... πα$ητικν om. BGR | κομζομαι post πα$ητικν add. Bm 14(a) *πολυπαντικο: ABCGQ , corr. Schmitt 15 διατ om. A | μ(χομαι post σημασαν add. Bm 18(a) διατ om. O 18(a) ν] ο5 A 20(a) τετυπωμ νοις] πεποιημ νοις C 21(a) ,χει om. BG
de verbo
295
2. De verbo Amo quae pars et? Verbum est. Quare est verbum? Quia cum modis et temporibus est significativum agendi vel patiendi. Verbo quot accidunt? Octo. Quae? Genus, tempus, modus, species, figura, coniugatio, persona cum numero. Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens facit ex se passivum. 5 Cuius generis? Passivi. Quare? Quia in or desinens descendit ab activo. Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non facit ex se passivum. 10 Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens utramque retinet significationem, scilicet activam et passivam. Cuius generis? Deponentis. Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens unam maxime retinet signifi- 15 cationem. Cuius generis? Neutri Cuius generis? Neutropassivi. Quare? Quiain passivi. Quare? Quia in praeteritis et in his quae praeteritis et in his quae formantur ab eis formantur ab eis 20 habet literaturam passivam, retinet literaturam passivorum, in ceteris vero neutrorum. in ceteris vero neutrorum. Cuius generis? Passivi Cuius generis? Neutri neutri. Quare? Quia passivi. Quare? Quia in o in literatura activa desinens passivam 25 passivam significationem habet. retinet significationem. Cuius generis? Nullius. Cuius generis? Neutri substantivi.
2. 1–99 (amet) inter lineas scripsit Qlh 12 scilicet ... passivam om. Gl1 15 unam ... retinet] unam tantum habet Gl1 18–21(a) quia ... passivam] quia in preteritis et perfectis ab eis ... litteram passivorum Gl1; quia in preteritis perfectis et formatis ab is (sic) habet passivam, et passivum, Latini dicunt literaturam Qlh
296
donatus graecus a
Διατ; Διτι ν πρ+τQη $ σει ο5 λγει οuτε ες ο οuτε ες ορ, οuτε *π? 30 #ματος λγοντος ες ο ] ες ορ παρ(γεται.
Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος. Διατ; Διτι νεσττα χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. Ποου χρνου; Παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι παρατατικ?ν χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. 35 Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου. Διατ; Διτι παρακεμενον χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. Ποου χρνου; 8Υπερσυντελκου. Διατ; Διτι iπερσυντ λικον χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. 40 Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου. Διατ; Διτι παρακε-
μενον κα' iπερσυντ λικον χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος κα' παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι νεσττα κα' παρατατικ?ν χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. 45
Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Διατ; Διτι μ λλοντα χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους. Ποας γκλσεως; 8Οριστικς. Διατ; Διτι α5τ? χρ+με$α ες τ? δεικν2ειν τ τινι. 50 Ποας γκλσεως; Προστακτικς. Διατ; Διτι α5τ? χρ+με$α ες τ? προστ(ττειν τ τινι. Ποας γκλσεως; Ε5κτικς. Διατ; Διτι δ εται πιρρματος ε5κτικο: ;να *πηρτισμ νον δηλ+σQη ννημα. Ποας γκλσεως; 8Υποτακτικς. Διατ; Διτι
30 ] om. G | παρ(γεται] παραγνεται C, om. BG 32 νεργεας] ] νεργεας A 35 διατ om. AQ 37–38 om. BCGNO 37 διατ om. A 33 διατ om. O 40–41 παρακεμενον] 40–44 om. R 40–41 bis praebet O 40 διατ om. O παρατατικ?ν ΒO 43–44 om. AGQ 46–47 om. A 48 γκλσεως] κλσεως G | διατ om. AQ | α5τ?] -& desideratur 50 διατ om. AQ | α5τ?] -& desideratur 52 δ εται| δαεται BC, δαετο G
de verbo
297
Quare? Quia in prima persona desinit nec in o nec in or, nec a verbo desinenti in o vel in or derivatur. Cuius temporis? Praesentis. Quare? Quia praesens tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum imperfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum perfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Praeteriti plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum plusquamperfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia praeteritum perfectum et plusquamperfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia praesens et praeteritum imperfectum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia futurum tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. Cuius modi? Indicativi. Quare? Quia eo utimur ad indicandum aliquid alicui. Cuius modi? Imperativi. Quare? Quia eo utimur ad imperandum aliquid alicui Cuius modi? Optativi. Quare? Quia eget adverbio optandi ut perfectum significet sensum. Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare? Quia
29 persona] positione Gl1 | desinit ... or] non determinatur nec in o nec in or et cetera Qlh
30
35
40
45
50
298
donatus graecus a
55 δεομ νη πιρρματος ] συνδ σμου
60
65
70
75
,χουσα σ2νδεσμον προστ$ησιν α5τ& Uλλο #μα iποτ(σσει Sαυτν Uλλ&ω #ματι, ] προστε$σεται Uλλ&ω #ματι, ;να τελQ νο:ν (N). ;να *πηρτισμ νην δηλ+σQη δι(νοιαν. Ποας γκλσεως; Απαρεμφ(του. Διατ; Διτι οuτε πρσωπον διορζει οuτε *ρι$μν, *λλ’ νδ ον μνον Uλλου #ματος σ2νδεσμον. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Διατ; Διτι *π τινος παρ(γεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$ετα; Εκ τς *ν4 Διατ; Διτι συντ$εται κ τς *ν4 προ$ σεως κα' το: γιν+σκω προ$ σεως κα' το: γιν+σκω συντ$εται *ναγιν+σκω. κα' γνεται *ναγιν+σκω. (O) Ποου σχματος; Παρασυν$ του. Διατ; Διτι κ το: συν$ του παρ(γεται, οκ π’ ατο συντ 4εται, λλ’ π2 οmον *ναγιν+σκω, προσ$ σει συν4του A+ματος παρ:γεται, =περ τς δι(, οmον διαναγιν+σκω. "στν "κενο- διαναγιν σκω. Ποας συζυγας; Πρ+της. Διατ; Διτι ν δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω χρνου νεσττος γκλσεως %ριστικς ,χει α κτεταμ νον πρ? το: ς ] πρ? το: ρις κατ4 Λατνους, οmον *γαπ, *γαπRPς κα' *γαπμαι, *γαπRP. Ποας συζυγας; Δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι ν δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω χρνου νεσττος γκλσεως %ριστικς ,χει ε κτεταμ νον πρ? το: ς ] πρ? το: ρις κατ4 Λατνους, οmον διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις κα' διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη.
55–58(a) δεομ νη... δι(νοιαν] locum dubitanter correxi post Schmitt, cf. D (p): quia egens adverbio vel coniunctione subiungit sibi aliud verbum vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perfectum 55(a) συνδ σμου] -ον significet sensum 55(a) δεομ νη] δαεται BCG, δ εται OR BCG, -ος O 55–57(b) ,χουσα ... νο:ν] cf. b 2. 34–35 56(a) προστ$ησιν] πρσ$εσιν AQ , πρ$εσιν B, προσ$ ττει G 56(a) α5τ&] α5τ? AQ , Sαυτν BmO, α5τ& Sαυτν R 56(a) Uλλο #μα] om. AQ , Uλλ&ω #ματι BmOR 57(a) ] ... #ματι om. OR, ] om. AQ 57(a) προστε$σεται] προσ$σεται B, προσ$ τεται C 57(a) Uλλ&ω #ματι] Uλλου #ματος ABCGQ 60 *λλ’ νδ ον] *λλ4 δ ον AQ (corr. Q 1), *λλ’ ν δ ον O | μνον] μνου BCG 61–62 ordinem ε=δος παρ(γωγον, ε=δος πρωττυπον praebet C 62 om. BG | *π τινος] *π’ ο5δενς O 63 διατ om. ANOQ 65(a) κ] *π? R | *ν4] δι4 BCG 66(a) προσ$ σεως om. BCG 67(a) συντ$εται] γνεται ABCGNQ 68–71(a) om. BG 70–71(a) *ναγιν+σκω ... δι( om. BmCON 71(a) διαναγιν+σκω] *ναγιν+σκω Bm, *νταγωνζομαι C, φιλιππζω add. N 72 πρ+της in marg. add. O 74 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCG | κα' om. ABCNOQ 75 δευτ ρας in marg. add. O | χρνου om. x 76 γκλσεως %ριστικς] %ριστικς γκλσεως x | ε om. R 77 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCG 77–80 διδ(σκω ... οmον om. N
de verbo
299
egens adverbio vel coniunctione cum coniunctione subiungit sibi alterum verbum subiungit se alteri verbo vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perficiat sensum. ut perfectum significet sensum. Cuius modi? Infinitivi. Quare? Quia nec personam definit nec numerum, sed egens sola alterius verbi coniunctione. Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur. Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? Ex per Quare? Quia componitur ex per praepositione et lego praepositione et lego componitur perlego et fit perlego. Cuius figurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia a composito derivatur, non per se componitur, sed a ut ***, addita ***, composito verbo derivatur, *** quod est illud: ***. Cuius coniugationis? Primae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona temporis praesentis indicativi modi habet a productum ante s vel ante ris, ut amo, amas et amor, amaris. Cuius coniugationis? Secundae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona temporis praesentis modi indicativi habet e productum ante s vel ante ris, ut doceo, doces et doceor, doceris.
55(a) egens] eget Gl1
65–66(a) ex ... lego] ex a (sic) et lego Gl1
55
60
65
70
75
300
80
85
90
95
100
donatus graecus a
Ποας συζυγας; Τρτης. Διατ; Δοτι ν δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω χρνου νεσττος γκλσεως %ριστικς ,χει ι συνεσταλμ νον πρ? το: ς ] ε πρ? το: ρις κατ4 Λατνους, οmον *ναγιν+σκω, *ναγιν+σκεις κα' *ναγιν+σκομαι, *ναγιν+σκQη. Ποας συζυγας; Τετ(ρτης. Διατ; Διτι ν δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω χρνου νεσττος γκλσεως %ριστικς ,χει ι κτεταμ νον πρ? το: ς ] πρ? το: ρις κατ4 Λατνους, οmον *κο2ω, *κο2εις κα' *κο2ομαι, *κο2Qη. Ποας συζυγας; Ο5δεμιPς. Διατ; Διτι *ν+μαλν στι κα' ο5κ kπεται καννι τιν?ς συζυγας. Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι σημανει πρPγμα οmον δι’ αiτο: λαλο:ν. Ποου προσ+που; Δευτ ρου. Διατ; Διτι σημανει πρPγμα ;να ες W τις λαλQ. Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι σημανει πρPγμα οmον περ' ο[ τ? πρτον λ γει ες τ? δε2τερον κτ?ς α5το: κα' α5τ? τι$ μενον ες n διορ$ο:ται λγος. Ποου προσ+που; Ο5δεν?ς κα' *ρι$μο: ο5δενς. Διατ; Διτι qπαντα τ4 *παρ μφατα, *νυπστατα, $ετικ4 κα' iπο$ετικ4 *ρι$μοGς κα' πρσωπα κλεπουσι. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκεZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ *γαπPν, sγαπηκ ναιZ *γαπητ ον, *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ωνZ *γαπητν, *γαπητο:Z *γαπν κα' *γαπσων. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *γαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπμεν, *γαπPτε, *γαπσιν. 78 τρτης in marg. add. O 79 ι om. ABCOQ | πρ? το: ς] κ το: ς ABOQ | ε add. Schmitt 80 κατ4 Λατνους om. ABCGQ | κα' om. ANQ 82 τετ(ρτης in marg. add. O 83 ] πρ?] ] κα' πρ? ABCOQ 84 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCG 86 καννι] καννος BC, καννας G | τιν?ς συζυγας] a τινι συζυγRα ABmNOQ , a 87 πρPγμα om. N | οmον om. O | αiτο:] α5τ? G 88 τινος συζυγας BCG λαλο:ν] λαλο:ντα ABCGQ 89–90 ες W ... λαλQ] ες Wν ... λαλε> codd., corr. Schmitt 95–96 $ετικ4 ... κλεπουσι] $ετικ4 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων κλπονται N 97–98 ποου ... προφ ρεται om. N 98 διατ om. AOQ 99 *ρχ σGν $ε& το: #ματος add. A, *ρχ τς κλσεως τν #ημ(των add. BCOQ | sγ(πων sγ(πας 100 *γαπPν] *γαπσαι ACNOQ , sγ(πα post *γαπRP add. Bm, sγ(πας sγ(πα O om. B, *γαπσας G, *γαπν R | sγαπηκ ναι] *γαπκοιμι x, *γαπηκ ναι R, corr. Schmitt | *γαπητ ον] -τ ου Schmitt, codicum tamen lectionem servavi, cf. 171, al. | *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ων om. N | *γαπητ ων] -τ ον Schmitt 100–101 *γαπητν om. R 101 *γαπητο: om. NOR | κα' om. ABCNORQ | *γαπσων] *γ(πητον C | *γαπPτε post *γαπσων add. ABCNQ 102 %ριστικς ... νεσττος] νεστς A, om. BCGNOQ 103 *γαπμεν] -ο:μεν ABCGNQR | *γαπσιν] -ο:σιν R
de verbo
301
Cuius coniugationis? Tertiae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona temporis praesentis modi indicativi habet i correptum ante s vel e ante ris, ut lego, legis et legor, legeris. 80 Cuius coniugationis? Quartae. Quare? Quia in secunda persona temporis praesentis modi indicativi habet i productum ante s vel ante ris, ut audio, audis et audior, audiris. Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non 85 sequitur regulam alicuius coniugationis. Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Quia significat rem ut per se ipsam loquentem. Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? Quia significat rem ut ad quam quidam loquatur. 90 Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? Quia significat rem ut de qua prima loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam positam ad quam dirigitur sermo. Cuius personae? Nullius et numeri nullius. Quare? Quia omnia infinita, impersonalia, gerundia et supina numeris et personis deficiunt. 95 Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeris? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. Amo, amas, amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, amavisse; amandi, amando, amandum; amatum, amatu; amans et amaturus. 100 Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: amo, amas, amat; et pluraliter: amamus, amatis, amant.
86 alicuius] vel alicuius Gl1 87–88 quia ... loquentem] quia cum loquitur de se ipsa pronuntiat 89–90 ut ... loquatur] ut in eam D (p) 87 per se ipsam] de se Gl1, a se ipsa Qlh aliquis loquatur Gl1, quia secunda persona est ad quam prima loquitur directo sermone D (p) 91–93 ut ... sermo] ut qua prima loquitur in secundam extra se 91 significat] indicat Qlh 100 amandi ... amandum] amandum ... et eam positam in quam (?) dirigit sermonem Gl1 amandorum praebet Donatus graecus, cf. 563 102 tam inter quam iuxta lineas usque ad 8. 47 legitur Qlh
302
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρατατικςZ sγ(πων, sγ(πας, sγ(παZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμεν, 105 sγαπPτε, sγ(πων.
8Ο παρακεμενοςZ sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπκαμεν, sγαπκατε, sγαπκασιν. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ sγαπκειν, sγαπκεις, sγαπκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπκειμεν, sγαπκειτε, sγαπκεισαν. 110 8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπσω, *γαπσεις, *γαπσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσομεν, *γαπσετε, *γαπσουσι. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπPτε, *γαπ(τωσαν. 8Ο μ λλων ο5κ ,χει κατ4 τοGς &Ο μλλων- γ:πησον, γαπησ:τω115 Γραϊκο2ς. κα πλη4υντικ!ς- γαπ+σατε, γαπησ:τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *γαπ&μι, *γαπ&ς, *γαπ&Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&μεν, *γαπ&τε, *γαπ&εν. 120 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *γαπκοιμι, *γαπκοις, *γα-
πκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπκοιμεν, *γαπκοιτε, *γαπκοιεν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιμι, *γαπσοις, *γαπσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιμεν, *γαπσοιτε, *γαπσοιεν. 125 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ 4ν *γαπ, 4ν *γαπRPς, 4ν *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπμεν, 4ν *γαπPτε, 4ν *γαπσι.
104 % παρατατικς om. C, % om. ABGONQ | sγ(πα om. A | παρατατικς post κα' add. C | sγαπμεν] *γ- OR 105 sγαπPτε] *γ- O 106 % om. ABGONQ 106–107 sγ(πηκε ... sγαπκατε om. A 107 sγαπκασιν] sγ(πηκαν x 108 % om. 111 *γαπσετε] -σατε C 114(a) τοGς om. ABGONQ 110 % om. ABGONQ 117 *γαπ&μι] -μαι ABCGQ 115(a) *γ(πησον, *γαπησ(τω add. Bm, cf. 114(b) BC, -με G 118 *γαπ&τε] -Pτε CG, om. R | *γαπ&εν] *γαπμεν C 120–121 *γαπκοιμι ... *γαπκοιεν] sγαπ- desideratur, cf. tamen c 2. 97–98 123–155 om. 123–124 ε@$ε bis om. x 125 χρνου G 123 % om. ABGONQ | ε@$ε om. x νεσττος om. ABCNOQ
de verbo
303
Praeterito imperfecto: amabam, amabas, amabat; et pluraliter: amabamus, amabatis, amabant. 105 Praeterito perfecto: amavi, amavisti, amavit; et pluraliter: amavimus, amavistis, amaverunt vel amavere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amaveram, amaveras, amaverat; et pluraliter: amaveramus, amaveratis, amaverant. Futuro: amabo, amabis, amabit; et pluraliter: amabimus, amabitis, 110 amabunt. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: ama, amet; et pluraliter: amate, ament. Futuro: amato, amato; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto. 115
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam amarem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter: utinam amaremus, amaretis, amarent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavis- 120 ses, amavisset; et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent. Futuro: utinam amem, ames, amet; et pluraliter: utinam amemus, ametis, ament. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum amem, ames, amet; et 125 pluraliter: cum amemus, ametis, ament.
112 in ... persona] in secundam et terciam personam Gl1 113 et pluraliter: amemus D 114 futuro non habet (sic) apud Grecos Gl1 | amato tu, amato ille ... amemus D 117 optativo modo] euchtichios (sic) id est optativi, enchlisios (sic) id est modi Qlh 125 cum amem] ean id est cum Qlh
304
130
135
140
145
150
donatus graecus a
&Ο παρατατικς- " ν Eγ:πων, " ν Eγ:πας, " ν Eγ:πα- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eγαπ!μεν, " ν EγαπFτε, " ν Eγ:πων. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυν&Ο παρακε μενος- " ν Eγ:πηκα, τ λικοςZ 4ν *γαπκω, 4ν " ν Eγ:πηκας, " ν Eγ:πηκε- κα *γαπκQης, 4ν *γαπκQηZ κα' πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eγαπ+καμεν, πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπκωμεν, ε ν Eγαπ+κατε, " ν Eγαπ+κασιν. 4ν *γαπκητε, 4ν *γαπκωσι. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν Eγαπ+κειν, " ν Eγαπ+κεις, " ν Eγαπ+κει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eγαπ+κειμεν, " ν Eγαπ+κειτε, " ν Eγαπ+κεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν *γαπσω, 4ν *γαπσQης, 4ν *γαπσQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπσωμεν, 4ν *γαπσητε, 4ν *γαπσωσι. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *γαπPν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ sγαπηκ ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπσειν. 8Ρμα *νυπστατον χρνου νεσττοςZ *γαπPται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ sγαπPτο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ sγ(πηται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ sγ(πητο. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σεται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *γαπ(σ$ω. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπη$τω. *γαπησ(σ$ω. (BmNOR) Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *γαπ&το.
155 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε sγ(πηται.
8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιτο. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ 4ν *γαπPται. 132–135(a) *γαπκω ... *γαπκωσι] codicum lectionem servavi, sγαπ- desideratur, cf. tamen b 2. 90–91 141 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων] *ρι$μο>ς κα> προσ+πων AQ , *ρι$μο>ς 143 sγαπηκ ναι] *γ- ABCQ 148 % ... sγ(πητο om. κα' προσ+ποις BC, om. NR 153 χρνου ... παρατατικο: ABCNOQ 152(a) *γαπη$τω] *γαπη$σοιτο BC om. ABCNOQ | *γαπ&το] *γαπ AQ 155 ε@$ε sγ(πηται] codicum lectionem 157 *γαπσοιτο] *γαπη$εην AQ , *γαπη$ε> BCG servavi, om. ABC, ε@$ε sγα Q 158 γκλσεως ... νεσττος om. ABCNOQ , νεσττος om. G | *γαπPται] *γαπη$ AORQ , *γαπη$ε> BCG
de verbo
305
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amarem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter: cum amaremus, amaretis, amarent. 130
Praeterito perfecto: cum amaverim, amaveris, amaverit; et pluraliter: cum amaverimus, amaveritis, amaverint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amavissem, amavisses, amavisset; 135 et pluraliter: cum amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
Futuro: cum amavero, amaveris, amaverit; et pluraliter: cum amaverimus, amaveritis, amaverint. 140 Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: amare. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amavisse. Futuro: amatum ire vel amaturum esse. Verbum impersonale tempore praesenti: amatur. 145 Praeterito imperfecto: amabatur. Praeterito perfecto: amatum est vel fuit. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amatum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: amabitur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: ametur. 150 Futuro: amator Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam amaretur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatum esset vel 155 fuisset. Futuro: utinam ametur. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum ametur.
141 numeris et personis] arithmi id est numeri, prosopon id est personarum Qlh 145 hic finitur verbum activum et incipit verbum impersonale Qlh | verbum] rima id est ... Qlh
306
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρατατικςZ 4ν *γαπPτο. 160 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ
165
170
175
180
185
4ν sγαπημ νος Qv. " ν Eγ:πηται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ 4ν sγαπημ νος προwπηρχεν. " ν Eγ:πητο. Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν sγαπημ νος ,σται . " ν γαπη4+σεται. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *νυποστ(του χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *γαπPσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ οuκ ,χει. Eγαπ7σ4αι. &Ο μλλων- γαπη4+σεσ4αι. Θετικ4 ] μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:ταZ *γαπητ ον, *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ων. 8Υπο$ετικ4 κατ4 ΓραϊκοGς ο5κ ,χει. Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: νεργητικο:; Δ2ο. Τνες; Μα, dτις στ' χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:, οmον *γαπνZ Sτ ρα μ λλοντος, οmον *γαπσων. ;Αγαπ!ν π4εν "ξληται κατ Λατ νους; ;Εκ το πρ του προσ που το παρατατικο *ριστικ7ς "γκλ σεως μ:μπαν- τροπ87 τ7ς μπαμ ε1ς νς ποιεται @μανς. ;Αγαπ+σων π4εν "ξληται κατ Λατ νους; ;Εκ το δευτρου Gπο4ετικο, οKον μ:του, προσ4+κ8η το ρους γ νεται ματοLρους. Αγαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπη$ε'ς ;Αγαπ!μαι, γαπMF, γαπFταιεμ, ε=[ς], στZ *γαπσαιZ Eγ:πημαι, Eγ:πησαι, Eγ:πηται*γαπη$ναιZ *γαπη$ες. γαπ!, γαπ:σ4ω- γαπFσ4αι, Eγαπ7σ4αι, γαπη4+σεσ4αι.
159 *γαπPτο] codicum BCG lectionem (fort. pro sγαπ-) servavi, *γαπ A, *γαπPται BmNOR, *γαπ Q 161(a) 4ν sγαπημ νος om. A 161(a) sγαπημ νος] *γαπ161(a) Qv] ε@ην AOQ , ε@η BCGN, corr. BCG, -ον desideratur, cf. b 2. 108, al. Schmitt 161–165(b) codicis lectionem servavi 163(a) sγαπημ νος] *γαπ- BCG, -ον desideratur, cf. b 2. 108, al. 165(a) sγαπημ νος ,σται] *γαπ- BCG, -ον desideratur, cf. b 2. 108, al. 166 *παρεμφ(του ... *νυποστ(του] *παρ μφατον *νυπστατον ABCNORQ 167 *γαπPσ$αι] *γαπη$σεσ$αι x, cf. 170 170 om. x 171 $ετικ4] τικ4 G, μετικ4 O | *γαπητ ον] -τ ου Schmitt, cf. 100 | *γαπητ &ω om. AN 171–172 *γαπητ ων] *γαπητν Schmitt, cf. 100 173 κατ4 ΓραϊκοGς om. x 175 τνες] τ BCGOR, ποας AQ , om. N | dτις] dπερ AQR 177–181 om. x 182–185 om. N 182(a) πα$ητικ( add. ACOQ 183(a) στ] v BCO, om. G | *γαπσαι] sγ- G 184(b) *γαπ] *γαπο: R, corr. Schmitt, sed fort. hic ut al. codicis lectio servanda est (cf. b 2. 124, c 2. 140) 185(b) sγαπσ$αι] *γ- R, corr. Schmitt
de verbo
307
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amaretur. Praeterito perfecto: cum amatum sit vel fuerit.
160
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum amatum erit vel fuerit. 165
Infinitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: amari. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: amatum iri. 170 Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt haec: amandi, amando, amandum. Supina *** Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? unum, quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut amans; aliud 175 futuri, ut amaturus. Amans unde trahitur? A prima persona praeteriti imperfecti indicativi modi, amabam: mutata bam in ns fit amans. Amaturus unde trahitur? A secundo supino, ut amatu: addita rus fit 180 amaturus. Amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; amatus sum, es, est; amare, ametur; amari, amatum esse vel fuisse, amatum iri; amatus et amandus. 185
166 infinitivo ... impersonali] infinitivo sine subpositione (ut *ν-iπ-στατον) Qlh 168 amatum 171 gerundia] thetica id est positiva id est dicta pro gerundia ... fuisse] non habet Gl1 173 supina non habet Gl1 cf. D: supina sunt haec: amatum, amatu 175 est ... Qlh imperfecti] esti cronu enestotos khai paratatikou hos: est tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto Qlh 182–183 amor ... amandus] amor, amaris, amatus es vel amare, amatus et amandus Gl1
308
donatus graecus a
8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *γαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπ+με$α, *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπνται. 8Ο παρατακικςZ sγαπ+μην, sγαπ, sγαπPτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπ+με$α, sγαπPσ$ε, sγαπντο. 190 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ sγ(πημαι, sγ(πησαι, sγ(πηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμε$α, sγ(πησ$ε, sγ(πηνται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ sγαπμην, sγ(πησο, sγ(πητοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμε$α, sγ(πησ$ε, sγ(πηντο. 195
8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σομαι, *γαπη$σQη, *γαπη$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπη$ησμε$α, *γαπη$σεσ$ε, *γαπη$σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ *γαπ, *γαπ(σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπ(σ$ωσαν. 200 &Ο μλλων- γ:πησαι, γαπησ:σ4ω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- γαπ+σασ4ε, γαπησ:σ4ωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *γαπ&+μην, *γαπ&ο, *γαπ&τοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&+με$α, *γαπ&σ$ε, *γαπ&ντο.
186 #μα πα$ητικν in marg, add. N | %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x | *γαπμαι] 187 *γαπ+με$α] -ο2με$α R 188 sγαπ] om. ABCQ , sγ(πα G, -ο:μαι R sγαπο: R 190 sγ(πημαι om. BCG 193–194 om. G 193 sγ(πητο] -ηντο BCO 197 *γαπη$ησμε$α] sγαπησμε$α A 194 sγ(πηντο] -νται codd., corr. Schmitt 199 *γαπ] *γ(πα ABCGQ , *γ(ποιο Bm, *γαπο: NOR, corr. Schmitt, cf. c 2. 125 200–201 om. x, ο5κ ,χει κατ4 Γραϊκο2ς add. G 200 *γ(πησαι] *γαπσου R, corr. Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. 322 et 447 203 *γαπ&ο] -& ABCGQ , -+οιο BmNOR, corr. Schmitt | *γαπ&το] -Pτο BCG | *γαπ&σ$ε] -Pσ$ε GR
de verbo
309
Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; et pluraliter: amamur, amamini, amantur. Praeterito imperfecto: amabar, amabaris vel amabare, amabatur; et pluraliter: amabamur, amabamini, amabantur. Praeterito perfecto: amatus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et 190 pluraliter: amati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel fuere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: amatus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: amati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. 195 Futuro: amabor, amaberis vel amabere, amabitur; et pluraliter: amabimur, amabimi, amabuntur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: amare, ametur; et pluraliter: amamini, amentur. Futuro: amator, amator; et pluraliter: amaminor, amantor. 200 Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam amarer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur; et pluraliter: utinam amaremur, amaremini, amarentur.
190–192 praeterito ... fuere] preterito perfecto amatus; et pluraliter amati Gl1 193 praeterito plusquamperfecto] plusquamperfecto sub inte..., preterito quamquam non sit scriptum Qlh 198 in ... persona] in secundam et terciam personam Gl1 199 et pluraliter: amemur, amemini Gl1, amemur, amamini D 200 amator ... amantor] amator tu, amator ille ... amemur etc. D, non habet apud Grecos Gl1
310
donatus graecus a
205
210 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπη$ησομην,
215
220
225
230
235
&Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- εN4ε Eγ:πημαι, Eγ:πησαι, Eγ:πηται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε Eγαπ+με4α, Eγ:πησ4ε, Eγ:πηνται. &Ο μλλων- εN4ε γαπησο μην, γαπ+σοιο, γαπ+σοιτοκα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε γαπησο με4α, γαπ+σοισ4ε, γαπ+σοιντο.
*γαπη$σοιο, *γαπη$σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπη$ησομε$α, *γαπη$σοισ$ε, *γαπη$σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν *γαπμαι, 4ν *γαπRP, 4ν *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπ+με$α, 4ν *γαπPσ$ε, 4ν *γαπνται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν Eγαπ μην. " ν Eγαπ!, " ν EγαπFτο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eγαπ με4α, " ν EγαπFσ4ε, " ν Eγαπ!ντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ &Ο παρακε μενος 4ν sγ(πημαι, 4ν sγ(πησαι, 4ν sγ(πηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν sγαπμε$α, 4ν sγ(πησ$ε, 4ν sγ(πηνται. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν Eγαπ+μην, " ν Eγ:πησο, " ν Eγ:πητο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eγαπ+με4α, " ν Eγ:πησ4ε, " ν Eγ:πηντο. &Ο μλλων- " ν γαπη4+σομαι, " ν γαπη4+σ8η, " ν γαπη4+σεται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν γαπη4ησμε4α, " ν γαπη4+σεσ4ε, " ν γαπη4+σονται.
210(a) *γαπη$ησομην] *γαπησομην O 210(b) *γαπησομην] *γαπσοιμι R, corr. Schmitt 211(a) *γαπη$σοιο] *γαπσοιο N, -$η- super lineam add. N1 211(b) *γα212–213(a) *γαπη$ηπσοιο, *γαπσοιτο] *γαπσοις, *γαπσοι R, corr. Schmitt 213–214(a) *γαπη$σομε$α] *γαπησομε$α ANO, -$η- super lineam add. N1 σοισ$ε, *γαπη$σοιντο] *γαπσοισ$ε, *γαπσοιντο N, -$η- super lineam add. N1 220(b) sγαπ] -ο: R, corr. Schmitt 220(b) sγαπPτο] -ο:το R, corr. Schmitt 224–225 sγαπμε$α] -+με$α ABNOQ , -ομε$α G 230(b) sγ(πηντο] -νται R, corr. Schmitt 231–235(b) 4ν *γαπη$σομαι ... *γαπη$σονται] codicis lectionem servavi, cf. b 2. 143–145
de verbo
311
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatus essem vel 205 fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam amati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: utinam amer, ameris vel amere, ametur; et pluraliter: utinam 210 amemur, amemini, amentur.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum amer, ameris vel amere, 215 ametur; et pluraliter: cum amemur, amemini, amentur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum amarer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur; et pluraliter: cum amaremur, amaremini, amarentur. 220
Praeterito perfecto: cum amatus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. 225 Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum amati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. 230
Futuro: cum amatus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. 235
215–216 tempore ... amentur] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum amarer ... amarentur Gl1
312
240
245
250
255
260
265
donatus graecus a
Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *γαπPσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ sγαπσ$αι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σεσ$αι. *γαπσεσ$αι. (G) Πσαι μετοχα "ξληνται "κ τοLτου το A+ματος το πα4ητικο; ΔLο. Ποα; ;Ηγαπημνος κα γαπη4ησμενος. ;Ηγαπημνος π4εν "ξληται κατ Λατ νους; ;Εκ το δευτρου Gπο4ετικο, οKον μ:του, προσ4+κ8η το ς γ νεται μ:τους. ;Αγαπη4ησμενος π4εν "ξληται; ;Εκ τ7ς γενικ7ς τ7ς ?αυτο μετοχ7ς το "νεστ!τος, οKον @μανς μ:ντις, τροπ87 το ντις ε1ς ντους γ νεται μ:ντους. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, διδ(σκουσιν. 8Ο παρατατικςZ δδασκον, δδασκες, δδασκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, δδασκον. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ δδαξα, δδαξας, δεδδαχα, δεδδαχας, δεδδαχα UχρηστοςZ δδαξεZ κα' πληδεδδαχεZ κα' πλη$υντι- ν χρσει δ3 % *ρι$υντικςZ διδ(κςZ δεδιδ(χαμεν, στος, οmονZ δδαξα, ξαμεν, διδ(ξατε, δεδιδ(χατε, δεδιδ( δδαξας, δδαξεZ δδαξαν. χασι. (N) κα' πλη$υντικςZ (ABCGQ) διδ(ξαμεν, διδ(ξατε, δδαξαν. (BmOR) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ διδ(χ$ην, διδ(χ$ης, διδ(χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(χ$ημεν, διδ(χ$ητε, διδ(χ$ησαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ διδ(ξω, διδ(ξεις, διδ(ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξομεν, διδ(ξετε, διδ(ξουσι. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο: ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ δδασκε, διδασκ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκετε, διδασκ τωσαν. &Ο μλλων- δ δαξον, διδαξ:τω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- διδ:ξατε, διδαξ:τωσαν. 238 om. C | sγαπσ$αι] -Pσ$αι BNO 241–247 om. x 248 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 253(b) δεδδαχας] -ες N 253(c) δεδδαχα] δ διχα R 254(c) ν χρσει 255(c) οmον om. O 256(b) δεδιδ(χατε] δεδχατε N 256–257(b) δεδιδ3 om. O 260–261 διδ(χ$ην ... διδ(χ$ησαν] διδ(χ$ειν ... διδ(χ$εισαν δ(χασι] δεδχασι N CG, δεδιδ(χειν ... δεδιδ(χεισαν Schmitt, codicum tamen lectionem servavi cf. 293– 297 264 χρνου ... παρατατικο: om. ABNQ , κα' παρατατικο: om. R 265 διδασκ τω om. AQ 267–268 om. x
de verbo
313
Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: amari. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: amatum iri. 240
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Amatus et amandus. Amatus unde trahitur? A secundo supino, ut amatu, addita s fit amatus. Amandus unde trahitur? A genitivo sui praesentis participii, ut amans, 245 amantis, mutata tis in dus fit amandus. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: doceo, doces, docet; et pluraliter: docemus, docetis, docent. Praeterito imperfecto: docebam, docebas, docebat; et pluraliter: doce- 250 bamus, docebatis, docebant. Praeterito perfecto: docui, docuisti, docuit; et pluraliter: docuimus, docuistis, docuerunt vel docuere. 255
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: docueram, docueras, docuerat; et plura- 260 liter: docueramus, docueratis, docuerant. Futuro: docebo, docebis, docebit; et pluraliter: docebimus, docebitis, docebunt. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: doce, doceat; et pluraliter: docete, doceant. 265 Futuro: doceto, doceto; et pluraliter: docetote, docento.
248 doceo] didasco id est doceo Qlh 264–265 imperativo ... doceant] infinito (sic) modo ... in secundam et terciam personam ... et pluraliter: doceamus, doceant Gl1 267 doceto tu, doceto ille ... doceamus D
314
donatus graecus a
Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε διδ(270 σκοιμι, διδ(σκοις, διδ(σκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιμεν, διδ(-
σκοιτε, διδ(σκοιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ 275
280
285
290
295
300
Κατ4 δ3 jΕλληνας 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' *ριστος % παρακεiπερσυντ λικοςZ ο5κ ,χει. 8Ο *ριστοςZ (OR) μενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ (N) ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμι, διδ(ξαις, διδ(ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμεν, διδ(ξαιτε, διδ(ξαιεν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμι, διδ(ξοις, διδ(ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμεν, διδ(ξοιτε, διδ(ξοιεν. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν διδ(σκω, 4ν διδ(σκQης, 4ν διδ(σκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(σκωμεν, 4ν διδ(σκητε, 4ν διδ(σκωσι. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "δ δασκον, " ν "δ δασκες, " ν "δ δασκεκα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "διδ:σκομεν, " ν "διδ:σκετε, " ν "δ δασκον. &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν "δ δαξα, " ν "δ δαξας, " ν "δ δαξε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "διδ:ξαμεν, " ν "διδ:ξετε, " ν "δ δαξαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "διδ:χ4ην, " ν "διδ:χ4ης, " ν "διδ:χ4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "διδ:χ4ημεν, " ν "διδ:χ4ητε, " ν "διδ:χ4ησαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν διδ(ξω, 4ν διδ(ξQης, 4ν διδ(ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(ξωμεν, 4ν διδ(ξητε, 4ν διδ(ξωσι. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z διδ(σκειν.
272–273(c) % ... iπερσυντ λικος] παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου R 278–279 293–297(b) 4ν ... om. N 282–283 4ν διδ(σκωμεν ... διδ(σκωσι om. O 298 % διδ(χ$ησαν] 4ν δεδιδ(χειν ... δεδιδ(χεισαν Schmitt, sed cf. 260–261 μ λλων ... πλη$υντικς om. O 300–304 *παρεμφ(του ... διδ(ξειν post 353 praebet R 300 *παρεμφ(του ... διδ(σκειν om. ABCNOQ , *παρ μφατα νεργητικ4 ... διδ(σκειν R
de verbo
315
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam docerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter: utinam doceremus, doceretis, 270 docerent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent. 275
Futuro: utinam doceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: utinam doceamus, doceatis, doceant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum doceam, doceas, doceat; 280 et pluraliter: cum doceamus, doceatis, doceant.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum docerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter: cum doceremus, doceretis, docerent. 285
Praeterito perfecto: cum docuerim, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter: cum docuerimus, docueritis, docuerint. 290
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; et pluraliter: cum docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent. 295
Futuro: cum docuero, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter: cum docuerimus, docueritis, docuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: docere. 300
280–281 tempore ... doceant] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum docerem ... docerent Gl1
316
donatus graecus a
Παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκουZ &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- διδασκναι διδ(ξαι. Μ λλοντοςZ &Ο μλλωνδιδ(ξειν. 305 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη, διδ(σκεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκονται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ διδασκμην, διδ(σκου, διδ(σκετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκοντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ 310 διδ(χ$ην, διδ(χ$ης, διδ(χ$ηZ κα' δεδδαγμαι, δεδδαξαι, δεπλη$υντικςZ διδ(χ$ημεν, διδ(χ$ητε, δδακταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(χ$ησαν. δεδιδ(γμε$α, δεδδαχ$ε, δεδιδαγμ νοι εσ. (N) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ δεδιδ(γμην, δεδδαξο, δεδδακτοZ κα' πλη$υντι315 κςZ δεδιδ(γμε$α, δεδδαχ$ε, διδαγμ νοι vσαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σομαι, διδαχ$σQη, διδαχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδαχ$ησμε$α, διδαχ$σεσ$ε, διδαχ$σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ320 +π&ωZ διδ(σκου, διδασκ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδασκ σ$ωσαν. &Ο μλλων- δ δαξαι, διδαξ:σ4ω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- διδ:ξασ4ε, διδαξ:σ4ωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε διδασκο325 μην, διδ(σκοιο, διδ(σκοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδασκομε$α, διδ(σκοισ$ε, διδ(σκοιντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε διδαχ$εην, διδαχ$εης, διδαχ$εηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδαχ$εημεν, διδαχ$εητε, διδαχ$εησαν. 330 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδαχ$ησομην, διδαχ$σοιο, διδαχ$σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υν-
τικςZ ε@$ε διδαχ$ησομε$α, διδαχ$σοισ$ε, διδαχ$σοιντο.
305 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 306 διδ(σκεσ$ε] -ετε AO, -σ$ε super lineam O1, -εται BG 309(a) παρακεμενος] παρατατικς O 314 δεδιδ(γμην] διδ(γμην BOR | δεδδαξο] δδαξο N, -δε- supra lineam N1 | δεδδακτο] -ται BCG 315 διδαγμ 320 διδασκ σ$ω] νοι vσαν] δεδιδ(σκετο G, om. ABOQ , δεδιδαγμ νοι desideratur - τω AQR 320–321 διδασκ σ$ωσαν] - τωσαν R 322–323 % μ λλων ... διδαξ(σ$ω322 δδαξαι] διδ(ξου R, corr. Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. 200, σαν om. x al. 324–325 διδασκομην] -οιμι ABCQ 325 διδ(σκοιο] διδ(ξοιο O 327 κατ4 δ3 jΕλληνας *ορστου in marg. add. N 327–328 ε@$ε ... πλη$υντικς om. G
de verbo
317
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: docuisse. Futuro: doctum ire vel docturum esse. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: doceor, doceris vel docere, doce- 305 tur; et pluraliter: docemur, docemini, docentur. Praeterito imperfecto: docebar, docebaris vel docebare, docebatur; et pluraliter: docebamur, docebamini, docebantur. Praeterito perfecto: doctus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: docti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel 310 fuere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: doctus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: docti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel 315 fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: docebor, doceberis vel docebere, docebitur; et pluraliter: docebimur, docebimini, docebuntur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: docere, doceatur; et pluraliter: docemini, doceantur. 320 Futuro: docetor, docetor; et pluraliter: doceminor, docentor. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: utinam doce- 325 remur, doceremini, docerentur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam docear, docearis vel doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter: 330 utinam doceamur, doceamini, doceantur.
303 futuro doctum Gl1 319–320 in ... doceantur] in secundam et terciam personam ... et pluraliter: doceamur, doceaminor Gl1 320 pluraliter: doceamur etc. D 322 docetor tu, docetor ille ... doceamur D
318
335
340
345
350
355
360
donatus graecus a
8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν διδ(σκωμαι, 4ν διδ(σκQη, 4ν διδ(σκηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδασκ+με$α, 4ν διδ(σκησ$ε, 4ν διδ(σκωνται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "διδασκμην, " ν "διδ:σκου, " ν "διδ:σκετο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν "διδασκμε4α, " ν "διδ:σκεσ4ε, " ν "διδ:σκοντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν "διδ: 4ν διδαχ$, 4ν διδαχ$Qς, 4ν χ4ην, " ν "διδ:χ4ης, " ν "διδιδαχ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν δ:χ4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν διδαχ$μεν, 4ν διδαχ$τε, 4ν "διδ:4ημεν, " ν "διδαχ4ητε, διδαχ$σι. " ν "διδ:χ4ησαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "δεδιδ:γμην, " ν "δεδ δαξο, " ν "δεδ δακτο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν "δεδιδ:γμε4α, " ν "δεδ δαχ4ε, " ν διδαγμνοι Oσαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι, 4ν διδαχ$σQη, 4ν διδαχ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδαχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν διδαχ$σησ$ε, 4ν διδαχ$σωνται. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν ;Απαρμφατα πα4ητικ κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z διδ(σκεσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ διδασχ7σ4αι. διδαχ$ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σεσ$αι. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *ναγιν+σκω, *ναγιν+σκεις, *ναγιν+σκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγιν+σκομεν, *ναγιν+σκετε, *ναγιν+σκουσι.
335 διδασκ+με$α] -ωμεν G | διδ(σκησ$ε] -εται G | διδ(σκωνται] -ουσι G 341(a) κατ4 δ3 jΕλληνας *ορστου in marg. add. N 341(a) παρακεμενος] παρατατικς G 343(a) κα' πλη$υντικς om. N 346–347(b) δεδιδ(γμην] διδ(γμην R, corr. Schmitt 347–350(b) δεδδαξο ... δεδδαχ$ε] διδα- R, -δε- super lineam add. 350 διδαγμ νοι] δεδιδαγμ νοι desideratur, sed cf. 315 351–353 % μ λλων ... R1 351 διδαχ$σηται] διδαχ$σωνται om. R; codicum ABCOQ lectionem servavi, 356 κα' om. R 360 #μα Uλλο in marg. add. C | %ριστικς ... -σονται G νεσττος om. x
de verbo
319
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum docear, docearis vel doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter: cum doceamur, doceamini, doceantur. 335
Praeterito imperfecto: cum docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: cum doceremur, doceremini, docerentur.
340
Praeterito perfecto: cum doctus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. 345
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum docti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. 350
Futuro: cum doctus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo numeris et personis Infinitiva passiva tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: doceri. 355 Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: doctum iri. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: lego, legis, legit; et pluraliter: 360 legimus, legitis, legunt.
332–334 tempore ... doceantur] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum docerer ... docerentur 341–343 praeterito .... fuerint] preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: cum doctus; et Gl1 351–353 futuro ... fuerint] futuro: cum doctus; et pluraliter: cum pluraliter: cum docti Gl1 357 doctum ... fuisse] doctum tantum praebet Gl1 359 doctum iri] doctum docti Gl1 tantum praebet Gl1 360 incipit tertia coniugatio: anaginosco id est lego Qlh
320
365
370
375
380
385
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρατατικςZ *νεγνωσκον, *νεγνωσκες, *νεγνωσκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *νεγιν+σκομεν, *νεγιν+σκετε, *νεγνωσκον. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ *ν γνωκα, *ν γνωκας, *ν γνωκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *νεγν+καμεν, *νεγν+κατε, *νεγν+κασιν. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ *νεγν+κειν, *νεγν+κεις, *νεγν+κειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *νεγν+κειμεν, *νεγν+κειτε, *νεγν+κεισαν. &Ο μλλων- ναγν σω, ναγν σεις, ναγν σει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- ναγν σομεν, ναγν σετε, ναγν σουσιν. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ *ναγνωσκε, *ναγινωσκ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγιν+σκετε, *ναγινωσκ τωσαν. &Ο μλλων- ν:γνωσον, ναγνωσ:τω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- ναγν σατε, ναγνωσ:τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *ναγιν+σκοιμι, *ναγιν+σκοις, *ναγιν+σκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *ναγιν+σκοιμεν, *ναγιν+σκοιτε, *ναγιν+σκοιεν. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- εN4ε ναγν σαιμι, ναγν σαις, ναγν σαι. κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε ναγν σαιμεν, ναγν σαιτε, ναγν σαιεν. &Ο μλλων- εN4ε ναγν σοιμι, ναγν σοις, ναγν σοι- κα πλη4υντικ!ςεN4ε ναγν σοιμεν, ναγν σοιτε, ναγν σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν *ναγιν+σκω, 4ν *ναγιν+σκQης, 4ν *ναγιν+σκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *ναγιν+σκωμεν, 4ν *ναγιν+σκητε, 4ν *ναγιν+σκωσιν.
365 παρακεμενος] παρατατικς CR 366 *νεγν+καμεν] *νεγιγν+καμεν R 367 iπερσυντ λικος] παρακεμενος C | *νεγν+κεις] -γν+σκεις O 369–370 om. x 370 *ναγν+σετε] -γν+σκητε R 374–375 om. x 376 χρνου om. R | ε@$ε om. NO 379–383 om. x
de verbo
321
Praeterito imperfecto: legebam, legebas, legebat; et pluraliter: legebamus, legebatis, legebant. Praeterito perfecto: legi, legisti, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legistis, 365 legerunt vel legere. Praeterito plusquamperfo: legeram, legeras, legerat; et pluraliter: legeramus, legeratis, legerant. Futuro: legam, leges, leget; et pluraliter: legemus, legetis, legent. 370
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: lege, legat; et pluraliter: legite, legant. Futuro: legito, legito; et pluraliter: legitote, legunto. 375
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam legerem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: utinam legeremus, legeretis, legerent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam legissem, legisses, legisset; et pluraliter: utinam legissemus, legissetis, legissent. 380 Futuro: utinam legam, legas, legat; et pluraliter: utinam legamus, legatis, legant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum legam, legas, legat; et pluraliter: cum legamus, legatis, legant. 385
371–372 in ... legant] in secundam et terciam personam ... et pluraliter: legamus, legant Gl1| 374 legito tu, legito ille ... legant D 384–385 tempore ... legant] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum legerem ... legerent Gl1
322
390
395
400
405
410
415
donatus graecus a
&Ο παρατατικς- " ν νεγ νωσκον, " ν νεγ νωσκες, " ν νεγ νωσκε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν νεγιν σκομεν, " ν νεγιν σκετε, " ν νεγ νωσκον. &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν νγνωκα, " ν νγνωκας, " ν νγνωκε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν νεγν καμεν, " ν νεγν κατε, " ν νεγν κασιν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν νεγν κειν, " ν νεγν κεις, " ν νεγν κει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν νεγν κειμεν, " ν νεγν κειτε, " ν νεγν κεισαν. &Ο μλλων- " ν ναγν σω, " ν ναγν σ8ης, " ν ναγν σ8η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν ναγν σωμεν, " ν ναγν σητε, " ν ναγν σωσιν. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *ναγιν+σκειν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *νεγνωκ ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *ναγν+σειν. 8Ρματος *νυποστ(του χρνου νεσττοςZ *ναγιν+σκεται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ *νεγιν+σκετο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ *ν γνωσται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ν γνωστο. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *ναγνωσ$σεται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *ναγινωσκ σ$ω. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *ναγιν+σκοιτο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ναγνωσ$εη.
420
8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *ναγνωσ$σοιτο.
407 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων om. x 409 % om. x | *νεγνωκ ναι] *να- R 410 *ναγν+σειν] *ναγιν+σκειν BCGNO 411–428 om. R 412 om. G | *νεγιν+σκετο] *να- C 413 *ν γνωσται] -σ$αι BCGN 414 om. C 415 % μ λλων] μ λλοντος ABCGNQ 417 ε@$ε desideratur ante *ναγιν+σκοιτο, cf. 421 419 ε@$ε desideratur ante *ναγνωσ$εη, cf. 421 421 *ναγνωσ$σοιτο] -σ$εητο A, -σ$εοιτο Q
de verbo
323
Praeterito imperfecto: cum legerem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: cum legeremus, legeretis, legerent. 390
Praeterito perfecto: cum legerim, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum legerimus, legeritis, legerint. 395
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum legissem, legisses, legisset; et pluraliter: cum legissemus, legissetis, legissent. 400
Futuro: cum legero, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum legerimus, legeritis, legerint. 405
Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: legere. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: legisse. Futuro: lectum ire vel lecturum esse. 410 Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: legitur. Praeterito imperfecto: legebatur. Praeterito perfecto: lectum est vel fuit. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: lectum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: legetur. 415 Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: legatur. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam legeretur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam lectum esset vel fuisset. 420 Futuro: utinam legatur.
413 lectum ... fuit] lectum Gl1
417 post 416 futuro: legitor D
324
donatus graecus a
8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ 4ν *ναγιν+σκηται. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ 4ν *ναγνωσ$Q. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν *ναγνωσ$σηται. 425 Απαρεμφ(του *νυποστ(του, χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *ναγιν+σκεσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ναγνωσ$ναι. Μ λλοντοςZ *ναγνωσ$σεσ$αι 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *ναγιν+σκομαι, *ναγιν+σκQη, 430 *ναγιν+σκεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγινωσκμε$α, *ναγιν+σκεσ$ε, *ναγιν+σκονται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ *νεγινωσκμην, *νεγιν+σκου, *νεγιν+σκετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *νεγινωσκμε$α, *νεγιν+σκεσ$ε, *νεγιν+σκοντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ *ν γνωσμαι, *ν γνωσαι, *ν γνωσταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 435 *νεγν+σμε$α, *ν γνωσ$ε, *ν γνωνται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ *νεγν+σμην, *ν γνωσο, *ν γνωστοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *νεγν+σμε$α, 440 *ν γνωσ$ε, *ν γνωντο.
νεγν σ4ην, νεγν σ4ης, νεγν σ4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ςνεγν σ4ημεν, νεγν σ4ητε, νεγν σ4ησαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *ναγνωσ$σομαι, *ναγνωσ$σQη, *ναγνωσ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγνωσ$ησμε$α, *ναγνωσ$σεσ$ε, *ναγνωσ$σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ445 +π&ωZ *ναγιν+σκου, *ναγινωσκ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγιν+σκεσ$ε, *ναγινωσκ σ$ωσαν. &Ο μλλων- ν:γνωσαι, ναγνωσ:σ4ω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- ναγν σασ4ε, ναγνωσ:σ4ωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *ναγινω450 σκομην, *ναγιν+σκοιο, *ναγιν+σκοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *ναγινωσκομε$α, *ναγιν+σκοισ$ε, *ναγιν+σκοιντο.
423 *ναγνωσ$Q] *να AQ 424 *ναγνωσ$σηται] -σεσ$αι N, ceterorum codicum 427 *ναγνωσ$ναι om. A lectionem servavi 425 *νυποστ(του del. Schmitt 429 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 433 *νεγινωσκμε$α 428 μ λλοντος om. A bis O 434 *ν γνωσται] -σ$αι BC, -σ$ε G 434–435 κα' ... *ν γνωσ$ε om. G 438(a) *νεγν+σμην] -γν+σκειν BO, -γν+μην 435 *ν γνωνται] -ντο ABCNOQR G 446 *ναγινωσκ σ$ωσαν] -τωσαν R 447–448 om. x 447 *ν(γνωσαι] *ναγν+σου R, corr. Schmitt, fort. tamen servandum, cf. 200, al. 449–451 om. G 450–451 ε@$ε desideratur ante *ναγινωσκομε$α | *ναγινωσκομε$α] -με$α BC
de verbo
325
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum legatur. Praeterito perfecto: cum lectum sit vel fuerit. Futuro: cum lectum erit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imper- 425 fecto: legi. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: lectum iri. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: legor, legeris vel legere, legitur; et pluraliter: legimur, legimini, leguntur. 430 Praeterito imperfecto: legebar, legebaris vel legebare, legebatur; et pluraliter: legebamur, legebamini, legebantur. Praeterito perfecto: lectus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: lecti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel 435 fuere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: lectus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lecti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. 440
Futuro: legar, legeris vel legere, legetur; et pluraliter: legemur, legemini, legentur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: legere, legatur; et pluraliter: legimini, legantur. 445 Futuro: legitor, legitor; et pluraliter: legiminor, leguntor. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: utinam legere- 450 mur, legeremini, legerentur.
423 post 422 praeterito imperfecto: cum legeretur D | perfecto ... fuerit] praeterito imperfecto: cum 424 post 423 praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectum esset vel legeretur Gl1 | desinit Gl1 fuisset D 429 post 428 gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: legendi, legendo, legendum. Supina sunt hec: lectum, lectu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Unum, quod est temporis preteriti imperfecti, ut legens; aliud futuri, ut lecturus. Et hoc non invenitur 445 pluraliter: legamur etc. D apud Grecos Gl2 | verbum passivum incipit in marg. Qlh 447 legitor tu, legitor ille ... legamur D
326
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *ναγνωσ$εην, *ναγνωσ$εης, *ναγνωσ$εηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *ναγνωσ$εημεν, *ναγνωσ$εητε, *ναγνωσ$εηεν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *ναγνωσ$ησομην, *ναγνωσ$σοιο, *ναγνωσ$σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *ναγνωσ$ησομε$α, *ναγνωσ$σοισ$ε, *ναγνωσ$σοιντο. Υποτακτικς, %μοως. &Υποτακτικ7ς "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος- " ν ναγιν σκωμαι, " ν ναγιν σκ8η, " ν ναγιν σκηται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν ναγινωσκ με4α, " ν ναγιν σκησ4ε, " ν ναγιν σκωνται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ 4ν *ναγιν+σκωμαι, 4ν *ναγιν+σκQη, " ν νεγινωσκμην, " ν νεγι 4ν *ναγιν+σκηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ν σκου, " ν νεγιν σκετο- κα 4ν *ναγινωσκ+με$α, 4ν *ναγιν+πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν νεγινωσκσκησ$ε, 4ν *ναγιν+σκωνται. με4α, " ν νεγιν σκεσ4ε, " ν νεγιν σκωντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν νγνω 4ν *ναγνωσ$, 4ν *ναγνωσ$Qς, 4ν σμαι, " ν νγνωσαι, " ν ν*ναγνωσ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γνωσται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν *ναγνωσ$μεν, 4ν *ναγνωσ$τε, νεγν με4α, " ν νγνωσ4ε, " ν νγνωνται. 4ν *ναγνωσ$σι. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν νεγν σ4ην, " ν νεγν σ4ης, " ν νεγν σ4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν νεγν σ4ημεν, " ν νεγν σ4ητε, " ν νεγν σ4ησαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν *ναγνωσ$σωμαι, 4ν *ναγνωσ$σQη, 4ν *ναγνωσ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *ναγνωσ$ησ+με$α, 4ν *ναγνωσ$σησ$ε, 4ν *ναγνωσ$σωνται. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *ναγιν+σκεσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *ναγνωσ$ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *ναγνωσ$σεσ$αι.
455 % μ λλων] μ λλοντος x 474(b) *ν γνωνται] -ντο R μ λλων] μ λλοντος x
464 παρατατικς] -ς G 471(a) *ναγνωσ$ om. AQ 480–482 codicum AGOQR lectionem servavi 480 %
de verbo
327
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lecti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam legar, legaris vel legare, legatur; et pluraliter: utinam 455 legamur, legamini, legantur. Subiunctivo modo, similiter.
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum legar, legaris vel legare, legatur; 460 et pluraliter: cum legamur, legamini, legantur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: cum legeremur, legeremini, legerentur. 465
Praeterito perfecto: cum lectus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel 470 fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lecti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel 475 fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lecti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum lectus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et 480 pluraliter: cum lecti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: legi. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse. 485 Futuro: lectum iri.
455–456 post 479 praebet Gl2
328
490
495
500
505
510
donatus graecus a
Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: πα$ητικο:; Δ2ο. Τνες; Μα dτις στ' χρνου παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκουZ το:το δ3 κατ4 Λατνους, κα$’ jΕλληνας δ3 ο5χ ο_τως ,χει. Ακο2ω, *κο2εις, *κο2ειZ aκουσα, aκουσας, aκουσεZ Uκουε, *κου τωZ *κουστ ον, *κουστ &ω, *κουστ ωνZ Uκουσον, *κο2σων, *κο2ων. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *κο2ω, *κο2εις, *κο2ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ομεν, *κο2ετε, *κο2ουσιν. 8Ο παρατατικςZ aκουον, aκουες, aκουεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2ομεν, sκο2ετε, aκουον. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ *κκοα, *κκοας, 8Ο παρακεμενος UχρηστοςZ ν *κκοεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κηκχρσει δ3 % *ριστος, οmονZ αμεν, *κηκατε, *κηκασι. aκουσα, aκουσας, aκουσεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σαμεν, sκο2σατε, aκουσαν.(BCGNOR) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ sκο2κειν, sκο2κεις, sκο2κειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2κειμεν, sκο2κειτε, sκο2κεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κο2σω, *κο2σεις, *κο2σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σομεν, *κο2σετε, *κο2σουσιν. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ Uκουε, *κου τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ετε, *κου τωσαν. &Ο μλλων- @κουσον, κουσ:τω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- κοLσατε, κουσ:τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *κο2οιμι, *κο2οις, *κο2οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιμεν, *κο2οιτε, *κο2οιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιμι, *κο2σαις, *κο2σαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιμεν, *κο2σαιτε, *κο2σαιεν.
487–489 om. R 488 τνες] τ ABCGOQ | παρακειμ νου] νεσττος G 489 ,χει om. ABCGNQ 490 Uλλο #μα in marg. add. ABOQ , κα' Uλλο #μα C 491 *κουστ ον] 490–491 om. R 490 aκουσας] -σες codd., corr. Schmitt -τ ου corr. Schmitt, cf. tamen 100 | *κουστ ων] -τ ον corr. Schmitt, cf. tamen 100 | Uκουσον ... *κο2ων] *κο2ων, *κο2σων Schmitt, sed codicum lectionem servandam 492 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 494 % esse censui | *κο2σων] *κουσ(τω N om. A 496–497(b) UχρηστοςZ ν χρσει δ3 % *ριστος om. BCGN, ν χρσει δ3 om. BmO 497(b) οmον om. BCGNO 501–502 sκο2κειμεν] -καμεν N 504 *κο2σετε] *κο2σομεν R | *κο2σουσιν] *κο2ουσιν C 507–508 om. x 509–550 ε5κτικς ... 509 κα' παρατατικο: om. ABGNOQ | ν πρ+τ&ω κα' δευτ ρ&ω *κου σ$ω om. C κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ω add. AQ , ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ω add. BGNO | ε@$ε om. ABNOQ 510 ε@$ε om. ABNOQ 512 κατ’ (sic) jΕλληνας *ριστος in marg. add. N | παρακεμενος κα' om. ABGNOQ | ε@$ε om. ABNOQ 513 ε@$ε om. ABNOQ
de verbo
329
Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Unum, quod est temporis praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti *** *** Audio, audis, audit; audivi, audivisti, audit; audi, audiat; audiendi, 490 audiendo, audiendum; auditor, auditurus, audiens. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: audio, audis, audit; et pluraliter: audimus, auditis, audiunt. Praeterito imperfecto: audiebam, audiebas, audiebat; et pluraliter: audiebamus, audiebatis, audiebant. 495 Praeterito perfecto: audivi, audivisti, audivit; et pluraliter: audivimus, audivistis, audiverunt vel audivere.
500
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: audiveram, audiveras, audiverat; et pluraliter: audiveramus, audiveratis, audiverant. Futuro: audiam, audies, audiet; et pluraliter: audiemus, audietis, audient. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: 505 audi, audiat; et pluraliter: audite, audiant. Futuro: audito, audito; et pluraliter: auditote, audiunto. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: utinam audiremus, audiretis, 510 audirent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam audivissem, audivisses, audivisset; et pluraliter: utinam audivissemus, audivissetis, audivissent.
488 ut lectus; aliud futuri, ut legendus post plusquamperfecti praebet D 490 incipit quarta 490–491 audiendi ... coniugatio in marg. Qlh | audire, audivisse post audiat praebet D audiendum] audiendum ... audiendorum leguntur in Donato graeco, quae tamen numquam in D inveni 506 pluraliter: audiamus, etc. D 507 audito tu, audito ille ... audiamus D
330
donatus graecus a
515 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιμι, *κο2σοις, *κο2σοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε
*κο2σοιμεν, *κο2σοιτε, *κο2σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικς %μοως.
520
8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ 4ν *κο2ω, 4ν *κο2Qης, 4ν *κο2QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμεν, 4ν *κο2ητε, 4ν *κο2ωσιν. (GR)
8Ο παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ω, 4ν *κο2Qης, 4ν *κο2QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμεν, 4ν 525 *κο2ητε, 4ν *κο2ωσιν.
530
535
540
545
" ν Qκουον, " ν Qκουες, " ν Qκουε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν EκοLομεν, " ν EκοLετε, " ν Qκουον. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν Qκουσα, 4ν *κο2σω, 4ν *κο2σQης, 4ν *κο2σQηZ " ν Qκουσας, " ν Qκουσε- κα κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2σωμεν, 4ν πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν EκοLσαμεν, *κο2σητε, 4ν *κο2σωσιν. " ν EκοLσατε, " ν Qκουσαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν EκοLκειν, " ν EκοLκεις, " ν EκοLκει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν EκοLκειμεν, " ν EκοLκειτε, " ν EκοLκεισαν. &Ο μλλων- " ν κοLσω, " ν κοLσ8ης, " ν κοLσ8η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν κοLσωμεν, " ν κοLσητε, " ν κοLσωσιν. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *κο2ειν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *κο2σαι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κο2σειν. 8Ρματος *νυποστ(του χρνου νεσττοςZ *κο2εται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ sκο2ετο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ aκουσται. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ aκουστο. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεται.
522(a) % om. NO 540 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων] *ρι$μο: κα' προσ+που post παρατατικο: GN, om. ABOQ 542 *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας in marg. add. O1 | κα' iπερσυντ λικος om. A 543 *κο2σειν] *κο2ειν ABNOQ 544 περ' #ματος *προσ+που in marg. add. Bm 544–569 om. R 546 aκουσται] -σ$αι O, corr. O1 547 aκουστο] -σ$ο O, corr. O1
de verbo
331
Futuro: utinam audiam, audias, audiat; et pluraliter: utinam audia- 515 mus, audiatis, audiant. Subiunctivo, similiter. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum audiam, audias, audiat; et pluraliter: cum audiamus, audiatis, audiant. 520 Praeterito imperfecto: cum audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: cum audiremus, audiretis, audirent. 525
Praeterito perfecto: cum audiverim, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter: cum audiverimus, audiveritis, audiverint. 530
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum audivissem, audivisses, audivisset; et pluraliter: cum audivissemus, audivissetis, audivissent.
535
Futuro: cum audivero, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter: cum audiverimus, audiveritis, audiverint.
Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito 540 imperfecto: audire. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: audivisse. Futuro: auditum ire vel auditurum esse. Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: auditur. Praeterito imperfecto: audiebatur. 545 Praeterito perfecto: auditum est vel fuit. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: auditum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: audietur.
527–532 praeterito ... audivissent] preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: cum audivissem ... audivissent Gl2
332
donatus graecus a
Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *κου 550 σ$ω.
Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *κο2οιτο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *κουσ$εη. 555 8Ο μ λλωνZ
560
565
570
575
ε@$ε *κο2σοιτο. ε@$ε *κουσ$σοιτο. (G) 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ 4ν *κο2ηται. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ 4ν *κουσ$Q. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *νυποστ(του χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *κο2εσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *κουσ$ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι. Μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:ταZ *κουστ ον, *κουστ &ω, *κουστ ων. 8Υπο$ετικ( εσι τα:ταZ *κουστν, *κουστο:. Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: νεργετικο:; Δ2ο. Τνες; Μα, dτις στ' χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:, οmον *κο2ωνZ Uλλη μ λλοντος, οmον *κουσμενος. Ακο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εταιZ sκο2σ$ην, sκο2σ$ης, sκο2σ$ηZ *κο2ου, *κου σ$ωZ *κο2εσ$αι. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ *κο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουμε$α, *κο2εσ$ε, *κο2ονται 8Ο παρατατικςZ sκουμην, sκο2ου, sκο2ετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκουμε$α, sκο2εσ$ε, sκο2οντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ aκουσμαι, aκουσαι, aκουσταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σμε$α, aκουσ$ε, sκουσμ νοι εσν.
549 κα' παρατατικο: om. ABGNOQ 553 *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας in marg. add. BmO1 | *κουσ$εη] *κουσ$εην ABmNOQ , *κο2εσ$αι G, σ$εη (sic) B 556(a) ε@$ε om. ABCOQ 557 *κο2ηται] *κο2ωμαι AQ 559 γκλσεως *νυποστ(του] *νυποστ(του γκλσεως ANQ 563 *κουστ ον] -σ$ ον BCGN, -στ ου Schmitt, sed cf. 100 | *κουστ &ω] -σ$ ω BCGNQ | *κουστ ων] -σ$ ων ABCGNQ , -στ ον Schmitt, cf. tamen 100 564 *κουστν, *κουστο:] *κουσ$ν (-ν N), *κουσ$ο: BCGNO 565 ξ ληνται] -λυνται ANQ 565–569 δ2ο ... *κο2εται] Π ντε (ε C). Πο>α; Μα ... *κουσμενος, *κο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εται N 566–582 οmον ... 566 *κο2ων] *κουσ$ες codd., sed cf. 624 568 πα$ητικ( παρατατικο: om. A in marg. add. O 569 *κο2εσ$αι om. N 570 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x | *κο2ομαι ... *κο2εται om. C 572 παρατατικς] iπερσυντ λικος R 575 sκουσμ νοι εσν om. BCGN
de verbo
333
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti: audiatur. 550
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam audiretur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam audiatur. 555 Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum audiatur. Praeterito perfecto: cum auditum sit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo impersonali, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: audiri. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: auditum iri. Participialia nomina sunt haec: audiendi, audiendo, audiendum. Supina sunt haec: auditum, auditu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? Unum, quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut audiens; aliud futuri, ut auditurus. Audior, audiris vel audire, auditur; auditus sum, es, est; audire, audiatur; audiri. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: audior, audiris vel audire, auditur; et pluraliter: audimur, audimini, audiuntur. Praeterito imperfecto: audiebar, audiebaris vel audiebare, audiebatur; et pluraliter: audiebamur, audiebamini, audiebantur. Praeterito perfecto: auditus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: auditi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere.
551 post 550 futuro: auditor D 558 post 557 praeterito imperfecto: cum audiretur D 559 post 558 praeteritum plusquamperfectum et futurum praebet D 563 gerundia vel participialia nomina D | audiendum ... audiendorum praebet Donatus graecus, cf. 100, al. 568 passivum verbum in marg. Qlh 569 auditum esse vel fuisse; auditurus et audiendus post audiri praebet D
560
565
570
575
334
donatus graecus a
8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ sκο2σμην, aκουσο, aκουστοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σμε$α, aκουσ$ε, sκουσμ νοι vσαν. 580 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σομαι, *κουσ$σQη, *κουσ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
585
590
595
600
605
*κουσ$ησμε$α, *κουσ$σεσ$ε, *κουσ$σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο: ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ *κο2ου, *κου σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2εσ$ε, *κου σ$ωσαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κο2σ$ητι, *κουσ$τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σ$ητε, *κουσ$τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *κουομην, *κο2οιο, *κο2οιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουομε$α, *κο2οισ$ε, *κο2οιντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *κουσ$εην, *κουσ$εης, *κουσ$εηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουσ$εημεν, *κουσ$εητε, *κουσ$εησαν. 8Ο μ λλων Z ε@$ε *κουσομην, *κο2σοιο, *κο2σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουσομε$α, *κο2σοισ$ε, *κο2σοιντο. Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν *κο2ωμαι, 4ν *κο2Qη, 4ν *κο2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κου+με$α, 4ν *κο2ησ$ε, 4ν *κο2ωνται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν Eκουμην, " ν EκοLου, " ν EκοLετο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν Eκουμε4α, " ν EκοLεσ4ε, " ν EκοLοντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ 4ν *κουσ$, 4ν *κουσ$Qς, 4ν " ν Qκουσμαι, " ν Qκουσαι, *κουσ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν " ν Rκουσται- κα πλη4υντι*κουσ$μεν, 4ν *κουσ$τε, 4ν κ!ς- " ν EκοLσμε4α, " ν *κουσ$σιν. Qκουσ4ε, " ν Eκουσμνοι ε1σ ν.
578 sκουσμ νοι vσαν] aκουντο BCGQ , sκουσμ νοι εσ NO, cf. 575 582 κα' παρα583 πλη$υντικς] -( O 585 σ2 post *κο2σ$ητι add. G | τατικο: om. R κε>νος post *κουσ$τω add. G 590 % ... iπερσυντ λικος] % om. ANQ , παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου BCGO | ε@$ε om. ABNOQ 597–598 *κου+με$α] -ωμεν G
de verbo
335
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: auditus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: auditi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: audiar, audieris vel audiere, audietur; et pluraliter: audiemur, 580 audiemini, audientur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: audire, audiatur; et pluraliter: audimini, audiantur. Futuro: auditor, auditor; et pluraliter: audiminor, audiuntor.
585
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam audirer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur; et pluraliter: utinam audiremur, audiremini, audirentur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditus essem vel 590 fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam auditi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam audiar, audiaris vel audiare, audiatur; et pluraliter: utinam audiamur, audiamini, audiantur. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum audiar, audiaris vel audi- 595 are, audiatur; et pluraliter: cum audiamur, audiamini, audiantur.
Praeterito imperfecto: cum audirer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur; et pluraliter: cum audiremur, audiremini, audirentur. 600
Praeterito perfecto: cum auditus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. 605
583 pluraliter: audiamur etc. D
585 auditor tu, auditor ille ... audiamur D
336
donatus graecus a
8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ 4ν *κουσ$, 4ν *κουσ$Qς, 4ν 610 *κουσ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ$μεν, 4ν *κουσ$τε, 4ν *κουσ$σιν.
615
620
625
630
635
" ν EκοLσμην, " ν Qκουσο, " ν Qκουστο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν EκοLσμε4α, " ν Qκουσ4ε, " ν Eκουσμνοι Oσαν. &Ο μλλων- " ν κουσ4+σομαι, " ν κουσ4+σ8η, " ν κουσ4+σεται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν κουσ4ησμε4α, " ν κουσ4+σεσ4ε, " ν κουσ4+σονται. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσπων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z *κο2εσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ *κουσ$ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: πα$ητικο:; Δ2ο. Τνες; Μα dτις στ' χρνου παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου, οmον *κουσ$εςZ Uλλη μ λλοντος, οmον *κουσμενος. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ $ λω, $ λεις, $ λειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ λομεν, $ λετε, $ λουσιν. 8Ο παρατατικςZ a$ελον, a$ελες, a$ελεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ λομεν, s$ λετε, a$ελον. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ s$ ληκα, s$ ληκας, 8Ο παρακεμενος UχρηστοςZ s$ ληκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ελκα*ριστος s$ λησα, s$ λησας, μεν, s$ελκατε, s$ελκασιν. s$ λησεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ελσαμεν, s$ελσατε, s$ λησαν. (BCGOR) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ τε$ελκειν, τε$ελκεις, τε$ελκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ τε$ελκειμεν, τε$ελκειτε, τε$ελκεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ $ελσω, $ελσεις, $ελσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ελσομεν, $ελσετε, $ελσουσιν.
608 %μοως post iπερσυντ λικος add. N 610(a) 4ν *κουσ$Q om. B 610–612(a) κα' ... *κουσ$σιν om. ABCGO 621 % om. O 622–624 om. R 622 ξ ληνται] ξλυνται ANQ 623 τνες] τ BCGO, om. A | οmον om. G 624 *κουσ$ες] sκο2σ$ης ABCNOQ , aκουον G, corr. Schmitt | *κουσμενος] fort. *κουσ$ησμενος scribendum, cf. 567 625 Uλλο #μα in marg. add. ABCOQ 625–680 ordinem εμ, $ λω praebet R 625 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 627–628 s$ λομεν, s$ λετε] s$ λαμεν, s$ λατε codd., corr. Schmitt 628 a$ελον] a$ελαν R 629–630(b) UχρηστοςZ *ριστος om. BCGO
de verbo
337
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum auditi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. 610
Futuro: cum auditus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. 615
Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: audiri. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse. 620 Futuro: auditum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Quae? Unum, quod est temporis praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut auditus; aliud futuri, ut audiendus. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: volo, vis, vult; et pluraliter: volu- 625 mus, vultis, volunt. Praeterito imperfecto: volebam, volebas, volebat; et pluraliter: volebamus, volebatis, volebant. Praeterito perfecto: volui, voluisti, voluit; et pluraliter: voluimus, voluistis, voluerunt vel voluere. 630
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: volueram, volueras, voluerat; et pluraliter: volueramus, volueratis, voluerant. 635 Futuro: volam, voles, volet; et pluraliter: volemus, voletis, volent.
625 allo rima id est aliud verbum, volo vis vult Qlh
338
640
645
650
655
660
665
670
donatus graecus a
Τ? προστακτικ?ν ο5κ ,χειZ *λλ’ ν Τ? προστακτικνZ $ λε κα' συν$ σει ,χειZ μ $ λε, κα' μ $ελσατε. (N) $ελσατε. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε $ λοιμι, $ λοις, $ λοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ λοιμεν, $ λοιτε, $ λοιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε τε$ελκοιμι, τε$ελκοις, ε@$ε $ελσαιμι, $ελσαις, τε$ελκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ελσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ελσαιμεν, $ελσαιτε, $ελτε$ελκοιμεν, τε$ελκοιτε, τε$ελκοιεν. σαιεν. (BCGNOR) 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε $ελσοιμι, $ελσοις, $ελσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ελσοιμεν, $ελσοιτε, $ελσοιεν. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z 4ν $ λω, 4ν $ελQης, 4ν $ λQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ λωμεν, 4ν $ λητε, 4ν $ λωσιν. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν Q4ελον, " ν Q4ελες, " ν Q4ελε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν E4λομεν, " ν E4λετε, " ν Q4ελον. &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν E4λησα, S ν E4λησας, " ν E4λησεκα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν E4ελ+σαμεν, " ν E4ελ+σατε, " ν E4λησαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "τε4ελ+κειν, " ν "τε4ελ+κεις, " ν "τε4ελ+κει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν "τε4ελ+κειμεν, " ν "τε4ελ+κειτε, " ν "τε4ελ+κεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν $ελσω, 4ν $ελσQης, 4ν $ελσQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ελσωμεν, 4ν $ελσητε, 4ν $ελσωσιν. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z $ λειν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ τε$εληκ ναι.
638(a) ,χει om. O 641–642 $ λοιμι ... $ λοιεν] $ελσοιμι ... $ελσοιεν codd. (cf. 648–649), corr. Schmitt 644(b) *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας in marg. add. BmNO 648 ε@$ε om. ABCNOQ | ε@$ε om. ABCNOQ 650 κα' παρατατικο: in R quoque legitur, quamvis codex subiunctivum tempore imperfecto separatim postea praebeat 667–668 4ν $ελσωμεν om. G (653–656) 661(b) s$ λησαν] s$ελσασιν R 668 $ελσωσιν] -σητε A 670 τε$εληκ ναι] $εληκ ναι OR
de verbo
339
Imperativo modo caret; habet tamen in compositione: noli et nolite. 640
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam vellem, velles, vellet; et pluraliter: utinam vellemus, velletis, vellent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et pluraliter: utinam voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent. 645
Futuro: utinam velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: utinam velimus, velitis, velint. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum velim, velis, velit; et plura- 650 liter: cum velimus, velitis, velint. Praeterito imperfecto: cum vellem, velles, vellet; et pluraliter: cum vellemus, velletis, vellent. 655
Praeterito perfecto: cum voluerim, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus, volueritis voluerint. 660
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et pluraliter: cum voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent. 665
Futuro: cum voluero, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus, volueritis, voluerint. Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: velle. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: voluisse. 670
650–651 tempore .... velint] tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum vellem ... vellent Gl2
340
675
680
685
690
695
donatus graecus a
8Ο μ λλωνZ $ελσειν. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ εμ, ε=ς κοινς, Αττικς ε=, στZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμ3ν κοινς κα' εμ3ν ποιητικςZ στ3 κοινςZ εσ' κοινς, ,ασι ποιητικς. 8Ο παρατατικςZ vν, vς, vν SτεροκλτωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ vμεν, vτε, vσαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ,σομαι, ,σQη, ,σεται κα' κατ4 συγκοπν ,σταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμε$α, ,σεσ$ε, ,σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο: ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ ,σο, ,στωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ,στε, ,στωσαν. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ βαστ, βαστRPς, βαστRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστμεν, βαστPτε, βαστσιν. 8Ο παρατατικςZ β(στων, β(στας, β(σταZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστμεν, βαστPτε, β(στων. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ β(σταξα, β(σταξας, βεβ(στακα, βεβ(στακας, βεβ(στακεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ β(σταξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βεβαστ(καμεν, βεβαστ(κατε βαστ(ξαμεν, βαστ(ξατε βεβαστ(κασι. β(σταξαν. (BCGNOR) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ βεβαστ(κειν, βεβαστ(κεις, βεβαστ(κειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βεβαστ(κειμεν, βεβαστ(κειτε, βεβαστ(κεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ βαστ(ξω, βαστ(ξεις, βαστ(ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ξομεν, βαστ(ξετε, βαστ(ξουσιν. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ β(σταζε, βασταζ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ζετε, βασταζ τωσαν.
672–680 om. ABCGQ , post sectionem de coniunctionibus praebet N 672 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. BmO | κοινς] κοινς κα' N, om. R | Αττικς ε= om. R 673 στ om. BmO | κα' εμ3ν ποιητικς om. R | κοινς om. NR 674 ,ασι ποι675 Sτεροκλτως del. Schmitt, sed cf. b 2. 415 677–678 om. ητικς om. R R 679 προστακτικς γκλσεως] προστακτικ ,γκλισις BmO | κα' παρατατικο: om. R 679–680 ν ... προσ+π&ω om. BmO 680 μ λλων, iποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου
νεσττος, παρατατικς, παρακεμενος, iπερσυντ λικος, μ λλων, *παρεμφ(του γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:, παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικος, μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει post προσ+π&ω add. R | ,σο ... ,στωσαν om. R | πλη$υντικς] -( BmO, om. N | ,στε] ,σ$ε Bm, ,σεσ$ε NO, sed cf. 678 necnon b. 2. 420, c 2. 473, d 2. 22 681 Uλλο in marg. add. AOQ 683 β(στων] -ουν codd., corr. Schmitt 684 β(στων] 686(a) βεβ(στακας] -κες A 686(b) *ριστος κα$’ jΕλληνας in -ουν ABCGNQ 690–691 βεβαστ(κειν ... marg. add. N 690 iπερσυντ λικος] iπερκεμενος BC 693 βαστ(ξετε] -ξατε A βεβαστ(κεισαν] βαστ(κειν ... βαστ(κεισαν BCGNOR 695 β(σταζε ... βασταζ τωσαν] β(σταξε ... βασταξ τωσαν G
de verbo
341
Futuro: ***. Modo indicativo tempore praesenti: sum, es, est; et pluraliter: sumus, estis, sunt. Praeterito imperfecto: eram, eras, erat; et pluraliter: eramus, eratis, 675 erant. Futuro: ero, eris, erit; et pluraliter: erimus, eritis, erunt. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: sis vel es, sit; et pluraliter: sitis vel este, sint. 680 Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: ferimus, fertis, ferunt. Praeterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: ferebamus, ferebatis, ferebant. Praeterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tulimus, tulistis, 685 tulerunt vel tulere.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter: 690 tuleramus, tuleratis, tulerant. Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: fer, ferat; et pluraliter: ferte, ferant. 695
671 futuro caret D 672 post 671 gerundia et participialia nomina sunt hec: volendi, volendo, volendum. Supinis caret. Habet unum participium, quod est volens Gl2 | verbum sum post *κο2ω / audio praebet Gl2 677 post 676 preterito perfecto: fui ... fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: fueram ... fuerant. Futuro: ero ... erunt. Imperativo modo ad secundam et tertiam personam: sis ... sunto vel suntote. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam essem ... essent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utiman fuissem ... fuissent. Futuro: utinam sim ... sint. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti cum similiter, et preterito imperfecto: cum essem ... essent. Preterito perfecto: cum fuerim ... fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum fuissem ... fuissent. Futuro: cum fuero ... fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: esse. Preterito 681 verbum fero perfecto et plusquamperfecto: fuisse. Futuro caret sicut D praebet Gl2 post $ λω / volo praebet Gl2 | fero, fers, fert; tuli, tulisti, tulit; fert, ferat; ferre, tulisse; ferendi, ferendo, ferendum; latum, latu; ferens et laturus. Fero ... ferunt Gl2 | fero ... fert] denso, denseras (sic), densat Qlh 695 pluraliter: feramus etc. D
342
700
705
710
715
720
725
donatus graecus a
8Ο μ λλωνZ β(στασον, βαστασ(τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(σατε, βαστασ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε βαστ(σαιμι, βαστ(σαις, βαστ(σαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(σαιμεν, βαστ(σαιτε, βαστ(σαιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε βαστ(κοιμι, βαστ(κοις, βαστ(κοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(κοιμεν, βαστ(κοιτε, βαστ(κοιεν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε βαστ(σοιμι, βαστ(σοις, βαστ(σοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(σοιμεν, βαστ(σοιτε, βαστ(σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν βαστ(σω, 4ν βαστ(σQης, 4ν " ν βαστ!, " ν βαστMFς, " ν βαστ(σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστMF- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν βαστ(σωμεν, 4ν βαστ(σητε, 4ν βαστ!μεν, " ν βαστFτε, " ν βαστ(σωσιν. βαστ!σι. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "β:στων, " ν "β:στας, " ν "β:στα- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βαστ!μεν, " ν "βαστFτε, " ν "β:στων. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν "β:στα 4ν βαστ, 4ν βαστRPς, 4ν βαστRPZ ξα, " ν "β:σταξας, " ν "β:στακα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστμεν, 4ν ξε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βαβαστPτε, 4ν βαστσιν. στ:ξαμεν, " ν "β:στ:ξατε, " ν "β:σταξαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "βαστ:κειν, " ν "βαστ:κεις, " ν "βαστ:κει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βαστ:κειμεν, " ν "βαστ:κειτε, " ν "βαστ:κεισαν.
696 % om. O 696–697 om. N 696 σ2 post β(στασον add. G | κε>νος post βαστασ(τω add. G 701–702 βαστ(κοιμι ... βαστ(κοιεν] βεβαστ- desideratur, sed omnium codicum lectionem servandam esse censui 703–704 κα' ... βαστ(σοιεν om. AO | ε@$ε βαστ(σοιμεν] ε@$ε om. x 704 βαστ(σοιτε] -σατε Q 715(a) παρακεμενος] iπερκεμενος BC | κα' iπερσυντ λικος om. G 718(a) βαστσιν] βαστPτε iterum O 721–725(b) βαστ(κειν ... βαστ(κεισαν] βεβαστ- desideratur, sed codicis R lectionem servandam esse censui
de verbo
343
Futuro: ferto, ferto; et pluraliter: fertote, ferunto. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: utinam ferremus, ferretis, ferrent. 700
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam tulissem, tulises, tulisset; et pluraliter: utinam tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent. Futuro: utinam feram, feras, ferat; et pluraliter: utinam feramus, feratis, ferant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum feram, feras, ferat; et plu- 705 raliter: cum feramus, feratis, ferant.
710
Praeterito imperfecto: cum ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: cum ferremus, ferretis, ferrent.
Praeterito perfecto: cum tulerim, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum 715 tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum tulissem, tulisses, tuliset; et plurali- 720 ter: cum tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent.
725
696 ferto tu, ferto ille ... feramus D
344
730
735
740
745
750
donatus graecus a
8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν βαστ(ξω, 4ν βαστ(ξQης, 4ν βαστ(ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστ(ξωμεν, 4ν βαστ(ξητε, 4ν βαστ(ξωσιν. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μο: κα' προσ+πων χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z βαστPν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ βεβαστακ ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ βαστ(σειν. 8Ρμα *νυπστατον χρνου νεσττοςZ βαστ(ζεται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ βαστ(ζετο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ βεβ(στακται. βαστ(χ$η[ν]. (BCGNO) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ βεβαστ(κει. 8Ο μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σεται. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε βαστ(σοιτο. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε βασταχ$σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z 4ν βαστ(ζηται. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ 4ν βαστ(κηται. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πωνZ βαστ(ζεσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ βαστ(χ$αι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σεσ$αι. Μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:ταZ βαστακτ ου, βαστακτ &ω, βαστακτ ον. &Υπο4ετικ: ε1σι τατα- βαστακτν, βαστακτο. Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: νεργητικο:; Δ2ο. Τνες; Μα dτις στ' χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:, οmον βαστ(ζωνZ Uλλη μ λλοντος, οmον βαστ(σων. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ βαστ(ζομαι, βαστ(ζQη, βαστ(ζεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταζμε$α, βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βαστ(ζονται.
731 % μ λλων] μ λλοντος x 732–751 om. R 735(a) βεβ(στακται] βεβ(στα736 βεβαστ(κει] βεβαστ(κει BCG, βεβαστ(κειν ANQ 737 % om. γμαι AQ O 738–739 βαστ(σοιτο] βαστ(ζοιμι AQ , βαστ(σατο BCG (-σ(το C), βαστ(σοιμι N 741 χρνου ... παρατατικο: om. ABCNOQ 743 παρακεμενος] iπερσυντ λικος AQ | βαστ(κηται] fort. βεβαστ- scribendum, sed codicum lectionem servandam esse censui 744 βαστ(ζεσ$αι] -εται codd., corr. Schmitt 745 βαστ(χ$αι] βαστ(σ$αι BCGNO, βεβαστ- desideratur 747 βαστακτ ου ... βαστακτ ον] βαστακτ ων (-αων O), βαστακταου, βαστακτ ον AOQ (βαστακτ ον om. A), βαστακταου, βαστακτα&ω, 748 om. x βαστακτα>ον BCG, βαστακτ ον, βαστακτ &ω, βαστακτ ων N (cf. 100). 749 ξ ληνται] -υνται ANQ 750 τνες] πο>αι N 751 βαστ(σων] βαστ(σω codd., ν supra lineam add. O1 752 Uλλο in marg. add. O | %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x
de verbo
345
Futuro: cum tulero, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerint. Infinitivo modo numeris et personis, tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: ferre. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: tulisse. 730 Futuro: latum ire vel laturum esse. Verbo impersonali tempore praesenti: fertur. Praeterito imperfecto: ferebatur. Praeterito perfecto: latum est vel fuit. 735
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: latum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: feretur. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam ferretur. Futuro: utinam feratur. 740 Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum feratur. Praeterito perfecto: cum latum sit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo numeris et personis: ferri. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse. 745 Futuro: latum iri. Participialia nomina sunt haec: ferendi, ferendo, ferendum. Supina sunt haec: latum, latu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Quae? Unum quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut ferens; aliud 750 futuri, ut laturus. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: feror, ferris vel ferre, fertur; et pluraliter: ferimur, ferimini, feruntur.
738 post 737 imperativum praesentem et futurum praebet D 740 post 739 optativum perfectum et plusquamperfectum praebet D 741 post 739 praeterito imperfecto: cum ferretur D 744 tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto post personis praebet D | post 743 preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latum esset vel fuisset. Futuro caret Gl2 747 gerundia vel participialia nomina D
346
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρατατικςZ βασταζμην, βαστ(ζου, βαστ(ζετοZ κα' πλη$υντι755 κςZ βασταζμε$α, βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βαστ(ζοντο.
8Ο παρακεμενοςZ βαστ(χ$ην, βαστ(χ$ης, βαστ(χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(χ$ημεν, βαστ(χ$ητε, βαστ(χ$ησαν. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ βασταχ$μην, βαστ(χ$ησο, βαστ(χ$ητοZ κα' πλη760 $υντικςZ βασταχ$με$α, βαστ(χ$ητε, βαστ(χ$ηντο.
765
770
775
780
8Ο μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σομαι, βασταχ$σQη, βασταχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταχ$ησμε$α, βασταχ$σεσ$ε, βασταχ$σονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ βαστ(ζου, βασταζ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βασταζ σ$ωσαν. &Ο μλλων- βαστ:χ4ητι, βασταχ4+τω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- βαστ:χ4ητε, βασταχ4+τωσαν. Εκτικ7ς "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος κα παρατατικο- εN4ε βασταχο μην, βασταχ4+οιο, βασταχ4+οιτο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε βασταχ4ηο με4α, βασταχ4+οισ4ε, βασταχ4+οιντο. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- εN4ε βασταχ4ε ην, βασταχ4ε ης, βασταχ4ε η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε βασταχ4ε ημεν, βασταχ4ε ητε, βασταχ4ε ησαν. &Ο μλλων- εN4ε βασταχ4ησο μην, βασταχ4+σοιο, βασταχ4+σοιτο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε βασταχ4ησο με4α, βασταχ4+σοισ4ε, βασταχ4+σοιντο. &Υποτακτικ7ς "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος- " ν βαστ:ζωμαι, " ν βαστ:ζ8η, " ν βαστ:ζηται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν βασταζ με4α, " ν βαστ:ζησ4ε, " ν βαστ:ζωνται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "βασταζμην, " ν "βαστ:ζου, " ν "βαστ:ζετο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βασταζμε4α, " ν "βαστ:ζεσ4ε, " ν "βαστ:ζοντο. &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν "βαστ:χ4ην, " ν "βαστ:χ4ης, " ν "βαστ:χ4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βαστ:χ4ημεν, " ν "βαστ:χ4ητε, " ν "βαστ:χ4ησαν.
759 βαστ(χ$ησο] βαστ(χ$ο codd., corr. Schmitt | βαστ(χ$ητο] βαστ(κτο ABCGNOR, β(στα Q , corr. Schmitt 760 βαστ(χ$ηντο] -ητο G 762 βασταχ$σομαι om. G 763 βασταχ$ησμε$α ... βασταχ$σονται] βασταχ$μεν, βασταχ$τε, βαστα765 βασταζ σ$ω] - τω codd., corr. Schmitt 765–766 βασταζ σ$ωσαν] χ$σν x - τωσαν R 767–794 om. x 769–771 βασταχομην ... βασταχ$οιντο] βασταζομην ... βαστ(ζοιντο desiderantur, sed codicis R lectionem servavi
de verbo
347
Praeterito imperfecto: ferebar, ferebaris vel ferebare, ferebatur; et pluraliter: ferebamur, ferebamini, ferebantur. 755 Praeterito perfecto: latus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: lati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: latus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fuera- 760 tis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: ferar, fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: feremur, feremini, ferentur. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: ferre, feratur; et pluraliter: ferimini, ferantur. 765 Futuro: fertor, fertor; et pluraliter: feraminor, feruntor. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam ferrer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et pluraliter: utinam ferremur, fer- 770 remini, ferrentur. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam ferar, feraris vel ferare, feratur; et pluraliter: utinam 775 feramur, feramini, ferantur. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum ferar, feraris vel ferare, feratur; et pluraliter: cum feramur, feramini, ferantur. Praeterito imperfecto: cum ferrer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et plu- 780 raliter: cum ferremur, ferremini, ferrentur. Praeterito perfecto: cum latus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint.
765 pluraliter: feramur etc. D
767 fertor tu, fertor ille ... feramur D
348
donatus graecus a
785 &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "βασταχ4+μην, " ν "βαστ:χ4ησο, " ν "βα-
στ:χ4ητο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "βασταχ4+με4α, " ν "βαστ:χ4ησ4ε, " ν "βαστ:χ4ηντο. &Ο μλλων- " ν βασταχ4+σομαι, " ν βασταχ4+σ8η, " ν βασταχ4+σεταικα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν βασταχ4!μεν, " ν βασταχ47τε, " ν βασταχ4!σιν.
790
;Απαρεμφ:του "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος κα παρατατικο- βαστ:ζεσ4αι. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- βασταχ47ναι. &Ο μλλων- βασταχ4+σεσ4αι. 795 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ σ$ω, σ$εις, σ$ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ομεν, σ$ετε, σ$ουσι. 8Ο παρατατικςZ aσ$ιον, aσ$ιες, aσ$ιεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sσ$ομεν, sσ$ετε, aσ$ιον. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ ,φαγα, ,φαγας, ,φαγεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ(γαμεν, 800 φ(γατε, φ(γασι. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος *μο ως. 8Ο μ λλωνZ φ(γω, φ(γεις, φ(γειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ(γομεν, φ(γετε, φ(γουσι. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ805 +π&ωZ φ(γε, φαγ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ(γετε, φαγ τωσαν. Εκτικ7ς "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος κα παρατατικο- εN4ε φ:γοιμι, φ:γοις, φ:γοι- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε φ:γοιμεν, φ:γοιτε, φ:γοιεν. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- εN4ε φ:γαιμι, φ:γαις, φ:γαι- κα 810 πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε φ:γαιμεν, φ:γαιτε, φ:γαιεν.
&Ο μλλων- εN4ε φ:γοιμι, φ:γοις, φ:γοι- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- εN4ε φ:γοιμεν, φ:γοιτε, φ:γοιεν. &Υποτακτικ7ς "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος- " ν "σ4 ω, " ν "σ4 8ης, " ν "σ4 8η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "σ4 ωμεν, " ν "σ4 ητε, " ν "σ4 ωσι. 815 &Ο παρατατικς- " ν Qσ4ιον, " ν Qσ4ιες, " ν Qσ4ιε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν Eσ4 ομεν, " ν Eσ4 ετε, " ν Qσ4ιον.
788–789 βασταχ$σομαι ... βασταχ$σιν] codicis R lectionem servavi, quamvis futurum cum aoristo in personis pluralibus perperam mutatum esse videretur 793 βασταχ$ναι] -$σ$αι R, cf. 794 795 Uλλο in marg. add. AQ | %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 796–798 σ$ουσι ... sσ$ετε om. G 799 ,φαγας] -ες codd. | φ(γαμεν] -ομεν A 800 φ(γατε] -ετε codd., corr. Schmitt 801 om. x 802–803 om. N 806–824 om. x
de verbo
349
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel 785 fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum latus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. 790 Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: ferri. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: latum iri. Indicativo modo, tempore praesenti: edo, es, est; et pluraliter: edimus, 795 editis, edunt. Praeterito imperfecto: edebam, edebas, edebat; et pluraliter: edebamus, edebatis, edebant. Praeterito perfecto: edi, edisti, edit; et pluraliter: edimus, edistis, ederunt vel edere. 800 Praeterito plusquamperfecto: *** Futuro: edam, edes, edet; et pluraliter: edemus, edetis, edent. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: ede, edat; et pluraliter: edite, edant. 805 Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: utinam ederemus, ederetis, ederent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam edissem, edisses, edisset; et pluraliter: utinam edissemus, edissetis, edissent. 810 Futuro: utinam edam, edas, edat; et pluraliter: utinam edamus, edatis, edant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum edam, edas, edat; et pluraliter: cum edamus, edatis, edant. Praeterito imperfecto: cum ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: cum 815 ederemus, ederetis, ederent.
795 edo ... est] comedo, is, it Qlh 801 ederam ... ederant D post 805 imperativum futurum praebet D
805 pluraliter: edamus etc. D |
350
donatus graecus a
&Ο παρακε μενος- " ν Vφαγα, " ν Vφαγες, " ν Vφαγε- κα πλη4υντικ!ς" ν "φ:γαμεν, " ν "φ:γατε, " ν "φ:γασι. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος *μο ως. 820 &Ο μλλων- " ν φ:γω, " ν φ:γ8ης, " ν φ:γ8η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν φ:γωμεν, " ν φ:γητε, " ν φ:γωσι. ;Απαρεμφ:του "γκλ σεως χρνου "νεστ!τος κα παρατατικο- "σ4 ειν. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- φαγσ4αι. &Ο μλλων- φαγεν. 825 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ γνομαι, γνQη, γνεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γινμε$α, γνεσ$ε, γνονται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ γινμην, γνου, γνετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γινμε$α, γνεσ$ε, γνοντο. &Ο παρακε μενος- "γεν+4ην, "γεν+4ης, "γεν+4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- "γεν+830 4ημεν, "γεν+4ητε, "γεν+4ησαν. 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ γεγενημ νος aμην, vς, vνZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγενημ νοι vμεν, vτε, vσαν. 835 8Ο μ λλωνZ γενσομαι, γενσQη, γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γενησμε$α,
γενσεσ$ε, γενσονται. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ γνου, γιν σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γνεσ$ε, γιν σ$ωσαν. &Ο μλλων- γεν+4ητι, γενη4+τω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- γεν+4ητε, γενη4+τω840 σαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε γενσαιμι, γενσαις, γενσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γενσαιμεν, γενσαιτε, γενσαιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε γεγενημ νος ε@ην, ε@ης, ε@ηZ 845 κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γεγενημ νοι ε@ημεν, ε@ητε, ε@ησαν.
825–873, 904–956 ordinem χαρομαι, γνομαι praebet R 825 %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x | γνQη] γνεσαι BCG 826 γινμε$α] γεν- codd., corr. Schmitt 827 γνετο] γ ν- R | γινμε$α] γεν- R 829–830 om. x 832 γεγενημ νος] -ον A | aμην] ε@ην ABmNOQR, ε@μην BCG, corr. Schmitt | vς, vν] ε@ης, ε@η codd., corr. Schmitt 838 γιν σ$ω] γεν833 vμεν, vτε, vσαν] ε@ημεν, ε@ητε, ε@ησαν codd., corr. Schmitt 839–840 om. x 841–842 κα' ... γενσαις] ν BCGR | γιν σ$ωσαν] γεν- GR 844 γεγενημ νος ... ε@η] γνομαι, γνεσαι, δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ γενσαις N γνεται codd., corr. Schmitt 845 γεγενημ νοι] γενημ νοι R | ε@ησαν] ε@ηεν BCGO
de verbo
351
Praeterito perfecto: cum ederim, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis, ederint. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: *** Futuro: cum edero, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis, ederint. Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: edere. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: edisse. Futuro: esum ire vel esurum esse. Indicativo modo tempore praesenti: fio, fis, fit; et pluraliter: fimus, fitis, fiunt. Praeterito imperfecto: fiebam, fiebas, fiebat; et pluraliter: fiebamus, fiebatis, fiebant. Praeterito perfecto: factus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: facti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: factus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: facti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: fiam, fies, fiet; et pluraliter: fiemus, fietis, fient.
820
825
830
835
Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: fi, fiat; et pluraliter: fite, fiant. Futuro: fito, fito; et pluraliter: fitote, fiunto. 840
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam fierem, fieres, fieret; et pluraliter: utinam fieremus, fieretis, fierent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam facti esse- 845 mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
819 cum edissem ... edissent D 825 post 824 gerundia, supina, participia et coniugationem impersonalem verbi edo sicut D praebet Gl2, cf. Appendicem latinam a | fio] ginome id est fio et cetera Qlh 838 pluraliter: fiamus D 839 fito tu, fito ille ... fiamus D
352
850
855
860
865
donatus graecus a
8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε γενσομαι, γενσQη, γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γενησμε$α, γενσεσ$ε, γενσονται. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z "νεστ!τος 4ν γνωμαι, 4ν γνQη, 4ν γνηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γιν+με$α, 4ν γνησ$ε, 4ν γνωνται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "γινμην, " ν "γ νου, " ν "γ νετο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "γινμε4α, " ν "γ νεσ4ε, " ν "γ νοντο. &Ο παρακε μενος- " ν "γεν+4ην, " ν "γεν+4ης, " ν "γεν+4η- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "γεν+4ημεν, " ν "γεν+4ητε, " ν "γεν+4ησαν. &Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν γεγενημνος Oν, Oς, Oν- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν γεγενημνοι Oμεν, Oτε, Oσαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν γενσωμαι, 4ν γενσQη, 4ν γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γενησ+με$α, 4ν γενσησ$ε, 4ν γενσωνται.
Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z γνεσ$αι. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ γενη$ναι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ γενσεσ$αι. 870 Θετικ4 ] μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:ταZ γενητ ου, γενητ &ω, γενητ ον. 8Υπο$ετικ4 ο5κ ,χει. Πσαι μετοχα' ξ ληνται κ το2του το: #ματος το: ο5δετ ρου; Μα dτις στ' χρνου παρατατικο: ***. Πορε2ομαι, πορε2Qη, πορε2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμε$α, πορε2ε875 σ$ε, πορε2ονται. 847–848 ε@$ε γενσομαι ... γενσονται] γενησομην ... γενσοιντο desiderantur, codicum tamen lectionem servavi 851 γνQη] γνεσαι BCGN | γνηται] -ονται BCGN 862(b) vν, vς, vν] ε@ην, ε@ης, ε@η R, corr. Schmitt | κα' πλη$υντικς om. AQ 864 % μ λλων] μ λ863(b) vμεν, vτε, vσαν] ε@ημεν, ε@ητε, ε@ησαν R, corr. Schmitt 864–865 γενσωμαι ... γενσωνται] codicum ABOQ lectionem servavi λοντος x 868 % ... iπερσυντ λικος] παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντε864 γενσεται] -σονται N λκου ANOQ , παρακειμ νου κα' iπερκειμ νου B, % παρακεμενος κα' ] iπερκειμ νου C 869 om. G | % μ λλων] μ λλοντος ABCNOQ 870–873 om. R 870 $ετικ4] μετικ4 BCO, ετικ4 (sic) G | γενητ ου] -τ ων AQ (-ταων O) | γενητ &ω om. A 871 iπο$ετικ4] iποτακτικ4 C 872 ξ ληνται] -υνται codd., corr. Schmitt | ο5δετ ρου] δευτ ρου G 873 νεσττος κα' ante παρατατικο: suppleverim 874–903 om. R
de verbo
353
Futuro: utinam fias, fias, fiat; et pluraliter: utinam fiamus, fiatis, fiant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum fiam, fias, fiat; et pluraliter: cum fiamus, fiatis, fiant. 850
Praeterito imperfecto: cum fierem, fieres, fieret; et pluraliter: cum fieremus, fieretis, fierent. 855
Praeterito perfecto: cum factus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. 860
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum facti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum factus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel 865 fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: fieri. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: factum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: factum iri. Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt haec: fiendi, fiendo, fiendum. 870 Supina *** Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro ***? Unum, quod est temporis *** praeteriti imperfecti *** Eo, is, it: et pluraliter: imus, itis, eunt. 875
871 supina sunt haec: factum, factu D 872 neutro passivo D 872–873 quod est temporis praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti, ut fiens; aliud praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut factus; aliud futuri, ut facturus D
354
donatus graecus a
8Ο παρατατικςZ πορευμην, πορε2ου, πορευμε$α, πορε2εσ$ε, πορε2οντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ πεπρευμαι, πεπρευσαι, πεπρευταιZ 880 κα' πλη$υντικςZ πεπορε2με$α, πεπρευ[ε]σ$ε, πεπρευ[ο]νται.
885
890
895
900
πορε2ετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
πορε2$ην, πορε2$ης, πορε2$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2$ημεν, πορε2$ητε, πορε2$ησαν. (BCGNO) 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ πορευ$κειν, πορευ$κεις, πορευ$κειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευ$κειμεν, πορευ$κειτε, πορευ$κεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ πορευ$, πορευ$Qς, πορευ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευ$μεν, πορευ$τε, πορευ$σι. Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ πορε2ου, πορευ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2εσ$ε, πορευ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλοντοςZ πορε2$ητι, πορευ$τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2$ητε, πορευ$τωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε πορευ$ομην, πορε2$οιο, πορε2$οιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευ$ομε$Rα πορε2$οισ$ε, πορε2$οιντο. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε πορευ$μαι, πορευ$Q, πορευ$ταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευ$+με$α, πορευ$σ$ε, πορευ$ντο. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε πορευ$ησομην, πορευ$σοιο, πορευ$σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευ$ησομε$α, πορευ$σοισ$ε, πορευ$σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z 4ν πορε2ωμαι, 4ν πορε2Qη, 4ν πορε2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ+με$α, 4ν πορε2ησ$ε, 4ν πορε2ωνται.
876 % παρατατικς om. ABCGNQ | πορευμην] πορ- G 879(b) *ριστος κα$’ 883 iπερσυντ λικος] παρακεμενος BCG 888 jΕλληνας in marg. add. BmN πορευ σ$ω] - τω BCG 890 πορε2$ητι] πορε2$ησο BO, πορευ$ση C, πορευ$ση σ2 G | κε>νος post πορευ$τω add. G | κα' πλη$υντικς om. A | πορευ$με$α add. BCG | πορε2$ητε] πορευ$σεσ$ε BGG, om. N, πορε2σεσ$ε O 890–891 πορευ$τωσαν] πορευ$σονται BCG, om. N, πορε2σονται O 892 κα' παρατατικο: om. A | ν πρ+τ&ω κα' δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ω post παρατατικο: add. ABmCNOQ , ν δευ892–894 πορευ$ομην ... πορε2$οιντο] πορευοιτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ω add. BG desideratur et corr. Schmitt, sed codicum lectionem servandam esse censui
892–893
πορευ$ομην] πορευ$εμην AGNQ , πορευ$μην BCO, -ομην Schmnitt 893 πορε2$οιο] -$σοιο AQ , -$οιο BCG, -$εοιο NO, -οιο Schmitt | πορε2$οιτο] -$εοιτο ANOQ , -$οιτο BCG, -οιτο Schmitt | ε@$ε om. ABCNOQ 895 πορευ$μαι] -μεν N | πορευ$Q om. G 896 ε@$ε om. ABCNOQ 897 % μ λλων] μ λλων A, μ λ900 πορε2Qη bis λοντος BCGNOQ | πορευ$ησομην] -σοιμι codd., corr. Schmitt
scripsit O
de verbo
355
Praeterito imperfecto: ibam, ibas, ibat; et pluraliter: ibamus, ibatis, ibant. Praeterito perfecto: ivi, ivisti, ivit; et pluraliter: ivimus, ivistis, iverunt vel ivere. 880
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: iveram, iveras, iverat; et pluraliter: iveramus, iveratis, iverant. Futuro: ibo, ibis, ibit; et pluraliter: ibimus, ibitis, ibunt. 885 Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: i, eat; et pluraliter: ite, eant. Futuro: ito, ito; et pluraliter: itote, eunto.
890
Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam irem, ires, iret; et pluraliter: utinam iremus, iretis, irent. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam ivissem, ivisses, ivis- 895 set; et pluraliter: utinam ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent. Futuro: utinam eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter: utinam eamus, eatis, eant. Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter: cum eamus, eatis, eant. 900
888 pluraliter: eamus etc. D 890 ito tu, ito ille ... eamus D 900 post praesens praeteritum imperfectum, perfectum et plusquamperfectum praebet D
356
donatus graecus a
Μ λλοντοςZ 4ν πορευ$, 4ν πορευ$Qς, 4ν πορευ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ$μεν, 4ν πορευ$τε, 4ν πορευ$σι. 8Οριστικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττοςZ χαρομαι, χαρQη, χαρεταιZ κα' 905 πλη$υντικςZ χαιρμε$α, χαρεσ$ε, χαρονται. 8Ο παρατατικςZ χαιρμην, χαρου, χαρετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαιρμε$α, χαρεσ$ε, χαροντο. 8Ο παρακεμενοςZ χ(ρην, χ(ρης, χ(ρηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χ(ρημεν, χ(ρητε, χ(ρησαν. 910 8Ο iπερσυντ λικοςZ χαρκειν, χαρκεις, χαρκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρκειμεν, χαρκειτε, χαρκεισαν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ χαρ, χαρε>ς, χαρε>Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρο:μεν, χαρε>τε, 915 χαρο:σι.
Προστακτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος ν δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ χαρου, χαιρ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρεσ$ε, χαιρ σ$ωσαν. &Ο μλλων- χα ρου, χαιρσ4ω- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- χα ρεσ4ε, χαιρσ4ωσαν. Ε5κτικς γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z 920 ε@$ε χαιρ&μι, χαιρ&ς, χαιρ&Z κα' εN4ε χαρ+σαιμι, χαρ+σαις, χαρ+σαι- κα πλη4υντικ!ςπλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαιρ&μεν, χαιρ&τε, χαιρ&εν. εN4ε χαρ+σαιμεν, χαρ+σαιτε, χαρ+σαιεν. 8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε χαρκοιμι, χαρκοις, χαρκοιZ 925 κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαρκοιμεν, χαρκοιτε, χαρκοιεν. 8Ο μ λλωνZ ε@$ε χαρσοιμι, χαρσοις, χαρσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαρσοιμεν, χαρσοιτε, χαρσοιεν.
904 Uλλο in marg. add. A | %ριστικς ... νεσττος om. x 908 *ριστος κα$’ jΕλ911–912 χαρκειν ... χαρκεισαν] κεχαρ- desideraληνας in marg. add. BmNO tur, codicum tamen lectionem servavi 914 % μ λλων om. ANO | χαρε>ς] -ε>ν C | χαρο:μεν] -μεν R 916 κα' παρατατικο: post νεσττος add. N 917 χαρου] χα>ρε R 918 om. x 920(a) χαιρ& om. C 924–925 χαρκοιμι ... χαρκοιεν] κεχαρ- desideratur, codicum tamen lectionen servavi 927 % μ λλων] μ λλοντος x | χαρσοι] -σοιμι O | ε@$ε om. ABNQ
de verbo
357
Futuro: cum ivero, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: cum iverimus, iveritis, iverint. Modo indicativo tempore praesenti: gaudeo, gaudes, gaudet; et pluraliter: gaudemus, gaudetis, gaudent. Praeterito imperfecto: gaudebam, gaudebas, gaudebat; et pluraliter: gaudebamus, gaudebatis, gaudebant. Praeterito perfecto: gavisus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: gavisi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Praeterito plusquamperfecto: gavisus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: gavisi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: gaudebo, gaudebis, gaudebit; et pluraliter: gaudebimus, gaudebitis, gaudebunt. Imperativo modo tempore praesenti in secunda et tertia persona: gaude, gaudeat; et pluraliter: gaudete, gaudeant. Futuro: gaudeto, gaudeto; et pluraliter: gaudetote, gaudento. Optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: utinam gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: utinam gauderemus, gauderetis, gauderent.
905
910
915
920
Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam gavisus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam gavisi 925 essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam gaudeam, gaudeas, gaudeat; et pluraliter: utinam gaudeamus, gaudeatis, gaudeant.
904 gaudeo] chairome id est gaudeo Qlh 905 post 903 alia de coniugatione verbi eo praebet Gl2, cf. Appendicem latinam b 917 pluraliter: gaudeamus etc. D 918 gaudeto tu, gaudeto ille ... gaudeamus D
358
donatus graecus a
8Υποτακτικς γκλσεως χρνου 930 νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z
4ν χαρ, 4ν χαρQς, 4ν χαρQZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαρμεν, 4ν χαρτε, 4ν χαρσι. 935
8Ο παρακεμενος κα' iπερσυντ λικοςZ 940 4ν χαρκω, 4ν χαρκQης, 4ν
χαρκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαρκωμεν, 4ν χαρκητε, 4ν χαρκωσιν.
"νεστ!τος" ν χα ρομαι, " ν χα ρ8η, " ν χα ρεται- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν χαιρμε4α, " ν χα ρεσ4ε, " ν χα ρονται. &Ο παρατατικς- " ν "χαιρμην, " ν "χα ρου, " ν "χα ρετο- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "χαιρμε4α, " ν "χα ρεσ4ε, " ν "χα ροντο. &Ο παρακε μενος - " ν "χ:ρην, " ν "χ:ρης, " ν "χ:ρη- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "χ:ρημεν, " ν "χ:ρητε, " ν "χ:ρησαν.
&Ο Gπερσυντλικος- " ν "χαρ+κειν, " ν "χαρ+κεις, " ν "χαρ+κει- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν "χαρ+κειμεν, " ν "χαρ+κειτε, " ν "χαρ+κεισαν. &Ο μλλων- " ν χαρ!, " ν χα950 ρ87ς, " ν χαρ87- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- " ν χαρ!μεν, " ν χαρ7τε, " ν χαρ!σι. Απαρεμφ(του γκλσεως χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z χαρε>ν. &Ο παρακε μενος κα Gπερσυντλικος- χαρηκναι. 955 &Ο μλλων- χαρ+σεσ4αι. Μετοχικ4 νματ( εσι τα:ταZ χαρητ ου, χαρητ &ω, χαρητ ον. 945
939(a) % παρακεμενος κα' om. AN 940–943(b) χαρκω ... χαρκωσιν] κεχαρdesideratur, codicum tamen lectionen servavi 944–948(b) χαρκειν ... χαρκεισαν] codicis R lectionem servavi, cf. 911–912 954–955 om. x 954 χαρηκ ναι] κεχαρdesideratur, sed codicis R lectionem servavi 956 μετοχικ4 ... χαρητ ον om. R | χαρητ ου] -τ ων AQ | χαρητ &ω om. A
de verbo
359
Subiunctivo modo tempore praesenti: cum gaudeam, gaudeas, gaudeat; et pluraliter: cum gaudeamus. gaudeatis, gaudeant. 930
Praeterito imperfecto: cum gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et plurali- 935 ter: cum gauderemus, gauderetis, gauderent.
Praeterito perfecto: cum gavisus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum gavisi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint 940 vel fuerint.
Praeterito plusquamperfecto: cum gavisus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum gavisi essemus vel fuissemus, 945 essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
Futuro: cum gavisus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum gavisi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel 950 fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto: gaudere. Praeterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: gavisum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: gavisum ire vel gavisurum esse. Participialia nomina sunt haec: gaudendi, gaudendo, gaudendum.
956 gerundia vel participialia nomina D | post 956 alia de coniugatione verbi gaudeo necnon coniugationem verborum memini et decet praebet Gl2, de quibus vide Appendicem latinam c
955
360
donatus graecus a 3. Περ μετοχ7ς
5
10
15
20
Αναγιν+σκων τ μ ρος στ; Μετοχ στι. Διατ στι μετοχ; Διτι μ ρος λαμβ(νει νματος κα' μ ρος #ματος. Λαμβ(νει γ4ρ *π? το: νματος γ νη κα' πτ+σεις, *π? δ3 το: #ματος χρνους κα' σημασας, ξ *μφοτ ρων *ρι$μ?ν κα' σχμα. ΤQ μετοχQ πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Τνα; Γ νος, πτσις, χρνος, σημασα, *ρι$μ?ς κα' σχμα. Ποου γ νους; Παντοου. Διατ; Διτι ο_τως στ'ν κε>νο &xτινι κεκλληται, Wπερ δεικν2ει, κα' ,χει πιτηδειτητα το: λαβε>ν τρε>ς *ρ$ρικ4ς *ντωνυμας, οmον % κα' E κα' τ. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ονομαστικς Πο ας πτ σεως; ;Ονομαστικ7ς. στZ #μα *μετ(βατον Διατ ; Διτι A7μα μεταβ:τως συντ(ττεται μετ4 νομαστικς συντ:σσεται μετ ρ47ς πτ+σεως. πτ σεως. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος κα' παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι πPσα μετοχ λγουσα ες ανς ] ες ενς κατ4 Λατνους νεσττος κα' παρατατικο: χρνου στ. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου. Διατ; Διτι πPσα μετοχ λγουσα ες τους κα' ες σους κα' ες ξους κα' μα ες ους, dπερ στ' τε$νηκς aγουν κατ4 Λατνους μρτουους, παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου χρνου στν. Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Διατ; Διτι πPσα μετοχ λγουσα κατ4 Λατνους ες δους κα' ες ρους μ λλοντος χρνου στν. Ποας σημασας; Ενεργητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? νεργητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ *γαπ, *γαπRPς.
3.
1 περ' μετοχς add. BmNO, Uλλο #μα add. BC | *ναγιν+σκων] -ω BCO 4 *ρι$μ?ν] -ν BCG 5 τνα] τ ABCGOQR 7 παντοου] παντς BCG 7–8 κεκλληται] -λυται AOQ , -+λλυται BCGN, -+λυται R, corr. Schmitt 8 πιτηδει9 οmον om. x 10(a) νομαστικς] τητα] π' τQ διτητι BCGOR | τρε>ς om. x ε5$εας ABCGNQ 11(a) διατ post στ add. A | *μετ(βατον] *δι(βατον BCGN 15 κατ4 Λατνους om. BCG 16 χρνου om. 12(a) συντ(ττεται] -σσεται ANQ x 18 ες σους κα' om. R | σους] ους x, corr. Schmitt | ες ους] ιν ους ABNOQ (Lat. in us), ες ινους C, ν ους G, corr. Schmitt 19 dπερ] Wπερ x | τε$νηκς] -κ?ς codd., corr. Schmitt | aγουν] Wπερ στ Bm (del.), οmον x | μρτουους] μρτους ACQ | παρακειμ νου] παρατατικο: G 21–22 κατ4 Λατνους om. R 22 ες ... ρους] ν ( ν G) δους κα' ν ρους x | δους] ντους Schmitt 23 διατ om. O
de participio
361
3. De participio Legens quae pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia partem capit nominis partemque verbi. Recipit enim a nomine genera et casus, a verbo autem tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram. Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Genus, casus, tempus, significa- 5 tio, numerus et figura. Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia sic est illud cui adhaeret, quod significat, et habet habitudinem accipiendi tria articularia pronomina, ut hic et haec et hoc. Cuius casus? Nominativi est: Cuius casus? Nominativi. Quare? 10 verbum intransitivum construitur Quia verbum intransitive cum nominativo casu. construitur cum nominativo casu. Cuius temporis? Praesentis et praeteriti imperfecti. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in ans vel in ens praesentis et praeteriti 15 imperfecti temporis est. Cuius temporis? Praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in tus vel in sus vel in xus, et unum in uus, quod est mortuus, praeteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti temporis est. 20
Cuius temporis? Futuri. Quare? Quia omne participium desinens in dus et in rus futuri temporis est. Cuius significationis? Activae. Quare? Quia ab activo verbo derivatur, quod est illud: amo, amas.
362
donatus graecus a
25 Ποας σημασας; Πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? πα$ητικο: #ματος παρ(-
30
35
40
45
50
γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ *γαπμαι, *γαπRP. Ποας σημασας; Κοινς. Διατ; Διτι *π? κοινο: #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ γκληματζομαι, γκληματζQη. Ποας σημασας; Ο5δετ ρας. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δετ ρου #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ πορε2ομαι, πορε2Qη. Ποας σημασας; Απολιμπαντικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? *πολιμπαντικο: #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ δι+κομαι, δι+κQη. Ποας σημασας; Ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι ξ ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ'ν κε>νοZ χαρομαι, χαρQη. Ποας σημασας; Ο5δεμιPς. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς #ματος παρ(γεται, Wπερ στ' κε>νοZ δ2ναμαι, δ2νασαι. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Διατ; Διτι κ το: Iπλο: συντ$εται. Πο ου σχ+ματος; Παρασυν4του. Διατ ; Διτι οκ π’ ατο συντ 4εται, λλ’ π2 συν4του A+ματος παρ:γεται, οKον ναγιν σκω, διαναγιν σκω, "ξ οW διαναγιν σκων. 8Η νομαστικ % *ναγιν+σκων, E *ναγιν+σκουσα, τ? *ναγινσκονZ E γενικ το: *ναγιν+σκοντος, τς *ναγινωσκο2σης, το: *ναγιν+σκοντοςZ E δοτικ τ& *ναγιν+σκοντι, τQ *ναγινωσκο2σQη, τ& *ναγιν+σκοντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν *ναγιν+σκοντα, τν *ναγιν+σκουσαν, τ? *ναγινσκονZ E κλητικ c *ναγιν+σκων, c *ναγιν+σκουσα, c *ναγινσκονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: *ναγιν+σκοντος, *π? τς *ναγινωσκο2σης, *π? το: *ναγιν+σκοντος. 25 πα$ητικο: #ματος bis scripsit N 27–34 ordinem significationum ο5δετ ρας - ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς - κοινς - *πολιμπαντικς praebet R 27 διατ om. A 29 #ματος om. CGO 31 *πολιμπαντικς] -λειπαντικς AQ , -λυπαντικς BCGR, cf. c 3. 26 | *π? om. BCG | *πολιμπαντικο:] -λειπαντικο: AQ , -λυπαντικο: BCGR 33 διατ om. O 33–34 ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο:] ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς BG 34 #ματος om. x 35–36 om. R 35 #ματος παρ(γεται] παρ(γεται #ματος O 37 om. ABCQ | διατ om. BmO 38 διατ om. O 39 διατ om. O | προφ ρεται] προσ- R 40 om. ABCGNQR 41–43 om. x 44 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | % κα' E κα' τ add. O | % ... *ναγινσκον] % κα' E κα' τ? *ναγιν+σκων BCGQ , % *ναγιν+σκων, E *ναγιν+σκουσα inter lineas add. Q 1 45 τς ... *ναγιν+σκοντος] om. 46 τQ BQ (τς *ναγινωσκο2σης add. Q 1), το: *ναγιν+σκοντος om. ABmCGNQ ... *ναγιν+σκοντι] om. BCGQ (τQ *ναγινωσκο2σQη add. Q 1), τ& *ναγιν+σκοντι om. 47 τ?ν ... *ναγιγνσκον] τ?ν κα' τν κα' τ? *ναγιγν+σκοντα O, τ?ν κα' ABmNQ 48 c τν κα' τ? (τ?ν G) *ναγιγν+σκοντα, *ναγιγν+σκουσαν, *ναγιγν+σκων BCG *ναγιν+σκουσα] c om. ABCGNQ , *ναγιν+σκουσαν G | c *ναγινσκον om. BCGN 49 *π? τς *ναγινωσκο2σης] *π om. ABCGNQ | κα' post *ναγινωσκο2σης add. BmO 49–50 *π? το: *ναγιν+σκοντος om. ANQ
de participio
363
Cuius significationis? Passivae. Quare? Quia a passivo verbo derivatur, quod est illud: amor, amaris. Cuius significationis? Communis. Quare? Quia a communi verbo derivatur, quod est illud: criminor, criminaris. Cuius significationis? Neutralis. Quare? Quia a neutrali verbo derivatur, quod est illud: eo, is. Cuius significationis? Deponentis. Quare? Quia a deponenti verbo derivatur, quod est illud: sequor, sequeris. Cuius significationis? Neutralis passivae. Quare? Quia a neutro passivo verbo derivatur, quod est illud: gaudeo, gaudes. Cuius significationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia a nullius generis verbo derivatur, quod est illud: possum, potes. Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae. Quare? Quia a simplici componitur. Cuius figurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia non per se componitur, sed a composito verbo derivatur, ut lego, perlego, a quo perlegens.
25
30
35
40
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc legens, genitivo huius legentis, dativo huic legenti, accusativo hunc et hanc legentem et hoc legens, vocativo 45 o legens, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac legente vel legenti.
50
364
55
60
65
70
75
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % λ γων, E λ γουσα, τ? λ γονZ E γενικ το: λ γοντος, τς λεγο2σηςZ E δοτικ τ& λ γοντι, τQ λεγο2σQηZ E ατιατικ τ?ν λ γοντα, τν λ γουσαν, τ? λ γονZ E κλητικ c λ γων, λ γουσα, λ γονZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) λ γοντες, αF λ γουσαι, τ4 λ γονταZ ο5 ναγιν σκοντες, α5 ναγιν E γενικ τν λεγντωνZ E δοτικ σκουσαι, τ ναγιν σκοντα- το>ς λ γουσι, τα>ς λεγο2σαις, το>ς γενικ) τ!ν ναγινωσκντωνλ γουσιZ E ατιατικ τοGς λ γοντας, δοτικ) τος ναγιν σκουσιν, τ4ς λεγο2σας, τ4 λ γονταZ E κλητικ τας ναγινωσκοLσαις, τος c λ γοντες, c λ γουσαι, c λ γονταZ ναγιν σκουσιν- α1τιατικ) E *φαιρετικ *π? τν λεγντων. το6ς ναγιν σκοντας, τ ς ναγινωσκοLσας, τ ναγιν σκοντα- κλητικ) 3 ναγιν σκοντες, 3 ναγιν σκουσαι, 3 ναγιν σκοντα- φαιρετικ) π2 τ!ν ναγινωσκντων. 8Η νομαστικ % *ναγν+σας, E *ναγν+σασα, τ? *ναγνσανZ E γενικ το: *ναγν+σαντος, τς *ναγνωσ(σης, το: *ναγν+σαντοςZ E δοτικ τ& *ναγν+σαντι, τQ *ναγνωσ(σQη, τ& *ναγν+σαντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν *ναγν+σαντα, τν *ναγν+σασαν, τ? *ναγνσανZ E κλητικ c *ναγν+σας, c *ναγν+σασα, c *ναγνσανZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: *ναγν+σαντος, *π? τς *ναγνωσ(σης, *π? το: *ναγν+σαντοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF *ναγν+σαντες, αF *ναγν+σασαι, τ4 *ναγν+σανταZ E γενικ τν *ναγνωσ(ντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς *ναγν+σασι, τα>ς *ναγνωσ(σαις, το>ς *ναγν+σασιZ E ατιατικ τοGς *ναγν+σαντας, τ4ς *ναγνωσ(σας, τ4 *ναγν+σανταZ E κλητικ c *ναγν+σαντες, c *ναγν+σασαι, c *ναγν+σανταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ναγνωσ(ντων. 51–53 om. ABCGOQR, sed E νομαστικ (ε5$ε>α Bm) % λ γων, E λ γουσα κα' τ? λ γον praebent BmO 51 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α N 54(a) νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ , 57–58(a) το>ς λ γουσι om. om. O 57(a) τα>ς λεγο2σαις om. BCGQ , add. Q 1 ABCGNQ 60(a) c λ γουσαι om. BCG, c om. N 60(a) c λ γοντα om. BCG, c om. N 67 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 68 *ναγνωσ(σης] -σο2σης BCGR, -σ$ει(σης) Bm | το: *ναγν+σαντος om. ABCGNQ 69 *ναγνωσ(σQη] -σο2σQη BCGR, -σ$ει(σQη) Bm | τ& *ναγν+σαντι om. ABCGNQ 70 τν ... *ναγνσαν om. BCG | *ναγν+σασαν] -σουσαν R 70–71 c ... *ναγνσαν] c ... κα' c ... κα' c ... AQ | c *ναγν+σασα, c *ναγνσαν om. BCG 71 *ναγν+σασα] -σουσα R 71–72 *π? τς 72–73 νομαστικ] ... *ναγν+σαντος om. BCG, *π? το: *ναγν+σαντος om. ANQ ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 73 οF ... *ναγν+σασαι] οF ... κα' αF ... AQ | αF ... *ναγν+σαντα om. BC, τ4 *ναγν+σαντα om. ANQ 74 τα>ς *ναγνωσ(σαις] κα' *νεγνωκσι BCG, το>ς *νεγνωκσι O, τα>ς *νεγνωσο2σαις R 74–75 το>ς *ναγν+σασι] om. AN, τα>ς *νεγνωκσι BCG 75–76 τ4ς ... *ναγν+σαντα om. BCG, τ4 *ναγν+σαντα om. AOQ 76 E κλητικ ... *ναγν+σαντα om. N | c ... *ναγν+σαντα] c ... κα' c ... κα' c ... O | *ναγν+σασαι] om. BCG, -σουσαι R | c *ναγν+σαντα om. ABCGQ
de participio
365
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc legens, genitivo huius legentis, dativo huic legenti, accusativo hunc et hanc legentem et hoc legens, vocativo o legens, ablativo ab hoc et ab hac legente vel legenti. Et pluraliter: nominativo hi et hae legentes et haec legentia, genitivo horum et harum legentium vel legentum, dativo his legentibus, accu- 55 sativo hos et has legentes et haec legentia, vocativo o legentes et o legentia, ablativo ab his legentibus.
60
65
Nominativo lectus lecta lectum, genitivo lecti lectae lecti, dativo lecto lectae lecto, accusativo lectum lectam lectum, vocativo o lecte lecta lectum, ablativo a lecto lecta lecto; et pluraliter: nominativo lecti lectae lecta, genitivo lectorum lectarum lectorum, dativo lectis, accusa- 70 tivo lectos lectas lecta, vocativo o lecti lectae lecta, ablativo a lectis.
75
366
80
85
90
95
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % *ναγν+σων, E *ναγν+σουσα, τ? *ναγνσονZ E γενικ το: *ναγν+σοντος, τς *ναγνωσο2σης, το: *ναγν+σοντοςZ E δοτικ τ& *ναγν+σοντι, τQ *ναγνωσο2σQη, τ& *ναγν+σοντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν *ναγν+σοντα, τν *ναγν+σουσαν, τ? *ναγνσονZE κλητικ c *ναγν+σων, c *ναγν+σουσα, c *ναγνσονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: *ναγν+σοντος, *π? τς *ναγνωσο2σης, *π? το: *ναγν+σοντοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF *ναγν+σοντες, αF *ναγν+σουσαι, τ4 *ναγν+σονταZ E γενικ τν *ναγνωσντων, τν *ναγνωσουσν, τν *ναγνωσντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς *ναγν+σουσι, τα>ς *ναγνωσο2σαις, το>ς *ναγν+σουσιZ E ατιατικ τοGς *ναγν+σοντας, τ4ς *ναγνωσο2σας,τ4 *ναγν+σονταZ E κλητικ c *ναγν+σοντες, c *ναγν+σουσαι, c *νανγν+σονταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ναγνωσντων, *π? τν *ναγνωσουσν, *π? τν *ναγνωσντων. &Η νομαστικ) * ναγινωσκμενος, ναγινωσκομνη, τ2 ναγινωσκμενον- γενικ) το ναγινωσκομνου, τ7ς ναγινωσκομνης, το ναγινωσκομνου- δοτικ7 τ/! ναγινωσκομν/ω, τ87 ναγινωσκομν8η, τ/! ναγινωσκομν/ω- α1τιατικ) τ2ν ναγινωσκμενον, τ7ν ναγινωσκομνην, τ2 ναγινωσκμενον- κλητικ) 3 ναγινωσκμενε, 3 ναγινωσκομνη, 3 ναγινωσκμενον- φαιρετικ) π2 το ναγινωσκομνου, π2 τ7ς ναγινωσκομνης, π2 το ναγινωσκομνου- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) ο5 ναγινωσκμενοι, α5 ναγινωσκμεναι, τ ναγινωσκμενα γενικ) τ!ν ναγινωσκομνων- δοτικ) τος ναγινωσκομνοις,
78–103 om. AQ 78 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α BCGN | %] % κα' E κα' τ? O, % κα' E BCG | *ναγν+σων] -γν+σοων N | κα' E *ναγν+σουσα BmO | E ... *ναγνσον om. BCG, τ? *ναγνσον om. BmO 79 το: *ναγν+σοντος] το:, τς *ναγν+σοντος BCG, -σαντος NR | τς *ναγνωσο2σης] κα' τς *. BmO, om. BCG | το: *ναγν+σοντος om. BCGNO 80 τ& *ναγν+σοντι] τ&, τQ *ναγν+σοντι BCG, -σαντι R | τQ 80–81 *ναγνωσο2σQη] κα' τQ *. BmO, om. BCG | τ& *ναγν+σοντι om. BCGNO τ?ν *ναγν+σοντα] τ?ν, τν *. BCO, -σαντα N, τοGς *ναγν+σαντας G 81 τν *ναγν+σουσαν] κα' τν *. BmO, om. BCG, -σασαν N | τ? *ναγνσον om. BCGO 82 c *ναγνσον om. BCGNO 81–82 c *ναγν+σων] c *ναγν+σοντες BCG 82–83 *π? το: *ναγν+σοντος] *π? το:, τς α. BCG 83 *π? τς *ναγνωσο2σης] κα' *π? τς α. BmO, om. BCG | *π? το: *ναγν+σοντος om. BCGNO 84 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α BCGN | οF *ναγν+σοντες] οF (% BC) κα' αF *. BCG | αF *ναγν+σουσαι] κα' 85 τν αF *. O (κα' αF Bm), om. BCG | τ4 *ναγν+σοντα om. BCGNO, -σαντα R 86 το>ς *ναγν+σουσι] το>ς, τα>ς *ναγνωσουσν, τν *ναγνωσντων om. BCGNO *. BCG | τα>ς *ναγνωσο2σαις] κα' τα>ς Bm, κα' *. O, om. BCG | το>ς *ναγν+σουσι om. BCGNO 87 τοGς *ναγν+σοντας] το2ς, τ4ς *ναγν+σαντας BCG, -σαντας R | τ4ς *ναγνωσο2σας] κα' τ4ς Bm, κα' *ναγνωσο2σαις O, om. BCG | τ4 *ναγν+σοντα om. BCGNO, -σαντα R 88 c *ναγν+σοντες] -σαντες R | c *ναγν+σουσαι] κα' c 89–90 *π? *. O (και c Bm), om. BCG | c *ναγν+σοντα om. BCGNO, -σαντα R τν *ναγνωσουσν, *π? τν *ναγνωσντων om. BCGNO 91–103 om. x
de participio
367
Nominativo lecturus lectura lecturum, genitivo lecturi lecturae lecturi, dativo lecturo lecturae lecturo, accusativo lecturum lecturam lecturum, vocativo o lecture lectura lecturum, ablativo a lecturo lectura 80 lecturo; et pluraliter: nominativo lecturi lecturae lectura, genitivo lecturorum lecturarum lecturorum, dativo lecturis, accusativo lecturos lecturas lectura, vocativo o lecturi lecturae lectura, ablativo a lecturis. 85
90
Nominativo legendus legenda legendum, genitivo legendi legendae legendi, dativo legendo legendae legendo, accusativo legendum legendam legendum, vocativo o legende legenda legendum, ablativo a legendo legenda legendo; et pluraliter: nominativo legendi legendae legenda, genitivo legendorum legendarum legendorum, dativo legen- 95 dis, accusativo legendos legendas legenda, vocativo o legendi legendae legenda, ablativo a legendis.
368
donatus graecus a
100 τας ναγινωσκομναις, τος ναγινωσκομνοις- α1τιατικ) το6ς ναγι-
νωσκομνους, τ ς ναγινωσκομνας, τ ναγινωσκμενα- κλητικ) 3 ναγινωσκμενοι, 3 ναγινωσκμεναι, 3 ναγινωσκμενα- φαιρετικ) π2 τ!ν ναγινωσκομνων. Ποας κλσεως; Πρ+της κα' Πο ας κλ σεως; Τρ της. Διατ ; 105 δευτ ραςZ κ μ ρους $ηλυκο: Διτι ταLτης γενικ) ?νικ) ε1ς πρ+της, κ μ ρους *ρσενικο: ις συνεσταλμνον λ+γει κατ κα' ο5δετ ρου δευτ ρας. Λατ νους, οKον * ναγιν σκων το ναγιν σκοντος- κα οYτω >τεραι μετοχα λ+γουσαι ε1ς 110 ανς R ε1ς ενς ε1σν κλ σεως τρ της- α5 δS >τεραι μετοχα ε1σιν πρ της κα δευτρας. Διατ ; Διτι γενικ) τ!ν ?νικ!ν λ+γει ε1ς αε κα ε1ς ι, οKον 115 το ναγν σαντος, τ7ς ναγνωσ:σης, το ναγν σαντος.
4. Περ ντωνυμ ας Εγ τ μ ρος στν; Αντωνυμα στν. Διατ στιν *ντωνυμα; Διτι κε>ται ν τπ&ω δου νματος κα' κ2ριον aτοι β βαιον σημανει πρσωπον. ΤQ *ντωνυμRα πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Τνα; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα, πρσωπον κα' πτσις. 5 Ποου γ νους; Παντοου, *λλ’ ν Ποου γ νους; ΠαντοουZ τ&δε τ& τπ&ω *ρσενικ?ν ] $ηλυκν κατ4 τπον *ρσενικο:, $ηλυ] ο5δ τερον. Διατ; Διτι ο_τως κο: ] ο5δετ ρου, κα$+ς στι στ'ν κε>νο &xτινι κεκλληται, Wπερ τ? iποκεμενον τς γραφς. μφανει. (BmR)
105–106(a) $ηλυκο: πρ+της] το: $ηλυκο: πρ+της AQ , τς πρ+της $ηλυκο: ($ετικο: G) BCG 109(b) λγουσαι] -σιν R, corr. Schmitt 115–116(b) *ναγνωσ(σης] -σο2σης R, corr. Schmitt 4. 1 περ' *ντωνυμας add. BCGO 2 κ2ριον ... πρσωπον] κυρω (dub.) ν Uλλ&ωZ κα' σαφς δεικν2ει τ? πρσωπον Bm, cf. b 4. 2 3 kξ om. AQ | τνα] τ ABCGOQR 5(a) παντοου] παντς ABCGQ 5(b) ν Uλλ&ωZ add. Bm 4 πρσωπον om. G 5–8(b) cf. b. 4. 7–8 7(a) ] ο5δ τερον om. A 7(a) ο_τως] το:το A 8(a) κεκλληται] -+λυται ACG, -+λλυται BNOQ , corr. Schmitt
de pronomine
369 100
Cuius declinationis? Primae et secundae: ex parte feminini primae, ex parte masculini et neutri secundae.
Cuius declinationis? Tertiae. Quare? Quia eius genitivus 105 singularis in is correptum desinit, ut legens legentis; et sic alia participia desinentia in ans vel in ens sunt declinationis tertiae. Alia vero participia 110 sunt primae et secundae. Quare? Quia genitivus singularis desinit in ae et in i, ut lecti, lectae, lecti. 115
4. De pronomine Ego quae pars est? Pronomen est. Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur loco proprii nominis et certam significat personam. Pronomini quot accidunt? Sex. Quae? Species, genus, numerus, figura, persona et casus. Cuius generis? Omnis, sed in hoc Cuius generis? Omnis: 5 loco masculini vel feminini vel secundum locum masculini, neutri. Quare? Quia sic est feminini vel neutri, sicut est illud cui adhaeret, quod demonstrat. subiectum literaturae.
370
donatus graecus a
10 Πο ου εNδους; ΠρωτοτLπου. Διατ ; Διτι π’ οδεν2ς παρ:γεται.
15
20
25
30
35
Πο ου εNδους; Παραγ γου. Διατ ; Διτι π τινος παρ:γεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Πο ου σχ+ματος; Συν4του. Π4εν συντ 4εται; ;Εκ τ!ν ?αυτο συντι4εμνων. Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Πο ου προσ που; Πρ του R Διτι σημανει πρPγμα ;να δι’ α5το: δευτρου R τρ του. Διατ ; λ γηται. Διτι π:ντα τ νματα κα α5 Ποου προσ+που; Δευτ ρου. Διατ; ντωνυμ αι ε1σ τρ των προσ Διτι σημανει πρPγμα, ;να ε@ς τινα πων, πλ)ν τ7ς "γ , [περ "στ Uλλος λαλQ. πρ του, κα τ7ς σL, [περ "στ Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Διατ; δευτρου, κα τ!ν κλητικ!ν Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωπτ σεων τ!ν "τρων, α\τινες νυμαι εσ'ν τρτων προσ+πων, πλν ε1σν προσ που δευτρου. τς γ+, dτις στ' πρ+του, κα' σ2, dτις στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν παρηγμ νων *π’ α5τν. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ονομαστικς στ' Πο ας πτ σεως; ;Ονομαστικ7ς. #μα *μεταβ(τως συνταττμενον Διατ ; Διτι "στ A7μα μεταμετ4 νομαστικς πτ+σεως. β:τως συντ:σσεται μετ ρ47ς πτ σεως. 8Η νομαστικ γ+Z E γενικ μο:Z E δοτικ μοZ E ατιατικ μ Z E *φαιρετικ *π’ μο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ Eμε>ςZ E γενικ EμνZ E δοτικ Eμ>νZ E ατιατικ EμPςZ E *φαιρετκ *φ’ Eμν. 8Η νομαστικ σ2Z E γενικ σο:Z E δοτικ σοZ E ατιατικ σ Z E κλητικ c σ2Z E *φαιρετικ *π? σο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ iμε>ςZ E γενικ iμνZ E δοτικ iμ>νZ E ατιατικ iμPςZ E κλητικ c iμε>ςZ E *φαιρετικ *φ’ iμν. 10–11 om. x
15–16 om. x | συντι$εμ νων] -μ νου R, corr. Schmitt 17–23(b) ποου ... δευτ ρου] cf. b 4. 12–14 18(a) διτι om. O 21(a) ε@ς τινα] ες τιμν NQ 26(a) dτις ... σ2 om. G 27(a) δευτ ρου] -τ ρας G 27–28(a) τν 29–31(a) ποας ... πτ+σεως] παρηγμ νων] το>ς παρηγμ νοις codd., corr. Schmitt codicum lectionem servavi, sed συντ(ττεται post συνταττμενον addiderim (ut Lat. construitur) 29–32(b) ποας ... πτ+σεως] codicis lectionem servavi, sed συντασσμενον post συντ(σσεται addiderim (ut Lat. positum) 30(a) *μεταβ(τως] *διαβ(τως BCG 31(a) νομαστικς] ρ$ς ABCGNQ , 30–32(b) διτι ... πτ+σεως] cf. 1. 32–35(a) 34 πλη$υντικςZ ο5κ ,χει R | cf. 31(b) 33 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 35 E κλητικ c Eμε>ς post EμPς add. A 36–39 E 36 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α BCGN 37 νομαστικ] νομαστικ ... *φ’ iμν om. AQ ε5$ε>α BCGN
de pronomine
371
Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur. Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? A suis componentibus. Cuius personae? Primae. Quare? Cuius personae? Primae vel seQuia significat rem ut per se ipsam cundae vel tertiae. Quare? Quia loquatur. omnia nomina et pronomina Cuius personae? Secundae. Quare? sunt tertiarum personarum, Quia significat rem ut ad aliquem exceptis ego, quod est primae, alius loquatur. et tu, quod est secundae, et Cuius personae? Tertiae. Quare? vocativis casibus aliorum, qui Quia omnia nomina et pronomina sunt personae secundae. sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est primae, et tu, quod est secundae, et derivatis ab illis. Cuius casus? Nominativi est: verbum intransitive construitur cum nominativo casu
10
15
20
25
Cuius casus? Nominativi. Quare? Quia est verbum 30 intransitive positum construitur cum nominativo casu. Nominativo ego, genitivo mei vel mis, dativo mihi, accusativo me, ablativo a me; et pluraliter: nominativo nos, genitivo nostrum vel nostri, dativo nobis, accusativo nos, ablativo a nobis. 35 Nominativo tu, genitivo tui vel tis, dativo tibi, accusativo te, vocativo o tu, ablativo a te; et pluraliter: nominativo vos, genitivo vestrum vel verstri, dativo vobis, accusativo vos, vocativo o vos, ablativo a vobis.
372 40 8Η νομαστικ α5τςZ
E γενικ α5το:Z E δοτικ α5τ&Z E ατιατικ α5τνZ E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5το:Z 45 κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ α5τοZ E γενικ α5τνZ E δοτικ α5το>ςZ E ατιατικ α5το2ςZ 50 E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5τν.
donatus graecus a 8Η γενικ α5το:Z E δοτικ α5τ&Z E ατιατικ α5τνZ E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5το:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E γενικ SαυτνZ E δοτικ Sαυτο>ςZ E ατιατικ Sαυτο2ςZ E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5τν.
(BCG)
&Η γενικ) οW δοτικ) οK α1τιατικ) > φαιρετικ) φ’οWκα πλη4υντικ!ς νομαστικ) σφες γενικ) σφων δοτικ) σφ σιν α1τιατικ) σφας φαιρετικ) π2 [τ!ν] σφων.
(ABmNOQ) Ποου τρπου *ντωνυμας; Πρ+του. Πρτος τρπος *ντωνυμας στ'ν Διατ ; Διτι τοLτων γενικ) ο[τινος E γενικ ες ις ] ες ι ?νικ) ε1ς ι R ε1ς ις κα δοτικ) 55 κα' E δοτικ ες ι φ2σει λγει ε1ς ι φLσει λ+γει κατ Λατ κατ4 Λατνους, οmον γ+, μο:, μοZ νους, οKον "γ "μο, "μο - σL, σ2, σο:, σοZ σο, σο - οW, οK, α5τς, α5το:, α5τ&, Sαυτο:, Sαυτ&,
(ABmNOQ)
(BCG)
60 Wπερ ο5 ποιε> σις χ(ριν διαφορPς σις #ματοςZ κα' συν χονται ν το2τ&ω
τ& τρπ&ω τρε>ς πρωττυπαι *ντωνυμαι, οmον γ+, σ2, α5τς. (ABmNOQ) Sαυτο:. (BCG) οW. 8Η νομαστικ κε>νος, κενη, κε>νοZ E γενικ κενου, κενης, κενουZ E δοτικ κεν&ω, κενQη, κεν&ωZ E ατιατικ κε>νον, κενην, κε>νοZ E 65 *φαιρετικ *π’ κενου, *π’ κενης, *π’ κενουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ κε>νοι, κε>ναι, κε>ναZ E γενικ κενωνZ E δοτικ κενοις, κεναις, κενοιςZ E ατιατικ κενους, κενας, κε>ναZ E *φαιρετικ *π’ κενων.
40(a) νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α AQ 46(a) E νομαστικ α5το om. AN 52 πρ+του] πρ+της BCGNO 54(a) ο[τινος] Xστινος BmN 54(a) ες ις] om. G, σς NO 55(a) ες ι om. BCGO 56(a) κατ4 Λατνους om. ABCGQ 54(a) ες ι om. G 58(a) α5τς ... α5τ&] α5το:, α5τ& om. N 60 Wπερ] τ? R | σις] ες ις A, σης NO | #ματος] #τος G, β ρμπει R | συν χονται] - ρχονταi AQ , - ρχεται BCOR, - χεται G 61 τ& τρπ&ω] τ& προσ+π&ω G 63 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | κενης, 64 κενQη om. C | κεν&ω] κε>νο A, om. C | κενου] κενου om. ABCGQ κε>νο] -ον x 65 *π’ κενης, *π’ κενου om. C 66 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 66–67 E γενικ ... κε>να om. G 67 κεναις, κενοις] κενοις om. BC
de pronomine
373
Genitivo sui, dativo sibi, accusativo se, ablativo a se; et pluraliter: 40 genitivo sui, dativo sibi, accusativo se, ablativo a se.
45
50
Cuius modi pronominis? Primi. Primus modus pronominis est cuius genitivus in is vel in i et dativus in i naturaliter desinit, ut ego, mei vel mis, mihi; tu, tui vel tis, tibi; sui, sibi,
Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in i vel in is et dativus in i naturaliter desinit, ut ego, 55 mei vel mis, mihi; tu, tui vel tis, tibi; sui, sibi,
quod non facit sis causa differentiae sis verbi; et continentur in hoc 60 modo tria pronomina primitiva, scilicet ego, tu, sui. Nominativo ille illa illud, genitivo illius, dativo illi, accusativo illum illam illud, ablativo ab illo ab illa ab illo; et pluraliter: nominativo illi illae illa, genitivo illorum illarum illorum, dativo illis, accusativo illos 65 illas illa, ablativo ab illis.
61 sui] aftos id est sui Qlh
374
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ ο[τος, α_τη, το:τοZ E γενικ το2του, τα2της, το2τουZ 70 E δοτικ το2τ&ω, τα2τQη, το2τ&ωZ E ατιατικ το:τον, τα2την, το:τοZ E
75
80
85
90
*φαιρετικ *π? το2του, *π? τα2της, *π? το2του. κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ ο[τοι, α[ται, τα:ταZ E γενικ το2τωνZ E δοτικ το2τοις, τα2ταις, το2τοιςZ E ατιατικ το2τους, τα2τας, τα:ταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το2των. 8Η νομαστικ α5τς, α5τ, α5τZ &Η νομαστικ) ?αυτς, ?αυτ+, E γενικ α5το:, α5τς, α5το:Z ?αυτ- γενικ) ?αυτο, ?αυτ7ς, E δοτικ α5τ&, α5τQ, α5τ&Z ?αυτο- δοτικ) ?αυτ/!, ?αυτ87, E ατιατικ α5τν, α5τν, α5τZ ?αυτ/!- α1τιατικ) ?αυτν, E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5το:, *π’ α5τς, ?αυτ+ν, ?αυτ- φαιρετικ) φ’ *π’ α5το:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ ?αυτο, φ’ ?αυτ7ς, φ’ ?αυE νομαστικ α5το, α5τα, α5τ(Z το- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαE γενικ α5τνZ E δοτικ α5το>ς, στικ) ?αυτο , ?αυτα , ?αυτ:α5τα>ς, α5το>ςZ E ατιατικ α5το2ς, γενικ) ?αυτ!ν- δοτικ) ?αυα5τ(ς, α5τ(Z E *φαιρετικ τος, ?αυτας, ?αυτος- α1τια*π’ α5τν. τικ) ?αυτοLς, ?αυτ:ς, ?αυτ:- φαιρετικ) φ’ ?αυτ!ν. 8Η νομαστικ %, E, τZ E γενικ το:, τς, το:Z E δοτικ τ&, τQ, τ&Z E ατιατικ τν, τν, τZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το:, τς, το:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF, αF, τ(Z E γενικ τνZ E δοτικ το>ς, τα>ς, το>ςZ E ατιατικ το2ς, τ(ς, τ(Z E *φαιρετικ *π? τν. Ποου τρπου *ντωνυμας; Δευτ ρου. Διατ; Διτι το2του E γενικ Sνικ ες ιους κα' E δοτικ ες ι φυσικς λγει κατ4 Λατνους, οmον κε>νος, κενου, κεν&ωZ ο[τος, το2του, το2τ&ωZ α5τς, α5το:, α5τ&Z Sαυτς, Sαυτο:, Sαυτ&Z %, το:, τ&.
70 τα2τQη, το2τ&ω om. G | το:το] -ον x 71 *π? τα2της, *π? το2του om. BCGNO, *π? το2του om. R 72 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α BCGN, om. AQ | τα:τα] το:τα BCG (sic) 72–73 το2τοις, τα2ταις] το2τοις om. AO 73 το2τοις] τα:τα A, το:τα BCG, τα2τοις Bm | τα:τα] το:τα BG, το:ται C 75(a) νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 78(a) α5τ] -ν ABCNOQ , om. G 79–80(b) *φ’ Sαυτο:] 78(a) α5τν om. G *π’ S. R, corr. Schmitt 80–81(b) *φ’ Sαυτο:] *π’ S. R, corr. Schmitt 83(a) α5τα>ς, 87 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | E, τ] E κα' α5το>ς] α5το>ς om. BCG, α5τ( O 89 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | τα>ς, το>ς] το>ς om. BCG 91–94 post τ R 103 praebet x, sed cf. D (p), qui Cuius modi pronominis? Secundi post is (%) praebet 92 ιους] ις x | E δοτικ] E om. x 91 *ντωνυμας om. x | Sνικ om. ABmNOQ 93 ο[τος ... το2τ&ω] το2του, το2τ&ω om. x, post τ& transp. R | α5το:, α5τ& om. R | α5τ&] -ν N | α5τ?ν post α5τ& add. AOQ 93–94 Sαυτς ... Sαυτ&] α5τς, α5το:, α5τ& x 94 τ post τ& add. AOQ
de pronomine
375
Nominativo iste ista istud, genitivo istius, dativo isti, accusativo istum istam istud, ablativo ab isto ab ista ab isto; et pluraliter: nominativo 70 isti istae ista, genitivo istorum istarum istorum, dativo istis, accusativo istos istas ista, ablativo ab istis.
Nominativo ipse ipsa ipsum, genitivo ipsius, dativo ipsi, accusativo 75 ipsum ipsam ipsum, ablativo ab ipso ab ipsa ab ipso; et pluraliter: nominativo ipsi ipsae ipsa, genitivo ipsorum ipsarum ipsorum, dativo ipsis, accusativo ipsos ipsas ipsa, ablativo ab ipsis. 80
85
Nominativo hic et haec et hoc, genitivo huius, dativo huic, accusativo hunc et hanc et hoc, ablativo ab hoc ab hac ab hoc; et pluraliter: nominativo hi hae haec, genitivo horum harum horum, dativo his, accusativo hos has haec, ablativo ab his. 90 Cuius modi pronominis? Secundi. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in ius et dativus in i naturaliter desinit, ut ille, illius, illi; ipse, ipsius, ipsi; iste, istius, isti; is, eius, ei; hic, huius, huic.
90 post 90 declinationem pronominis is ea id praebet D
376
donatus graecus a
95 8Η νομαστικ εmς, μα, kνZ E γενικ Sνς, μιPς, SνςZ E δοτικ Sν, μιRP,
100
105
110
115
SνZ E ατιατικ kνα, μαν, kνZ E κλητικ c εmς, μα, kνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Sνς, τς μιPς, το: Sνς. 8Η νομαστικ Wλος, Wλη, WλονZ E γενικ Wλου, Wλης, WλουZ E δοτικ Wλ&ω, WλQη, Wλ&ωZ E ατιατικ Wλον, Wλην, WλονZ E κλητικ c Wλε, c Wλη, c WλονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Wλου, τς Wλης, το: WλουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF Wλοι, αF Wλαι, τ4 WλαZ E γενικ τν WλωνZ E δοτικ το>ς Wλοις, τα>ς Wλαις, το>ς WλοιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς Wλους, τ4ς Wλας, τ4 WλαZ E κλητικ c Wλοι, c Wλαι, c WλαZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Wλων. &Η νομαστικ) =ς R =σπερ, [περ, =περ- γενικ) οWπερ, ]σπερ, οWπερ- δοτικ) /^περ, 8]περ, /^περ- α1τιατικ) =νπερ, [νπερ, =περ- φαιρετικ) φ’ οWπερ, φ’ ]ς, φ’ οW- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) ο\τινες, α\τινες, _τινα- γενικ) ^ντινων- δοτικ) οKστισι, αKστισι, οKστισι- α1τιατικ) οYς, _ς, _- φαιρετικ) φ’ ^ν. 8Η νομαστικ % μς, E μ, τ? μνZ E γενικ το: μο:, τς μς, το: μο:Z E δοτικ τ& μ&, τQ μQ, τ& μ&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν μν, τν μν, τ?ν μνZ E κλητικ c μ , c μ, c μνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: μο:, τς μς, το: μο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF μο, αF μα, τ4 μ(Z E γενικ τν μνZ E δοτικ το>ς μο>ς, τα>ς μα>ς, το>ς μο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς μο2ς, τ4ς μ(ς, τ4 μ(Z E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μν. 8Η νομαστικ % σς, E σ, τ? σνZ E γενικ το: σο:, τς σς, το: σο:Z E δοτικ τ& σ&, τQ σQ, τ& σ&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν σν, τν σν, τ? σνZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: σο:, τς σς, το: σο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF σο, αF σα, τ4 σ(Z E γενικ τν σνZ E δοτικ το>ς σο>ς,
95 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | εmς om. G | μα] E μα G | μιPς, Sνς] Sνς om. ABCGNQ 96 kνα] -αν BCG | μαν] μα ABCO 96–97 *π? ... Sνς] *π? Sνς, μιPς, Sνς R, *φ’ Sνς, *π? μιPς, *φ’ Sνς desideratur, sed cf. 100 *π? το: Wλου κ.τ.λ. 98 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | 97 μιPς, το: Sνς] το: Sνς om. ABCGNQ Wλης, Wλου] Wλου om. ABCGNQ 99 WλQη, Wλ&ω] Wλ&ω om. ABCGNQ | Wλην, Wλον] Wλον om. ABCGNQ | Wλε] -ος R | c Wλη, x Wλον] ordinem c Wλον, c Wλη praebent 101 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | ANQ 100 E *φαιρετικ ... Wλου om. R οF .. Wλα] Wλοι, Wλαι, Wλα R | τν om. R 101–102 το>ς ... Wλοις] Wλοις, Wλαις, Wλοις R, τα>ς ... Wλοις om. BCG, το>ς Wλοις om. N 102 τοGς ... Wλα] Wλους, Wλας, Wλα R, τ4ς Wλας om. C 103 *π? τν Wλων] *π’ Wλων R 104–108 om. x 106 *φ’ Xς, *φ’ ο[] codicis R lectionem servavi, fort. tamen *φ’ Xσπερ et *φ’ ο[περ scribenda 108 ο_ς ... *φ’ xν] codicis R lectionem servavi, fort. tamen ο_στινας, qστινας, qτινα et *φ’ xντινων scribenda 109 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 109–110 τς μς, 110 τQ μQ, τ& μ& om. BmO 111 E κλητικ ... μν om. το: μο: om. BCGNO 112 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ | οF μο om. GR, c μ , c μ om. BCNO 115 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ O 113 τα>ς ... μο>ς] το>ς μο>ς om. BCG 115–116 τς σς, το: σο:] το: σο: om. BCGO 116 E δοτικ ... τ& σ& om. BCG
de pronomine
377
Nominativo unus una unum, genitivo unius, dativo uni, accusativo 95 unum unam unum, vocativo o une una unum, ablativo ab uno ab una ab uno. Nominativo totus tota totum, genitivo totius, dativo toti, accusativo totum totam totum, vocativo o tote tota totum, ablativo a toto a tota a toto; et pluraliter: nominativo toti totae tota, genitivo totorum 100 totarum totorum, dativo totis, accusativo totos totas tota, vocativo o toti o totae o tota, ablativo a totis. Nominativo quis vel qui, quae, quod vel quid, genitivo cuius, dativo cui, accusativo quem quam quod vel quid, ablativo a quo vel a qui, a 105 qua, a quo vel a qui; et pluraliter: nominativo qui quae quae, genitivo quorum quarum quorum, dativo quis vel quibus, accusativo quos quas quae, ablativo a quis vel a quibus. Nominativo meus mea meum, genitivo mei meae mei, dativo meo meae meo, accusativo meum meam meum, vocativo o mi mea meum, 110 ablativo a meo mea meo; et pluraliter: nominativo mei meae mea, genitivo meorum mearum meorum, dativo meis, accusativo meos meas mea, vocativo o mei meae mea, ablativo a meis. Nominativo tuus tua tuum, genitivo tui tuae tui, dativo tuo tuae tuo, 115 accusativo tuum tuam tuum, ablativo a tuo tua tuo; et pluraliter: nominativo tui tuae tua, genitivo tuorum tuarum tuorum, dativo tuis, accusativo tuos tuas tua, vocativo o tui tuae tua, ablativo a tuis.
95 nominativo is ea id perperam Qlh (qui fort. εmς ut is legit intellexitque)
378
donatus graecus a
τα>ς σα>ς, το>ς σο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς σο2ς, τ4ς σ(ς, τ4 σ(Z E *φαιρετικ 120 *π? τν σν.
8Η νομαστικZ Wς, ο[, οm, k ποιητικς
125
130
135
140
8Η ε5$ε>αZ Wς, d, W
&Η νομαστικ) * =ς, [, τ2 =[ν]- γενικ) το οW, τ7ς (BmO) (BCG) ]ς, το οW- δοτικ) τ/! /^, τ7 8], τ/! /^- α1τιατικ) τ2ν =ν, τ)ν [ν, τ2 =[ν]- φαιρετικ) φ’ οW, φ’ ]ς, φ’ οW- κα πλη4υντικ!ς- νομαστικ) ο5 ο\, α5 α\, τ _- γενικ) τ!ν ^ν- δοτικ) τος οKς, τας αKς, τος οKς- α1τιατικ) το6ς οYς, τ ς _ς, τ _- α1φαιρετικ) φ’ ^ν. 8Η νομαστικ % Eμ τερος, E Eμετ ρα, τ? Eμ τερονZ E γενικ το: Eμετ ρου, τς Eμετ ρας, το: Eμετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& Eμετ ρ&ω, τQ Eμετ ρRα, τ& Eμετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Eμ τερον, τν Eμετ ραν, τ? Eμ τερονZ E κλητικ c Eμ τερε, c Eμετ ρα, c Eμ τερονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Eμετ ρου, *π? τς Eμετ ρας, *π? το: Eμετ ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF Eμ τεροι, αF Eμ τεραι, τ4 Eμ τεραZ E γενικ τν Eμετ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς Eμετ ροις, τα>ς Eμετ ραις, το>ς Eμετ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς Eμετ ρους, τ4ς Eμετ ρας, τ4 Eμ τεραZ E κλητικ c Eμ τεροι, c Eμ τεραι, c Eμ τεραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Eμετ ρων.
119 τα>ς σα>ς, το>ς σο>ς] το>ς σο>ς om. BCG 121–132 om. ANQ 122(b) d] dς CG 133–141 E νομαστικ ... *π? τν Eμετ ρων bis praebet A 133 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 134 τς Eμετ ρας, το: Eμετ ρου] το: Eμετ ρου om. BCG 134–135 τQ 136 c Eμετ ρα, c Eμ τερον] Eμετ ρα, Eμετ ρRα, τ& Eμετ ρ&ω] τ& Eμετ ρ&ω om. BCG 136–137 E *φαιρετικ ... Eμετ ρου om. C 137 *π? τς ... Eμ τερον ABCNQ Eμετ ρου] τς Eμετ ρας, το: Eμετ ρου (τ?ν Eμ τερον BC) ABCNOQ | νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCGNQ 139 τα>ς Eμετ ραις, το>ς Eμετ ροις] το>ς Eμετ ροις om. BCG 141 E *φαιρετικ ... 140 c Eμ τεραι, c Eμ τερα] Eμ τεραι, Eμ τερα ABCNQ Eμετ ρων om. ABCNOQ
de pronomine
379 120
Nominativo suus sua suum, genitivo sui suae sui, dativo suo suae suo, accusativo suum suam suum, ablativo a suo sua suo; et pluraliter: nominativo sui suae sua, genitivo suorum suarum suorum, dativo suis, accusativo suos suas sua, vocativo o sui suae sua, ablativo a suis. 125
130
Nominativo noster nostra nostrum, genitivo nostri nostrae nostri, dativo nostro nostrae nostro, accusativo nostrum nostram nostrum, vocativo o noster nostra nostrum, ablativo a nostro a nostra a nostro; 135 et pluraliter: nominativo nostri nostrae nostra, genitivo nostrorum nostrarum nostrorum, dativo nostris, accusativo nostros nostras nostra, vocativo o nostri nostrae nostra, ablativo a nostris. 140
380
145
150
155
160
165
donatus graecus a
8Η νομαστικ % iμ τερος, E iμετ ρα, τ? iμ τερονZ E γενικ το: iμετ ρου, τς iμετ ρας, το: iμετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& iμετ ρ&ω, τQ iμετ ρRα, τ& iμετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν iμ τερον, τν iμετ ραν, τ? iμ τερονZ E κλητικ c iμ τερε, c iμετ ρα, c iμ τερονZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το: iμετ ρου, τς iμετ ρας, το: iμετ ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E νομαστικ οF iμ τεροι, αF iμ τεραι, τ4 iμ τεραZ E γενικ τν iμετ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς iμετ ροις, τα>ς iμετ ραις, το>ς iμετ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς iμετ ρους, τ4ς iμετ ρας, τ4 iμ τεραZ E κλητικ c iμ τεροι, c iμ τεραι, c iμ τεραZ E *φαιρετικ *π? τν iμετ ρων. Ποου τρπου *ντωνυμας; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι δι4 π(ντων *κολου$ε> Διτι τρ τος τρπος κλσιν κινητν νομ(των. ντωνυμ ας "στν =στις "ν πFσιν >πεται κατ Λατ νους κλ σει κινουμνων νομ:των πρ της κα δευτρας κλ σεως. Ποου τρπου *ντωνυμας; Τετ(ρτου. Διατ; Διτι *κολου$ε> κλσιν νομ(των τρτης κλσεως. Πσα εσ' τ4 νματα δι’ xν ο5κ ,στιν Πσαι ε1σν ντωνυμ αι δι’ ^ν ο5δεμα πτσις κατ4 Λατνους; οδεμ α "στ πτ!σις κατ Πεντεκαδεκα, κτ πρωττυπα κα' Λατ νους; Δεκαπντε- κτ` Sπτ4 παρ(γωγα. Πρωττυπα οmον γ+, πρωττυπαι κα ?πτ παρ:σ2, Sαυτο:, κε>νος, α5τς, ο[τοςZ γωγαι. Πρωττυπαι οKον "γ , παρ(γωγα οmον μς, σς, Wς, Eμ τερος σL, οW, "κενος, ?αυτς, *, ipse κα' iμ τερος, ***. κα οWτος- παρ:γωγαι οKον "μς, σς, =ς, μτερος κα Gμτερος, νοστρ ς κα βεστρ:ς.
142–150 iμ τερος post definitionem tertii modi (151–157) praebent ABCNOQ , om. G 143 τς Eμετ ρας, το: iμετ ρου] το: iμετ ρου 142 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ om. BC 144 E ατιατικ ... τ? iμ τερον om. R 145 c iμετ ρα, c iμ τερον] iμετ ρα, iμ τερον ABCNQ 145–146 τς ... iμετ ρου] iμετ ρας, iμετ ρου ABCOQ , 147 E δοτικ το>ς iμετ ροις] το>ς om. N 146 νομαστικ] ε5$ε>α ABCNQ 148 τα>ς ... iμετ ροις] το>ς iμετ ροις om. ABCGNQ 149 E iμετ ροις om. A 151 τρτου] κλητικ ... iμ τερα om. R | c iμ τεραι, c iμ τερα om. ABCNQ 153(a) κινητν] κοινν τν ABmNOQ , κοιν τν BCG, corr. -ης x, corr. Schmitt Schmitt 155(b) κλσει] κλσεως R 158 post 157 E νομαστικ % Eμεδαπς κ.τ.λ. et E 158–159 om. νομαστικ iμεδαπς κ.τ.λ. con. Schmitt, cf. D: hic nostras ... hic vestras R 158 τετ(ρτου] -ης x, corr. Schmitt 160–165(a) om. AQ 160(a) τ4 νματα] *ντωνυμαι G 166(a) Eμεδαπ?ς κα' iμεδαπς post iμ τερος add. Schmitt
de pronomine
381
Nominativo vester vestra vestrum, genitivo vestri vestrae vestri, dativo vestro vestrae vestro, accusativo vestrum vestram vestrum, vocativo o vester vestra vestrum, ablativo a vestro a vestra a vestro; et pluraliter: nominativo vestri vestrae vestra, genitivo vestrorum vestrarum vestro- 145 rum, dativo vestris, accusativo vestros vestras vestra, vocativo o vestri vestrae vestra, ablativo a vestris.
150
Cuius modi pronominis? Tertii. Quare? Quia per omnia sequitur Quia tertius modus pronominis declinationem mobilium est qui in omnibus sequitur nominum. declinationem mobilium nominum primae et secundae 155 declinationis. Cuius modi pronominis? Quarti. Quare? Quia sequitur declinationem nominum tertiae declinationis. Quot sunt pronomina de quibus nulla dubitatio est? Quindecim, octo 160 primitiva et septem derivativa. Primitiva ut ego, tu, sui, ille, ipse, iste, hic et is; derivativa ut meus, tuus, suus, noster et vester, nostras et vestras. 165
156 post 156 declinationem pronominum nostras et vestras praebet D
382
donatus graecus a
170 Πσοι τρποι εσ' τν *ντωνυμιν; Τ σσαρεςZ πρτος, δε2τερος, τρτος
κα' τ ταρτος.
5. Περ προ4σεως Ες τ μ ρος στν; Πρ$εσς στιν. Διατ στι πρ$εσις; Διτι προτ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν λγ&ω δι4 σ2νταξιν ] σ2ν$εσιν aγουν δι’ ,ν$εσιν, τουτ στι β(σινZ δι4 ,ν$εσιν, τουτ στι δι($εσιν τς πτ+σεωςZ δι4 σ2ν$εσιν, τουτ στιν Wταν συντ$εται. 5 ΤQ προ$ σει πσα παρ πεται; jΕν. Τ; Πτσις μνον. Πσαι πτ+σεις; Δ2ο. Τνες; Ατιατικ κα' *φαιρετικ. Ες τνι πτ+σει δουλε2ει; ΑτιατικQ. Δ?ς προ$ σεις ατιατικς πτ+σεωςZ ες, πρς, πρ, κατ(, κ2κλ&ω, γγ2ς, *ντ, κτς, ντς, μεταξ2, πλησον, ξ ναντας, δι(, παρ(, κατ(, μετ(, π ρα, π(νω, γ2ρ$εν, kως, ,γγι10 στα. Απ? τνι πτ+σει δουλε2ει; ΑφαιρετικQ. Δ?ς προ$ σεις *φαιρετικς πτ+σεωςZ *π, σ2ν, ν+πιον, λ($ρRα, κ, ξ, γγ2ς, δημοσRα, Uνευ, δχα. Εν τνι πτ+σει δουλε2ει; Αμφοτ ραις aτοι Sκατ ρRα. Δ?ς προ$ σεις *μφοτ ρας πτ+σεωςZ ν, iπ, π(νω κα' iποκ(τω. 15 Πσαι εσ' προ$ σεις α;τινες ο5χ εiρσκονται ε μ ν συν$ σει; jΕξ. Τνες; Δι, δις, ρε, σε, αν κα' κον.
170 εσ' om. R | τ σσαρες] τεσσ(ρεις ANQ , δ’ BC, τεσσ(ροις G, om. BmO, corr. Schmitt 171 κα' om. BCGOR 3–4 δι4 5. 1 περ' προ$ σεως add. NO, -σεων B | ες] ν ABCNOQ , *ν G 5 μνον] μνη R, post kν transp. A 6 τνες] τ BCG, ,ν$εσιν ... σ2ν$εσιν om. R om. ARQ 7 τνι πτ+σει] τνα πρ$εσιν ABmNOQ , τονυν πτσιν BCG | ατιατικQ] E ατιατικ AQ , ατιατικν BCG, ατιατικ NO | προ$ σεις] πρ$εσιν ABmNOQ , -σις BCG 8 ες] ν x 9 π ρα] παρ( AQ 11 *π?] iπ? ABCNOQ , π? (sic) G | τνι] τ AGQ , τν BC, τνα BmO | πτ+σει] πτσιν x | *φαιρεικQ] E αφαιρετικ AQ | προ$ σεις] πρ$εσιν ABmNOQ , -σις BCG 13 ν] ιν ABCNOQ , ’ν G | πτ+σει] πτσιν BCG | *μφοτ ραις] -τ ροις codd., corr. Schmitt | aτοι Sκατ ρRα om. R | προ$ σεις] πρ$εσιν ANOQ , -σις BCG 13–14 *μφοτ ρας] Sκατ ρας x 16 τνες] τ BCG, om. R | δι om. x | κα' κον] κα' τ?ν κον B
de praepositione
383
Quot sunt modi pronominis? Quattuor: primus, secundus, tertius et 170 quartus. 5. De praepositione Ad quae pars est? Praepositio est. Quare est praepositio? Quia praeponitur aliis partibus orationis in oratione per appositionem vel per compositionem; per appositionem, id est per regimen casuum; per compositionem, id est quando componitur. Praepositioni quot accidunt? Unum. Quod? Casus tantum. 5 Quot casus? Duo. Qui? Accusativus et ablativus. Ad cui casui servit? Accusativo. Da praepositiones accusativi casus: ad, apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, circum, circa, contra, extra, intra, inter, iuxta, ob, per, prope, secundum, post, ultra, supra, circiter, usque, penes. 10 Ab cui casui servit? Ablativo. Da praepositiones ablativi casus: a, cum, coram, clam, e, ex, prae, palam, sine, absque. In cui casui servit? Utrique. Da praepositiones utriuque casus: in, sub, super et subter. Quot sunt praepositiones quae non inveniuntur nisi in compositione? 15 Sex. Quae? Di, dis, re, se, an, con.
5. 8–10 ad, apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, citra, circum, circa, contra, erga, extra, inter, intra, infra, iuxta, ob, pone, per, prope, propter, secundum, post, trans, ultra, praeter, supra, circiter, usque, secus, penes D 11–12 a, ab, abs, cum, coram, clam, de, e, ex, pro, prae, palam, sine, absque, tenus D
384
donatus graecus a 6. Περ "πιρρ+ματος
5
10
15
20
Ν:ν τ μ ρος στιν; Επρρημ( στιν. Διατ στιν πρρημα; Διτι κε>ται γγGς το: #ματος κα' *ε' δ εται #ματος. Τ& πιρρματι πσα παρ πεται; Τρα. Τνα; Ε=δος, σημασα κα' σχμα. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε=δους; Παραγ+γου. Διατ; Διτι *π τινος παρ(γεται. Ποας σημασας; Χρνου. Πο ας σημασ ας; Χρονικ7ς. Δ2ς χρονικ7ς, οKον σ+μερον, Δ?ς χρνου, οmον σμερον, χ$ ς, ν:ν, νεωστ, αuριον. χ4ς, νν, νεωστ , @ρτι. Δ?ς τπου, οmον ν$(δε, κε>σε, Δ2ς τοπικ7ς, οKον "ν4:δε, ,νδον, κε>$εν, ,σω ] ,ξω, "κεσε, Vσω R Vξω, Vνδον, "κε4εν, "ντ2ς R "κτ2ς. ντ?ς ] κτ?ς. Δ?ς ρωτηματικο:, ο=ον τ, διατ, Δ2ς "ρωτ+σεως, οbον τ , διατ , Wτου χ(ριν. GπSρ τ νος. Δ?ς ε5κτικς, οmον ε@$ε. εN4ε, μ+ν. Δ?ς κλητικς, οmον c. Δ?ς *ρνητικ(, οmον ο5, ο5χ, ο5δτα, Δ2ς ρνητικ7ς, οKον ο, οχ, οχ , οδ7τα, οδαμ!ς. ο5δαμς. Δ?ς συγκατα$ σεως, οmον να, ναχι, ναφι. Δ?ς τ4 τς μ+σεως, οmον ο5χ' μ4 τν σν Fερ4ν κεφαλν. Δ?ς ποιτητος, οmον καλς, κακς, διδαγμ νως, καλ!ς, σοφ!ς, cρα ως, ε5μρφως, δυνατς, χρηστς. δυνατ!ς κα χρηστ!ς.
6.
1 περ' πιρρματος inter lineas add. BCO | διτι κε>ται] δι4 τ? ε=ναι ANQ , δι4 το: ε=ναι BCGO, sed cf. D: quia instat iuxta verbum 2 κα' ... #ματος om. G | δ εται] δ εται B, νδ εται C 3 τνα] τ ABCGRQ 5 ποου ... παρ(γεται om. x 6(a) χρνου] χρονικς G 7(a) χρνου] χρονικς G 9(a) οmον om. O 10 ,νδον] δ+ BCG 10 ,σω om. A 12–45 ordinem atque nomina significationum *ρνητικς, ποιτητος, ποστητος, συγκρσεως, τ(ξεως, διακρσεως, συγχωρσεως, βεβαι+σεως, *ρι$μο:, ρωτσεως, διστ(ξεως, %μοι+σεως, συγκατα$ σεως, ε5κτικς, μ+σεως, κλητι19 ναφι om. κς, παρακελε2σεως, σχ2ος, *$ροσεως, δεξεως, κλογς praebet R ANOQR, cf. c 6. 10 20 τ4 τς μ+σεως] %μοι+σεως N | Fερ4ν om. R 23(a) ε5μρφως] *μρφως AO, εuμορφος G, cf. D: pulchre
de adverbio
385
6. De adverbio Nunc quae pars est? Adverbium est. Quare est adverbium? Quia stat iuxta verbum et semper nititur verbo. Adverbio quot accidunt? Tria. Quae? Species, significatio et figura. Cuius speciei? Primitivae. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. Cuius speciei? Derivativae. Quare? Quia ab aliquo derivatur. 5 Cuius significationis? Temporis. Cuius significationis? Temporalis. Da temporis, ut hodie, heri, Da temporalis, ut hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras. nunc, nuper, modo. Da loci, ut hic, illuc, intra, Da localis, ut hic, illuc, intro inde, intro vel foras, intus vel vel foras, intra, inde, intus vel 10 foris. foris. Da interrogandi, ut cur, quare, quamobrem. Da optandi, ut utinam, amen. 15
Da vocandi, ut o. Da negandi, ut non, haud, minime, nequaquam. Da adfirmandi, ut profecto, quippe, videlicet. Da iurandi, ut edepol. Da qualitatis, ut bene, male, docte, pulchre, bene, docte, pulchre, fortiter fortiter, suaviter. et suaviter.
6. 7 hodie ... cras] hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras, aliquando, olim, tunc, quondam, iam et semper D (p, pa) 9–11 hic ... foris] hic vel ibi, illuc vel inde, longe et procul, intro vel foras, intus vel foris D (p, pa) 16 heus, o D 17 non ... nequaquam] non, nihil, nec, neque, haud, minime, nequaquam D 19 profecto ... videlicet] profecto, quippe, videlicet, quidni D (p) | profecto] etiam Qlh 20 edepol] edepol, castor, hercle, medius fidius D
20
386
donatus graecus a
Δ?ς ποστητος, οmον πολ2, λγον, σφδρα, μ(λιστα, *ρκε>. Δ2ς διστ:ξεως, οKον ;σως, τ(χα, τυχν. Δ?ς *$ροσεως, οmον %μο:, qμα, qμυδις. Δ?ς %μοι+σεως, οmον dς, οYτως, κα4 ς, κα4:περ. hς, ο_τως, κα$+ς. Δ?ς συγκρσεως, οmον κρε>σσον, Xσσον, πλ ον, Wσον. Δ?ς *ποκρσεως, οmον δο2. Δ?ς δεξεως, οmον @δε. 1δοL, Nδε. Δ?ς κλογς, οmον μ(λιστα. Δ?ς *ρι$μο:, οmον qπαξ, δς, τρς, τετρ(κις, χιλι(κις, τοσ(κις, %σ(κις. Δ?ς διακρσεως, οmον δRα, κατ’ δαν, πολυμερς. Δ2ς τ:ξεως, οKον π4εν, =4εν, ττε, διατ , GπSρ τ νος. Δ2ς συγχωρ+σεως, οKον μλις. Δ2ς βεβαι σεως, οKον Qγουν, δηλοντι. Δ2ς παρακελεLσεως, οKον @γε, φρε, δετε, εbα. Δ2ς 1σχLος, οKον 1σχυρ!ς, 1σχυροτρως. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Πο ου σχ+ματος; Συν4τουσυντ 4εται δS φ’ οWτινος συντ 4εται. Πο ου σχ+ματος; Παρασυν4του. Διατ ; Διτι π2 συν4του νματος παρ:γεται, οKον δ κως.
25 Δ?ς δισταγμο:, οmον
30
35
40
45
50
24 πολ2] -2ν BCGNO 25(a) οmον om. AQ 27 qμυδις] Iμαδ AQR, qμηδι BC, *μηδ GNO, corr. Schmitt 36 κατ’ δαν] καταδα BCG 38(b) διατ ... τνος deleverim, perperam e 12–13(b) repetita 46 om. AQ
de adverbio
387
Da quantitatis, ut multum, parum, valde, maxime, satis. Da dubitandi, ut forsan, fortassis et fortasse.
25
Da congregandi, ut simul, una, pariter. Da similitudinis, ut sic, velut, veluti. Da comparandi, ut magis, minus, plus, quam. Da respondendi, ut heu. Da demonstrandi, ut en, ecce. Da eligendi, ut potius. Da numeri, ut semel, bis, ter, quater, millies, totiens, quotiens. Da discretivi, ut secus, seorsum, multifariam. Da ordinandi, ut inde, deinde, deinceps, propterea. Da remissivi, ut vix. Da confirmandi, ut profecto, videlicet.
30
35
40
Da hortandi, ut age, agite, eia. Da intentivi, ut valde, nimium. 45
Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae: componitur a quo componitur.
Cuius figurae? Decompositae. Quare? Quia a composito nomine deri- 50 vatur, ut iniuste.
24 multum ... satis] multum, parum, minimum, modicum, maxime et satis D 25 forsan ... 31 respondendi] fortasse] forsan, forsitan, fortassis et fortasse D 30 quam] quantum Qlh ornandi (sic) Qlh 32 en] et Qlh 34 potius] potius, immo magis D 36 discretivi] separandi Qlh | secus ... multifariam] secus, seorsum, separatim, secreto, sigillatim, trifariam et multifariam D (p) | seorsum] separatim Qlh 37 inde ... propterea] inde, deinde, deinceps, continuo, protinus, interea et propterea D 39 vix] vix, paulatim, pedetemptim, fere et ferme D (p) 40 profecto, videlicet a 19 (adfirmandi) repetita videntur 44 valde, nimium] valde, prorsus, nimium, penitus et omnino D (p)
388
donatus graecus a 7. Περ' νδια$ σεως
Φε: τ μ ρος στν; Ενδι($εσς στιν. Διατ στιν νδι($εσις; Διτι νδιατ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν λγ&ω. ΤQ νδια$ σει πσα παρ πεται; jΕν. Τ; Σημασα μνον. Ποας σημασας; Αλγητικς. Δ?ς *λγητικς, οmον 5 βαβα, ο5α, φε:, φε: μοι. οα , οNμοι. Δ2ς 4αυμαστικ7ς, οKον παπα , φε. Δ2ς φοβητικ7ς, οKον eτ @τ.
8. Περ' συνδ σμου Κα' τ μ ρος στ; Σ2νδεσμς στιν. Διατ στι σ2νδεσμος; Διτι συνδ ει τ4 Sξς μ ρη το: λγου ν λγ&ω. Τ& συνδ σμ&ω πσα παρ πεται; ΤραZ ε=δος, σχμα κα' τ(ξις. Ποου ε@δους; Συμπλεκτικο:. Συμπλεκτικς στιν % συμπλ κων τοσο:τον 5 ,ννοιαν Wσον #ματα, οmον κα, τε, μ ν, δ , κα' *λλ(. Συναπτικς στιν Wστις συν(πτεται #μασιν iποτακτικο>ς δως μετ4 δισταγμο:, οmονZ ε ,λ$Qης, ποισω τ? bφ λιμον. Α$ροιστικ?ς ] λογικ?ς ] εσακτικς στιν Wστις συλλ γει τ4 π(νω ερημ να μετ4 λγου ] εσ(γεται Uλλοις προτι$εμ νοις, οmον λοιπν, 10 τονυν, hστεZ οmονZ Κκερος μνος Κατελνα τQ σοφRα α5το: νκησενZ μνος το>νυν Κκερος τν πατρδα φ2λαξεν. 7. 1 περ' δια$ σεως inter lineas add. N | φε: ... νδι($εσς στιν] δ?ς δια$ σεως AOQ | στιν νδι($εσις] στιν νδια$ σεως Q 3 om. AQ | σημασα] -αν BCGO | μνον] -ην BCGO, -η NR, corr. Schmitt 4 δ?ς *λγητικς om. AQ 5(a) βαβα> om. ABCGQ | ο5α om. ABCGNQ | φε: om. AOQ | φε: μοι om. ANQ 6–8(b) om. x. 3 κα' om. ABCNOQ 4 τοσο:τον] -α2την 8. 1 περ' συνδ σμου add. BmCO BmNOR 5 #ματα] #μα R | τε] τ( A | δ , κα, *λλ(] *λλ(, δ x, cf. c 8. 9 6 δ?ς συναπτικν ante συναπτικς add. ACQ , δ?ς διαζευκτικς B, δ?ς συναπτικν Bm, δ?ς διαζευκτικς G, δ?ς συναπτικο: N, δ?ς συναπτικο2ς O | συναπτικς] om. AQ , διαζευκτικς G | Wστις] dτις BCG | συν(πτεται] συν(πτει ν ABmNOQR, συν(πτει ε@τε C, διαζευγν (sic) BG, corr. Schmitt, cf. D: quae adiungitur verbis subiunctivis | iποτακτικο>ς] -κς CG, -κς BR 7 ,λ$Qης] -οις ANOQ | bφ λιμον] bφ λημα BCG 8 *$ροιστικ?ς ... εσακτικς] *$ροιστικ (*ρ$ρικ G) ] λογικ ] εσακτικ BCGNO, *$ροιστικ post εσακτικ add. O | Wστις] dτις BCGNO | τ4] περ' C 10 οmον 10–11 Κκερος ... φ2λαξεν] Κκερος μνος Κατελνα Κκερος] οmον add. Schmitt τQ σοφRα α5το: νκησε μνος κα' (τQ σοφRα ... νκησε om. BG, κα' om. BCGNOR) τν πατρδα α5το: (το: BCG) κα' (om. BCGNR) εσωκσατο (εσι- BG, εσικσαντο C, εσοι- OR) μνος το>νυν Κκερος τν πατρδα φ2λαξεν codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D: Cicero solum Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solum igitur Cicero patriam servavit
de coniunctione
389
7. De interiectione Heu quae pars est? Interiectio est. Quare est interiectio? Quia interiacet aliis partibus orationis in oratione. Interiectioni quot accidunt? Unum. Quid? Significatio tantum. Cuius significationis? Dolentis. Da dolentis, ut papae, vae, heu, heu mihi. 5 Da mirantis, ut papae, heu. Da expavescentis, ut at at. 8. De coniunctione Et quae pars est? Coniunctio est. Quare est coniunctio? Quia coniungit ceteras partes orationis in oratione. Coniunctioni quot accidunt? Tria: species, figura et ordo. Cuius speciei? Copulativae. Copulativa est quae copulat tam sensum quam verba, ut et, que, quidem, autem et vero. 5 Adiunctiva est quae adiungitur verbis subiunctivis proprie cum dubitatione, ut: si venias, faciam ut prosit. Collectiva vel rationalis vel illativa est quae colligit supradicta cum ratione vel infertur aliis praepositis, ut ergo, igitur, itaque, ut: Cicero solus Catilinam sua sapientia domuit; solus igitur Cicero patriam 10 servavit.
7. 1 interiectio] afectandi (scil. adverbium) Qlh 8. 1 coniunctio] interiectio Qlh, passim 1–2 coniungit] interiacet Qlh 3 nota quod 6 adiunctiva ... quae] verbi ...tur interiacet debet ... coniungit in marg. inf. add. Qlh continuativus est qui (coniunctio ut σ2νδεσμος, m., passim) Qlh 8 collectiva vel rationalis] congregativus vel (cetera non leguntur) Qlh
390
15
20
25
30
35
donatus graecus a
Συνεκτικς στιν Wστις δεικν2ει τ(ξιν πραγμ(των ες *κολο2$ησιν μετ4 διστ(ξεως, οmονZ ε #ωχPται, κοιμPται, καZ ε περιπατε>, κινε>ται. Ατιατικ?ς δως στ'ν Wστις προστι$ μενος %ριστικ& #ματι σημανει πρPγμα Eγο2μενον, οmονZ διδαγμ νος εμ, διτι *ν γνωκα. Διαζευκτικς στιν Wστις ε κα' λ ξεις συνδ ει, ,ννοιαν διαζευγν2ει, κα' Uλλο πρPγμα ε=ναι κα' Uλλο μ ε=ναι σημανει, οmονZ ] Eμ ρα στ'ν ] ν2ξ. 8Υποσυνεκτικς στιν Wστις αταν iποσυνεχεας δεικν2ει μετ4 πραγμ(των Sκτικς, οmονZ διτι % dλις στιν π' τν γν, Eμ ρα στ, καZ Wτι περιπατε>, κινε>ται. Λογικς στιν Wστις προστι$ μενος %ριστικ& #ματι σημανει ν ργειαν ξ ατας, οmονZ *ν γνωκα, διτι διδαγμ νος εμ. Εσακτικς στιν Wστις κ δυο>ν προστι$εμ νων τ? ν κλ ξαι, τ? kτερον γκαταλε>ψαι δεικν2ει, οmονZ πλο2σιος $ λω ε=ναι ] πτωχς. Εναντιωματικς στιν Wστις κατ4 [*]σ2μφωνον σημανει μνον, οmον ε, ε@περ, *λλ(, οmονZ γ πολGν χρνον δο2λευσ( σοι, *λλ( συ ,χεις ε@ς με κακαν [οmονZ γ *ναγιν+σκω, σG δ3 κοιμPσαιZ οmονZ ν4 ,τρωγα 6ν ε=χαZ χαρεται Πραμος 6ν τολμRP]. Απορηματικς στιν Wστις *ποραν σημανει, οmονZ zρ( γε. Παραπληρωματικς στιν Wστις kνεκεν κσμου ] μ τρου ο5δεμιPς σημασας *ναγκαας τ$εται, οmον 4ν ε@πωZ Ανεας μ3ν iπρχεν ε5σεβς, Ιουλιαν?ς δ3 *σεβς. 8Υποκοριστικς στιν Wστις iποκρισιν σημανει, οmονZ ε ο5 δ2νασα μοι δο:ναι iπ ρπυρον, δ(νεισα μοι δην(ριον.
12 Wστις] dτις BCG | πραγμ(των] πρ(γματος G 14 δως] -α G | Wστις] dτις BCG 16 συνδ ει] συνδ2ει A, διασυνδ2ει BCGNOQ 17 κα' ... ε=ναι om. G 19 iποσυνεκτικς] -συνευκτικς BG, -συναπτικς CNO, συναπτικς R | αταν ... δεικν2ει] ατε> (ατε>ται C) iπ? συνεχεας δεικν2ειν codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D: causam subcontinuationis ostendit 20 Sκτικς] Sκτικν BCGNOR, δεικτικν AQ , corr. Schmitt, cf. D: consequentem cum rerum essentia | % om. x | Wτι] Wτε x, Wταν R, cf. Priscianum, GL 3. 95 subcontinuationis quia ambulat movetur 22 λογικς om. BCG | προστι$ μενος] προτ- O 22–23 ν ργειαν ξ] ν ργειαν iπομ νει ξ BG 23 διτι] Wτι BCNOR, cf. Priscianum, GL 3. 95 effectionis movetur, ambulat enim 24 δυο>ν] δ2ο ABmCNOQR, δευτ ρου BG 25 δεικν2ει add. Schmitt, cf. D: alterum refutare ostendit 26 μνον post ο=ον transp. ABCGQ 26–27 οmον ... *λλ( om. A, οmον om. N 27 πολGν] πολλν GR 27–28 ,χεις ε@ς με κακαν] ,χεις με κακς AQ , ,χεις με κακαν BCGNOR, ,χεις ες μ3 κακαν Schmitt 28–29 οmον ... τολμRP om. AQ , del. Schmitt 28 οmον γ] κα' γ R | ν4] $α Schmitt | ,τρωγα] -αν BC 29 ε=χα] aχαν BCG | χαρεται] χαιρ τω G 30 ,στι ψυχ post γε add. AQ 31 Wστις] nς G | ] μ τρου] Eμετ ρου G 33 *σεβς] om. BCG, ο5δαμς BmOR 34 iποκρισιν] -κρεσιν codd., corr. Schmitt | ε om. G 35 iπ ρπυρον] iπ ρπυρα ABCNOQ , cf. D: bis(s)antem | δ(νεισαι] κ6ν δ(νεισον AQ | δην(ριον] -ια codd., corr. Schmitt cf. D: denarium
de coniunctione
391
Continuativa est quae demonstrat ordinem rerum in consequentia cum dubitatione, ut: si stertit dormit, et: si ambulat movetur. Causalis proprie est quae adiuncta indicativo verbo significat rem antecedentem, ut doctus sum, quia legi. 15 Disiunctiva est quae, quamvis voces coniungat, sensum disiungit, et alteram rem esse et alteram non esse significat, ut: aut dies est aut nox. Subcontinuativa est quae causam continuationis ostendit cum rebus essentia, ut: quando sol est super terram dies est, et: quia ambulat, 20 movetur. Effectiva est quae adiuncta indicativo verbo significat effectum e causa, ut: legi, nam doctus sum. Discretiva est quae de duobus praepositis unum eligere et aliud refutare ostendit, ut: dives volo esse quam pauper. 25 Adversativa est quae adversum convenienti solum significat, ut si, etsi, tamen, ut: ego multo tempore servivi tibi, tu tamen habes in me odium. Dubitativa est quae dubitationem notat, ut an. 30 Completiva est quae causa ornatus vel metri nulla significationis necessitate ponitur, ut si dicam: Aeneas quidem fuit pius, Iulianus vero impius. Diminutiva est quae diminutionem notat, ut: si non potes mihi dare bisantium, *** accommoda mihi denarium. 35
12 continuativa] significativus Qlh 14 causalis] affirmativus Qlh 19 subcontinuativa] subparticipativus Qlh 22 effectiva] rationalis Qlh 24 discretiva] equativus est (εσακτικς ut σ-) Qlh 26 adversativa] -us Qlh 31 completiva] -us Qlh 34 diminutiva] -us Qlh 35 saltem accommoda mihi denarium D
392
donatus graecus a
Πο ου σχ+ματος; &Απλο. Διατ ; Διτι fπλ!ς προφρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Κα$’ jΕλληνας ο5κ ,χειZ ,χουσι δ3 οF α5το' ε, ε@τε. Πσαι εσ' τ(ξεις τν συνδ σμων; Τρε>ς. Τνες; Προτι$εμ νη, iποτι$ε40 μ νη κα' κοιν. Ποας τ(ξεως; Προτι$εμ νης. Διατ; Διτι *ε' προτ$εται ν τQ τ(ξει το: λγου. Ποας τ(ξεως; 8Υποτι$εμ νης. Διατ; Διτι *ε' iποτ$εται ν τQ τ(ξει το: λγου. 45 Ποας τ(ξεως; Κοινς. Διατ; Διτι δ2ναται προτε$ναι κα' iποτε$ναι ν τQ τ(ξει το: λγου. Πσοι εσ' σ2νδεσμοι προτι$εμ νης τ(ξεως; Πεντεκαδεκα. Πσοι ε1σ σLνδεσμοι Gποτι4εμνης τ:ξεως; gΕξ- α5 δS λοιπα ε1σι κοιν7ς.
Appendix Τ στιν νομα; NΟνομ( στι μ ρος λγου πτωτικ?ν Sκ(στου τν iποκειμ νων σωμ(των ] πραγμ(των κοινν ] δαν ποιτητα παρ χον ] σημα>νονZ κοινν μ3ν σωμ(των, οmον Uν$ρωπος, δαν οmον ΒιργλιοςZ κοινν ποιτητα πραγμ(των οmον τ χνη, δαν οmον γραμματικ Αριστ(ρ5 χου, *ρι$μητικ Νικομ(χου. Τ στιν @διον νματος; NΙδιον νματς στι σημPναι ο5σαν κα' ποιτητα. Π$εν ε@ρηται νομα; Παρ4 τ? ν μω, τ? μερζω, γνεται νμα κα' προσ$ σει το: ο νομα, Wτι δι’ α5το: δηλο:μεν ο5σαν κα' ποιτητα. 10 Τ στι #μα; 8Ρμ( στι μ ρος λγου κλιτικν, n μετ4 χρνων κα' γκλσεων στ' σημαντικ?ν νεργεας ] π($ους. 36 ποου ... προφ ρεται om. x 38 ε om. BCG 39–42 post 46 transp. x 39 πσαι] πο>αι codd. 41 τ(ξεως] συντ(ξεως ABCNOQ 47 τ(ξεως] συντ(ξεως ABCNOQ | πεντεκαδεκα] δεκαπ ντε C, ιε GO | post 47 τ λος σGν $ε& Iγ&ω το: Δον(δου το: μεγ(λου ($εου O) γραμματικο: κατ4 Λατνους AOQ , τ λος σGν $ε& 48 om. x | post 48 τ λοςZ Iγ&ω το: Δον(δου #ωμαου B, τ λος το: Ντων(δου N, $εο: τ? δρον κα' Γεωργου το: Γρηγοροπο2λου τ(χα κα' $2του R app. Appendicem praebent codices CG 2 ] πραγμ(των om. C | παρ χον] - χει CG, corr. Schmitt 3 σημνα>νον] σημανει CG, corr. Schmitt | Uν$ρωπος om. G 5 Νικομ(χου om. codd., add. Schmitt cf. Priscianum, GL 2. 57 arithmetica Nicomachi 6–7 ποιτητα] -ταν G | post ποιτητα des. C 8–9 γνεται ... ο om. G 10 κλιτικν] Uκλιτον G (cf. 32, al.) corr. Schmitt | n] τ? G, corr. Schmitt 11 νεργεας] μετ’ νεργεας G, μετ’ del. Schmitt, cf. D: significativum agendi vel patiendi
appendix
393
Cuius figurae? Simplicis. Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figurae? Compositae. Unde componitur? *** Quot sunt ordines coniunctionum? Tres. Qui? Praepositivus, suppositivus et communis. 40 Cuius ordinis? Praepositivi. Quare? Quia semper praeponitur in ordine orationis. Cuius ordinis? Suppositivi. Quare? Quia semper supponitur in ordine orationis. Cuius ordinis? Communis. Quare? Quia potest praeponi et supponi 45 in ordine orationis. Quot sunt coniunctiones praepositivi ordinis? Quindecim. Quot sunt coniunctiones suppositivi ordinis? Sex; aliae vero sunt communis.
Appendix Quid est nomen? Nomen est pars orationis declinabilis uniuscuiusque subiectorum corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam qualitatem distribuens vel significans: communem corporum ut homo, propriam ut Virgilius; communem qualitatem rerum ut ars, propriam ut grammatica Aristarchi, arithmetica Nicomachi. 5 Quid est proprium nominis? Proprium nominis est significare substantiam et qualitatem. Unde dicitur nomen? A ν μω, tribuendo, fit noma et adiecta o νομα, eo quod per ipsum notamus substantiam vel qualitatem. Quid est verbum? Verbum est pars orationis declinabilis, quae cum 10 temporibus et modis est significativa agendi vel patiendi.
39–40 suppositivus] subiunctivus D, subprepositivus Qlh 43 suppositivi] subiunctivi D | supponitur] subiungitur D 47 quindecim] quinque et decem Qlh | post 47 finis compositionis Donati magni gramatici id est literati in Latinum Qlh 48 suppositivi] subiunctivi D
394
donatus graecus a
Τ στιν @διον #ματος; NΙδιον #ματς στι σημανειν ν ργειαν ] π($ος. Π$εν ε@ρηται #μα; Παρ4 τ? #, τ? λ γωZ κατ4 δ3 Λατνους τ2πτω, 15 τ2πτεις.
Τ στι μετοχ; Μετοχ στι μ ρος λγου πτωτικ?ν τ? δι4 #ματος τι$ μενον κα' ξ α5το: φυσικς παρ(γεταιZ γ νος κα' πτσιν ,χει ες %μοωσιν νματος, Uλλα συμβησμενα τ& #ματι. Π$εν ε@ρηται μετοχ κατ4 Λατνους; Εκ μ ρους κα' λβω, τ? λαμβ(νω, 20 λαμβ(νεις, διτι μ ρος λαμβ(νει νματος κα' μ ρος #ματος. Τ στιν *ντωνυμα; Αντωνυμα στ' μ ρος λγου πτωτικν, n κυρ&ω νματι προτ$εται κα' κ2ριον σημανει πρσωπον. Π$εν ε@ρηται *ντωνυμα; Εκ πρ? κατ4 Λατνους, κα$’ jΕλληνας δ3 ξ *ντ' προ$ σεως κα' τοuνομα, Wτι τ$εται ν τπ&ω δου νματος. 25 Τ στι πρ$εσις; Πρ$εσς στι μ ρος λγου Uκλιτον προτι$εμ νη το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν συν$ σει ] ν ν$ σει. Τ στιν @διον προ$ σεως; NΙδιον προ$ σεως στ' διακεχωρισμ νως προτ$εσ$αι πτωτικα>ς λ ξεσι, συζευκτικς δ3 τοσο:τον μετ4 τν χντων πτσιν, Wσον μετ4 τν μ χντων. 30 Π$εν ε@ρηται πρ$εσις; Απ? το: προτι$ ναι, διτι προτ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν λγ&ω. Τ στιν πρρημα; Επρρημ( στι μ ρος Uκλιτον, Wτι ες σημασαν το>ς #μασι προστ$εταιZ το:το γ4ρ ποιο:σι τριγεν νματα aγουν π$ετα προσ$ σει μετ’ ο5σιαστικο>ς νμασιν. 35 Τ στιν @διον πιρρματος; NΙδιον πιρρματς στιν γγGς το: #ματος τ$εσ$αι ο5δ’ Uνευ α5το: *πηρτισμ νην σημασαν ,χειν δ2νασ$αι. Τ στιν νδι($εσις; Ενδι($εσς στι μ ρος λγου Uκλιτον, Wπερ νδιατ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν λγ&ω. 40 Τ στιν @διον νδια$ σεως; NΙδιον νδια$ σεως στ'ν νδιατ$εσ$αι το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου ν λγ&ω. Τ στι σ2νδεσμος; Σ2νδεσμς στι μ ρος λγου Uκλιτον συνδετικ?ν τν Uλλων μερν το: λγου, οmστισι προσσημανει δ2ναμιν ] τ(ξιν, οmονZ 4ν περιπατQ, κινε>ται. 12 σημανειν] -ων G, corr. Schmitt 27–28 προτ$εσ$αι ... λ ξεσι om. G, add. Schmitt 28 συζευκτικς] om. G, διαζευκτικς Schmitt, sed cf. Priscianum GL 2. 56 coniunctim 29 Wσον] -ων G 32 Wτι] ο[τινος G, corr. Schmitt 36 στιν γγGς το: #ματος om. G, add. Schmitt, cf. D: est iuxta verbum poni 37 ο5δ’ Uνευ] Wταν ν G, corr. Schmitt, cf. D: nec sine eo 40 νδιατ$εσ$αι] νδια$ σεσι G, corr. Schmitt, cf. D: est interiacere aliis partibus orationis 43 οmστισι] dτισοι G, corr. Schmitt | προσσημανει] προ- G, corr. Schmitt
appendix
395
Quid est proprium verbi? Proprium verbi est significare actionem vel passionem. Unde dicitur verbum? A verbero, verberas. 15
Quid est participium? Participium est pars orationis declinabilis pro verbo posita et ab eo naturaliter derivatur; genus et casus habet ad similitudinem nominis et alia accidentia verbo. Unde dicitur participium? Ex parte et capio, capis, quia partem capit nominis partemque verbi. Quid est pronomen? Pronomen est pars orationis declinabilis, quae pro proprio nomine ponitur et certam significat personam. Unde dicitur pronomen? Ex pro praepositione et nomen, quia ponitur loco proprii nominis. Quid est praepositio? Praepositio est pars orationis indeclinabilis praeposita aliis partibus orationis in compositione vel in appositione. Quid est proprium praepositionis? Proprium praepositionis est separatim praeponi casualibus dictionibus, coniunctim vero tam cum habentibus casum quam cum non habentibus. Unde dicitur praepositio? A praeponendo, quia praeponitur aliis partibus orationis in oratione. Quid est adverbium? Adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, quae ad significationem verbis adicitur; hoc enim faciunt triplicis generis nomina, scilicet adiectiva, adiectione cum substantivis nominibus. Quid est proprium adverbii? Proprium adverbii est iuxta verbum poni nec sine eo perfectam sententiam habere posse. Quid est interiectio? Interiectio est pars orationis indeclinabilis quae interiacet aliis partibus orationis in oratione. Quid est proprium interiectionis? Proprium interiectionis est interiacere aliis partibus orationis in oratione. Quid est coniunctio? Coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis coniunctiva aliarum partium orationis, quibus consignificat vim vel ordinationem, ut: si ambulat movetur.
20
25
30
35
40
396
donatus graecus a
45 Τ στιν @διον συνδ σμου; NΙδιον συνδ σμου στ' συνδσαι δ2ο δι(φορα
νματα ] δ2ο δι(φορα #ματα ] %ποας πτωτικ4ς λ ξεις ν λγ&ω. Π$εν ε@ρηται σ2νδεσμος; Εκ το: συνδ νειν, Wτι συνδε> τ4 ξς μ ρη το: λγου.
46 #ματα] πιρρματα G, corr. Schmitt | λγ&ω] νματι G G, corr. Schmitt 49 post το: λγου des. G
48 συνδ νειν] -δνων
appendix
397
Quid est proprium coniunctionis? Proprium coniunctionis est coniun- 45 gere duo diversa nomina vel duo diversa verba vel quascumque dictiones causales in oratione. Unde dicitur coniunctio? A coniungendo, quia coniungit ceteras partes orationis.
398
donatus graecus a Appendix Latina
a) Gl2, fols. 30r-30v Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: edendi, edendo, edendum. Supina sunt hec: esum, esu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro? Duo. Que? Unum, quod est 5 temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut edens; aliud futuri, ut esurus. Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: editur. Preterito imperfecto: edebatur. Preterito perfecto: esum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfectum: esum erat vel fuerat. 10 Futuro: edetur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti: edatur. Futuro: editor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ederetur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam esum esset vel fuisset. 15 Futuro: utinam edatur et cetera.
20
25
30
35
b) Gl2, fol. 42r Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ire. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: ivisse. Futuro: itum ire vel iturum esse. Gerundia vel participialia nomina sunt hec: eundi, eundo, eundum. Supina sunt hec: itum, itu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum, quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut iens; aliud futuri, ut iturus. Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: itur. Preterito imperfecto: ibatur. Preterito perfecto: itum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: itum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: ibitur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti: eatur. Futuro: itor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam iretur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam itum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam eatur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti: cum eatur. Preterito imperfecto: cum iretur. Preterito perfecto: cum itum sit vel fuerit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum itum esset vel fuisset.
appendix latina
399
Futuro et reliqua. c) Gl2, fols. 43v-44r Supina sunt hec: gavisum, gavisu. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo neutro passivo? Tria. Que? Unum, quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut gaudens; aliud futuri, ut gavisurus; aliud preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut gavisus. Memini, meministi, meminit; et pluraliter: meminimus, meministis, meminerunt vel meminere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: memineram, memineras, meminerat; et pluraliter: memineramus, memineratis, meminerant. Futuro caret. Imperativo modo caret. Futuro: memento; et pluraliter: mementote. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto caret. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam meminissem, meminisses, meminisset; et pluraliter: utinam meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent. Futuro caret. Subiunctivo modo tempore preterito imperfecto: caret. Preterito perfecto: cum meminerim, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: cum meminerimus, memineritis, meminerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum meminissem, meminisses, meminisset; et pluraliter: cum meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent. Futuro: cum meminero, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: cum meminerimus, memineritis, meminerint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: caret. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: meminisse. Futuro caret. Decet me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decet nos, vos, illos. Preterito imperfecto: decebat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decebat nos, vos, illos. Preterito perfecto: decuit me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decuit nos, vos, illos. Preterito plusquamperfecto: decuerat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decuerat nos, vos, illos. Futuro: decebit me, te, illum; et pluraliter: decebit nos, vos, illos. Imperativo modo tempore presenti: deceat me, te, illum; et pluraliter: deceat nos, vos, illos. Futuro caret. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam deceret. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam decuisset. Futuro: utinam deceat.
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
400
donatus graecus a
Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti: cum similiter. Et preterito imperfecto: cum deceret. Preterito perfecto cum decuerit. 80 Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum decuisset. Futuro: cum decuerit. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: decere. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: et reliqua. (desinit Gl2)
DONATUS GRAECUS B
Siglorum Conspectus Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS. gr. X. 9 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 1388
M V
M1, V1 manus correctorum codicum M, V In apparatu etiam memorantur: D p
Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis Savonarolae, die XXVIII mensis Septembris 1492)
[] ***
inserenda censui delenda censui lacunam statui
XV in. XV
Π2λην *πλαν τς γραφς nς 6ν $ λQη ρ$ς διελ$ε>ν κα' συναρι$μωμ νως, π(ντων *κριβς τν μο' γινωσκ τω, ξ xν *μ μπτως ε@σεται κρναι λγον. Πτσιν, *ρι$μν, ε=δος, σχμα κα' γ νος σοφ& λογισμ& τοιγαρο:ν προσερχ σ$ω κα' παιδοτρβQη κ(ραν iποκλιν τωZ ο_τω γ4ρ δρ ψεται καλν π(ντων Uκρον.
5
1. Περ νματος Ποιητς ποου μ ρους λγου στν; Ονματς στιν. Διατ στιν νματος; Διτι σημανει ο5σαν ] ποιτητα δαν ] κοινν. Τ& νματι πσα παρ πεται; Π ντε. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα κα' πτσις. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. 5 Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; Απ? το: ποι. Ποου γ νους; Αρσενικο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? %. Ποου γ νους; Θηλυκο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? E. 10 Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? τ. Inscr. Ερωτματα τ4 λεγμενα (-(μενα cod.) Δουν(του, et in marg. Γραμματικ Δον(δου μετενεχ$ε>σα 8Ελληνιστ V, om. B. pr. 1–8 π2λην ... Uκρον om. V, ubi Latinum carmen Ianua ... potes legitur cum Graeca interpretatione inter lineas (cf. a pr. 1–9): Π2λη εμ' το>ς *μα$ σι πρ+την το>ς πι$υμο:σι τ χνην / ο5 χωρ'ς μο: τις ρ$ς πεπαιδευμ νος ,σται. / Κα' γ4ρ γ νος κα' πτσιν, ε=δος, *ρι$μ?ν κα' σχμα / οmς qτινα κλνονται μ ρεσι δεικν2ω. / Τ$ημι τρπον το>ς λοιπο>ς, τ? συν ρχεται *ρστως δεικν2ων / κα' |ν ο5 διδ(ξω λ ξις ο5δεμα πιλεπεται. / NΑρα *ναγνωσκε σπουδν τε σοι *μα$ς πρσ$ες, c *ναγινσκονZ / κα' 5 *ρι$μ?ν] -ν M γ4ρ μετ4 συντμου σπουδς μα$ε>ν πολλ4 δ2νασαι. 6 *π? τς 1. 1 λγου om. V | στν om. M | νματος] νομα M, cf. a 1. 1 ποισεως inter lineas add. V1, cf. a. 1. 6 7 ε5$εRα] κλσει inter lineas add. V1, cf. a 1. 7 8 Uρ$ρον τ? %] τ? % Uρ$ρον V
404
donatus graecus b
Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα τ? % τ? Uρ$ρον κα' τ? E. 15 Ποου γ νους; Παντοου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? % κα' τ? E κα' τ? τ. Ποου γ νους; Ατελει+του. Διατ; Διτι ο5δε'ς λγος τελειο> το:το, *λλ4 μνον E ποησις τν παλαιν ν το>ς στχοις δι4 γ νους προφ ρει. Ποου γ νους; Επικονου. Διατ; Διτι δι4 μιPς φωνς κα' Sν?ς Uρ$ρου 20 σημανει ζ&+ων *μφοτ ρων νο:ν. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται.
***
Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Απ? το: δκαιος ν25 ματος συνετ $η *δκως, κα' *π? το2του kτερον νομα παρασ2ν$ετον
30
35
40
45
λεγμενον, *δικα. Ποου σχματος; Παρασυν$ του. Διατ; Διτι ***. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εας. NΕστι #μα *μεταβ(τως NΕστι #μα *μετ(βατον συντ(σσεσ$αι τQ πτ+σει συντασσμενον τQ πτ+σει τQ ρ$Q κα' ε5$εRα. (M) τQ ρ$Q κα' ε5$εRα. (V) 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % ποιητςZ E γενικ το: ποιητο:Z E δοτικ τ& ποιητQZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ποιητνZ E κλητικ c ποιητ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ποιητο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF ποιηταZ E γενικ τν ποιητνZ E δοτικ το>ς ποιητα>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ποιητ(ςZ E κλητικ c ποιητα' κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ποιητν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Π ρσηςZ E γενικ το: Π ρσουZ E δοτικ τ& Π ρσQηZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Π ρσηνZ E κλητικ c Π ρσα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Π ρσουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF Π ρσαιZ E γενικ τν ΠερσνZ s δοτικ το>ς Π ρσαιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς Π ρσαςZ E κλητικ c Π ρσαι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Περσν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τ? ξ2λονZ E γενικ το: ξ2λουZ E δοτικ τ& ξ2λ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ? ξ2λονZ E κλητικ c ξ2λον κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ξ2λουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α τ4 ξ2λαZ E γενικ τν ξ2λωνZ s δοτικ το>ς ξ2λοιςZ E ατιατικ τ4 ξ2λαZ E κλητικ c ξ2λα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ξ2λων.
17–18 cf. a 1. 18–21(b) 18 προφ ρει] προσ- M 21 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 22 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 25 4δκως] Uδικος emendaverim, cf. d 1. 25 25–26 κα' ... *δικα fort. a definitione figurae decompositae (σχμα παρασ2ν$ετον, 27), cf. d. 1. 26–28 27 om. M 38 Π ρσα] Π ρση M, v.l. 39 E ε5$ε>α] E ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α M
de nomine
405
Ποας κλσεως; Πρ+της. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ α5το: ες ου δφ$ογγον λγει, Tς ποιητς ποιητο:, Χρ2σης Χρ2σου, ξ2λον ξ2λου. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Α@αςZ E γενικ το: Α@αντοςZ E δοτικ τ& Α@αντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Α@ανταZ E κλητικ c Α=αν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Α@αντοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF Α@αντεςZ s γενικ τν Α(ντωνZ s δοτικ το>ς Α@ασιZ E ατιατικ τοGς Α@ανταςZ E κλητικ c Α@αντες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Α(ντων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E αyλαξZ E γενικ τς αuλακοςZ s δοτικ τQ αuλακιZ E ατιατικ τν αuλακαZ E κλητικ c αyλαξ κα' s *φαιρετικs *π? τς αuλακοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF αuλακεςZ E γενικ τν α5λ(κωνZ E δοτικ τα>ς αuλαξιZ E ατιατικ τ4ς αuλακαςZ E κλητικ c αuλακες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν α5λ(κων. Ποας κλσεως; Δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ τν Sνικν α5το: ες ος λγει, Tς Α@ας Α@αντος, αyλαξ αuλακος, βμα βματος, φις φιος, Eδ2ς Eδ ος. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E μο:σαZ E γενικ τς μο2σηςZ s δοτικ τQ μο2σQηZ E ατιατικ τν μο:σανZ E κλητικ c μο:σα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μο2σηςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF μο:σαιZ E γενικ τν μουσνZ E δοτικ τα>ς μο2σαιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μο2σαςZ s κλητικ c μο:σαι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μουσν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E δψαZ s γενικ τς δψηςZ E δοτικ τQ δψQηZ E ατιατικ τν δψανZ E κλητικ c δψα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς δψηςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF δψαιZ E γενικ τν διψνZ E δοτικ τα>ς δψαιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς δψαςZ E κλητικ c δψαι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν διψν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E σοφZ E γενικ τς σοφςZ E δοτικ τQ σοφQZ E ατιατικ τν σοφνZ E κλητικ c σοφ κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς σοφςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF σοφαZ E γενικ τν σοφνZ E δοτικ τα>ς σοφα>ςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς σοφ(ςZ E κλητικ c σοφα' κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν σοφν. Ποας κλσεως; Τρτης. Διατ; Διτι ,χει ν τQ γενικQ τν Sνικν κφωνο2μενον κατ4 τν λγουσαν τ? ης, Tς μο2σα μο2σης, δψα δψης, σοφ σοφς. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E μα>αZ E γενικ τς μααςZ E δοτικ τQ μαRαZ E ατιατικ τν μα>ανZ E κλητικ c μα>α κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μααςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF μα>αιZ E γενικ τν μαινZ E δοτικ τα>ς
50 Α=αν] Α@ας V, v.l., cf. Theod. Alex. Can., GG 4.1, 3 55 αuλακα] αuλακαν M 55–56 κα' ... αuλακος om. M 65 κα' om. M 70 κα' om. M
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
406
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
donatus graecus b
μααιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μααςZ E κλητικ c μα>αι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μαιν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E 8Ρ αZ E γενικ τς 8Ρ αςZ E δοτικ τQ 8Ρ RαZ E ατιατικ τν 8Ρ ανZ E κλητικ c 8Ρ α κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς 8Ρ ας. Ποας κλσεως; Τετ(ρτης. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ α5το: ,χει κφωνο2μενον κατ4 τν λγουσαν τ? ας, Tς μα>α μαας, 8Ρ α 8Ρ ας, Εuα Εuας. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Αβρα(μZ E γενικ το: Αβρα(μZ E δοτικ τ& Αβρα(μZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Αβρα(μZ E κλητικ c Αβρα(μ κα' s *φαιρετικ *π? το: Αβρα(μ. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Αδ(μZ s γενικ το: Αδ(μZ E δοτικ τ& Αδ(μZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Αδ(μZ E κλητικ c Αδ(μ κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Αδ(μ. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % ΝεZ E γενικ το: ΝεZ E δοτικ τ& ΝεZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ΝεZ E κλητικ c Νε κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Νε. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Ααρ+νZ E γενικ το: Ααρ+νZ E δοτικ τ& Ααρ+νZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Ααρ+νZ E κλητικ c Ααρ+ν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Ααρ+ν. Ποας κλσεως; Π μπτης. Διατ; Διτι πPσαι αF πτ+σεις σοκαταληκτο:σι τQ ε5$εRα, Tς τ? Αβρα(μ Αβρα(μ, Αδ(μ Αδ(μ, Νε Νε, Ααρν Ααρ+ν. Πσοι τ2ποι τν συγκριτικν; Τρε>ς, Iπλο:ς, συγκριτικ?ς κα' iπερ$ετικςZ Iπλο:ς Tς δεδιδαγμ νος, συγκριτικ?ς Tς διδαγμεν στερος, iπερ$ετικ?ς Tς διδαγμεν στατος. Δεδιδαγμ νος, διδαγμεν στερος, διδαγμεν στατοςZ δεδιδαγμ νη, διδαγμενεστ ρα, διδαγμενεστ(τηZ δεδιδαγμ νον, διδαγμεν στερον, διδαγμεν στατονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ διδαγμ νως, διδαγμενεστ ρως, διδαγμενεστ(τως. Πρτος, πρτερος, πρ+τιστοςZ πρ+τη, προτ ρα, πρωτστηZ πρτον, πρτερον, πρ+τιστονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ πρτως, προτ ρως, πρωτστως. Πολ2ς, πλεων, πλε>στοςZ πολλ, πλεων, πλεστηZ πολ2, πλε>ον, πλε>στονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ πολ2, πλεινως, πλειστ(κις. Ε5σεβς, ε5σεβ στερος, ε5σεβ στατοςZ ε5σεβς, ε5σεβεστ ρα, ε5σεβεστ(τηZ ε5σεβ ς, ε5σεβ στερον, ε5σεβ στατονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ ε5σεβς, ε5σεβεστ ρως, ε5σεβεστ(τως.
83 κα' om. M 86 πρσχες Wτι τ4 κ2ρια νματα kως τς κλητικς τν Sνικν 89 Αβρ-] 8Αβρ- V 95 κα' om. M 103 κλνονται in marg. inf. add. V1 συγκριτικ?ς Tς] Tς om. M | διδαγμεν στερος] συγκριτικ+τερος codd. (σικριτικο- M), cf. 105 et a. 1. 281–282 112 πλεινως] πλε>ον[ως] emendaverim | πλειστ(κις ] κα' πλ. V, cf. c 1. 105
de verbo
407
Ε5δαμων, ε5δαιμον στερος, ε5δαιμον στατοςZ ε5δαμων, ε5δαιμονεστ ρα, ε5δαιμονεστ(τηZ εuδαιμον, ε5δαιμον στερον, ε5δαιμον στατονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ ε5δαιμνως, ε5δαιμονεστ ρως, ε5δαιμονεστ(τως. Μικρς, μικρτερος, μικρτατοςZ μικρ, μικροτ ρα, μικροτ(τηZ μικρν, μικρτερον, μικρτατονZ κα' ν τ& πιρρματιZ λαττνως, λαττοτ ρως, 120 μικροτ(τως.
2. Περ A+ματος Αγαπ ποου μ ρους λγου στν; 8Ρματς στι. Διατ στι #μα; Διτι μετ4 γκλσεως κα' χρνων σημανει ν ργειαν ] π($ος. Τ& #ματι πσα παρ πεται; Οκτ+. Πο>α; Γ νος, χρνος, ,γκλισις, ε=δος, σχμα, συζυγα, πρσωπον κα' *ρι$μς. Ποου γ νους; Ενεργητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες ω λγον ποιε> ξ αiτο: πα$ητικν. Ποου γ νους; Πα$ητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες μαι λγον πα$ητικν κρατε> σημασαν. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι ες ω λγον ο5δεν?ς κρατε> σημασαν. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι ες μαι λγον φυσικς κοινν κρατε> σημασαν. Ποου γ νους; Μεταβατικο: πα$ητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες μαι λγον νεργητικν σημασαν ,χει. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο:. Διατ; Διτι ες ω λγον πα$ητικν σημασαν ,χει. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δενς. Διατ; Διτι ν τ& πρ+τ&ω $ ματι οuτε ες ω οuτε ες μαι λγει. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος. Διατ; Διτι % νεστς χρνος λγει ες ν ργειαν κα' π($ος. Ποου χρνου; Παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι % παρατατικ?ς χρνος λγει ες ν ργειαν κα' π($ος. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου. Διατ; Διτι % παρακεμενος χρνος λγει ες ν ργειαν κα' π($ος.
116–117 ε5δαμων ... ε5δαιμονεστ(τη om. M, in marg. sup. praebet V 117 εuδαιμον ... ε5δαιμον στατον om. M 2. 1 λγου om. V | #ματς στι] στι om. M 13–14 νεργητικν] πα$ητικν M 19–20 om. M 22 ες om. M 23–24 om. V
5
10
15
20
408
donatus graecus b
25 Ποου χρνου; Αορστου. Διατ; Διτι % *ριστος χρνος λγει ες ν ρ-
30
35
40
45
50
55
γειαν κα' π($ος. Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Διατ; Διτι % μ λλων χρνος λγει ες ν ργειαν κα' π($ος. Ποας γκλσεως; 8Οριστικς. Διατ; Διτι %ρζει πρPγμα Wπερ ] ,νι ] vν ] ,σται. Ποας γκλσεως; Προστακτικς. Διατ; Διτι προστ(σσει πρPγμα Wπερ ] ,νι ] vν ] ,σται. Ποας γκλσεως; Ε5κτικς. Διατ; Διτι *** Ποας γκλσεως; 8Υποτακτικς. Διατ; Διτι ,χουσα σ2νδεσμον iποτ(σσει Sαυτν Uλλ&ω #ματι κα' οuτε τελειο> νο:ν. Ποας γκλσεως; Απαρεμφ(του. Διατ; Διτι οuτε προσ+που παρεμφανει οuτε *ρι$μ?ν ,χει, *λλ4 μνον Uλλ&ω #ματι συνδ εται. Ποας συζυγας; Πρ+της. Διατ; Διτι ν τ& δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω το: νεσττος τς %ριστικς γκλσεως ,χει τ? α κφωνο2μενον πρ? το: ς κα' μνον, οmονZ *γαπ *γαπRPς, *γαπμαι *γαπRP. Ποας συζυγας; Δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι ν τ& δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω το: νεσττος τς %ριστικς νεργητικς γκλσεως ,χει τ? εις κφωνο2μενον κα' ν τ& δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω τς πα$ητικς κφωνο2μενον τ? η, οmονZ διδ(σκω διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκομαι διδ(σκQηZ λ γω λ γεις, λ γομαι λ γQη. Ποας συζυγας; Τρτης. Διατ; Δοτι ν τ& δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω το: νεσττος τς %ριστικς γκλσεως ,χει τν δι4 ο κα' ι δφ$ογγον κφωνουμ νην κα' πρ? το: ς κα' μνην, οmονZ χρυσω χρυσ, χρυσεις χρυσο>ςZ χρυσομαι χρυσο:μαι, χρυσQη χρυσο>. Ποας συζυγας; Τετ(ρτης. Διατ; Διτι ν τ& πρ+τ&ω προσ+π&ω το: νεσττος τς %ριστικς νεργητικς γκλσεως ,χει κφωνουμ νην τν μι συλλαβν κα' ν τ& πρ+τ&ω προσ+π&ω τς πα$ητικς τν μαι, TςZ τ$ημι τ$ημαι, ;στημι ;σταμαι, δδωμι δδομαι, ζε2γνυμι ζε2γνυμαι. Ποας συζυγας; Ο5δεμιPς. Διατ; Διτι ο5κ ,χει τ(ξιν Uλλης συζυγας κατ4 τν κλσιν, *λλ4 δαν. Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι σημανει λγον πρ?ς Sαυτ?ν λεγμενον. Ποου προσ+που; Δευτ ρου. Διατ; Διτι σημανει λγον πρ?ς nν διαλ γεται.
31–32 om. M 34–35 cf. a. 2. 55–57(b) 34 ποας ... διτι om. M 35 Sαυτν 37 συνδ εται] συνδ δεται V 43 κα' ... κφωνο2μενον om. Uλλ&ω] Sαυτ?ν Uλλο M V 47 μνην] μνον codd. 47–48 χρυσ, χρυσο>ς, χρυσο:μαι, χρυσο> inter lineas 51 πρ+τ&ω om. M 53 ο5δεμιPς] ο5δενς codd., cf. 61 V 48 χρυσο>] -ο>ς M 54 τν om. M 55 λγον] πρPγμα V, cf. a 2. 87
de verbo
409
Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι σημανει λγον περ' Sτ ρου Uν τινος *πντος. Ποου προσ+που; Ο5δεν?ς κα' *ρι$μο: ο5δενς. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 *παρ μφατα δχα προσ+πων εσ'ν κα' *ρι$μν, *λλ4 δ κα' γκλσεων. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκενZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ *γαπPν, *γαπσαιZ *γαπητ ονZ *γαπν. Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπμεν, *γαπPτε, *γαπσι. ΠαρατατικςZ sγ(πων, sγ(πας, sγ(παZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμεν, sγαπPτε, sγ(πων. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπκαμεν, sγαπκατε, sγαπκασι. ΑριστοςZ sγ(πησα, sγ(πησας, sγ(πησεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπσαμεν, sγαπσατε, sγ(πησαν. Μ λλωνZ *γαπσω, *γαπσεις, *γαπσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσομεν, *γαπσετε, *γαπσουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπPτε, *γαπ(τωσαν. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ *γ(πησν συ, *γαπησ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσατε, *γαπησ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&μι, *γαπ&ς, *γαπ&Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&μεν, *γαπ&τε, *γαπ&εν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *γαπσαιμι, *γαπσαις, *γαπσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπσαιμεν, *γαπσαιτε, *γαπσαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιμι, *γαπσοις, *γαπσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιμεν, *γαπσοιτε, *γαπσοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *γαπ, 4ν *γαπRPς, 4ν *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπμεν, 4ν *γαπPτε, 4ν *γαπσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν *γαπκω, 4ν *γαπκQης, 4ν *γαπκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπκωμεν, 4ν *γαπκητε, 4ν *γαπκωσι.
59 Uν om. V 62 γκλσεων] -σεως M 65 *γ(πα] sγ- V 66 *γαπν] -Pν M 71 sγ(πηκας] -ες V 72 sγαπκατε] sγ(πησας V, cf. 73 75 *γαπσομεν om. V 76 *γαπσετε] -σατε M 78 *γ(πα] sγ- V 79 *γ(πησον] *γαπσω M | *γαπησ(τω] *γαπPτο M 81 χρνος ... παρατατικς] χρνου νεσττος κα' 81–82 *γαπ&ς] *γαπPς M παρατατικο: V, cf. a 2. 117, al. | *γαπ&μι] *γαπ M 90–91 *γαπκω ... *γαπκωσι] sγαπ- desideratur, cf. tamen a 2. 132–135(a)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
410
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
donatus graecus b
ΑριστοςZ 4ν *γαπσω, 4ν *γαπσQης, 4ν *γαπσQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπσωμεν, 4ν *γαπσητε, 4ν *γαπσωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *γαπPν. ΑριστοςZ *γαπσαι. Μ λλωνZ *γαπσειν. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ *γαπPται. ΠαρατατικςZ sγαπPτο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγ(πηται. ΑριστοςZ sγαπ$η. Μ λλων Z *γαπη$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ *γαπ(σ$ω. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ *γαπησ(σ$ω[σαν]. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&το. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *γαπσαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *γαπPται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγαπημ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *γαπσηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *γαπη$σεται. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστ+ς, % *γαπν, κα' Uλλη % μ λλων, % *γαπσων. Αγαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπ+με$α, *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπνται. ΠαρατατικςZ sγαπ+μην, sγαπ, sγαπPτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπ+με$α, sγαπPσ$ε, sγαπντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγ(πημαι, sγ(πησαι, sγ(πηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμε$α, sγ(πησ$ε, sγ(πηνται. ΑριστοςZ sγαπ$ην, sγαπ$ης, sγαπ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπ$ημεν, sγπ$ητε, sγαπ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σομαι, *γαπη$σQη, *γαπη$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπη$ησμε$α, *γαπη$σεσ$ε, *γαπη$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικς, πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ *γαπ, *γαπ(σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπ(σ$ωσαν.
97 μ om. V 97–98 χρνος ... παρατατικς] χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικς V 105 *γαπσαιτο] -σεται M 108 sγαπημ νος] -μ νον desideratur, sed cf. 199 necnon a 2. 162(a) et al. 110 om. V, codicis M lectionem servavi 112 κα' om. M 124 *γαπ] -ο: codd., fort. servandum (cf. a 2. 184(b), c 2. 113 *γαπRP] - M 140)
de verbo
411
Μ λλων *ριστοςZ *γ(πησα συ, *γαπησ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσασ$ε, *γαπησ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&+μην, *γαπ&ο, *γαπ&τοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&+με$α, *γαπ&σ$ε, *γαπ&ντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *γαπησαμην, *γαπσαιο, *γαπσαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπησαμε$α, *γαπσαισ$ε, *γαπσαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπησομην, *γαπσοιο, *γαπσοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπησομε$α, *γαπσοισ$ε, *γαπσοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν *γαπμαι, 4ν *γαπRP, 4ν *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπ+με$α, 4ν *γαπPσ$ε, 4ν *γαπνται. ΠαρατατικςZ ο5κ ,χει. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγαπημ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπημ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *γαπσωμαι, 4ν *γαπσQη, 4ν *γαπσηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπησ+με$α, 4ν *γαπσησ$ε, 4ν *γαπσωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *γαπη$σομαι, 4ν *γαπη$σQη, 4ν *γαπη$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπη$ησμε$α, 4ν *γαπη$σεσ$ε, 4ν *γαπη$σονται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *γαπPσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ *γαπη$ναι. Μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Εmς χρνος παρακεμενος, sγαπημ νοςZ Uλλος μ λλων, *γαπη$ησμενος. Αγαπ+μενος χρνος νεστς τς μετοχς, κα' κλνεται ες τ? τριγεν ςZ % *γαπ+μενος, E *γαπωμ νη, τ? *γαπ+μενονZ κα' κατ4 τν %μοωσιν το2του κλνονται κα' αF Uλλαι μετοχα. Διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκειZ δεδδαχα, δεδδαχας, δεδδαχεZ διδ(σκειν, διδ(ξαιZ διδακτ ονZ διδ(σκωνZ διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη, διδ(σκεται. Διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, διδ(σκουσι. 129 *γαπ&ο] *γαπο>ς M, *γαπ&οιο V 133 *γαπσοιο] -σοι V 140 sγαπημ νοι] 143–145 codicis V lectionem servavi, cf. a 2.231–235(b) 143 *γα-μ νος M 144 *γαπη$ηπη$σομαι] *γαπσωμαι M (cf. 141) | *γαπη$σεται] -$σητε M σμε$α] *γαπη$ησ+με$α M, *γαπησ+με$α V (cf. 142) | *γαπη$σεσ$ε] -$σησ$ε M 144–145 *γαπη$σονται] -$σωντε M 146 παρατατικς] -ς M, -ο: V 149 πα$η150 εmς] ] M 152–153 *γαπ+μενος ... μετοχα] cf. c 2. 171–173 τικο: om. V 153 αF om. M 154 δεδδαχα] δδαχα V | δεδδαχας om. V | δδασκε, διδασκ τω post δεδδαχε addiderim
130
135
140
145
150
155
412
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
donatus graecus b
ΠαρατατικςZ δδασκον, δδασκες, δδασκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, δδασκον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδδαχα, δεδδαχας, δεδδαχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ δεδιδ(χαμεν, δεδιδ(χατε, δεδιδ(χασι. ΑριστοςZ δδαξα, δδαξας, δδαξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξαμεν, διδ(ξατε, δδαξαν. Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξω, διδ(ξεις, διδ(ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξομεν, διδ(ξετε, διδ(ξουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ δδασκε, διδασκ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκετε, διδασκ τωσαν. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ δδαξν συ, διδαξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξατε, διδαξ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιμι, διδ(σκοις, διδ(σκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιμεν, διδ(σκοιτε, διδ(σκοιεν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμι, διδ(ξαις, διδ(ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμεν, διδ(ξαιτε, διδ(ξαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμι, διδ(ξοις, διδ(ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμεν, διδ(ξοιτε, διδ(ξοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκω, 4ν διδ(σκQης, 4ν διδ(σκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(σκωμεν, 4ν διδ(σκητε, 4ν διδ(σκωσι. Παρακεμενος UχρηστοςZ 4ν διδ(χω. ΑριστοςZ 4ν διδ(ξω, 4ν διδ(ξQης, 4ν διδ(ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(ξωμεν, 4ν διδ(ξητε, 4ν διδ(ξωσι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκειν. ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξαι. Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξειν. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ διδ(σκεται. ΠαρατατικςZ διδ(σκετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδδακται. ΑριστοςZ διδ(χ$η. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισιςZ διδασκ σ$ω.
181 4ν διδ(χω om. M, δεδιδ(χω emendaverim secundum 160–161 (δεδιδαχ-), sed cf. c 2. 202 185 ,γκλισις om. V 193 προστακτικ γκλισις] προστακτικ?ς V
de verbo
413
Μ λλων μ σοςZ διδαξ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιτο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδιδαγμ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν διδαχ$Q. Μ λλωνZ 4ν διδαχ$σεται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2οZ % νεστ+ς, διδ(σκων, κα' % μ λλων, διδ(ξων. Διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη, διδ(σκεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκονται. ΠαρατατικςZ διδασκμην, διδ(σκου, διδ(σκετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδδαγμαι, δεδδαξαι, δεδδακταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ δεδιδ(γμε$α, δεδδαχ$ε, δεδιδαγμ νοι εσ κα' Ιωνικς δεδιδ(χαται. ΑριστοςZ διδ(χ$ην, διδ(χ$ης, διδ(χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(χ$ημεν, διδ(χ$ητε, διδ(χ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σομαι, διδαχ$σQη, διδαχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδαχ$ησμε$α, διδαχ$σεσ$ε, διδαχ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκου, διδασκ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδασκ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ δδαξα συ, διδαξ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικς διδ(ξασ$ε, διδαξ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδασκομην, διδ(σκοιο, διδ(σκοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδασκομε$α, διδ(σκοισ$ε, διδ(σκοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδαξαμην, διδ(ξαιο, διδ(ξαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδαξαμε$α, διδ(ξαισ$ε, διδ(ξαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδαξομην, διδ(ξοιο, διδ(ξοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδαξομε$α, διδ(ξοισ$ε, διδ(ξοιντο.
199 δεδιδαγμ νος] -μ νον desideratur, sed cf. 108 et al. 201 διδαχ$σεται] codicum lectionem servavi 204 om. M 212 δεδδαχ$ε] -χ$αι codd. 226 διδ(ξοιο om. M
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
414
230
235
240
245
250
255
donatus graecus b
8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκωμαι, 4ν διδ(σκQη, 4ν διδ(σκηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδασκ+με$α, 4ν διδ(σκησ$ε, 4ν διδ(σκωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδιδαγμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ δεδιδαγμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν διδαχ$, 4ν διδαχ$Qς, 4ν διδαχ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδαχ$μεν, 4ν διδαχ$τε, 4ν διδαχ$σι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι, 4ν διδαχ$σQη, 4ν διδαχ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδαχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν διδαχ$σησ$ε, 4ν διδαχ$σονται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστς κα' παρατατικς, % διδασκμενοςZ κα' Uλλη % μ λλων, % διδαξμενος. Λ γω, λ γεις, λ γειZ λ λεχα, λ λεχας, λ λεχεZ λ γεZ λ γειν, λ ξαιZ λεκτ ονZ λ γων, λ ξας, λ ξωνZ λ γομαι, λ γQη, λ γεταιZ λ χ$ηνZ λ γεσ$αιZ λεγμενος. Λ γω, λ γεις, λ γειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γομεν, λ γετε, λ γουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ ,λεγον, ,λεγες, ,λεγεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γομεν, λ γετε, ,λεγον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεχα, λ λεχας, λ λεχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελ χαμεν, λελ χατε, λελ χασι. ΑριστοςZ ,λεξα, ,λεξας, ,λεξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξαμεν, λ ξατε, ,λεξαν. Μ λλωνZ λ ξω, λ ξεις, λ ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξομεν, λ ξετε, λ ξουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λ γε, λεγ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γετε, λεγ τωσαν. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ λ ξον σ2, λεξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξατε, λεξ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε λ γοιμι, λ γοις, λ γοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ γοιμεν, λ γοιτε, λ γοιεν.
229 4ν διδ(σκQη bis M 233 4ν διδαχ$ ... πλη$υντικς om. M 235–236 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι ... διδαχ$σονται] codicis M lectionem servavi, 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι ... 236 διδαχ$ησ+με$α] -σμε$α V | διδαχ$σησ$ε] -$σεσ$ε πλη$υντικς om. V V 241 % μ λλων] % om. M 243 λ λεχα, λ λεχας] λελα- M | λεγ τω post λ γε fort. scribendum 244 λ γων om. M | λ ξας om. V 244–245 λ γομαι ... λεγμενος om. 253 λ ξω] λ ξον V, cf. 256 | κα' ... λ ξουσι om. M M 250 λελ χασι] λελα- V 256 λεξ(τω] λεξετω M 259 ε@$ε om. M
de verbo
415
ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιμι, λ ξαις, λ ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιμεν, λ ξαιτε, λ ξαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λ ξοιμι, λ ξοις, λ ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ ξοιμεν, λ ξοιτε, λ ξοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γω, 4ν λ γQης, 4ν λ γQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λ γωμεν, 4ν λ γητε, 4ν λ γωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν λελ χω, 4ν λελ χQης, 4ν λελ χQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λελ χωμεν, 4ν λελ χητε, 4ν λελ χωσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξω, 4ν λ ξQης, 4ν λ ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λ ξωμεν, 4ν λ ξητε, 4ν λ ξωσι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γειν. ΑριστοςZ λ ξαι. Μ λλωνZ λ ξειν. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γεται. ΠαρατατικςZ λ γετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεκται. ΑριστοςZ λ χ$η. Μετ’ λγον μ λλωνZ λεχ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λεγ σ$ω. Μ λλωνZ λεξ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισιςZ ε@$ε λ γοιτο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λεχ$σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λελεγμ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν λεχ$σηται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ λ ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ λ ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος το: νεργητικο:; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Χρνος νεστ+ς, λ γων, κα' % μ λλων, λ ξων.
261 λ ξαιτε om. M 266 παρακεμενος] παρατατικς M 270 μ λλων] μ λλοντα V, rectius, ut videtur, sed cf. 184 et al. 278 μετ’ λγον μ λλων om. M | λεχ$σεται] 285 λελεγμ νος] -μ νον desideratur, sed cf. 108 et al. | Qv] Qvς V -σομαι codd. 287 λεχ$σηται] codicum lectionem servavi 292 λ ξων] λ ξω M
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
416
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
donatus graecus b
Λ γομαι, λ γQη, λ γεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεγμε$α, λ γεσ$ε, λ γονται. ΠαρατατικςZ λεγμην, λ γου, λ γετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεγμε$α, λ γεσ$ε, λ γοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεγμαι, λ λεξαι, λ λεκταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελ γμε$α, λ λεχ$ε, λελεγμ νοι εσν κα' Ιωνικς λελ χαται. ΑριστοςZ λ χ$ην, λ χ$ης, λ χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ χ$ημεν, λ χ$ητε, λ χ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ λεχ$σομαι, λεχ$σQη, λεχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεχ$ησμε$α, λεχ$σεσ$ε, λεχ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λ γου, λεγ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γεσ$ε, λεγ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ λ ξαι σ2, λεξ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξασ$ε, λεξ(σ$ωσαν Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε λεγομην, λ γοιο, λ γοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεγομε$α, λ γοισ$ε, λ γοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λεξαμην, λ ξαιο, λ ξαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεξαμε$α, λ ξαισ$ε, λ ξαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λεξομην, λ ξοιο, λ ξοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεξομε$α, λ ξοισ$ε, λ ξοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γωμαι, 4ν λ γQη, 4ν λ γηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λεγ+με$α, 4ν λ γησ$ε, 4ν λ γωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λελεγμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελεγμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξωμαι, 4ν λ ξQη, 4ν λ ξηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λεξ+με$α, 4ν λ ξησ$ε, 4ν λ ξωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν λεχ$σομαι, 4ν λεχ$σQη, 4ν λεχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λεχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν λεχ$σεσ$ε, 4ν λεχ$σονται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισιςZ λ γεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ λ ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ λεχ$σεσ$αι ] λ ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 8Ο νεστς χρνος, λεγμενος, κα' % μ λλων, λεχ$ησμενος ] λεξμενος. Ακο2ω, *κο2εις, *κο2ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ομεν, *κο2ετε, *κο2ουσι. 303 λ γεσ$ε, λεγ σ$ωσαν] λ ξασ$ε, λεξ(σ$ωσαν M, cf. 304–305 304 λ ξαι σ2, λεξ(σ$ω] λ ξον σ2, λεξ(τω V 313–314 κα' ... λ γωνται om. M 319–320 codicis V lectionem servavi, λεχ$σωμαι ... λεχ$σηται, λεχ$ησμε$α κ.τ.λ. M 323 λ ξεσ$αι] -ασ$αι M
de verbo
417
ΠαρατατικςZ aκουον, aκουες, aκουεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2ομεν, sκο2ετε, aκουον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ *κκοα, *κκοας, *κκοεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κηκαμεν, *κηκατε, *κηκασι. ΑριστοςZ aκουσα, aκουσας, aκουσεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σαμεν, sκο2σατε, aκουσαν. Μ λλωνZ *κο2σω, *κο2σεις, *κο2σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σομεν, *κο2σετε, *κο2σουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ Uκουε, *κου τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ετε, *κου τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ Uκουσν συ, *κουσ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σαμεν, *κο2σατε, *κουσ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνου νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιμι, *κο2οις, *κο2οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιμεν, *κο2οιτε, *κο2οιεν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιμι, *κο2σαις, *κο2σαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιμεν, *κο2σαιτε, *κο2σαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιμι, *κο2σοις, *κο2σοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιμεν, *κο2σοιτε, *κο2σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ω, 4ν *κο2Qης, 4ν *κο2QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμεν, 4ν *κο2ητε, 4ν *κο2ωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν *κηκω, 4ν *κηκQης, 4ν *κηκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κηκωμεν, 4ν *κηκητε, 4ν *κηκωσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σω, 4ν *κο2σQης, 4ν *κο2σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2σωμεν, 4ν *κο2σητε, 4ν *κο2σωσι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2ειν. ΑριστοςZ *κο:σαι. Μ λλωνZ *κο2σειν. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπονZ *κο2εται. ΠαρατατικςZ sκο2ετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ aκουσται. ΑριστοςZ sκο2σ$η. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κου σ$ω.
330 *κκοας] -ες V 338 *κουσ(τω] -σ τω M | *κο2σαμεν praebet M, cf. D (p): 354 audiamus 353 μ λλων] μ λλοντα V, rectius, ut videtur, sed cf. 184 et al. *κο2ειν] -εις M 357 *κο2εται] -ετε codd. 361 *κουσ$σεται] -σομαι codd.
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
418
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
donatus graecus b
Μ λλωνZ *κουσ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιτο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sκουσμ νον 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *κουσ$σεται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισιςZ *κο2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ *κο2σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο, % νεστς χρνος κα' % μ λλωνZ % *κουμενος κα' *κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος. Ακο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουμε$α, *κο2εσ$ε, *κο2ονται. ΠαρατατικςZ sκουμην, sκο2ου, sκο2ετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκουμε$α, sκο2εσ$ε, sκο2οντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ aκουσμαι, aκουσαι, aκουσταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σμε$α, aκουσ$ε, sκουσμ νοι εσ κα' Ιωνικς *κηκαται. ΑριστοςZ sκο2σ$ην, sκο2σ$ης, sκο2σ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σ$ημεν, sκο2σ$ητε, sκο2σ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σομαι, *κουσ$σQη, *κουσ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουσ$ησμε$α, *κουσ$σεσ$ε, *κουσ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2ου, *κου σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2εσ$ε, *κου σ$ωσαν. Μ λλων *ριστοςZ Uκουσα συ, *κουσ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σασ$ε, *κουσ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κουομην, *κο2οιο, *κο2οιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουομε$α, *κο2οισ$ε, *κο2οιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κουσαμην, *κο2σαιο, *κο2σαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουσαμε$α, *κο2σαισ$ε, *κο2σαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κουσομην, *κο2σοιο, *κο2σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουσομε$α, *κο2σοισ$ε, *κο2σοιντο.
364 ε@$ε om. M 368 sκουσμ νον] -μ νος M 370 *κουσ$σεται] -$σηται M, codicis V lectionem servavi 376 *κο2Qη om. M 376–377 *κουμε$α ... *κο2ονται] sκου- V, cf. 378–379 378–379 om. V 381 *κηκαται] -τε codd. 387 κα' ... *κο2εσ$ε om. M 388 Uκουσαι] *κο2 M 393 *κο2σαιο] -σαις M
de participio
419
8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμαι, 4ν *κο2Qη, 4ν *κο2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κου+με$α, 4ν *κο2ησ$ε, 4ν *κο2ωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sκουσμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκουσμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σωμαι, 4ν *κο2σQη, 4ν *κο2σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ+με$α, 4ν *κο2σησ$ε, 4ν *κο2σωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *κουσ$σωμαι, 4ν *κουσ$σQη, 4ν *κουσ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ$ησ+με$α, 4ν *κουσ$σησ$ε, 4ν *κουσ$σωνται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ *κο2σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστς χρνος κα' Uλλη % μ λλωνZ % *κουμενος κα' *κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος. Εμ, ε=ς κοινς, Αττικς ε=, ποιητικς σσ, στZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμ3ν κοινς κα' εμ3ν ποιητικς, στ , εσ' κοινς, ,ασι ποιητικς. ΠαρατατικςZ vν, vς, vν π(λιν, SτεροκλτωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ vμεν, vτε, vσαν. Μ λλωνZ ,σομαι, ,σQη, ,σεται κα' κατ4 συγκοπν ,σταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμε$α, ,σεσ$ε, ,σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ,σο, ,στωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ,στε, ,στωσαν.
400
405
410
415
420
3. Περ μετοχ7ς Λ γων τ μ ρος λγου στ; Μετοχ στι. Διατ στι μετοχ; Διτι κρατε> μ ρος το: νματος κα' μ ρος το: #ματος. Κα' *π? μ3ν το: νματος ,χει γ νος κα' πτσιν, *π? δ3 το: #ματος χρνον κα' δι($εσιν, κα' ξ *μφοτ ρων *ρι$μ?ν κα' σχμα. ΜετοχQ πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Γ νος, πτσις, χρνος, δι($εσις, 5 *ρι$μ?ς κα' σχμα. 398 4ν *κο2ηται] 4ν om. M 404–406 codicis V lectionem servavi, *κουσ$σομαι ... -σμε$α, -σεσ$ε, -σοντε M 409 om. B 413 σσ] σν M 419–420 ,στω ... ,στε, ,στωσαν] ,σ$ω ... ,σ$ε, ,σ$ωσαν codd., fort. servanda, cf. a 2. 679–680, c 2. 472– 473, d 2. 21–22. 6 *ρι$μ?ς κα' σχμα] *ρι$μν 3. 1 λγου om. M | μετοχ στι] στι om. M σχμα M
420
10
15
20
25
30
35
donatus graecus b
Ποου γ νους; ΠαντοουZ *ρσενικο: ] $ηλυκο: ] ο5δετ ρου, κατ4 τν *πατησιν το: νο: κα' τν κατ(στασιν τς γραφς. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εας τν SνικνZ κατ ρχεται δ3 κα' ες τ4ς Uλλας πτ+σεις κατ4 τ? iποκεμενον το: λγου. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος κα' παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % μετοχικ?ς νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς ες ων λγει, οmον *γαπν, διδ(σκων, λ γων. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου κα' *ορστου. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % παρακεμενος κα' *ριστος τς μετοχς τς νεργητικς ες ως κα' ες ας λγειZ % μ3ν παρακεμενος ες ως, οmον γεγραφ+ςZ % δ3 *ριστος ες ας, οmον γρ(ψας. Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % μ λλων τς νεργητικς μετοχς ες ων λγει μετ4 το: συμφ+νου ο[περ *παιτε> τ?ν μ λλοντα ,χειν, οmον τ2ψων, λαλσων. Ποου γ νους; Ενεργητικο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? νεργητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο; Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, κα' παρ(γεται *γαπν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? #ματος πα$ητικο: παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο; Αγαπμαι, *γαπRP, κα' γ γονεν *γαπ+μενος. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δετ ρου #ματος παρ(γεται. Τ στιν κε>νο; Κ($ημαι, κα' γ γονε κα$μενος. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? κοινο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Τ στιν κε>νο; Χαρζομαι, κα' γ γονε χαριζμενος. Ποου γ νους; Μεταβατικο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? μεταβατικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Τ στιν κε>νο; Πορε2ομαι, κα' γ γονε πορευμενος. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. 8Ο λ γων, E λ γουσα, τ? λ γονZ το: λ γοντος, τς λεγο2σης, το: λ γοντοςZ τ& λ γοντι, τQ λεγο2σQη, τ& λ γοντιZ τ?ν λ γοντα, τν λ γουσαν, τ? λ γονZ c λ γον, c λ γουσαZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οF λ γοντες, αF λ γουσαι, τ4 λ γονταZ τν λεγντων, τν λεγουσν, τν λεγντωνZ το>ς λ γουσι, τα>ς λεγο2σαις, το>ς λ γουσιZ τοGς λ γοντας, τ4ς λεγο2σας, τ4 λ γονταZ c λ γοντες, c λ γουσαι, c λ γοντα.
7 κατ4] κα' κατ4 M 8 τν κατ(στασιν om. M 15–16 κα' ες ας ... ες ως om. 22 πο>ον] οmον M | κα' παρ(γεται] κα' M 21–22 παρ(γεται] παραγ νεται M παρατατικς M 32 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 33 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 34 E ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α ante % λ γων add. M 35–36 τ? λ γον om. M 36 c λ γουσα om. M, in marg. add. V 38 τα>ς ... λ γουσι om. M
de pronomine
421
8Ο λελεγμ νος, E λελεγμ νη, τ? λελεγμ νονZ το: λελεγμ νου, τς λελε- 40 γμ νης, το: λελεγμ νουZ τ& λελεγμ ν&ω, τQ λελεγμ νQη, τ& λελεγμ ν&ωZ τ?ν λελεγμ νον, τν λελεγμ νην, τ? λελεγμ νονZ c λελεγμ νε, c λελεγμ νη, c λελεγμ νονZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οF λελεγμ νοι, αF λελεγμ ναι, τ4 λελεγμ ναZ τν λελεγμ νωνZ το>ς λελεγμ νοις, τα>ς λελεγμ ναις, το>ς λελεγμ νοιςZ τοGς λελεγμ νους, τ4ς λελεγμ νας, τ4 λελεγμ ναZ c λελεγμ νοι, c 45 λελεγμ ναι, c λελεγμ να.
4. Περ ντωνυμ ας Εγ τ μ ρος στν; Αντωνυμα στ. Διατ στιν *ντωνυμα; Διτι κε>ται ν τπ&ω δου νματος κα' σαφς δεικν2ει τ? πρσωπον. ΤQ *ντωνυμRα πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα, πρσωπον κα' πτσις. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; *** Ποου γ νους; Παντοου, κατ4 τ?ν τπον *ρσενικο: ] $ηλυκο: ] ο5δετ ρου, κα$+ς στι τ? iποκεμενον τς γραφς. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' πPσαι αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτου προσ+που, χωρ'ς το: γ+, Wπερ στ' πρ+του, κα' το: σ2, Wπερ στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν κλητικν πτ+σεων κα' τν ξ α5τν παραγομ νων. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εαςZ ,στι #μα *μετ(βατον συντασσμενον τQ ε5$εRα πτ+σει. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α γ+Z E γενικ μο:Z E δοτικ μοZ E ατιατικ μ Z E κλητικ ο5κ ,χειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α Eμ ες, Eμε>ςZ E γενικ Eμ ων, EμνZ E δοτικ Eμ>νZ E ατιατικ Eμ ας, EμPςZ E κλητικ ο5κ ,χει κα' E *φαιρετκ *φ’ Eμν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α σ2Z E γενικ σο:Z E δοτικ σοZ E ατιατικ σ Z E κλητικ σ2 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α iμ ες, 42 λελεγμ νε] -μ νον V (cf. d 3. 45), om. M | c λελεγμ νη om. M 44–45 τα>ς ... 45 c λελεγμ νοι om. M λελεγμ νοις om. M 4. 1 *ντωνυμα στ] στ om. M 2 δου om. V 3 πο>α om. M 7–8 ποου 9 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 10 προφ ρεται] προσ- M ... γραφς] cf. a 4. 5–8(b) 12–15 cf. a 4. 17–25(b) 14–15 ξ α5τν] ξ α5το: M 11 προφ ρεται] προσ- M 16–17 cf. 1. 29–31(b) 17 πτ+σει] τQ πτ+σει M 22–25 om. M
5
10
15
20
422
donatus graecus b
iμε>ςZ E γενικ iμ ων, iμνZ E δοτικ iμ>νZ E ατιατικ iμ ας, iμPςZ E 25 κλητικ iμε>ς κα' E *φαιρετκ *φ’ iμν.
30
35
40
45
50
55
8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α ;, κα στιν UχρηστονZ κα' E γενικ α5το: ο[ κα' E δοτικ οm κα' E ατιατικ ν χρσειZ E κλητικ ο5κ ,χειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σφε>ς, σφν, σφ>σι, σφPς. Κα' †οmσπερ† στ' τρτου προσ+που κα' λαμβ(νεται *ντ’ α5το: τ? κε>νον, κα στιν E ατιατικ α5το: τ? μμ νον ν χρσει. Κα' *π? τν δυϊκνZ *π? το: νϊ πρ+του προσ+που % νωtτερος, E νωϊτ ρα, τ? νωtτερονZ κα' *π? το: σφϊ δευτ ρου προσ+που % σφωtτερος, E σφωϊτ ρα, τ? σφωtτερον. Απ? δ3 το: σφω3 τρτου προσ+που ο5 γνεται παρ(γωγος *ντωνυμα, διατ' sναγκ(ζετο ε=ναι σφω τερος, κα' γρ(φεται δι4 διφ$γγου κα' δι4 το:το ξ λιπε. Κα' *π? τν πλη$υντικνZ *π? το: Eμε>ς, πρτον πρσωπον, % Eμ τερος, E Eμετ ρα τε κα' τ? Eμ τερονZ κα' *π? το: σφε>ς, το: τρτου προσ+που, % σφ τερος, E σφετ ρα κα' τ? σφ τερονZ κα' *π? το: μ , σ , τν Sνικν ατιατικς τν τριν προσ+πων, τ? μαυτς, σαυτ?ς κα' Sαυτς, qτινα κα' κλνονται ες τ? τριγεν ςZ μαυτς, μαυτ, μαυτνZ σαυτς, σαυτ, σαυτνZ Sαυτς, Sαυτ, Sαυτν. Ε@σιν κα' kτεραι *ντωνυμαι, α πρωττυποι μ ν εσιν *λλ’ ο5 παρ(γονται ξ α5τν, κα' kτεραι, κα$+ς εσινZ κε>νος, κενη, κε>νοZ ο[τος, α_τη, το:τοZ α5τς, α5τ, α5τ. Πσαι εσ' πPσαι αF *ντωνυμαι; Δεκαεπτ(. Εκ το2των εσ' πρωττυποι kξZ γ+, σ2, ;, κε>νος, ο[τος, α5τςZ παρ(γωγοι κτ+Z μς, σς, Wς, % νωtτερος, % σφωtτερος κα' % σφ τερος, % Eμ τερος κα' % iμ τεροςZ κα' σ2ν$ετοι τρε>ςZ μαυτς, σαυτ?ς κα' αiτς. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α κε>νος, κενη, κε>νοZ E γενικ κενου, κενης, κενουZ E δοτικ κεν&ω, κενQη, κεν&ωZ E ατιατικ κε>νον, κενην, κε>νο κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ κενου, *π’ κενης, *π’ κενουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α κε>νοι, κε>ναι, κε>ναZ E γενικ κενωνZ E δοτικ κενοις, κεναις, κενοιςZ E ατιατικ κενους, κενας, κε>να κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ κενων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α ο[τος, α_τη, το:τοZ E γενικ το2του, τα2της, το2τουZ E δοτικ το2τ&ω, τα2τQη, το2τ&ωZ E ατιατικ το:τον, τα2την, το:το κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το2του, *π? τα2της, *π? το2τουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α ο[τοι, α[ται, τα:ταZ E γενικ το2τωνZ E δοτικ το2τοις, τα2ταις, το2τοιςZ E ατιατικ το2τους, τα2τας, τα:ταZ E *φαιρετικ *π? το2των.
27 om. M 28 σφε>ς] σφε>ν M 28–48 κα' οmσπερ ... κα' α5τς om. V 56 το:το] -ον V 57 *π? τα2της, *π? το2του om. 40 κλνονται] κλ2ονται M M
de praepositione
423
8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α α5τς, α5τ, α5τZ E γενικ α5το:, α5τς, α5το:Z E δοτικ α5τ&, α5τQ, α5τ&Z E ατιατικ α5τν, α5τν, α5τ? κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5το:, *π’ α5τς, *π’ α5το:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α α5το, α5τα, α5τ(Z E γενικ α5τνZ E δοτικ α5το>ς, α5τα>ς, α5το>ςZ E ατιατικ α5το2ς, α5τ(ς, α5τ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5τν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α μς, μ, μνZ E γενικ μο:, μς, μο:Z E δοτικ μ&, μQ, μ&Z E ατιατικ μν, μν, μ?ν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ μο:, *π’ μς, *π’ μο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α μο, μα, μ(Z E γενικ μνZ E δοτικ μο>ς, μα>ς, μο>ςZ E ατιατικ μο2ς, μ(ς, μ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ μν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α σς, σ, σνZ E γενικ σο:, σς, σο:Z E δοτικ σ&, σQ, σ&Z E ατιατικ σν, σν, σ?ν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σο:, *π? σς, *π? σο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α σο, σα, σ(Z E γενικ σνZ E δοτικ σο>ς, σα>ς, σο>ςZ E ατιατικ σο2ς, σ(ς, σ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α Wς, d, W[ν]Z E γενικ ο[, Xς, ο[Z E δοτικ &x, QX, &xZ E ατιατικ Wν, dν, W[ν]Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α ο;, α;, qZ E γενικ xνZ E δοτικ οmς, αmς, οmςZ E ατιατικ ο_ς, qς, q.
60
65
70
75
5. Περ προ4σεως Εν ποου μ ρους λγου στν; Προ$ σεως. Διατ λ γεται πρ$εσις; Διτι προτ$εται π(ντων τν το: λγου μερν ,ν τε συν$ σει κα' συντ(ξει. Πσαι προ$ σεις; Δεκαοκτ μ3ν τQ φωνQ, τ& δ3 σημαινομ ν&ω Sπτακαδεκα. 8Η γ4ρ *μφ' κα' E περ' τ? α5τ? σημανουσι, Tς κα' παρ’ 8Ομρ&ωZ jΕκτωρ δ’ *μφιπεριστρ+φα καλλτριχας ;ππους.
5
Εκ το2των εσ' μονοσ2λλαβοι kξZ E ν, E ες, E ξ, E σ2ν, E πρς κα' E πρZ δισ2λλαβοι δ3 δ2ο κα' δ καZ E *ν(, E κατ(, E δι(, E μετ(, E παρ(, E *ντ, E *μφ, E π, E περ, E *π, E iπ? κα' E iπ ρ. Ιστ ον δ3 Wτι E ν πρ$εσις *ε' μετ4 δοτικς συντ(σσεται, οmονZ ν τ& ο5ραν&, ν τQ γQ, ν πPσι πρ(γμασιZ πλν ε μ δι4 ,λλειψιν Αττικς 10 συνταχ$Q μετ4 γενικς, οmονZ ν jΑιδου, δλον Wτι ν τ& τπ&ω το: jΑιδου. 5 Hom. Il. 8. 384 72 E ε5$ε>α om. M | σα, σ(] σα, 69 *π’ μν] *φ’ Eμν codd., cf. d 4. 48–49 75 E ε5$ε>α om. M σο V 5. 1 λγου om. V 4 τ? α5τ?] τ& α5τ& M 5 *μφιπεριστρ+φα] zμφι περιστροφα' M 8 E *μφ om. M | E περ om. V, in marg. add. M 9 post συντ(σσεται desinit V 10 Αττικς] -ς M 11 γενικς] δοτικς perperam M
424
donatus graecus b
8Η ες κα' συντ(σσεται *ε' μετ4 ατιατικς, οmονZ ες τν πλιν, ες τ? σχολε>ον, ες τν *γορ(ν, πλν ε μ δι4 ,λλειψιν κα' α_τη Αττικν 15 συνταχ$Q μετ4 γενικς, οmονZ ες jΑιδου, δλον Wτι ες τ?ν τπον το: jΑιδου. 8Η ξ, dτις κα' κ λ γεται, *ε' μετ4 γενικς συντ(σσεται, οmονZ ξ μο:, κ το: ο5ρανο:. 8Η σGν συντ(σσεται *ε' μετ4 δοτικς, οmονZ σ2ν σοι πορε2ομαι. 20 8Η πρς, Wτε *ντ' τς παρ4 νοε>ται, μετ4 γενικς συντ(σσεται, Tς τZ πεμφ$ε'ς πρ?ς Πατρ?ς παμφα στατος λγος, *ντZ παρ4 το: πατρς. 8Ομοως μετ4 γενικς κα' Wτε π' ρκου κε>ται, Tς τZ πρ?ς α5τς τς Τρι(δος, *ντZ παρ’ α5τς τς Τρι(δοςZ *λλ4 δ κα' Wτε κε>ται *ντ' το: ν+πιον, Tς τZ πρς τε $εν μακ(ρων, πρς τε $νητν *ν$ρ+πων,
25
*ντ' το:Z ν+πιον τν $εν κα' τν *ν$ρ+πων. jΟτε δ3 κε>ται *ντ' τς σGν προ$ σεως, συντ(σσεται μετ4 δοτικς, Tς τZ πρ?ς τ& προσε2χεσ$αι κα' τ& νηστε2ειν Uσπασαι, *ντ' το:Z σGν τ& προσε2χεσ$αι. 8Ομοως συντ(σσεται μετ4 δοτικς Wτι γγ2τητα δηλο>, Tς τZ kνα πρ?ς τQ 30 κεφαλQ κα' kνα πρ?ς το>ς ποσν, *ντ' το:Z γγGς τς κεφαλς κα' τν ποδν. jΟτε δ3 νοε>ται *ντ' τς ες προ$ σεως, συντ(σσεται μετ4 ατιατικς, Tς τZ κτενω χε>ρας πρ?ς τ?ν ΘενZ %μοως κα' Wτε δηλο> μμησιν, Tς τZ ν *ρχQ vν % λγος κα' % λγος vν πρ?ς τ?ν Θεν. 8Η πρ? *ε' μετ4 γενικς συντ(σσεται, οmον *ναι *** 35 *** πPσαν τν πλιν. jΟτε δ3 πρσκειται τ? μ σον μετ4 γενικς, οmονZ κατ’ μο: λ γεις, ] αy$ις γ κατ4 σο:Z %μοως δ3 κα' Wταν καταφορ4ν δηλο>, Tς τZ κατ4 κρημνν ρους σε***. Ε δ3 δηλο> στητα, μετ4 ατιατικς, Tς τZ ποισQης π(ντα κατ4 τ?ν τ2πον τ?ν δο$ ντα σοι ν τ& ρειZ %μοως κα' Wταν ,χQη τν ν πρ$εσιν ννουμ νην, Tς τZ κατ4 τν 40 *γορ4ν $ρυβος γνεται, aγουν ν τQ *γορRP. 8Ομοως μετ4 γενικς κα' Wτε ,ξω$εν δηλο>, οmονZ κατ4 σκοπο: δι+κω.
21 Jo. Damasc. Can. in Theoph. 36 (PG 96, 628 A) 25 Hom. Il. 1. 339 30 Ev. Jo. 20. 12 33 Ev. Jo. 1. 1 39 Hebr. 8. 5, cf. Ex. 25. 40 41 cf. Phil. 3. 14 κατ4 σκοπ?ν
δι+κω
13 ατιατικς] δοτικς perperam M 14 Αττικν] fort. Αττικς emendandum, cf. 10 17 γενικς] -ο: M 27–28 τ& προσε2χεσ$αι] τ? πρ. M 28 τ& νηστε2ειν] τ? ν. M | τ& προσε2χεσ$αι] τ? πρ. M 37 ρους σε] hρμησεν E *γ λη emendaverim, cf. Ev. Luc. 8. 33 hρμησεν E *γ λη κατ4 το: κρημνο: 38 δο$ ντα] δειχ$ ντα emendaverim, cf. Hebr. 8. 5 39 ννουμ νην] σομ νην M
de praepositione
425
8Η δι4 συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς κα' ατιατικςZ μετ4 γενικς Wταν *ντληψιν δηλο>, οmονZ δι4 το: Βαπτιστο: σσον EμPς, Κ2ριεZ μετ4 ατιατικς Wταν δηλο> αταν, οmονZ δι4 σ3 ] δι’ μ3 γ γονε το:το. 8Η μετ4 συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς κα' ατιατικςZ μετ4 γενικς Wταν δηλο> kνωσιν, Tς τZ σμερον μετ’ μο: ,σQη ν τ& παραδεσ&ωZ μετ4 ατιατικς Wταν iστεροχροναν δηλο>, Tς τZ μετ4 τ?ν $(νατον E ζω, κα' μετ4 τν νσον iγιεα. Παρ4 δ3 τ& ποιητQ κα' μετ4 δοτικς, *ντ' τς σGν κειμ νη[ς], Tς τZ μετ4 το>σι συν βη, *ντ' τ? σGν το2τοις. 8Η παρ4 δ , Wτε κε>ται *ντ' τς *π, συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς, Tς τZ E βο$ει( μου παρ4 Κυρου, aγουν *π? [το:] Κυρου. jΟτε δ3 ,χει νοο2μενον τ? ,ξω, συντ(σσεται μετ4 ατιατικ, Tς τZ παρ4 τ?ν νμον πρ(ττεις, *ντ' το: ,ξω το: νμουZ %μοως μετ4 ατιατικς κα' Wτε *ντ' τς ες κε>ται, Tς τZ παρ( σε vλ$ον, *ντ' το: ες σ Z %μοως μετ4 ατιατικς κα' Wτε *ντ' τς δι4 λαμβ(νεται, Tς τZ παρ4 τ? μ ε=ναι μνματα ν Αγ2πτ&ω, οmον δι4 τ? μ ε=ναι. jΟτε δ3 *ντ' τς ν, μετ4 δοτικς συντ(σσεται, Tς τZ παρ4 σο' πPσα E πλις, *ντ' το: ν σο. 8Ομοως κα' Wτε πλησιτητα δηλο>, Tς τZ παρ4 τ& βασιλε> κ($ηται, *ντ' το: πλησον. 8Η *ντ' *ε' μετ4 γενικς συντ(σσεται, Tς τZ *ντ' *γα$ν xν ποησας, Χριστ , τ& γ νει τν 8Εβραων. Δηλο> δ3 πQ μ3ν τ? @σον, πQ δ3 τ? ναντον, οmον *νττροπον, τ? στροπον, κα' *ντλογος, Wτε κατ’ ναντιτητα λγοςZ τ? δ3 *ντ$εον παρ’ 8Ομρ&ω δηλο> τ? σ$εον, ε_ρηται κα' π' ναν$ρωπτητος, Tς τZ δγμα *ντ$εον. 8Η π, Wταν σημανQη στ(σιν ] διαμονν τινος πρ(γματος, συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς, Tς τZ π' το: δε>νος ;σταμαι τπουZ %μοως κα' Wτε τν π(νω φορ4ν κα' σχ σιν δηλο>, Tς τZ % π' π(ντων Θες, aγουν π(νω π(ντωνZ %μοως κα' Wτε δηλο> τ? ,μπροσ$εν, Tς τZ κα' δε> π' τοσο2των *σχημονε>ν, aγουν ,μπροσ$εν τοσο2των. jΟταν δ3 σημανQη κνησιν, μετ4 ατιατικς, οmονZ π' τν πλιν *ν ρχομαιZ %μοως μετ4 ατιατικς Wτε *ντ' τς κατ4 προ$ σεως κε>ται, Tς τZ aνοιξαν π’ μ3 τ? στμα α5τν, aγουν κατ’ μο:. Συντ(σσεται μετ4 δοτικς Wταν σημανQη τν δευτ ραν σχ σιν, Tς τZ π' τ& $εμελ&ω τν *ποστλων κα' προφητν &bκοδμησαν οF μ(ρτυρες κα' οF διδ(σκαλοιZ %μοως μετ4 43 Ps. 105(106). 47 σσον EμPς, Κ2ριε 46 Ev. Luc. 23. 43 49 cf. Hom. Il. 10. 62 μετ4 το>σι 51 Ps. 120(121). 2 56 cf. Ex. 14. 11 παρ4 τ? μ iπ(ρχειν μνματα ν τQ 67 cf. Rom. 9. 5 % ν π' π(ντων Θες 72 Ps. 21(22). 13 74 cf. Eph. Αγ2πτ&ω 2. 20 ποικοδομη$ ντες π' τ& $εμελ&ω τν *ποστλων κα' προφητν 57 πλις] fort. λπς scribendum, cf. Greg. Cor. Synt. 53, p. 201 Donnet 1967 δγμα] δσμα M
64
45
50
55
60
65
70
426
donatus graecus b
75 δοτικς κα' Wταν σημανQη αταν, Tς τZ *πQειν π' τ?ν αγιαλ?ν π' τ&
80
85
90
95
σ>τον bνσασ$αι, κα' τZ Sτα>ρε, φ’ &x π(ρει; 8Η περ, Wταν σημανQη τ? kνεκεν, συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς, Tς τZ μ(χομαι περ' τν καταλελειμμ νων μοι κλρων. jΟταν δ3 ,χQη νοουμ νην τν κ2κλ&ω σχ σιν, συντ(σσεται μετ4 ατιατικς, Tς τZ περ' τν πλιν στρατοπεδε2οντο οF πολ μιοιZ %μοως κα' Wτε *ντ' τς ες κε>ται, Tς τZ τ τ? περ' μ3 το:το γ γονε μυστριον; 8Ομοως κα' Wτε *ναστροφν τινος τπου δηλο>, Tς τZ περ' τ?ν *γρ?ν διατρβω. jΟταν δ3 ,χQη νοο2μενον ,ξω$εν τ? δ δοικα, συντ(σσεται μετ4 δοτικς, Tς τZ δ δοικα περ' ξαν$& Μενελ(&ω, παρ’ 8Ομρ&ω. 8Η *μφ' %μοα στ'ν κατ4 π(ντα τQ περ, Wμως κα' μετ4 ατιατικς μνης συντ(σσεται. 8Η *π? συντ(σσεται *ε' μετ4 γενικς, οmονZ *π’ μο:, *π? σο:, *π’ κενου. 8Η iπ? συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς κα' δοτικς κα' ατιατικςZ μετ4 γενικς μ3ν Wταν ,χQη νοουμ νην δ2ναμιν % λγος, Tς τZ Eττ$ησαν iπ? το: βασιλ ως οF Σκ2$αιZ μετ4 δοτικς δ3 Wτε *ντ' τς ν προ$ σεως κε>ται, Tς τZ iπ? σο' παιδε2ομαι τοGς λγους, *ντ' το: ν σοZ κα' μετ4 ατιατικς Wταν δηλο> τν iποκ(τω σχ σιν, Tς τZ iπ? τ?ν διδ(σκαλον % μα$ητς. 8Η iπ ρ, Wταν δηλο> τ? kνεκεν, συντ(σσεται μετ4 γενικς, οmονZ iπ3ρ σο: μ(χομαι, *ντ' το: kνεκεν σο:Z %μοως μετ4 γενικς κα' Wτε δηλο> τ? Uνω, Tς τZ iπ3ρ π τρας κ($ημαι. jΟτε iπεροχν δηλο>, μετ4 ατιατικς, Tς τZ iπ3ρ τοGς iπηκους % Uρχων.
6. Περ "πιρρ+ματος Ν:ν ποου μ ρους λγου στν; Επιρρματος. Διατ στιν πρρημα; Διτι κατ4 #ματος λ γεται ] πιλ γεται #ματι. Παρ πεται το>ς πιρρμασι ε=δος κα' σχμα. Τ4 μ3ν γ4ρ α5τν εσ'ν πρωττυπα, τ4 δ3 παρ(γωγα, κα' τ4 μ3ν Iπλ(, 5 οmον π(λαι, τ4 δ3 σ2ν$ετα, οmον πρπαλαι.
76 Ev. Matth. 26. 50
84 cf. Hom. Il. 10. 240 ,δεισεν δ3 περ' ξαν$& Μενελ(&ω
75 *πQειν] *πειν M | τ&] τ? M σο: M
81 το:το] το2τ&ω M
82 περ'] π' M
92 σο']
de adverbio
427
Ποσαχς τ4 πιρρματα; Πολλαχς.
Η γ4ρ χρνου δηλωτικ( εσιν, οmονZ ν:ν, ττε, α[$ις, τφρα, φρα, τ ως, kως, πηνκα, Eνκα, Uψ, ,πειτα, μετ πειτα.
Η καιρο: παραστατικ(, οmονZ σμερον, αuριον, χ$ ς, n κα' χ$3ς λ γεται.
Η μεστητος, οmονZ καλς, σοφς.
Η ποστητος, οmονZ δς, τρς, τετρ(κις.
Η ποιτητος, οmονZ βοτρυδν, *γεληδν.
Η τοπικ(, οmονZ Uνω, κ(τω, ,σω, ,ξω, πρρω, ν+πιον, καταμνας, χαμα, ,ν$εν, ,ν$α, π κεινα, μακρ(ν. Τν δε τοπικν σχ σεις εσ' τρε>ςZ ] ν τπ&ω, ] ες τπον, ] κ τπου, οmονZ ο@κοι, ο@καδε, ο@κο$εν.
Η ε5χς σημαντικ(, οmονZ ε@$ε, α@$ε, φελον.
Η σχετλιαστικ(, οmονZ βαβα, φε:, παπα>.
Η *ρνητικ(, οmονZ ο5δαμς, οuκουν.
Η παραβολς ] %μοι+σεως, οmονZ Tς, hσπερ, κα$(, κα$(περ, sw, swτε.
Η εκασμο:, οmονZ @σως, τ(χα, τυχν.
Η τ(ξεως, οmονZ ξς, φεξς.
Η *$ροσεως, οmονZ Uρδην, qμα.
Η παρακελε2σεως, οmονZ Uγε, φ ρε, δε:τε, ε=α, δε:ρο, @$ι.
Η συγκρσεως, οmονZ μPλλον, vττον.
Η ρωτσεως, οmονZ π$εν, πο:, πηνκα, πς.
Η πιτ(σεως, οmονZ σφδρα, μ γα, λαν, Uγαν.
Η κατα$ σεως, οmονZ δηλαδ, δπου$εν, π(ντως, *μν.
Η $ετικ(, οmονZ *ναγνωστ ον, πλευστ ον.
Η *πωμοτικ(, οmονZ μ(.
Η κατωμοτικ(, οmονZ ν.
Η $ειασμο:, οmονZ ε5ο>, ε5Pν. Τ4 δ3 πιρρματα γνονται *π? π(ντων τν μερν το: λγουZ *π? το: νματος, Tς *π? το: φρνιμος, φρονμωςZ *π? #ματος, Tς *π? το: α@ρω, τ? UρδηνZ *π? μετοχς, Tς *π? το: πιστ(μενος, πισταμ νωςZ *π’ Uρ$ρου, Tς *π? το: τQ, τQδε, *ντ' το: ντα:$αZ *π? *ντωνυμας, Tς *π? το: το2των, ο_τωςZ *π? προ$ σεως, Tς *π? το: *ν(, UνωZ *π?
6. 6 ]] ε M 11 μεστητος] στιμος M 12 ποστητος] μεστητος M, cf. 20–21 sw, swτε] a, iπ ρ M, cf. c 6. 11 17 ε5χς σημαντικ(] ε5σχηματικ( M 31–32 *πωμοτικ4 ... ν] ] πωμοτικ4 οmον ν M, 20 30 $ετικ(] μετικ( M emendavi ex Dion. Th. Ars gramm 19. 23, p. 34 Lallot 33 ε5ο>, ε5Pν] εy, οF, εy, Uν M 38 *π? το: *ν(] τ? *ν( M
10
15
20
25
30
35
428
donatus graecus b
πιρρματος, Tς *π? το: γγ2ς, τ? γγυτ ρωZ κα' *π? συνδ σμου, Tς 40 *π? το: μ3ν κα' το: οyν κα' το: γε, τ? μενο:νγε, *ντ' το: μPλλον μ3ν
οyν aγουν *ντ' το: ντως κα' *λη$ς.
41 desinit M
DONATUS GRAECUS C
Siglorum Conspectus 1. Graeca P P1
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Palatinus gr. 234 manus correctoris codicis P
XV
2. Latina D J p pa Pl S [] ***
Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. lat. 15972 Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Pesciae, typis Savonarolae, die XXVIII mensis Septembris 1492) Aelii Donati rudimenta grammatices (Paviae, apud Franciscum Girardengum, 8 Nov. 1481) versio Latina inter lineas codicis P Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS. Strozzi 80 inserenda censui delenda censui lacunam statui
ca. 1260–1280
XIV in.
1. Περ νματος
5
10
15
20
25
κλιτικς iποκεμενος σημανει @διον ε@ρηται, λ γεται προσ$ σει *π? †δ δομ(ον)† τ& Wπερ ν μω, ν μεις νεμετικν ο5σα ποιτης, -τητος προτ(σσεται κλσις Iπλο:ς Iπλς προφ ρεται συντ$εται παρ(γεται *διαβ(τως συνταττμενον ε5$ε>α *φαιρετικ % ποιητς μο:σα ψυχ προσλυτος Π(σχα
1.
1 κλιτικς] κλη- P
declinabilis subiectus significat proprium dicitur adiecta a tribuendo eo quod noto, notas notamen substantia qualitas, -tatis preponitur declinatio simplex simpliciter profertur componitur derivatur intransitive constructum, contractum nominativus ablativus hic poeta hec musa anima advena hoc Pasqua
8 τ&] τ? P
de nomine % *ετς % κεκορημ νος τ? βρμα, -τος τ4 Wπλα, Wπλων μνον λγει μεγαλειτης E Uκαν$α E δ2ναμις τ? πλε>στον πλε>στοι, -σται, -στα ε5δαμων, -μονος % πPς, E πPσα, τ? πPν το: παντς, -τ τ?ν π(ντα, -σαν, πPν οF π(ντες, -σαι, -τα π(ντων, πPσιν τοGς π(ντας τα>ς π(σαις τ4 π(ντα σχυρς, -ρ(, -ρν σχυρτερος, -ρα, -ρον ε+$ασιν Uρτιος κονιορτς χνο:ς, *ρ †ξος† α$ρ, qλ[α]ς εmς, μα, kν E ψις, *κο % τκος, τκου τ? κ ρας, -ρατος τ? πρPγμα, -τος τ? π(γος, -γους
431
aquila hic saturatus hoc epulum pluraliter: hec arma, armorum tantum desinit magnitudo hec cardo, cardonis hec virtus hoc plus pluraliter: hi et he plures et hec plura felix omnis, omnis, omnis, hic et hec et hoc omnis, omni omnem, *** omnes, omnia omnium, omnibus omnes *** *** hic et hec et hoc fortis hic et hec et hoc fortior solebant modernus pulvis limus, aer viscus ether, sal unus, -na, -num visus, auditus hoc partus, -ti hoc cornu, cornu res, rei glacies, -ei
30 κεκορημ νος] -αμ νος P | saturatus fort. pro satur 36 hec pro hic omne 57 ξος] ξς fort. scribendum 61 partus -ti pro partus -tus
43 omnis pro
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
432
donatus graecus c
65 στχος συν χονται
διηρημ νος, -νη, -νον pluraliter δ2ο dativo δυσ pluraliter τρε>ς, τρα 70 genitivo τριν, dativo τρισ pluraliter τ σσαρες, τεσσ(ρων τ σσαρσιν pluraliter π ντε καλς, -λ, καλν 75 καλο:, -λς, καλο: *γα$ς, -τερος, -τατος καλς, καλλων, κ(λλιστος καλ, καλλων, καλλστη καλν, κ(λλιον, -στον 80 καλς, καλλως, καλλστως κακς, κακων, -στος κακ, κακων, -στη κακν, κακον, -στον κακς, κακως, -στως 85 ε5δαμων, -στερος, στατος ε5δαμων, -ρα, -στ(τη εuδαιμον, -στερον, -στατον ε5δαιμνως, -στ ρως, -στ(τως 90 ε5σεβς, -στερος, -στατος ε5σεβς, -στ ρα, -στ(τη ε5σεβ ς, -στερον, -στατον ε5σεβς, -στ ρως, -στ(τως 95 σχυρς, -τερος, τατος σχυρ, -τ ρα, -τ(τη σχυρν, -τερον, -τατον
versus continentur divisus, -sa, -sum indeclinabilis preter dativo duobus tres trium, tribus quattuor, genitivo dativo quinque, indeclinabilis bonus, -na, -num boni, bone, boni bonus, melior, optimus *** *** *** *** malus, peior, pessimus mala, peior, pessima malum, peius, pessimum male, peius, pessime in adverbio felix, felicior, felicissimus felix, felicior, felicissima felix, felicius, felicissimum feliciter, felicius, felicissime in adverbio pius, magis pius, piissimus pia, magis pia, piissima pium, magis pium, piissimum pie, magis pie, piissime in adverbio fortis, fortior, fortissimus fortis, fortior, fortissima forte, fortius, fortissimum
65 στχος fort. pro στχοις | versus fort. pro versibus marg. add. P 97 σχυρ pro σχυρ(
77–80 καλς ... καλλστως in
de nomine σχυρς, -τ ρως, -τ(τως μPλλον, πλ ων, πλε>στος μPλλον, πλ ων, πλεστη μPλλον, πλ ον, πλε>στον μ([λ]λιστα, πλειστ(κις, πλ ον
106 plurimum bis scripsit Pl
forte, fortius, fortissime in adverbio multus, magis multus, plurimus multa, magis multa, plurima multum, plus, plurimum multe vel multo, plus, plurimum, plurimo, adverbio.
433 100
105
434
donatus graecus c 2. Περ A+ματος
5
10
15
20
25
Αγαπ τ μ ρος λγου στ; 8Ρμ( στι. Διατ στι #μα; Διτι μετ’ γκλσεων κα' χρνων, Uνευ πτ+σεως, νεργεας ] π($ους στ' σημαντικν. Τ στιν @διον το: #ματος; NΙδιον το: #ματς στι τ? σημανειν νεργεαν κα' π($ους ] τ4 *μφτερα μετ’ γκλσεων κα' χρνων. Π$εν λ γεται #μα; 8Ρμα λ γεται *π? το: #, τ? λ γω, ] *π? το: πεπληγμ νου * ρος, τ& Wπερ ν τQ προφορRP το: λγου τ?ν * ρα συνεχ στερον πλττομεν ] ν τ& προφ ρειν τ4 Uλλα μ ρη το: λγου. Τ& #ματι πσα παρ πεται; Οκτ+. Πο>α; Δια$ σεις, χρνοι, γκλσεις, ε@δη, σχματα, συζυγαι, πρσωπα κα' *ρι$μο. Ποας δια$ σεως; Ενεργητικς. Διατ; Διτι ες ω λγον δ2ναται ποισαι δι(βασιν ν Uλλ&ω λογικ& ζ&+&ω, Wπως γενσεται *ντστροφα λγια ν πρ+τ&ω κα' δευτ ρ&ω προσ+π&ω. Ποας δια$ σεως; Πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι ποιε> *ντ$εσιν ες ο δι4 προσλψεως το: ρ, ;να ε@η *ντστροφα λγια. Ποας δια$ σεως; Ο5δετ ρας. Διατ; Διτι ες ω λγον ο5 δ2ναται ποισαι δι(βασιν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Κοινς. Διατ; Διτι ες ορ φυσικς λγον *μφοτ ραν ,χει σημασαν, τουτ στιν νεργητικν κα' πα$ητικν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Αντι$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι προτ$ησι μαν σημασαν κα' kτεραν *φ’ Sαυτο: συν χειZ προτ$ησι πα$ητικν κα' συν χει ν ργειαν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι ν το>ς παρ&ωχημ νοις κα' το>ς τετυπωμ νοις *π’ α5τν συν χει γραφν πα$ητικν, ν το>ς ξς δ3 τν ο5δετ ρωνZ κα εσιν π ντε #ματα ο5δ τερα πα$ητικ(, Tς ε@ρηταιZ χαρομαι σGν γνομαι, ε@ω$α %μο: τολμ, π πεισμαιZ π ντε, μειρ(κιον, *ρι$μ& ο5δ τερα πα$ητικ( σοι δδ.
2. 4 τ?] το: P 5 ] τ4 *μφτερα in marg. scr. P 7 τ&] τ? P, cf. 1. 8 8 συνεχ στερον] συνεχς P, sed sepius Pl et frequentius Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. 1 (GL 2, 369) 12 ν ... ζ&+&ω] ες Uλλον λογικ?ν ζ&ον desiderantur 19 κα'] ες P 24 α5τν] -ο: P
de verbo
435
2. De verbo Amo que pars orationis est? Verbum est. Quare est verbum? Quia cum modis et temporibus, sine casu, agendi vel patiendi est significativum. Quid est proprium verbi? Proprium verbi est significare actionem vel passionem sive utramque cum modis et temporibus. Unde dicitur verbum? Verbum dicitur a verbero vel a verberatu aeris, eo quod in perferendo verbi aerem saepius verberamus quam in perferendo alias partes orationis. Verbo quot accidunt? Octo. Que? Genera, tempora, modi, species, figure, coniugationes, persone et numeri. Cuius generis? Activi. Quare? Quia in o desinens potest facere transitionem in alio rationali animali, unde possit fieri conversa locutio in prima vel secunda persona. Cuius generis? Passivi. Quare? Quia facit oppositionem in o per assumptionem r ut sit conversa locutio. Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non potest facere transitionem. Cuius generis? Communis. Quare? Quia in or naturaliter desinens utramque retinet significationem, scilicet activam in passivam. Cuius generis? Deponentis. Quare? Quia deponit unam significationem et alteram per se retinet; deponit passivam et retinet activam.
5
10
15
20
Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in preteritis perfectis et in his que derivantur ab eo retinet literaturam passivorum, in ceteris autem neutrorum. Et sunt quinque verba neutra passiva, sicut dictum 25 est: gaudeo cum fio, soleo simul audeo, fido: quinque, puer, numero neutra passiva tibi do.
2. 5 sive utramque in marg. add. Pl 7 verbi pro verbum 12 in ... animali pro ad aliud rationale animal ut in D (J, S, pa) 19 in ab ες P 24 eo ab α5τ& P, sed cf. D (pa): que derivantur ab eis (scil. praeteritis perfectis) 27–28 gaudeo ... do] cf. Alex. de Villa Dei, Doctr. 976–977: audeo cum soleo, fio quoque, gaudeo, fido, / quinque, puer, numero neutropassiva tibi do
436
donatus graecus c
Ποας δια$ σεως; Ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι ν ο5δετ ρRα γρα30 φQ πα$ητικν συν χει σημασανZ κα εσιν τ σσαρα #ματα ο5δ τερα
35
40
45
50
55
60
πα$ητικ(, aγουν δ ρομαι, ,ρχομαι, #φομαι, στεφανο:μαι. Ποας δια$ σεως; Ο5δεμιPς. Διατ; Διτι οuτε ες ω οuτε ες ορ λγει, ο5δ3 παρ(γεται *π? #ματος λγοντος ες ω ] ες ορ. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος. Διατ; Διτι νεσττα χρνον σημανει χωρ'ς νεργεας ] π($ους. [Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος.] Ποου χρνου; Παρατατικο:. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου. Ποου χρνου; 8Υπερσυντελκου. Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος κα' παρατατικο:. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου κα' iπερσυντελκου. Ποας γκλσεως; 8Οριστικς. Διατ; Διτι δεικν2ει πρPγμα ε=ναι ] γεγον ναι ] μ λλον ,σεσ$αι. Ποας γκλσεως; Προστακτικς. Διατ; Διτι προστ(σσει πρPγμα ε=ναι ] γεγον ναι ] μ λλον ,σεσ$αι. Ποας γκλσεως; Ε5κτικς. Διατ; Διτι δ εται πιρρματος ε5κτικο: ;να τ λειον σημανQη ννημα. Ποας γκλσεως; 8Υποτακτικς. Διατ; Διτι iποτ(σσει α5τ& Uλλο #μα ] iποτ(σσεται iπ’ Uλλου #ματος ;να τ λειον σημανQη ννημα. Ποας γκλσεως; Απαρεμφ(του. Διατ; Διτι οuτε πρσωπον οuτε *ρι$μ?ν ρζει, *λλ4 δ εται μνον Sτ ρου #ηματικο: συνδ σμου. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; Απ? το: *γαπ. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Εκ τς δι4 προ$ σεως κα' το: *γαπ συντ$εται διαγαπ. Ποου σχματος; Παρασυν$ του. Διατ; Διτι ο5κ *φ’ Sαυτο: συντ$εται, *λλ4 *π? συν$του #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; ΔιαγαπZ ,ν$α ξ ρχεται διαγαπ. Ποας συζυγας; Ο5δεμιPς. Διατ; Διτι *ν+μαλν στι κα' ο5κ *κολου$ε> καννα Sτ ρων συζυγινZ κα εσι τ σσαραZ εμ, Uγω, $ λω κα' σ$ω.
34 χωρς] γγGς aut alia praepositio desideratur, cf. a. 2. 24–37 36 delevi ut e 34 repetita 49 α5τ& Uλλο] α5τ? Uλλ&ω P 54 *π? το: *γαπ in marg. scr. P
de verbo
437
Cuius generis? Neutri passivi. Quare? Quia in neutrali literatura passivam retinet significationem. Et sunt quattuor verba neutra passiva, id est vapulo, veneo, exulo, nubo. Cuius generis? Nullius. Quare? Quia neque in o neque in or desinit, nec descendit a verbo desinenti in o vel in or. Cuius temporis? Presentis. Quare? Quia presens tempus significat extra actionem vel passionem. Cuius temporis? Presentis. Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti. Cuius temporis? Preteriti imperfecti. Cuius temporis? Preteriti plusquamperfecti. Cuius temporis? Futuri. Cuius temporis? Presentis et preteriti perfecti. Cuius temporis? Preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti. Cuius modi? Indicativi. Quare? Quia indicat rem esse vel fuisse vel futuram esse. Cuius modi? Imperativi. Quare? Quia imperat rem esse vel fuisse vel futuram esse. Cuius modi? Optativi. Quare? Quia eget adverbio optativo ut perfectum significet sensum. Cuius modi? Subiunctivi. Quare? Quia subiungit sibi aliud verbum vel subiungitur alteri verbo ut perfectum ***. Cuius modi? Infinitivi. Quare? Quia neque personam neque numerum diffinit, sed eget sola alterius verbi coniunctione. Cuius speciei? Primitive. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. Cuius speciei? Derivative. Unde derivatur? *** Cuius figure? Simplicis. *** Quia simpliciter profertur. Cuius figure? Composite. Unde componitur? Ex per prepositione et amo componitur peramo. Cuius figure? Decomposite. Quare? Quia non per se componitur, sed a composito verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Peramo; inde venit peramasco. Cuius coniugationis? Nullius. Quare? Quia anomalum est et non sequitur regulam aliarum coniugationum; et sunt quattuor: sum, fero, volo et edo.
35 extra pro circa, cf. D (p): circa actionem vel passionem
52 diffinit etiam in D (p) legitur
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
438
donatus graecus c
Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Πρτον πρσωπν στι †με$’ ο[† φ(σκει 65 περ' αυτο: προσαναγγ λλει.
70
75
80
85
90
Ποου προσ+που; Δευτ ρου. Δε2τερον πρσωπν στι δι’ ο[ τ? πρτον φ(σκει ν ρ$& λγ&ω. Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Τρτον πρσωπν στι περ' ο[ τ? πρτον φ(σκει ες τ? δε2τερον κτ?ς Sαυτο:, κα' α5τ? τι$ μενον ν &x % λγος ρ$ο:ται. Ποου προσ+που; Ο5δεν?ς κα' *ρι$μο: ο5δενς. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 *παρ μφατα, *νυπστατα, $ετικ4 κα' iπο$ετικ4 *ρι$μν κα' προσ+πων λλιπ στιν. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ sγ(πηκα, sγ(πηκας, sγ(πηκεZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ *γαπPν, *γαπσαιZ *γαπητ ονZ *γαπν. Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπμεν, *γαπPτε, *γαπσιν. ΠαρατατικςZ sγ(πων, sγ(πας, sγ(παZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμεν, sγαπPτε, sγ(πων. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγ(πησα, sγ(πησας, sγ(πησεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπσαμεν, sγαπσατε, sγ(πησαν. 8Υπερσυντ λικοςZ sγαπκειν, sγαπκεις, sγαπκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπκειμεν, sγαπκειτε, sγαπκεισαν. Μ λλωνZ *γαπσω, *γαπσεις, *γαπσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσομεν, *γαπσετε, *γαπσουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ *γ(πα, *γαπ(τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπPτε, *γαπ(τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ *γ(πησν συ, *γαπησ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπσατε, *γαπησ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο:Z ε@$ε *γαπ&μι, *γαπ&ς, *γαπ&Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&μεν, *γαπ&τε, *γαπ&εν.
95 ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *γαπσαιμι, *γαπσαις, *γαπσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε
*γαπσαιμεν, *γαπσαιτε, *γαπσαιεν. 8Υπερσυντ λικοςZ ε@$ε *γαπκοιμι, *γαπκοις, *γαπκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπκοιμεν, *γαπκοιτε, *γαπκοιεν. 65 περ' αυτο:] αυτQ P, sed de se ipsa Pl et D 66 δι’ ο[ dubitanter servavi, ες n coniecerim, cf. ad quam D 69 ν &x] ες n emendaverim, cf. ad quam (quem cod.) Pl 76 sγ(πηκας] -ες P 97–98 *γαπκοιμι ... *γαπκοιεν] sγαπ73 λλιπ] - ς P desideratur, cf. tamen a 2. 120–121
de verbo
439
Cuius persone? Prime. Prima persona est cum que loquitur de se ipsa pronunciat. 65 Cuius persone? Secunde. Secunda persona est de qua prima loquitur in directo sermone. Cuius persone? Tertie. Tertia persona est ad quam prima loquitur ad secundam ex se et illam positam ad quem sermo dirigitur. 70
Cuius persone? Nullius et numeri nullius. Quare? Quia omnia infinita, impersonalia, gerundia et sup[p]ina numeris et personis deficiunt. Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. 75 Amo, amas amat; amavi, amavisti, amavit; ama, amet; amare, amavisse, ***. Amo, amas, amat; et pluraliter: amamus, amatis, amant. Preterito imperfecto: amabam, amabas, amabat; et pluraliter: amaba- 80 mus, amabatis, amabant. Preterito perfecto: amavi, amavisti, amavit; et pluraliter: amavimus, amavistis, amaverunt. Preterito plusquamperfecto: amaveram, amaveras, amaverat; et pluraliter: amaveramus, amaveratis, amaverant. 85 Futuro: amabo, amabis, amabit; et pluraliter: amabimus, amabitis, amabunt. Imperativo modo temporis presentis ad secundam et tertiam personam: ama, amet; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto. Futuro: amato tu, amato ille; et pluraliter: amatote, amanto. 90 Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam amarem, amares, amaret; et pluraliter: utinam amaremus, amaretis, amarent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavisses, 95 amavisset; et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent. Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam amavissem, amavisses, amavisset; et pluraliter: utinam amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent.
64 cum que pro que cum, sed με$’ ο[ P 66 de qua pro ad quam, sed δι’ ο[ P 68 ad quam pro de qua 69 quem pro quam 89 amatote, amanto pro amate, ament, cf. 90
440
donatus graecus c
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιμι, *γαπσοις, *γαπσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε 100 *γαπσοιμεν, *γαπσοιτε, *γαπσοιεν.
105
110
115
120
8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *γαπ, *γαπRPς, *γαπRPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπμεν, *γαπτε, *γαπσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν *γαπκω, *γαπκQης, *γαπκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπκωμεν, *γαπκητε, *γαπκωσι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *γαπσω, -σQης, -σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπσωμεν, 4ν *γαπσητε, 4ν *γαπσωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *γαπPν. ΑριστοςZ *γαπσαι. Μ λλωνZ *γαπσειν. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστ+ς, % *γαπνZ Uλλη % μ λλων, % *γαπσων. 8Ρμα *νυπστατον μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστς [κα' παρατατικς]Z *γαπPται. ΠαρατατικςZ sγαπPτο. ΑριστοςZ sγ(πητο. Μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ *γαπ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&το. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *γαπσαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπσοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *γαπPται.
ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγαπημ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *γαπσηται. 125 Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστ+ς, % *γαπν, κα' Uλλη μ λλων, % *γαπσων. Αγαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπ+με$α, *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπνται. ΠαρατατικςZ sγαπ+μην, sγαπ, sγαπPτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπ+130 με$α, sγαπPσ$ε, sγαπντο. 101 *γαπ] *γαπσοιμι P, cf. 99 101–102 *γαπRPς, *γαπRP in *γαπσοις, *γαπσοι perperam mutavit P1 102 *γαπμεν] -μεν P, -σοιμεν P1 | *γαπPτε (-τε P), *γαπσι in *γαπσοιτε, *γαπσοιεν perperam mutavit P1 103–104 *γαπκω ... 105–106 κα' ... *γαπσωσι *γαπκωσι] sγαπ- desideratur, cf. tamen a 2. 131–135(a) in marg. add. P; codicis lectionem servavi 114 παρατατικς] παρακεμενος P, cf. 113 116 *νυπστατον supra lineam add. P 123 sγαπημ νος] -μ νον desideratur, sed cf. a 2. 161(a), al. 127 *γαπRP] -Pσαι P, fort. servandum, cf. 3. 20 129 sγαπ+μην (-μειν cod.) supra lineam add. P1
de verbo
441
Futurum: utinam amem, ames, amet; et pluraliter: utinam amemus, ametis, ament. 100 Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum amo, amas, amat; et pluraliter: cum amamus, amatis, amant. Preterito perfecto: cum amavissem, amavisses, amavisset; et pluraliter: cum amavissemus, amavissetis, amavissent. *** 105 Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: amare. Preterito plusquamperfecto: amavisse. Futuro: amatum *** vel amaturum ***. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut amans; aliud futuri, ut amaturus. Verbum impersonale significans ***, temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: amatur. Preterito perfecto: amabatur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: amatum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: amabitur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti: ametur. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti perfecti: utinam *** *** *** Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum amaretur. Preterito perfecto: cum amabatur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatum ***. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo. Que? Unum presens, amans; al[l]iud futurum, ut amaturus. Amor, amaris vel amare, amatur; et pluraliter: amamur, amamini, amantur. Preterito imperfecto: amabar, amabaris vel amabare, amabatur; et pluraliter: amabamur, amabamini, amabantur.
101–102 amo ... amant pro amem ... ament pro amatum sit vel fuerit
114 perfecto a παρακεμενος P
123 amabatur
110
115
120
125
130
442
donatus graecus c
ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγ(πημαι, sγ(πησαι, sγ(πηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπμε$α, sγ(πησ$ε, sγ(πηνται. ΑριστοςZ sγαπ$ην, sγαπ$ης, sγαπ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπ$η135 μεν, sγπ$ητε, sγαπ$ησαν.
Μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σομαι, *γαπη$σQη, *γαπη$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπη$ησμε$α, *γαπη$σεσ$ε, *γαπη$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς πρ?ς δε2τερον 140 κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ *γαπ, *γαπ(σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπ+με$α, *γαπPσ$ε, *γαπ(σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ *γ(πησα συ, *γαπησ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *γαπησ+με$α, *γαπσασ$ε, *γαπησ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&+μην, *γα145 π&+οιο, *γαπ&τοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπ&+με$α, *γαπ&σ$ε, *γαπ&ντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε sγαπημ νος ε@ην, sγαπημ νος ε@ης, sγαπημ νος ε@ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπημ νοι ε@ημεν, sγαπημ νοι ε@ητε, sγαπημ νοι ε@ησαν. 150
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *γαπη$ησομην, *γαπη$σοιο, *γαπη$σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *γαπη$ησομε$α, *γαπη$σοισ$ε, *γαπη$σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν *γαπμαι, *γαπRP, *γαπPταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *γαπ+με$α, 4ν *γαπPσ$ε, 4ν *γαπνται. 155 ΠαρατατικςZ ο5κ ,χει ΠαρακεμενοςZ sγαπημ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sγαπημ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν sγαπ$ην, sγαπ$ης, sγαπ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν 160 sγαπ$ημεν, sγαπ$ητε, sγαπ$ησαν.
Μ λλωνZ 4ν sγαπημ νος ,σομαι, sγαπημ νος ,σQη, sγαπημ νος ,σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν sγαπημ νοι σμε$α, ,σεσ$ε, ,σονται. 165 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *γαπPσ$αι.
131 sγ(πημαι] sγαπ$ην P, corr. P1 140 *γαπ] -ο: P, cf. a 2. 184(b), al. | *γαπ+με$α om. P, in marg. add. P1 142–143 *γαπησ+με$α om. P, in marg. add. P1 153 *γαπRP] -Pσαι P, cf. 127 162–163 4ν ... ,σονται] codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
443
Preterito perfecto: amatus sum vel fui, amatus es vel fuisti, amatus est vel fuit; et pluraliter: amati sumus vel fuimus, amati estis vel fuistis, amati sunt vel fuerunt. Preterito plusquamperfecto: amatus eram vel fueram, amatus eras vel fueras, amatus erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: amati eramus vel 135 fueramus, amati eratis vel fueratis, amati erant vel fuerant. Futuro; amabor, ***, amabitur; pluraliter: amabimur, amabimini, amabuntur. Imperativo modo, tempus presens *** ad secundam et tertiam personam: amare, ametur; et pluraliter: amemur, amemini, amentur. 140 Futuro: amator tu, amator ille; et pluraliter: amemur, amaminor, amantor. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam amarer, amareris vel amarere, amaretur; et pluraliter: utinam amaremur, amaremini, amarentur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam amatus essem vel fuissem, amatus esses vel fuisses, amatus esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: amati essemus vel fuissemus, amati essetis vel fuissetis, amati essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam amer, ameris vel amere, ametur; et pluraliter: utinam amemur, amemini, amentur. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis: cum amer, ameris vel amere, ametur; et pluraliter: cum amemur, cum amemini, cum amentur. Preterito imperfecto: non habet. Preterito perfecto: cum amatus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum amatus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum amati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum amatus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum amati erimus vel fuerimus, amati eritis vel fueritis, amati erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: amari.
140 amemur in marg. add. P1
142 amemur in marg. add. P1
145
150
155
160
165
444
donatus graecus c
ΑριστοςZ sγαπσ$αι. Μ λλωνZ *γαπη$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Εmς χρνος παρακεμενος, sγαπημ νος, Uλλος μ λλων, *γαπη$ησμενος. 170
175
180
185
190
195
200
Αγαπ+μενος χρνος νεστς τς μετοχς, κα' κλνεται ες τ? τριγεν ςZ % *γαπ+μενος, E *γαπωμ νη, τ? *γαπ+μενονZ κα' κατ4 τν %μοωσιν το2του κλνονται κα' αF Uλλαι μετοχα. Διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκειZ δεδδαχα, δεδδαχας, δεδδαχεZ διδ(ξαςZ διδακτ ονZ διδ(σκωνZ διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη, διδ(σκεται κα' διδαχ$σεται. Διδ(σκω, διδ(σκεις, διδ(σκειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, διδ(σκουσιν. ΠαρατατικςZ δδασκον, δδασκες, δδασκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκομεν, διδ(σκετε, δδασκον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δδαχα, δδαχας, δδαχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(χαμεν, διδ(χατε, διδ(χασι. ΑριστοςZ δδαξα, δδαξας, δδαξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξαμεν, διδ(ξατε, δδαξαν. Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξω, διδ(ξεις, διδ(ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξομεν, διδ(ξετε, διδ(ξουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ δδασκε, διδασκ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκετε, διδασκ τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ δδαξν συ, διδαξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξατε, διδαξ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιμι, διδ(σκοις, διδ(σκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιμεν, διδ(σκοιτε, διδ(σκοιεν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμι, διδ(ξαις, διδ(ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιμεν, διδ(ξαιτε, διδ(ξαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμι, διδ(ξοις, διδ(ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιμεν, διδ(ξοι[σ]τε, διδ(ξοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκω, 4ν διδ(σκQης, 4ν διδ(σκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(σκωμεν, 4ν διδ(σκητε, 4ν διδ(σκωσι. 181–182 δδαχα ... διδ(χασι] δεδδαχα ... δεδιδ(χασι desiderantur 183 δδαξας] 186 διδ(ξουσι] διδ(σκουσι P, corr. P1 193 διδ(σκοιμεν] διδ(σκουμεν bis -ες P scripsit P 196 διδ(ξαιεν] -ξοιεν P 197 διδ(ξοιμι] -ξαιμι P
de verbo
445
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: amatum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: amatum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo passivo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut amatus, aliud futuri, ut amaturus. 170 Amatus *** *** *** Doceo, doces, docet; docui, docuisti, docuit; doctus; docuisse; docendi, docendo, docendum; docens et docturus *** 175 Doceo, doces, docet; et pluraliter: docemus, docetis, docent. Preterito imperfecto: docebam, docebas, docebat; et pluraliter: docebamus, docebatis, docebant. 180 Preterito perfecto: docui, docuisti, docuit; et pluraliter: docuimus, docuistis, docuerunt vel -re. Preterito plusquamperfecto: docueram, docueras, docuerat; et pluraliter: docueramus, docueratis, docuerant. Futuro: docebo, docebis, docebit; et pluraliter: docebimus, docebitis, 185 docebunt. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti ad secundam et tertiam personam: doce, doceat; et pluraliter: docete, doceant. Futuro: doceto tu, doceto ille; et pluraliter: docetote, docento.
190
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam docerem, doceres, doceret; et pluraliter: utinam doceremus, doceretis, docerent. Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; 195 et pluraliter: utinam docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent. Futuro: utinam doceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: utinam doceamus, doceatis, doceant. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum doceam, doceas, doceat; et pluraliter: cum doceamus, doceatis, doceant. 200
446
205
210
215
220
donatus graecus c
Παρακεμενος UχρηστοςZ 4ν διδ(χω. ΑριστοςZ 4ν δδαξα, 4ν δδαξας, 4ν δδαξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(ξαμεν, 4ν διδ(ξατε, 4ν δδαξαν. Μ λλωνZ 4ν διδ(ξω, 4ν διδ(ξQης, 4ν διδ(ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδ(ξωμεν, 4ν διδ(ξητε, 4ν διδ(ξωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκειν. ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξαι. Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξειν. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2οZ % νεστ+ς, διδ(σκων, κα' % μ λλων, διδ(ξων. 8Ρμα *πρσωπον μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ διδ(σκεται. ΠαρατατικςZ διδ(σκετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδδακται. ΑριστοςZ διδ(χ$η. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σεται. ΠροστακτικςZ διδασκ σ$ω. Μ λλωνZ διδαξ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδ(σκοιτο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδ(ξαιτο.
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδ(ξοιτο. 225 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ διδαγμ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν διδαχ$Q. Μ λλωνZ 4ν διδαχ$σεται. 230 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σεσ$αι. Διδ(σκομαι, διδ(σκQη, διδ(σκεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκονται. 235 ΠαρατικςZ διδασκμην, διδ(σκου, διδ(σκετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδασκμε$α, διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδ(σκοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδδαγμαι, δεδδαξαι, δεδδακταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ δεδιδ(γμε$α, δεδδαχ$ε, δεδιδαγμ νοι εσ' κα' Ιωνικς δεδιδ(χαται. 202 παρακεμενος ... διδ(χω] cf. b 2. 181 203 δδαξας] -ες P 212 μ supra lineam add. P1 222 διδ(ξαιτο] -ξοιτο P 227 διδαγμ νος] δεδιδαγμ νον desideratur 229 4ν διδαχ$σεται] codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
447
Preterito perfecto: *** Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum docuissem, docuisses, docuisset; et pluraliter: cum docuissemus, docuissetis, docuissent. Futuro: cum docuero, docueris, docuerit; et pluraliter: cum docueri- 205 mus, docueritis, docuerint. Infinitivo modo, tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: docere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: docuisse. Futuro: doctum ire vel docturum esse. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo? Duo: presens, docens, et 210 futurum, docturus. Verbo impersonali temporis presentis: docetur. Preterito imperfecto: docebatur. Preterito perfecto: doctum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: doctum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: docebitur. Imperativo: doceatur. Futuro: docetor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam doceretur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam doctum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam doceatur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum doceatur. Preterito perfecto: cum doceretur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum doctum erit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: doceri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: doctum iri. Doceor, doceris vel docere, docetur; et pluraliter: docemur, docemini, docentur. Preterito imperfecto: docebar, docebaris vel docebare, docebatur; et pluraliter: docebamur, docebamini, docebantur. Preterito perfecto: doctus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: docti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt, fuerunt vel fuere. 227 doceretur pro doctum sit vel fuerit
215
220
225
230
235
448
donatus graecus c
240 ΑριστοςZ διδ(χ$ην, διδ(χ$ης, διδ(χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(χ$η-
μεν, διδ(χ$ητε, διδ(χ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ διδαχ$σομαι, διδαχ$σQη, διδαχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδαχ$ησμε$α, διδαχ$σεσ$ε, διδαχ$σονται. 245 Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκου, διδ(σκ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(σκεσ$ε, διδασκ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ δδαξα συ, διδαξ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ διδ(ξασ$ε, διδαξ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε διδασκομην, 250 διδ(σκοιο, διδ(σκοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδασκομε$α, διδ(σκοισ$ε, διδ(σκοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε διδαξαμην, διδ(ξαιο, διδ(ξαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε διδαξαμε$α, διδ(ξαισ$ε, διδ(ξαιντο. 255 Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε διδαξομην, διδ(ξοιο, διδ(ξοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε
διδαξομε$α, διδ(ξοισ$ε, διδ(ξοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν διδ(σκωμαι, 4ν διδ(σκQη, 4ν διδ(σκηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδασκ+με$α, 4ν διδ(σκησ$ε, 4ν διδ(σκωνται. 260 ΠαρακεμενοςZ δεδιδαγμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ δεδιδαγμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν διδαχ$, 4ν διδαχ$Qς, 4ν διδαχ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδαχ$μεν, 4ν διδαχ$τε, 4ν διδαχ$σι. 265
Μ λλωνZ 4ν διδαχ$σωμαι, 4ν διδαχ$σQη, 4ν διδαχ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν διδαχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν διδαχ$σησ$ε, 4ν διδαχ$σωνται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ διδ(σκεσ$αι. 270 ΑριστοςZ διδ(ξασ$αι.
Μ λλωνZ διδ(ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστς κα' παρατατικς, % διδασκμενοςZ Uλλη % μ λλων, % διδαξμενος.
266–267 4ν ... διδαχ$σωνται] διδαχ$σωμαι ... διδαχ$σηται in marg. P, codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
449
Preterito plusquamperfecto: doctus eram vel fueram, doctus eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: docti eramus vel fueramus, era[ra]tis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: docebor, doceberis vel docebere, docebitur; et pluraliter: docebimur, docebimini, docebuntur. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: docere, doceatur; et pluraliter: doceamur, doceamini, doceantur. Futuro: docetor tu, docetor ille; et pluraliter: doceamur, doceminor, docentor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: utinam doceremur, doceremini, docerentur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam docti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam docear, docearis vel doceare, doceatur; et pluraliter: utinam doceamur, doceamini, doceantur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum docerer, docereris vel docerere, doceretur; et pluraliter: cum doceremur, doceremini, docerentur. Preterito perfecto: cum doctus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum doctus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum docti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum doctus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum docti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: doceri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: doctum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: doctum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis preteriti perfecti, ut doctus; aliud futuri, ut docendus.
246 doceamini pro docemini
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
450
donatus graecus c
275 Λ γω, λ γεις, λ γειZ λ λεχα, λ λεχας, λ λεχεZ λ γεZ λ γεινZ λ ξαιZ λεκτ ονZ
λ γωνZ λ ξων. Λ γομαι, λ γQη, λ γεταιZ λ χ$ηνZ λ γεσ$αι κα' λεγμενος. Λ γω, λ γεις, λ γειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γομεν, λ γετε, λ γουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ ,λεγον, ,λεγες, ,λεγεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γομεν, λ γετε, ,λεγον. 280 ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεχα, λ λεχας, λ λεχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελ χαμεν, λελ χατε, λελ χασι. ΑριστοςZ ,λεξα, ,λεξας, ,λεξεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξαμεν, λ ξατε, ,λεξαν. Μ λλωνZ λ ξω, λ ξεις, λ ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξομεν, λ ξετε, λ ξουσι. 285 Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λ γε, λεγ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γετε, λεγ τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ λ ξον σ2, λεξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξατε, λεξ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε λ γοιμι, λ γοις, λ γοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ γοιμεν, λ γοιτε, λ γοιεν. 290 ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιμι, λ ξαις, λ ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιμεν, λ ξαιτε, λ ξαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λ ξοιμι, λ ξοις, λ ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λ ξοιμεν, λ ξοιτε, λ ξοιεν. 295 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γω, 4ν λ γQης, 4ν λ γQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λ γωμεν, 4ν λ γητε, 4ν λ γωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν λελ χω, 4ν λελ χQης, 4ν λελ χQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λελ χωμεν, 4ν λελ χητε, 4ν λελ χωσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξω, ***. 300 Μ λλωνZ ***. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γειν. ΑριστοςZ λ ξαι. Μ λλωνZ λ ξειν. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γεται. 305 ΠαρατατικςZ λ γετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεκται. ΑριστοςZ λ χ$η. Μ λλωνZ λεχ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λεγ σ$ω.
280–281 λελ χαμεν ... λελ χασι] λελα- P 284 λ ξω] λ ξον P, cf. 287 λ γειν P, cf. 301 308 λεχ$σεται] λεχ$σομαι bis scripsit P
303 λ ξειν]
de verbo
451
Lego, legis, legit; legi, legisti, legit; lege; legat, legere, legisse; legendi, legendo, legendum; lectum, lectu; legens, lectus et lecturus. *** Lego, legis, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legitis, legunt. Preterito imperfecto: legeram, legeras, legerat; et pluraliter: legimus, legitis, legunt. Preterito perfecto: legi, legisti, legit; et pluraliter: legimus, legistis, legerunt vel legere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: legebam, legebas, legebat; et pluraliter: legebamus, legebatis, legebant. Futuro: legam, leges, leget; et pluraliter: legemus, legetis, legent. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: lege, legat; et pluraliter: legamus, legite, legant. Futuro: lege tu, legat ille; et pluraliter: legamus, legitote, legunto. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam legerem, legeres, legeret; et pluraliter: utinam legeremus, legeretis, legerent. Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam legissem, legisses, legisset; et pluraliter: utinam legissemus, legissetis, legissent. Futuro: utinam legem, leges, leget; et pluraliter: utinam legemus, legetis, legant. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum legem, leges, leget; et pluraliter: cum legeremus, cum legeretis, legerent. Preterito perfecto: cum legerim, legeris, legerit; et pluraliter: cum legerimus, legeritis, legerint. *** Futuro ***. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti: legere. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: legisse. Futuro: lectum ire vel lecturum esse. Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: legitur. Preterito imperfecto: legebatur. Preterito perfecto: lectum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: lectum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: legetur. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: legatur. 278–279 legeram ... legunt pro legebam ... legebant, cf. 282 282–283 legebam ... legebant pro legeram ... legerant, cf. 278 287 lege ... legat pro legito ..., legito, cf. 285 293 legem ... legetis pro legam ... legatis, cf. 296 296 legem ... legerent pro legam ... legant (cf. 293) aut legerem ... legerent
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
452
donatus graecus c
310 Μ λλωνZ λεξ(σ$ω.
Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε λ γοιτο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λ ξαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λεχ$σοιτο. 315 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λελεγμ νος 4ν Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν λεχ$σηται. 320 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ λ γεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ λ ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ λ ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος το: νεργητικο:; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Χρνος νεστ+ς, λ γων, κα' % μ λλων, λ ξων. 325 Λ γομαι, λ γQη, λ γεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεγμε$α, λ γεσ$ε, λ γονται. ΠαρατατικςZ λεγμην, λ γου, λ γετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεγμε$α, λ γεσ$ε, λ γοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λ λεγμαι, λ λεξαι, λ λεκταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελ γμε$α, 330 λ λεχ$ε, λελεγμ νοι εσ'ν κα' Ιωνικς λελ χαται. ΑριστοςZ λ χ$ην, λ χ$ης, λ χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ χ$ημεν, λ χ$ητε, λ χ$ησαν. 335 Μ λλωνZ λεχ$σομαι, λεχ$σQη, λεχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λεχ$ησ-
με$α, λεχ$σεσ$ε, λεχ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λ γου, λεγ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ γεσ$ε, λεγ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ λ ξαι σ2, λεξ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λ ξασ$ε, λεξ(340 σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε λεγομην, λ γοιο, λ γοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεγομε$α, λ γοισ$ε, λ γοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε λεξαμην, λ ξαιο, λ ξαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεξα345 με$α, λ ξαισ$ε, λ ξαιντο. 317 λελεγμ νος] –μ νον desideratur 319 4ν λεχ$σηται] codicis lectionem servavi 320 λ γεσ$αι] λεγ σ$ω P, cf. 309 330 εσ'ν] vσαν P 339 λ ξαι ... λεξ(σ$ω| λ ξον ... λεξ(τω P, cf. 287 341–342 λ γοιο] λ γοις P, cf. 288
de verbo
453
Futuro: legitor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam legeretur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: utinam lectum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam legatur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum legatur. Preterito imperfecto: cum legeretur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum lectum erit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti: legi. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: lectum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc verbo activo? Duo. Que? Unum temporis presentis, ut legens; aliud futuri, ut lecturus. Legor, legeris vel legere, legitur; et pluraliter: legimur, legimini, leguntur. Preterito imperfecto: legebar, legebaris vel legebare, legebatur; et pluraliter: legebamur, legebamini, legebantur. Preterito perfecto: lectus sum vel fui, lectus es vel fuisti, lectus est vel fuit; et pluraliter: lecti sumus vel fuimus, lecti estis vel fuistis, lecti sunt vel fuerunt, et ionice ***. Preterito plusquamperfecto: lectus eram vel fueram, lectus eras vel fueras, lectus erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lecti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: legar, legeris vel legere, legetur; et pluraliter: legemur, legemini, legentur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: legere, legatur; et pluraliter: legamur, legamini, legantur. Futuro: legitor tu, legitor ille; et pluraliter: legamur, legiminor, leguntor.
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: utinam legeremur, legeremini, legerentur. Preterito perfecto vel plusquamperfecto: utinam lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lecti esse- 345 mus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. 317 preterito ... legeretur pro preterito perfecto: cum lectum sit vel fuerit legimini
338 legamini pro
454
donatus graecus c
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε λεξομην, λ ξοιο, λ ξοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε λεξομε$α, λ ξοισ$ε, λ ξοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν λ γωμαι, 4ν 350 λ γQη, 4ν λ γηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λεγ+με$α, 4ν λ γησ$ε, 4ν λ γωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ λελεγμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ λελεγμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. 355 ΑριστοςZ 4ν λ ξωμαι, 4ν λ ξQη, 4ν λ ξηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν
λεξ+με$α, 4ν λ ξησ$ε, 4ν λ ξωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν λεχ$σομαι, 4ν λεχ$σQη, 4ν λεχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν λεχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν λεχ$σεσ$ε, 4ν λεχ$σωνται. 360
Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ λ γεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ λ ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ λεχ$σεσ$αι ] λ ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 365 8Ο νεστς χρνος, λεγμενος, κα' % μ λλων, λεχ$ησμενος ] λεξμενος. Ακο2ω, *κο2εις, *κο2ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ομεν, *κο2ετε, *κο2ουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ aκουον, aκουες, aκουεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2ομεν, sκο2370 ετε, aκουον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ *κκοα, *κκοας, *κκοεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κηκαμεν, *κηκατε, *κηκασι. ΑριστοςZ aκουσα, aκουσας, aκουσεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σαμεν, sκο2σατε, aκουσαν. 375 Μ λλωνZ *κο2σω, *κο2σεις, *κο2σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σομεν, *κο2σετε, *κο2σουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ Uκουε, *κου τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2ετε, *κου τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ Uκουσν συ, *κουσ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σατε, 380 *κουσ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνου νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιμι, *κο2οις, *κο2οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιμεν, *κο2οιτε, *κο2οιεν.
358–359 4ν λεχ$σομαι ... λεχ$σωνται] codicis lectionem servavi -ες P 373 aκουσας] -ες P
371 *κκοας]
de verbo
455
Futuro: utinam legar, legaris vel legare, legatur; et pluraliter: utinam legamur, legamini, legantur. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum legerer, legereris vel legerere, legeretur; et pluraliter: cum legeremur, legeremini, legerentur. Preterito perfecto: cum lectus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lecti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum lectus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lecti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum lectus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lecti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: legi. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: lectum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: lectum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti et preteriti plusquamperfecti, ut lectus; aliud futuri, ut legendus. Audio, audis, audit; et pluraliter: audimus, auditis, audiunt.
350
355
360
365
Preterito imperfecto: audiebam, audiebas, audiebat; et pluraliter: audiebamus, audiebatis, audiebant. 370 Preterito perfecto: audivi, audivisti, audivit; et pluraliter: audivimus, audivistis, audiverunt vel audivere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: audiveram, audiveras, audiverat; et pluraliter: audiveramus -tis –rant, audiveratis, audiverant. Futuro: audiam, audies, audiet; et pluraliter: audiemus, audietis, audi- 375 ent. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audi, audiat; et pluraliter: audiamus, audiatis, audiant. Futuro: audito tu, audito ille; et pluraliter: audiamus, auditote, audiunto. 380 Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: utinam audiremus, audiretis, audirent.
353 simus … sitis … sint] fuimus … fuistis … fuerunt Pl, corr. P1
378 audiatis pro audite
456
donatus graecus c
ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιμι, *κο2σαις, *κο2σαι[ο]Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε 385 *κο2σαιμεν, *κο2σαιτε, *κο2σαιεν.
390
395
400
405
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιμι, *κο2σοις, *κο2σοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιμεν, *κο2σοιτε, *κο2σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ω, 4ν *κο2Qης, 4ν *κο2QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμεν, 4ν *κο2ητε, 4ν *κο2ωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν *κηκω, 4ν *κηκQης, 4ν *κηκQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κηκωμεν, 4ν *κηκητε, 4ν *κηκωσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σω, 4ν *κο2σQης, 4ν *κο2σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κο2σωμεν, 4ν *κο2σητε, 4ν *κο2σωσι. Μ λλωνZ ***. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2ειν. ΑριστοςZ *κο:σαι. Μ λλωνZ *κο2σειν. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: νεργητικο: #ματος; Δ2οZ % νεστς χρνος κα' % μ λλων, % *κο2ων κα' % *κουσμενος. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπονZ *κο2εται. ΠαρατατικςZ sκο2ετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ aκουσται. ΑριστοςZ sκο2σ$η. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κου σ$ω. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κο2οιτο.
410 ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κο2σαιτο.
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κο2σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ηται. 415 ΠαρακεμενοςZ sκουσμ νος 4ν Qv.
ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *κουσ$σηται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ *κο2σασ$αι. 420 Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι. 405 *κουσ$σεται] -σομαι P 415 sκουσμ νος] -μ νον desideratur *κουσ$σηται] codicis lectionem servavi
417 4ν
de verbo
457
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam audivissem, audivisses, audivisset; et pluraliter: utinam audivissemus, audivissetis, audivissent. 385 Futuro: utinam audiam, audias, audiat; et pluraliter: utinam audiamus, audiatis, audiant. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum audirem, audires, audiret; et pluraliter: cum audiremus, audiretis, audirent. 390 Preterito perfecto: cum audiverim, audiveris, audiverit; et pluraliter: cum audiverimus, audiveritis, audiverint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum ***. *** Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audire. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: audivisse. Futuro: auditum ire vel auditurum esse. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc activo verbo? Duo: unum quod est temporis presentis, aliud futuri: audiens et auditurus. Verbo impersonali: auditur. Preterito imperfecto: audiebatur. Preterito perfecto: auditum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: auditum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: audietur. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: audiatur. Futuro: aud***. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam audiretur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam audiatur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum audiatur. Preterito perfecto: cum audiretur. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum auditum erit. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: auditum iri.
407 aud (sic) pro auditor
419 vel … esse add. P1
395
400
405
410
415
420
458
donatus graecus c
Ακο2ομαι, *κο2Qη, *κο2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουμε$α, *κο2εσ$ε, *κο2ονται. ΠαρατατικςZ aκουσμαι, aκουσαι, aκουσταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σμε$α, aκουσ$ε, sκουσμ νοι εσ κα' Ιωνικς *κηκαται. 425 ΠαρακεμενοςZ *κο2ομαι, *κο2εσαι, *κο2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κουμε$α, *κο2εσ$ε, *κο2ονται. ΑριστοςZ sκο2σ$ην, sκο2σ$ης, sκο2σ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκο2σ$ημεν, sκο2σ$ητε, sκο2σ$ησαν. 430 Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σομαι, *κουσ$σQη, *κουσ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
*κουσ$ησμε$α, *κουσ$σεσ$ε, *κουσ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2ου, *κου σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2εσ$ε, *κου σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ Uκουσα συ, *κουσ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ *κο2σασ$ε, 435 *κουσ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε *κουομην, *κο2οιο, *κο2οιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουομε$α, *κο2οισ$ε, *κο2οιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε *κουσαμην, *κο2σαιο, *κο2σαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε 440 *κουσαμε$α, *κο2σαισ$ε, *κο2σαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κουσομην, *κο2σοιο, *κο2σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουσομε$α, *κο2σοισ$ε, *κο2σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμαι, 445 4ν *κο2Qη, 4ν *κο2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κου+με$α, 4ν *κο2ησ$ε, 4ν *κο2ωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sκουσμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκουσμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. 450 ΑριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σωμαι, 4ν *κο2σQη, 4ν *κο2σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντι-
κςZ 4ν *κουσ+με$α, 4ν *κο2σησ$ε, 4ν *κο2σωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν *κουσ$σωμαι, 4ν *κουσ$σQη, 4ν *κουσ$σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ$ησ+με$α, 4ν *κουσ$σησ$ε, 4ν *κουσ$455 σωνται. 423–424 codicis lectionem servavi, sed post παρατατικς lacunam statuerim atque παρακεμενος e 425 transposuerim 425–426 *κο2ομαι ... *κο2ονται] codicis lectionem servavi, sed haec delenda esse censeo ut e 421–422 repetita. 448 sκουσμ νοι] *- P 453–455 4ν *κουσ$σωμαι ... *κουσ$σωνται] codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
459
Audior, audiris vel audire, auditur; et pluraliter: audimur, audimini, audiuntur. Preterito imperfecto: audiebar, audiebaris vel audiebare, audiebatur; et pluraliter: audiebamur, audiebamini, audiebantur, et ionice ***. Preterito perfecto: auditus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: auditi sumus vel fuimus, auditi estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: auditus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: auditi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: audiar, audieris vel audiere, audietur; et pluraliter: audiemur, audiemini, audientur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiere, audiatur; et pluraliter: audiamur, audiamini, audiantur. Futuro: auditor tu, auditor ille; et pluraliter: audiamur, audiminor, audiuntor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam audirer, audireris vel audirere, audiretur; et pluraliter: utinam audiremur, audiremini, audirentur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam auditus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam auditi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam audiar, audiaris vel audiare, audiatur; et pluraliter: utinam audiamur, audiamini, audiantur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum audirer, audireris vel -re, audiretur; et pluraliter: cum audiremur, audiremini, audirentur. Preterito perfecto: cum auditus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum auditus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum auditi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum auditus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum auditi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint.
432 audiere pro audire
433 audiamini pro audimini
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
donatus graecus c
Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ *κο2σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 460 Μα % νεστς χρνος κα' Uλλη % μ λλωνZ % *κουμενος κα' *κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος. Εμ, ε=ς, ε= Αττικς, ποιητικς σσ, στZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμ ν, στ , εσν. ΠαρατατικςZ vν, vς, vνZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ vμεν, vτε, vσαν. 465 ΠαρακεμενοςZ iπρξα, iπρξας, iπρξενZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ iπρξαμεν, iπρξατε, iπρξαν. ΑριστοςZ iπρχον, iπρχες, iπρχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ iπρχομεν, iπρχετε, iπρχον. 470 Μ λλωνZ ,σομαι, ,σQη, ,σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμε$α, ,σεσ$ε, ,σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ,σο, ,στωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ,στε, ,στωσαν. Μ λλωνZ ,σ$ω σ2, ,σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ+με$α, ,σ$εσ$ε, 475 ,σωνται. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε ε@ην, ε@ης, ε@ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@ημεν, ε@ητε, ε@ησαν. 8ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε iπ(ρξαιμι, iπ(ρξαις, iμ(ρξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε iπ(ρξαιμεν, iπ(ρξαιτε, iπ(ρξαιεν. 480 Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε σομην, ,σοιο, ,σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε σομε$α, ,σοισ$ε, ,σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσιν. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν iπ(ρξω, 4ν iπ(ρξQης, 4ν iπ(ρξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 485 4ν iπ(ρξωμεν, 4ν iπ(ρξητε, 4ν iπ(ρξωσιν. ΑριστοςZ 4ν iπρχων, iπρχες, iπρχεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν iπρχωμεν, 4ν iπρχετε, 4ν iπρχων. Μ λλωνZ 4ν ,σωμαι, 4ν ,σQη, 4ν ,σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ+με$α, 4ν ,σεσ$ε, 4ν ,σωνται. 490 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε=ναι. 462 σσ] ς, σ P 467 iπρξαν] -(ρξαν P 470 ,σεται] cf. 162 necnon a 2. 677, b 2. 417, d 2. 19 472–473 ,στωZ ... ,στε, ,στωσαν] ,σ$ωZ ... ,σ$ε, ,σ$ωσαν P, cf. a 2. 679–690, b 2. 419–420, d 2. 21–22 474–475 codicis lectionem servavi 484–487 imperfectum cum aoristo et vice versa mutavit P 486–489 codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
461
Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: audiri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: auditum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: auditum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis presentis, aliud futuri: auditus et audiendus. 460 Sum, es, est attice, ionice es, est; et pluraliter: sumus, estis, sunt. Preterito imperfecto: eram, eras, erat; et pluraliter: eramus, eratis, erant. 465 Preterito perfecto: fui, fuisti, fuit; et pluraliter: fuimus, fuistis, fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: fueram, fueras, fuerat; et pluraliter: fueramus, fueratis, fuerant. Futuro: ero, eris, erit; et pluraliter: erimus, eritis, erunt. 470 Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: sit vel es, sit; et pluraliter: este, sint. Futuro: esto tu, esto ille; et pluraliter: simus, estote, sumpto vel sumptote. 475
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam essem, esses, esset; et pluraliter: utinam essemus, essetis, essent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam fuissem, fuisses, fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam fuissemus, fuissetis, fuissent. Futuro: utinam sim, sis, sit; et pluraliter: utinam simus, sitis, sint. 480 Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum essem, esses, esset; et pluraliter: cum essemus, essetis, essent. Preterito perfecto: cum fuerim, fueris, fuerit; et pluraliter: cum fuerimus, fueritis, fuerint. 485 Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum fuissem, fuisses, fuisset; et pluraliter: cum fuissemus, fuissetis, fuissent. Futuro: cum fuero, fueris, fuerit; et pluraliter: cum fuerimus, fueritis, fuerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: esse. 490
472 sit pro sis
474 sumpto, sumptote pro sunto, suntote
462
donatus graecus c
ΑριστοςZ iπ(ρξαι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. Θ λω, $ λεις, $ λειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ λομεν, $ λετε, $ λουσιν. ΠαρατατικςZ a$ελον, a$ελες, a$ελεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ λομεν, s$ 495 λετε, a$ελον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ s$ λησα, s$ λησας, s$ λησεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ελσαμεν, s$ελσατε, s$ λησαν. ΑριστοςZ τε$ ληκα, τε$ ληκας, τε$ ληκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ τε$ελκαμεν, τε$ελκατε, τε$ελκασιν. 500 Μ λλωνZ $ελσω, $ελσεις, $ελσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ελσομεν, $ελσετε, $ελσουσιν. ΠροστακτικZ ο5κ ,χει. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε $ λοιμι, $ λοις, $ λοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ λοιμεν, $ λοιτε, $ λοιεν. 505 ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε $ελμην, $ελσαιμι, $ελσαις, $ελσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ελσαιμεν, $ελσαιτε, $ελσαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε $ελσω, $ελσεις, $ελσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε $ελσωμεν, $ελσητε, $ελσωσιν. 510 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισιςZ 4ν $ λω, 4ν $ελQης, 4ν $ λQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ λωμεν, 4ν $ λητε, 4ν $ λωσιν. ΠαρατατικςZ 4ν a$ελον, 4ν a$ελες, 4ν a$ελεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν s$ λωμεν, 4ν s$ λητε, 4ν a$ελον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν s$ λησα, 4ν s$ λησας, 4ν s$ λησεZ κα' πλη$υντι515 κςZ 4ν s$ελσαμεν, 4ν s$ελσατε, 4ν s$ λησαν. ΑριστοςZ 4ν τε$ ληκα, 4ν τε$ ληκας, 4ν τε$ ληκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν τε$ελκαμεν, 4ν τε$ελκατε, 4ν τε$ελκασιν. Μ λλωνZ 4ν $ελσω, 4ν $ελσQης, 4ν $ελσQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ελσωμεν, 4ν $ελσητε, 4ν $ελσωσιν. 520 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ $ λειν. ΑριστοςZ $ελσαι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. Βαστ(ζω, βαστ(ζεις, βαστ(ζειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ζομεν, βαστ(ζετε, βαστ(ζουσιν.
496–499 aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. 514–517 500–501 $ελσομεν ... $ελσουσιν] -σωμεν, -σητε, -σωσιν P 505 $ελμην delendum esse censeo, sed cf. Pl, ubi voluissem bis legitur 508–509 codicis lectionem servavi, $ελσοιμι ... $ελσοιεν desiderantur 512 a$ελον] -ων P 514–517 perfectum cum aoristo et vice versa mutavit P, cf. 496–499
de verbo
463
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: fuisse. Futuro caret. Volo, vis, vult; et pluraliter: volumus, velitis, volunt. Preterito imperfecto: volebam, volebas, volebat; et pluraliter: volebamus, volebatis, volebant. 495 Preterito perfecto: volui, voluisti, voluit; et pluraliter: voluimus, voluistis, voluerunt vel voluere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: volueram, volueras, voluerat; et pluraliter: volueramus, volueratis, voluerant. Futuro: volam, voles, volet; et pluraliter: volemus, voletis, volent. 500 Imperativo caret. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: utinam velimus, velitis, velint. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam voluissem, voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et pluraliter: utinam voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent. Futuro: utinam velem, veles, velet; et pluraliter: utinam volemus, voletis, velent. Subiunctivo modo: cum velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: cum velimus, velitis, velint. Preterito imperfecto: cum velim, velis, velit; et pluraliter: cum velimus, velitis, velint. Preterito perfecto: cum voluerim, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus, volueritis, voluerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum voluissem, voluisses, voluisset; et pluraliter: cum voluissemus, voluissetis, voluissent. Futuro: cum voluero, volueris, voluerit; et pluraliter: cum voluerimus, volueritis, voluerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presenti et preteriti imperfecti: vele. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: voluisse. Futuro caret. Fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: ferimus, feritis, ferunt.
493 velitis pro vultis 503–504 velim ... velint pro vellem ... vellent 508–509 velem .... velent pro velim ... velint 512–513 velim ... velint pro vellem ... vellent 520 vele pro velle 523 feritis pro fertis
505
510
515
520
464
donatus graecus c
525 ΠαρατατικςZ β(σταζον, β(σταζες, β(σταζεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βα-
530
535
540
545
550
555
στ(ζομεν, βαστ(ζετε, β(σταζον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ β(στασα, β(στασας, β(στασεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(σαμεν, βαστ(σατε, β(στασαν. ΑριστοςZ βεβ(στακα, βεβ(στακας, βεβ(στακεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βεβαστ(καμεν, βεβαστ(κατε, βεβαστ(κασιν. Μ λλωνZ βαστ(ξω, βαστ(ξεις, βαστ(ξειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ξομεν, βαστ(ξετε, βαστ(ξουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ β(σταζε, βασταζ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ζετε, βασταζ τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ β(σταξν συ, βασταξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ξατε, βασταξ(τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ζοιμι, βαστ(ζοις, βαστ(ζοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ζοιμεν, βαστ(ζοιτε, βαστ(ζοιεν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ξαιμι, βαστ(ξαις, βαστ(ξαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ξαιμεν, βαστ(ξαιτε, βαστ(ξαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε βαστ(ξοιμι, βαστ(ξοις, βαστ(ξοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ξοιμεν, βαστ(ξοιτε, βαστ(ξοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς %μοως κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν βαστ(ζω, 4ν βαστ(ζQης, 4ν βαστ(ζQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστ(ζωμεν, 4ν βαστ(ζητε, 4ν βαστ(ζωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν β(στασα, 4ν β(στασας, 4ν β(στασεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστ(σαμεν, 4ν βαστ(σατε, 4ν β(στασαν. ΑριστοςZ 4ν βεβ(στακα, 4ν βεβ(στακας, 4ν βεβ(στακεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βεβαστ(καμεν, 4ν βεβαστ(κατε, 4ν βεβαστ(κασι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν βαστ(ξω, 4ν βαστ(ξQης, 4ν βαστ(ξQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βαστ(ξωμεν, 4ν βαστ(ξητε, 4ν βαστ(ξωσιν. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ βαστ(ζειν. ΑριστοςZ βαστ(σαι. Μ λλωνZ βαστ(ξειν. 8Ρμα 4πρσωπον μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ βαστ(ζεται. ΠαρατατικςZ βαστ(ζετο.
527–530 aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, codicis tamen lectionem 537–539 servavi, cf. 496–499, 547–550 534 β(σταζε] βαστ(ζου P, cf. 585 βαστ(ζοιμι ... βαστ(ζοιεν] βαστ(ξοιμι ... βαστ(ξοιεν P, cf. 542–543 544–545 βαστ(ζω 547–550 cf. 527–530 547 4ν ... βαστ(ζQη] βαστ(ξω ... βαστ(ξQη P, corr. P1 β(στασα] 4ν bis scripsit P 556–557 #μα ... βαστ(ζεται sub linea add. P1
de verbo
465
Preterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: fereba- 525 mus, ferebatis, ferebant. Preterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerunt vel tulere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter: tuleramus, tuleratis, tulerant. 530 Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent. Imperativo modo tempore presenti ad secundam et tertiam personam: fere, ferat; et pluraliter: feramus, ferete, ferant. Futuro: ferto tu, ferto ille; et pluraliter: feramus, fertote, ferunto. 535 Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: utinam ferremus, ferretis, ferrent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam tulissem, tulisses, tulisset; et pluraliter: utinam tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent. Futuro: utinam feram, feras, ferat; et pluraliter: utinam feramus, feratis, ferant. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti cum similiter; preterito imperfecto: cum ferrem, ferres, ferret; et pluraliter: cum ferremus, ferretis, ferrent. Preterito perfecto: cum tulerim, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum tulissem, tulisses, tulisset; et pluraliter: cum tulissemus, tulissetis, tulissent. Futuro: cum tulero, tuleris, tulerit; et pluraliter: cum tulerimus, tuleritis, tulerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ferre. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: tulisse. Futuro: latum ire vel laturum esse. Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: fertur. Preterito imperfecto: ferebatur.
527 tulerimus, tuleritis pro tulimus, tulistis
534 fere pro fer | ferete pro ferte
540
545
550
555
466
donatus graecus c
ΠαρακεμενοςZ βεβ(στακται. 560 ΑριστοςZ βαστ(χ$η.
Μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ βασταζ σ$ω. Μ λλωνZ βασταχ$τω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε βαστ(ζοιτο. 565
ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε βαστ(σαιτο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε βασταχ$σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν βαστ(ζηται. 570 ΠαρακεμενοςZ βασταγμ νος 4ν Qv[ς].
ΑριστοςZ 4ν βαστ(ξηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν βασταχ$σηται. Βαστ(ζομαι, βαστ(ζQη, βαστ(ζεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταζμε$α, βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βαστ(ζονται. 575 ΠαρατατικςZ βασταζμην, βαστ(ζου, βαστ(ζετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταζμε$α, βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βαστ(ζοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ βεβ(σταγμαι, βεβ(σταξαι, βεβ(στακταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βεβαστ(γμε$α, βεβ(σταχ$ε, βεβασταγμ νοι εσν. 580 ΑριστοςZ βαστ(χ$ην, βαστ(χ$ης, βαστ(χ$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βα-
στ(χ$ημεν, βαστ(χ$ητε, βαστ(χ$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σομαι, βασταχ$σQη, βασταχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταχ$ησμε$α, βασταχ$σεσ$ε, βασταχ$σονται. 585 Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ βαστ(ζου, βασταζ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ζεσ$ε, βασταζ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ β(σταξν συ, βασταξ(τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βαστ(ξατε, βασταξ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε βασταζομην, 590 βαστ(ζοιο, βαστ(ζοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βασταζομε$α, βαστ(ζοισ$ε, βαστ(ζοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε βασταξαμην, βαστ(ξαιο, βαστ(ξαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε βασταξαμε$α, βαστ(ξαισ$ε, βαστ(ξαιντο. 561 βασταχ$σεται] -σομαι P 568 βαστ(ζηται] -ξηται P, cf. 571 570 βασταγμ νος] βεβασταγμ νον desideratur, cf. tamen 600 572 codicis lectionem servavi 578 εσν] vσαν P 587–588 codicis lectionem servavi 589–590 βασταζομην, βαστ(ζοιο] βασταξομην, βαστ(ξοιο P (cf. 595), corr. P1
de verbo
467
Preterito perfecto: latum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: latum erat vel fuerat. 560 Futuro: feretur. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: feratur. Futuro: ferto. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam ferretur. 565 Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam feratur. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum feratur. Preterito perfecto: cum latum sit vel fuerit. 570 Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum latum erit vel fuerit. Feror, ferris vel ferre, fertur; et pluraliter: ferimur, ferimini, feruntur. Preterito imperfecto: ferebar, ferebaris vel ferebare, ferebatur; et plu- 575 raliter: ferebamur, ferebamini, ferebantur. Preterito perfecto: latus sum vel fui, latus es vel fuisti, latus est vel fuit; et pluraliter: lati sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: latus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, 580 erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: lati eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: ferar, fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: feremur, feremini, ferentur. Imperativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ferre, fera- 585 tur; et pluraliter: feramur, ferimini, ferantur. Futuro: fertor tu, fertor ille; et pluraliter: feramur, feraminor, feruntor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ferrer, ferreris vel ferrere, ferretur; et pluraliter: utinam ferremur, ferre- 590 mini, ferrentur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam lati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent.
563 ferto pro fertor, cf. 587
468
donatus graecus c
595 Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε βασταξομην, βαστ(ξοιο, βαστ(ξοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
ε@$ε βασταξομε$α, βαστ(ξοισ$ε, βαστ(ξοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν βαστ(ζωμαι, 4ν βαστ(ζQη, 4ν βαστ(ζηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βασταζ+με$α, 4ν βαστ(ζησ$ε, 4ν βαστ(ζωνται. 600 ΠαρακεμενοςZ βασταγμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ βασταγμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν βαστ(ξωμαι, 4ν βαστ(ξQη, 4ν βαστ(ξηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βασταξ+με$α, 4ν βαστ(ξησ$ε, 4ν βαστ(ξωνται. 605
610
615
620
625
Μ λλωνZ 4ν βασταχ$σομαι, 4ν βασταχ$σQη, 4ν βασταχ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν βασταχ$ησ+με$α, 4ν βασταχ$σεσ$ε, 4ν βασταχ$σωνται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ βαστ(ζεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ βαστ(ξασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ βασταχ$σεσ$αι ] βαστ(ξεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 8Ο νεστς χρνος, % βασταζμενος, κα' % μ λλων, βασταξμενος ] βασταχ$ησμενος. Εσ$ω, σ$εις, σ$ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ομεν, σ$ετε, σ$ουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ aσ$ιον, aσ$ιες, aσ$ιεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sσ$ομεν, sσ$ετε, aσ$ιον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sσ$ασα, σ$ασες, σ$ασεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ι(σαμεν, σ$ι(σατε, σ$ι(σασιν. ΑριστοςZ σ$ακα, σ$ακες, σ$ακεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ι(καμεν, σ$ι(κατε, σ$ι(κασιν. Μ λλωνZ σ$ι(σω, σ$ι(σεις, σ$ι(σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ι(σομεν, σ$ι(σετε, σ$ι(σουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς πρ?ς δε2τερον κα' τρτον πρσωπονZ ,σ$ιε, σ$ι τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ετε, σ$ι τωσαν. Μ λλωνZ ,σ$ι συ, σ$ι τω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ετε, σ$ι(τωσαν.
600 βασταγμ νος] βεβασταγμ νος desideratur, cf. tamen 570 601 βασταγμ νοι] βεβασταγμ νοι desideratur 606–608 codicis lectionem servavi 618–621 aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. etiam 636–639 618–619 codicis lectionem servavi 620–621 codicis lectionem servavi 625 ,σ$ιε] aσ$- P 626 ,σ$ιε] aσ$P 626–627 σ$ι(τωσαν] codicis lectionem servavi, sed fort. σ$ι τωσαν ut in 625 scribendum
de verbo
469
Futuro: utinam ferar, feraris vel ferare, feratur; et pluraliter: utinam 595 feramur, feramini, ferantur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ferer, fereris vel ferere, feretur; et pluraliter: cum feremur, feremini, ferentur. Preterito perfecto: cum latus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lati simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum latus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum lati essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum latus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum lati erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ferri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: latum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: latum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut latus; aliud futuri, ut ferendus. Edo, es, est; et pluraliter: edimus, editis, edunt. Preterito imperfecto: edebam, edebas, edebat; et pluraliter: edebamus, edebatis, edebant. Preterito perfecto: edi, edisti, edit; et pluraliter: edimus, edistis, ederunt vel edere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: ederam, ederas, ederat; et pluraliter: ederamus, ederatis, ederant. Futuro: edam, edes, edet; et pluraliter: edemus, edetis, edunt.
600
605
610
615
620
Imperativo modo tempore presenti ad secundam et tertiam personam: ede, edat; et pluraliter: edamus, edite, edant. 625 Futuro: edito tu, edito ille; et pluraliter: edamus, editote, edunto.
597–598 ferer ... ferentur pro ferrer ... ferrentur
622 edunt pro edent.
470
630
635
640
645
650
donatus graecus c
Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε σ$οιμι, σ$οις, σ$οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε σ$οιμεν, σ$οιτε, σ$οιεν. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε σ$ι(σαιμι, σ$ι(σαις, σ$ι(σαι[ο]Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ι(σαιμεν, σ$ι(σαιτε, σ$ι(σαιεν. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε σ$οιμι, σ$οις, σ$οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε σ$ι(σοιμεν, σ$ι(σοιτε, σ$ι(σοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν σ$ω, σ$Qης, σ$QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ$ωμεν, σ$ητε, σ$ωσι. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν σ$ιασ(μην, σ$ι($Qης, σ$ι($QηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ$ιασ(με$α, σ$ι($ητε, σ$ι($ησαν. ΑριστοςZ 4ν σ$ακα, σ$ακες, σ$ακεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ$ι(καμεν, σ$ι(κατε, σ$ι(κασι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν σ$ι(σω, σ$ι(σQης, σ$ι(σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ$ι(σωμεν, 4ν σ$ι(σητε, 4ν σ$ι(σωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ σ$ειν. ΑριστοςZ σ$ιPσαι. Μ λλωνZ σ$ι(σειν. 8Ρμα *πρσωπον, χρνος νεστ+ςZ σ$ιPται. ΠαρατατικςZ sσ$ετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ sσ$ασαι. ΑριστοςZ sσ$ι($η. Μ λλωνZ σ$ια$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ σ$ι τω. Μ λλωνZ σ$ιασ(τω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε σ$οιτο.
ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε σ$ι(σαιτο. 655 Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε σ$ι(σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν σ$ηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν σ$ιασμ νος Qv. ΑριστοςZ 4ν σ$ι(σηται. 660 Μ λλωνZ 4ν σ$ια$σηται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ σ$εσ$αι.
632–633 codicis lectionem servavi 632 σ$οιμι, σ$οις σ$οι fort. a 628–629 repetita 636–639 aoristum cum perfecto et vice versa mutavit P, cf. 618–621; codicis lectionem servavi, sed textus valde corruptus videtur 645 σ$ιPται] -σαι P, cf. 643 658 codicis 647 codicis lectionem servavi 649 σ$ια$σεται] -σηται P, cf. 660 lectionem servavi 660 codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
471
Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: utinam ederemus, ederetis, ederent. Preterito perfecto: utinam edissem, edisses, edisset; et pluraliter: utinam edissemus, edissetis, edissent. Futuro: utinam edam, edas, edat; et pluraliter: utinam edamus, edatis, edant. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ederem, ederes, ederet; et pluraliter: cum ederemus, ederetis, ederent. Preterito perfecto: cum ederim, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis, ederint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum edissem, edisses, edisset; et pluraliter: cum edissemus, edissetis, edissent. Futuro: cum edero, ederis, ederit; et pluraliter: cum ederimus, ederitis, ederint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edere. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: edisse. Futuro: esum ire vel esurum esse. Verbo impersonali tempore presenti: editur. Preterito imperfecto: edebatur. Preterito perfecto: esum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: esum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: editor. Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edatur. Futuro: editor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam ederetur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam esum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam edatur. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum ederetur. Preterito perfecto: cum esum sit vel fuerit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum esum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum esum erit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: edi.
649 editor pro edetur, cf. 651
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
472
donatus graecus c
ΑριστοςZ σ$ι(σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ σ$ι(σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: ο5δετ ρου #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 665 Μα % νεστς κα' παρατατικς, % σ$ων, κα' Uλλη % μ λλων, % σ$ιασμενος. Χαρομαι, χαρQη, χαρεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαιρμε$α, χαρεσ$ε, χαρονται. ΠαρατατικςZ χαιρμην, χαρου, χαρετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαιρ670 με$α, χαρεσ$ε, χαροντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ κ χαρμαι, κ χαρσαι, κ χαρταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ κεχ(ρμε$α, κ χαρ$ε, κεχαρμ νοι εσν. ΑριστοςZ χ(ρην, χ(ρης, χ(ρηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χ(ρημεν, χ(ρητε, 675 χ(ρησαν.
Μ λλωνZ χαρσομαι, χαρσQη, χαρσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρησμε$α, χαρσεσ$ε, χαρσονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ χαρου, χαιρ 680 σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρεσ$ε, χαιρ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ χαρσι σ2, χαρσεται κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρσεσ$ε, χαρησ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε χαιρομην, χαροιο, χαροιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαιρομε$α, χαροισ$ε, χα685 ροιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε χαιραμην, χαραιο, χαραιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαιραμε$α, χαραισ$ε, χαραιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε χαιρομην, χαροιο, χαροιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε χαιρο690 με$α, χαροισ$ε, χαροιντο.
8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν χαρωμαι, 4ν χαρQη, 4ν χαρηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαιρ+με$α, χαρησ$ε, χαρωνται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ χαιρμενος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαι695 ρμενοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι.
667 χαρQη] χαρεσαι P, fort. servandum, cf. 3. 30 680 χαρεσ$ε, χαιρ σ$ωσαν] χαρετε, χαιρ τωσαν P, cf. 721, ubi genus activum cum medio in imperativo modo simi-
liter confunditur 681–682 codicis lectionem servavi 694–695 codicis lectionem servavi, cf. 733–734, ubi praesens participium pro perfecto invenitur
de verbo
473
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: esum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: esum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc neutro verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti, ut edens; aliud futuri, 665 ut esurus. Gaudeo, gaudes, gaudet; et pluraliter: gaudemus, gaudetis, gaudent. Preterito imperfecto: gaudebam, gaudebas, gaudebat; et pluraliter: gaudebamus, gaudebatis, gaudebant. Preterito perfecto: gavisus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: gavisi sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: gavissus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: gavisi eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: gaudebo, gaudebis, gaudebit; et pluraliter: gaudebimus, gaudebitis, gaudebunt. Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: gaude, gaudeat; et pluraliter: gaudeamus, gaudete, gaudeant. Futuro: gaudeto tu, gaudeto ille; et pluraliter: gaudeamus, gaudetote, gaudento. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: utinam gauderemus, gauderetis, gauderent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam gavissus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam gavissi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: utinam gaudeam, gaudeas, gaudeat; et pluraliter: utinam gaudeamus, gaudeatis, gaudeant. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum gauderem, gauderes, gauderet; et pluraliter: cum gauderemus, gauderetis, gauderent. Preterito perfecto: cum gavisus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum gavisi simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint.
674 gavissus pro gavisus bis scripsit Pl
686 gavissus pro gavisus
687 gavissi pro gavisi
692 gauderet
670
675
680
685
690
695
474
donatus graecus c
ΑριστοςZ 4ν χαρωμαι, 4ν χαρQη, 4ν χαρηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαιρ+με$α, 4ν χαρησ$ε, 4ν χαρωνται. 700 Μ λλωνZ 4ν χαρσομαι, 4ν χαρσQη, 4ν χαρσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
4ν χαρησ+με$α, 4ν χαρσεσ$ε, 4ν χαρσωνται.
705
710
715
720
725
730
Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ χαρεσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ χαρσασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ χαρσεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: ο5δετ ρου #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 8Ο νεστς χρνος κα' παρατατικς, χαιρμενοςZ κα' % μ λλων, χαρησμενος. Πορε2ομαι, πορε2Qη, πορε2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμε$α, πορε2εσ$ε, πορε2ονται. ΠαρατατικςZ πορευμην, πορε2ου, πορε2ετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμε$α, πορε2εσ$ε, πορε2οντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ πεπρευμαι, πεπρευσαι, πεπρευταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πεπορε2με$α, πεπρευσ$ε, πεπορευμ νοι εσ. ΑριστοςZ πορε2$ην, πορε2$ης, πορε2$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2$ημεν, πορε2$ητε, πορε2$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ πορευ$σομαι, πορευ$σQη, πορευ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευ$ησμε$α, πορευ$σεσ$ε, πορευ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ πορε2ου, πορευ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2εσ$ε, πορευ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ πρευσα συ, πορευσ(σ$ω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2σασ$ε, πορευσ(σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε πορευομην, πορε2οιο, πορε2οιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευομε$α, πορε2οισ$ε, πορε2οιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε πορευσαμην, πορε2σαιο, πορε2σαιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευσαμε$α, πορε2σαισ$ε, πορε2σαιντο. Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε πορευσομην, πορε2σοιο, πορε2σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε πορευσομε$α, πορε2σοισ$ε, πορε2σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν πορε2ωμαι, πορε2Qη, πορε2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ+με$α, πορε2ησ$ε, πορε2ωνται.
700–701 codicis lectionem servavi
σ(τω P, cf. 680
721 πρευσαι ... πορευσ(σ$ω] πρευσον, πορευ-
de verbo
475
Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum gavisus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum gavisi essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum gavisus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et 700 pluraliter: cum gavisi erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti: gaudere. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: gavisum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: gavisurum esse. 705 Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo neutro verbo? Duo. Que? Presentis temporis et preteriti imperfecti, gavisus; futuri, gavisurus. Eo, is, it: et pluraliter: imus, itis, eunt. 710
Preterito imperfecto: ibam, ibas, ibat; et pluraliter: ibamus, ibatis, ibant. Preterito perfecto: ivi, ivisti, ivit; et pluraliter: ivimus, ivistis, iverunt vel ivere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: iveram, iveras, iverat; et pluraliter: ivera- 715 mus, iveratis, iverant. Futuro: ibo, ibis, ibit; et pluraliter: ibimus, ibitis, ibunt. Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: i, eat; et pluraliter: eamus, ite, eant. 720 Futuro: ito tu, ito ille; et pluraliter: eamus, itote, eunto. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam irem, ires, iret; et pluraliter: utinam iremus, iretis, irent. 725
Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam ivissem, ivisses, ivisset; et pluraliter: utinam ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent. Futuro: utinam eam, eas, eat; et pluraliter: utinam eamus, eatis, eant. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: cum 730 irem, ires, iret; et pluraliter: cum iremus, iretis, irent.
476
735
740
745
750
donatus graecus c
ΠαρακεμενοςZ πορευμενος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμενοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν πορε2σωμαι, 4ν πορε2σQη, 4ν πορε2σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευσ+με$α, 4ν πορε2σησ$ε, 4ν πορε2σωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν πορευ$σομαι, 4ν πορευ$σQη, 4ν πορευ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ$ησ+με$α, 4ν πορευ$σεσ$ε, 4ν πορευ$σωνται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ πορε2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ πορε2σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ πορε2σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: ο5δετ ρου #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστς κα' παρατατικς, % πορευμενος, κα' Uλλη % μ λλων, % πορευ$ησμενος. 8Ρμα μ δηλο:ν Tρισμ νον πρσωπονZ πορε2εται. ΠαρατατικςZ πορε2ετο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ πεπρευται. ΑριστοςZ πορε2$η. Μ λλωνZ πορευ$σεται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ πορευ σ$ω. Μ λλωνZ πορευσ(σ$ω. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε πορε2οιτο.
755 ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε πορε2σαιτο.
Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε πορε2σοιτο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν πορε2ηται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ πορευμ νος 4ν Qv. 760 ΑριστοςZ 4ν πορε2σηται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν πορευ$σηται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ πορε2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ πορε2σασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ πορευ$σεσ$αι. 765 Φ ρω, φ ρεις, φ ρειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρομεν, φ ρετε, φ ρουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ ,φερον, ,φερες, ,φερεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρομεν, φ ρετε, ,φερον. 733–734 πορευμενος ... cσι] codicis lectionem servavi, cf. 694–695, ubi praesens participium pro perfecto invenitur 737–739 codicis lectionem servavi 748 πεπρευται] πορε2εσ$αι P, cf. 762 756 πορε2σοιτο] -$οιτο P 759 πορευμ νος] codicis lectionem servavi, πεπορευμ νον desideratur 761 codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
477
Preterito perfecto: *** iverim, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: *** iverimus, iveritis, iverint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum ivissem, ivisses, ivisset; et pluraliter: 735 cum ivissemus, ivissetis, ivissent. Futuro: cum ivero, iveris, iverit; et pluraliter: cum iverimus, iveritis, iverint. Infinitivo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: ire. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: ivisse. Futuro: itum ire vel iturum esse. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc neutro verbo? Duo. Que? Unum quod est temporis presenti et preteriti imperfecti, ut ens, et aliud futuri, ut iturus. Verbo ***: itur. Preterito imperfecto: ibatur. Preterito perfecto: itum est vel fuit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: itum erat vel fuerat. Futuro: ibitur. Imperativo modo tempore presenti: eatur. Futuro: itor. Optativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: utinam iretur. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam itum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: utinam eatur. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum eatur. Preterito perfecto: cum itum sit vel fuerit. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum itum esset vel fuisset. Futuro: cum itum erit vel fuerit. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: ire. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: itum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: itum iri. Fero, fers, fert; et pluraliter: ferimus, feritis, ferunt. Preterito imperfecto: ferebam, ferebas, ferebat; et pluraliter: ferebamus, ferebatis, ferebant.
744 ens pro iens
765 feritis pro fertis, cf. 523
740
745
750
755
760
765
478
donatus graecus c
ΠαρακεμενοςZ π φερα, π φερας, π φερεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πεφ ραμεν, πεφ ρατε, πεφ ρασι. 770 ΑριστοςZ ,φερα, ,φερας, ,φερεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ραμεν, *** ,φερ[ρ]αν. Μ λλωνZ φ ρω, φ ρQης, φ ρQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρομεν, φ ρετε, φ ρουσι. Κα' τ4 ξς Tς τ? βαστ(ζω μετ4 το: *προσ+που κα' το: πα$ητικο: 775 α5το:. Γνομαι, γνQη, γνεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γινμε$α, γνεσ$ε, γνονται. ΠαρατατικςZ γενμην, γ νου, γ νετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γενμε$α, γ νεσ$ε, γ νοντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ γ γονα, γ γονας, γ γονεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγναμεν, 780 γεγνατε, γεγνασι. ΑριστοςZ γεγνην, γεγνης, γεγνηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγναμεν, γεγνατε, γεγνασιν. 785 Μ λλωνZ γενσομαι, γενσQη, γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γενησμε$α
] γενη$ησμε$α, γενη$σεσ$ε, γενη$σονται.
Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ γνου, γιν σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γνεσ$ε, γιν σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ γενσου σ2, γενησ(σω κε>νοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γενσεσ$ε, 790 γενησ(σ***. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε γενομην, γ νοιο, γ νοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γενομε$α, γ νοισ$ε, γ νοιντο. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε γεναμην, γ ναιο, γ ναιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γεναμε$α, γ ναισ$ε, γ ναιντο. 795 Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε γενομην, γ νοιο, γ νοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γενομε$α, γ νοισ$ε, γ νοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν γ νωμαι, 4ν γ νQη, 4ν γ νηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γεν+με$α, 4ν γ νησ$ε, 4ν 800 γ νωνται.
772–773 codicis lectionem servavi quamvis a 765 repetita videretur, φερ, φερε>ς ... 776 γνQη] γνεσαι P 782–783 γεγναμεν ... γεγνασι] codicis lectionem servavi, quamvis a 779–780 orta esse videretur, γεγνεμεν, γεγνε785–786 codicis lectionem servavi 787 γιν σ$ω] μεν, γεγνεσαν desiderantur γεν- P 788 γιν σ$ωσαν] γεν- P 789–790 codicis lectionem servavi, κε>νος γενησ(σ (sic) in marg. praebet P φερο:σι emendaverim
de verbo
479
Preterito perfecto: tuli, tulisti, tulit; et pluraliter: tuleramus, tuleratis, tulerunt vel tulere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: tuleram, tuleras, tulerat; et pluraliter: tu- 770 leramus, tuleratis, tulerant. Futuro: feram, feres, feret; et pluraliter: feremus, feretis, ferent. Et cetera sicut fero cum impersonali et passivo eius. 775
Fio, fis, fit; et pluraliter: fimus, fitis, fiunt. Preterito imperfecto: fiebam, fiebas, fiebat; et pluraliter: fiebamus, fiebatis, fiebant. Preterito perfecto: factus sum vel fui, es vel fuisti, est vel fuit; et pluraliter: facti sumus vel fuimus, estis vel fuistis, sunt vel fuerunt vel 780 fuere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: factus eram vel fueram, eras vel fueras, erat vel fuerat; et pluraliter: cum facti eramus vel fueramus, eratis vel fueratis, erant vel fuerant. Futuro: fiam, fies, fiet; et pluraliter: fiemus, fietis, fient. 785 Imperativo modo tempore presenti et preterito imperfecto: fi, fiat; et pluraliter: fiamus, fite, fiant. Futuro: fito tu, fito ille; et pluraliter: fiamus, fitote, fiunto. 790
Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: utinam fierem, fieres, fieret; et pluraliter: utinam fieremus, fieretis, fierent. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: utinam facti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. 795 Futuro: utinam fias, fias, fiat; et pluraliter: utinam fiamus, fiatis, fiant. Subiunctivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: cum fiam, fias, fiat; et pluraliter: cum fiamus, fiatis, fiant. 800
768 tuleramus, tuleratis pro tulimus, tulistis, cf. 770–771 ... fierent (fiarem ... fiarent inepte corr. P1)
798–799 fiam ... fiant pro fierem
480
donatus graecus c
ΠαρακεμενοςZ γεγενημ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγενημ νοι 4ν cμεν, vτε, cσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν γενσωμαι, 4ν γενσQη, 4ν γενσηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 805 4ν γεν+με$α, 4ν γ νησ$ε, 4ν γ νωνται.
Μ λλωνZ 4ν γενη$σομαι, 4ν γενη$σQη, 4ν γενη$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γενη$ησ+με$α, 4ν γενη$σεσ$ε, 4ν γενη$σωνται. 810 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ γνεσ$αι.
ΑριστοςZ γνασ$αι. Μ λλωνZ γενη$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: πα$ητικο: ο5δετ ρου #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; Μα % νεστς χρνος, % γινμενος, κα' Uλλη % μ λλων, 815 γενησμενος ] γενη$ησμενος. Μ μνημαι, μ μνησαι, μ μνηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μεμνμε$α, μ μνησ$ε, μ μνηνται. ΑριστοςZ μεμνκην, μεμνκης, μεμνκηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μεμνκημεν μεμνκητε, μεμνκησαν. 820 Μ λλοντα ο5κ ,χει. ΠροστακτικZ ο5κ ,χει. Μ λλωνZ μνσ$ητι, *** μνησ$τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ο5κ ,χει. ΑριστοςZ ε@$ε μνησ$εην, μνησ$εης, μνησ$εηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε μνησ$εημεν, μνησ$εητε, μνησ$εησαν. 825 Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις χρνος νεστ+ςZ ο5κ ,χει. ΠαρατατικςZ ο5κ ,χει. ΠαρακεμενοςZ 4ν μνσκωμαι, 4ν μνσκQη[ς], 4ν μνσκηταιZ κα' πλη830 $υντικςZ 4ν μνησκ+με$α, 4ν μνσκησ$ε, 4ν μνσκωνται. ΑριστοςZ μεμνκην, μεμνκης, μεμνκηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μεμνκημεν, μεμνκητε, μεμνκησαν. Μ λλωνZ μνησ$, μνησ$Qς, μνησ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μνησ$μεν, μνησ$τε, μνησ$σιν. 804 γενσωμαι, γενσQη, γενσηται] codicis lectionem servavi, γ νωμαι, γ νQη, γ νηται desiderantur 807–808 codicis lectionem servavi 811 γνασ$αι] codicis lectionem 818–819 μεμνκην ... μεμνκησαν] μεμνμην, μ servavi, γεν σ$αι desideratur μνησο ... μ μνηντο desiderantur 820 μ λλων P, -τα ο5κ ,χει add. P1 822 ο5κ ,χει add. P1 823–824 μνησ$εην ... μνησ$εησαν] μνησ$οι- P 827 iποτακτικ ... ,χει add. P1
de verbo
481
Preterito perfecto: cum factus sim vel fuerim, sis vel fueris, sit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti simus vel fuerimus, sitis vel fueritis, sint vel fuerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum factus essem vel fuissem, esses vel fuisses, esset vel fuisset; et pluraliter: cum facti essemus vel fuissemus, essetis vel fuissetis, essent vel fuissent. Futuro: cum factus ero vel fuero, eris vel fueris, erit vel fuerit; et pluraliter: cum facti erimus vel fuerimus, eritis vel fueritis, erunt vel fuerint. Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti: fieri. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: factum esse vel fuisse. Futuro: factum iri. Quot participia trahuntur ab hoc passivo *** verbo? Duo. Que? Unum temporis presentis, ut fiens; aliud futuri preteriti perfecti et plusquamperfecti, ut fiendus; aliud futuri, ut facturus. Memini, meministi, meminit; et pluraliter: meminimus, meministis, meminerunt vel meminere. Preterito plusquamperfecto: memineram, memineras, meminerat; et pluraliter: memineramus, memineratis, meminerant. Futuro caret. Imperativo caret. Futuro: memento, mementote ***. Optativo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti caret. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: utinam meminissem, meminisses, meminisset; et pluraliter: utinam meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent. Futuro caret. Subiunctivo modo tempore presenti caret. Preterito imperfecto caret. Preterito perfecto: cum meminerim, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: cum meminerimus, memineritis, meminerint. Preterito plusquamperfecto: cum meminissem, meminisses, meminisset; et pluraliter: meminissemus, meminissetis, meminissent. Futuro: meminero, memineris, meminerit; et pluraliter: meminerimus, memineritis, meminerint.
814 temporis bis praebet P
805
810
815
820
825
830
482
donatus graecus c
835 Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ο5κ ,χει.
ΑριστοςZ μνησ$ναι. Μ λλωνZ ο5κ ,χει.
3. Περ μετοχ7ς
5
10
15
20
25
Αναγιν+σκων τ μ ρος στν; Μετοχ στιν. Διατ στι μετοχ; Διτι μ ρος λαμβ(νει νματος κα' μ ρος #ματοςZ λαμβ(νει μ3ν *π? το: νματος γ νη κα' πτ+σεις, *π? δ3 το: #ματος χρνους κα' σημασας, κ δ’ *μφοτ ρων *ρι$μ?ν κα' σχμα. Τ στιν @διον μετοχς; NΙδιον μετοχς στ' δι4 #ματος τε$ναι κα' *π’ α5το: φυσικς παρ(γεσ$αι. Π$εν λ γεται μετοχ; Μετοχ λ γεται *π? το: μ ρος κα' το: λαμβ(νω, λαμβ(νεις, τ& Wπερ μ ρος νματος κα' μ ρος #ματος. ΤQ μετοχQ πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Γ νος, πτσις, χρνος, σημασα, *ρι$μ?ς κα' σχμα. Ποου γ νους; Παντς. Διατ; Διτι προτ$ενται α5τ& ν τQ κλσει Uρ$ρα *ντωνυμικ4 % κα' E κα' τ. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ε5$εαςZ ,στι #μα *δι(βατον *** μετ4 ε5$εας πτ+σεως. Ποου χρνου; Κα' τ4 ξς. Ποας σημασας; Ενεργητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? νεργητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, κα' παρ(γεται *γαπν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? #ματος πα$ητικο: παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Αγαπμαι, *γαπRP, κα' γ γονεν *γαπ+μενος. Ποας σημασας; Ο5δετ ρας, διτι *π? ο5δετ ρου #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Κ($ημαι, κ($ησαι, κα' γ γονε κα$μενος. Ποας σημασας; Κοινς, διτι *π? κοινο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Εκτ[ε]νομαι, κτ[ε]νQη, κα' γ γονεν κτ[ε]ινμενος. Ποας σημασας; Απολιμπαντικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? *πολιμπαντικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Ακολου$, *κολου$ε>ς, κα' γ γονεν *κολου$σας. 3.
5 τε$ναι] τι$ ναι P, cf. Pl poni 13 συντ(σσεται vel συντασσμενον inter *δι(βατον et μετ4 addiderim, cf. Pl construitur necnon 4. 17–18, a 1. 33–35(a,b), al.; 25 κτ[ε]νQη] b. 1. 29–31(a,b), al.; d 1. 29–30, al. 20 *γαπRP] -(σαι P, cf. 2. 127 -εσαι P
de participio
483
Infinitivo modo temporis presentis et preteriti imperfecti caret. Preterito perfecto et plusquamperfecto: meminisse. Futuro caret.
835
3. De participio Legens que pars est? Participium est. Quare est participium? Quia partem capit nominis que partem verbi; recipit enim a nomine genera et casus, a verbo autem tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram. Quid est proprium participi? Proprium participi est pro verbo poni et 5 ab eo naturaliter derivari. Unde dicitur participium? Participium dicitur ex parte et capio, capis, eo quod partem nominis et partem verbi. Participio quot accidunt? Sex. Que? Genus, casus, tempus, significatio, numerus et figura. 10 Cuius generis? Omnis. Quare? Quia preponuntur ei in declinatione articula pronominalia hic hec hoc. Cuius casus? Nominativi; est verbum intransitivum, construitur cum nominativo casu. Cuius temporis? Et cetera. 15 Cuius significationis? Active. Quare? Quia ab activo verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Amo, amas, *** amans. Cuius significationis? Passive. Quare? Quia a verbo passivo derivatur. Quod est illud? Amor, amaris, et fit amandus. 20 Cuius significationis? Neutralis, quia a neutrali verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Sedeo, sederes, et fit sedens. Cuius significationis? Communis, quia a communi verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Largior, largiris, et fit largiens. 25 Cuius significationis? Deponentalis. Quare? Quia a deponenti verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Sequor, sequeris, et fit secutus. 3. 2 que partem pro partemque 8 capit post partem desideratur, cf. 2 20 fit pro factum est, sed fit invenitur in Donato latino (pa) | amandus pro amatus 23 sederes pro sedes | fit pro factum est, sed fit invenitur in Donato latino (pa) 25 fit pro factum est, sed fit invenitur in Donato latino (pa) 27 fit pro factum est, sed fit invenitur in Donato latino (pa)
484
donatus graecus c
Ποας σημασας; Ο5δετ ρας πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? ο5δετ ρου 30 πα$ητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Χαρομαι, χαρQη,
κα' γ γονε χαρων. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται.
4. Περ ντωνυμ ας Εγ τ μ ρος στν; Αντωνυμα στν. Διατ στιν *ντωνυμα; Διτι κε>ται ν τπ&ω δου νματος κα' κ2ριον σημανει πρσωπον. ΤQ *ντωνυμRα πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα, πρσωπον κα' πτσις. 5 Ποου ε@δους; Προτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου γ νους; Παντς, *λλ’ ν τ&δε τ& τπ&ω *ρσενικο: ] $ηλυκο: ] ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι το:το στ'ν κε>νο Wπερ δεικν2ει. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Μπ ρτος, Μπ ρτα ] ψυχ(ριον. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. 10 Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Απ? τς *ντ' προ$ σεως κα' το: νματος. Ποου προσ+που; Πρ+του. Διατ; Διτι Wλα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτου προσ+που, χωρ'ς το: γ+, Wπερ στ' πρ+του, κα' το: 15 σ2, Wπερ στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν κλητικν πτ+σεων κα' τν ξ’ α5τν παραγομ νων. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εαςZ ,στι #μα *μετ(βατον συντασσμενον τQ ε5$εRα πτ+σει.
5. Περ προ4σεως Πρ?ς τ μ ρος στν; Πρ$εσς στιν. Διατ; Διτι προτ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσιν το: λγου ν συν$ σει ] ν παρα$ σει, τουτ στιν δι4 τν β(σιν τς πτ+σεως, οmον ς κσμονZ ν συν$ σει, τουτ στιν Wταν συντ$εται, οmον *μα$ς.
30 χαρQη] -εσαι P, cf. 2. 667 4. 11 συντ$εται] συν$ τεται P, fort. συντ $ειται scribendum, sed cf. a. 1. 27, al.; b 1. 24, al., etc.
de praepositione
485
Cuius significationis? Neutralis passive. Quare? Quia a neutro passivo verbo derivatur. Quod est illud? Gaudeo, gaudes, et fit gaudens. 30 Cuius numeri? Singularis. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Pluralis. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. 4. De pronomine Ego que pars est? Pronomen est. Quare est pronomen? Quia ponitur in loco proprii nominis et certam significat personam. Pronomini quot accidunt? Sex. Que? Species, genus, numerus, figura, persona et casus. Cuius speciei? Primitive. Quare? Quia a nullo derivatur. 5 Cuius generis? Omnis, sed in hoc loco masculini aut feminini aut neutri. Quare? Quia hoc est illud quod demostrat. Quod est illud? Bertus, Berta aut mancipium. Cuius numeri? Singulari. Quare? Quia singulariter profertur. Cuius numeri? Plurali. Quare? Quia pluraliter profertur. 10 Cuius figurae? Composite. Unde componitur? A pro *** Cuius persone? Prime. Quare? Quia omnia nomina et pronomina sunt tertiarum personarum, exceptis ego, quod est prime, et tu, quod est secunde, et vocativorum casuum et in iis que derivantur ab eis que sunt 15 persone prime. Cuius casus? Nominativi: est verbum intransitivum, construitur cum nominativo casu. 5. De praepositione Ad que pars est? Prepositio est. Quare? Quia preponitur aliis partibus orationis in adpositione vel compositione ***
30 fit pro factum est, sed fit invenitur in Donato latino (pa) 4. 7 demostrat pro demonstrat 15 vocativorum casuum pro vocativis casibus
486
donatus graecus c
5 Πρ?ς τνι πτ+σει δουλε2ει; ΑτιατικQ. Δ?ς τ4ς προ$ σεις ατιατικς πτ+-
σεωςZ πρς, ες, πρ, κατ(, κ2κλ&ω, περ, *ντ, κτς, ντς, ,σω, μεταξ2, πλησον, δι(, ,γγιστα, [,νκιστα], κατ(, μετ(, π ρα, π(νω, γυρ$εν, kως, παρ(. Δ?ς τ4ς προ$ σεις *φαιρετικς πτ+σεωςZ *π, μετ(, ν+πιον, λ($ρRα, 10 περ, ξ, κ, πρ, δημοσRα, Uνευ, χωρς, δχα. Δ?ς τ4ς προ$ σεις *μφοτ ρων πτ+σεωνZ ν, iπ, π, iποκ(τω.
6. Περ' πιρρματος
5
10
15
20
25
Ν:ν τ μ ρος στν; Επρρημ( στιν. Διατ; Διτι ;σταται γγGς #ματα κα' *ε' νδ εται #ματος. Δ?ς χρονικς, οmονZ σμερον, αuριον, χ$ ς, ν:ν, semper, *ε, νεωστ, ποτ , πτε, ττε, Uφαρ, π(ρος, aδη, π(ντοτε. Απδος το: τπου, οmονZ xδε, κε>, κε>σε, ντε:$εν, ντς, κτς, ,σω, ,ξω, ν+πιον, καταμνας, ,ν$εν, ,ν$α. Απδος ρωτσεως, οmονZ τ, διατ, Wτου χ(ριν. Δ?ς τς *παγορε2σεως, οmονZ μ. Δ?ς τς *ρνσεως, οmονZ ο5, ο5δ ν, οuτε, ο5χ, ο5δαμς, ο5 δτα. Δ?ς συγκατα$ σεως, οmονZ να, ναχι, ναφι. Δ?ς *πωμοτικ(, οmονZ μ(, ν. Δ?ς ε5κτικ(, οmονZ ε@$ε, φελον. Δ?ς τς ποιτητος, οmονZ καλς, κακς, διδαγμ νως, σχυρς κα' Fλαρς. Δ?ς τς *ν σεως, οmονZ μλις, μηδαμς. Δ?ς τς ποστητος, οmονZ πολλ(κις, λιγ(κις. Δ?ς το: εκασμο:, οmονZ @σως, τ(χα, τυχν. Δ?ς *$ροσεως, οmονZ Uρδην, qμα, %μο:. Δ?ς τς προαιρ σεως, οmονZ δRα, κατ’ δαν. Δ?ς τς %μοι+σεως, οmονZ hς, hσπερ, ο_τως, κα$(περ, κα$(, sw, swτε. Δ?ς τς τ(ξεως, οmονZ ξς, φεξς, Uτερ. Δ?ς τς πιτ(σεως, οmονZ λαν, σφδρα, π(ντQη, π(ντως. Δ?ς τς συγκρσεως, οmονZ μPλλον, Xττον, πλ ον, παρ’ W, τσον. Δ?ς τν *ρι$μν, οmονZ qπαξ, δς, τρς, τετρ(κις, τοσ(κις κα' %σ(κις. Δ?ς τς iποκορσεως, οmονZ †Uν, παρον.† 5. 10 Uνευ] qνος P 4 Uφαρ add. P1 5 xδε] Wδε P 6. 3 νεωστ] νεοτ P 25 παρον] fort. a 23 παρ’ W (παρ P) derivatum
23 παρ’ W] παρ P
de adverbio
487
Ad cui casui servit? Accusativo. Da prepositiones accusativi casus: ad, 5 apud, ante, adversum vel adversus, cis, citra, circum, circa, contra, extra, inter, intus, intra, iuxta, penes, per, prope, propter, secundum, post, ultra, super, circiter, usque, secus, penes. Da prepositiones ablativi casus: a, ab, abs, cum, coram, clam, de, e, ex, pro, pre, palam, sine, absque, tenus. 10 Da prepositiones ablativorum casuum: in, sub, super, subter. 6. De adverbio Nunc que pars? Adverbium est. Quare? Quia stat iuxta verbum et semper nititur verbo. Da temporis, ut hodie, cras, eri, nunc, semper, nuper, aliquando, olim, tunc, iamdiu, quondam, iam, semper. Da loci, ut hic, ibi, illuc, inde, intus, foras, intra, foras, sentialiter, 5 secreto, hinc, iluc. Da interrogandi, ut cur, quare, quamobrem. Da prohibendi, ut ne. Da negandi, ut non, nihil, nec, neque, minime, nequaquam. Da affirmandi, ut profecto, quippe, ***. 10 Da iurandi, ut ***. Da optandi, ut utinam, utinam. Da qualitatis, ut bene, male, docte, fortiter et suaviter. Da remissivi, ut vix, paulatim. Da quantitatis, ut multum, parum. Da dubitandi, ut forsitan, fortassis, fortasse. Da congregandi, ut simul, una, pariter. Da discretivi, ut seorsum, secus. Da similitudinis, ut sicut, quasi, ceu, sic, sicuti, velut, uti, ita. Da ordinis, ut inde, deinde, deinceps. Da intentivi, ut valde, nimium, penitus, omnino. Da comparandi, ut magis, minus, plus, tam, quam. Da numeri, ut semel, bis, ter, quater, totiens et quotiens. Da diminutivi, ut clanculo, belle. 5. 11 ablativorum casuum pro utriusque casus 6. 3 eri pro heri 4 iamdiu add. P1 5 sentialiter pro presentialiter 25 clanculo pro clanculum
6 iluc pro illuc
15
20
25
488
donatus graecus c
Δ?ς τς κλητικς, οmονZ c Δ?ς *πολογητικς, οmονZ δο:. Δ?ς τ4 δεικτικ(, οmονZ @δε.
7. Περ σχετλιασμο Φε: σχετλιαστικ?ν πρρημ( στιν. Διατ; Διτι νδιατ$εται το>ς Uλλοις μ ρεσι το: λγου. Τ στιν @διον το: σχετλιαστικο: πιρρματος; NΕστι κεκαλυμμ νQη τQ φωνQ προφ ρεσ$αι.
8. Περ συνδσμου Κα' τ μ ρος στν; Σ2νδεσμος. Διατ; Διτι συνδ ει τ4 Uλλα μ ρη το: λγου τ(ξει συζευκτικQ κα' τ? τς Sρμηνεας κεχην?ς πληρο:σαZ κα' γνεται *π? το: συνδε>ν, τ? δεσμε>ν. Πσοι τρποι τν συνδ σμων; Οκτ+Z οF μ3ν γ(ρ εσι συμπλεκτικο, οF δ3 5 διαζευκτικο, οF δ3 συναπτικο, οF δ3 παρασυναπτικο, οF δ3 ατιολογικο, οF δ3 *πορ[ρ]ηματικο, οF δ3 συλλογιστικο, οF δ3 παραπληρωματικο. Τνες εσ' συμπλεκτικο; jΟσοι τν Sρμηνεαν π’ Uπειρον κφερομ νην συνδο:σιν. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ μ ν, δ , τε, κα, *λλ(, sμ ν, sδ , *τ(ρ, α5τ(ρ, 10 aτοι, μ3ν Uν. Τνες εσ' διαζευκτικο; jΟσοι τν μ3ν φρ(σιν συνδο:σιν, *π? δ3 πρ(γματος ες πρPγμα διϊστσιν. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ a, aτοι, s , οmονZ a στιν Eμ ρα ] ν2ξ στινZ a στιν iγις a στιν *σ$ενς. Τνες εσ' συναπτικο; jΟσοι _παρξιν μ3ν ο5 δηλο:σι, σημανουσι δ3 15 *κολου$αν κα' τ(ξιν. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ ε, ε@περ, εδ, εδπερ, οmονZ ε #εγχPται, κοιμPται, καZ ε περιπατε>, κινε>ται. Τνες εσ' παρασυναπτικο; jΟσοι μετ’ iπ(ρξεως κα' τ(ξιν δηλο:σιν. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ πε, πεπερ, πειδ, πειδπερ, οmονZ πε' dλιος στ'ν iπ3ρ γν, Eμ ρα στν.
8. 2 πληρο:σα] πληρο> emendaverim, sed cf. d. 8. 3 10 μ3ν Uν] κεν Uν P 15–16 οmον ... κινε>ται in marg. add. P1 12–13 οmον ... *σ$ενς in marg. add. P1 16 περιπατε>] – P1, cf. a 8. 13 18–19 οmον ... στν in marg. add. P1 19 γν] γς emendaverim, sed cf. Pl super terram necnon a 8. 20 π' τν γν
de coniunctione
489
Da vocandi, ut o. *** respondendi, ut en. Da demonstrandi, ut en ecce. 7. De interiectione Heu querelatum adverbium est. Quare? Quia interiacet alliis partibus orationis. Quid est proprium interiectionis adverbii? Est abscondita voce profer***. 8. De coniunctione Et que pars est? Coniunctio est. Quare? Quia coniungit alias partes orationis ordo coniunctiva et erminie separatim adimplens, et fit a coniungere, ligare. Quot modi coniunctionum? Octo: quidam enim sunt copulative, quedam autem coniunctive, quedam continuative, quedam autem sub- 5 continuative, quedam autem causales, quedam autem ***. *** *** Sunt autem hee: quidem, autem, que, et sed, at, ast, nec, neque, at, etiam, vero. 10
*** disiunctive? Quot quidem dictamen ***, a autem rei in rem distant. Sunt autem hee: sicut, ut, ut, ut, ut: aut est dies aut nox est; vel est sanus vel est eger. *** continuative? Quot habentiam enim demonstrant, signant autem consequentiam et ordinem. Sunt autem hee: si, siquidem, ***, *** 15 ut: si stertit dormit, et: si ambulat movetur. *** subcontinuative? Quot cum essentiam et ordinem demonstrant. Sunt autem hee: quia, ***, ut: quia sol est super terram, dies est.
7. 1 alliis pro aliis 3–4 profer pro proferri 4 quidam pro 8. 2 ordo coniunctiva pro ordine coniunctivo | erminie ut Sρμηνεας P quedam 11 a ... rei pro ab ... re 12–13 ut ... eger in marg. add. P1 14 signant pro significant 16 ut ... movetur in marg. add. P1 17 essentiam pro essentia 18 ut ... est in marg. add. P1
490
donatus graecus c
20 Τνες εσ'ν ατιολογικο; jΟσοι π’ *ποδσει ατας kνεκεν παραλαμβ(-
νονται. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ ;να, φρα, Wπως, kνεκα, ο_νεκα, γ(ρ, κα$, κα$τι, κα$σον κα' δι, διτι παρ4 το>ς ν:ν, οF παλαιο' διρουν. Τνες εσ'ν *πορ[ρ]ηματικο; jΟσοι παπορο:ντες ε+$αμεν χρσ$αι. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ zρα, κRzτα, μν. 25 Τνες εσ'ν συλλογιστικο; jΟσοι πρ?ς τ4ς πιφορ(ς τε κα' συλλψεις τν *ποδεξεων νδι(κεινται. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ Uρα, *λλ(, *λλ4 μν, τονυν, τοιγ(ρτοι, τοιγαρο:ν. Τνες εσ' παραπληρωματικο; jΟσοι μ τρου ] κσμου kνεκεν παραλαμβ(νονται. Εσ' δ3 ο;δεZ δ, #(, ν2—n κα' νGν γρ(φεται, *φ’ ο[ τ? 30 τονυν—πο2, το, $ν, Uρ, δτα, περ, πω, μν, Uν, αy, οyν, κεν, γε. Τνες εσ'ν ναντιωματικο; ΟF δηλο:ντες τ? ναντον τQ δυν(μει το: πρ(γματος, οmονZ ,μπης, Wμως. Ιστ ον Wτι πολλο' σ2νδεσμοι οF α5το' π' πολλν τρπων λ γονται, Tς % *λλ4 κα' συμπλεκτικ?ς κα' παραπληρωματικς.
20 kνεκεν delendum censeo, cf. 28–29 κσμου kνεκεν παραλαμβ(νονται 30 δτα] δ τ4 P 31 τιν3ς δ3 προστι$ ασι κα' ναντιωματικο ante τνες addiderim, ut in Moschopouli aliorumque grammaticorum artibus legitur 34 συλλογιστικς, % 6ν κα' συμπλεκτικ?ς κα' inter κα' et παραπληρωματικς addiderim, ut legitur in Moschopuli arte grammatica quae Erotemata vocatur.
de coniunctione
491
*** causales? *** in acceptionem cause propter reccepiuntur. Sunt 20 autem hee: ut, ut, ut, propter, propter, quapropter, enim, quamobrem, quamobrem, ***, quia, quia a modernis, que veteres separabant. *** dubitative? Quot dubitantes soliti sumus utere. Sunt autem hee: an, ne, sine. *** Quot *** 25 *** sed *** unquam *** 30
*** ***
20 reccepiuntur pro recipiuntur
23 utere pro uti
24 sine pro sin
DONATUS GRAECUS D
Siglorum Conspectus Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Barocci 72 manus correctoris codicis Z
Z Z1
XV–XVI
In apparatu etiam memoratur: D
Donatus latinus, consensus quorundam codicum et editionum
[] ***
inserenda censui delenda censui lacunam statui
Π2λην *πλαν τς γραφς nς 6ν $ λQη ρ$ς διελ$ε>ν κα' συναρι$μωμ νως π(ντων *κριβς τν μο' γινωσκ τω, ξ xν *μ μπτως ε@σεται κρνειν λγον. Πτσιν, *ρι$μν, ε=δος, σχμα κα' γ νος σοφ& λογισμ& τοιγαρο:ν προσερχ σ$ω κα' παιδοτρβQη κ(ραν iποκλιν τωZ ο_τω γ4ρ δρ ψεται καλν π(ντων Uκρη.
5
1. Περ νματος Ποιητς ποου μ ρους στν; Ονματς στιν. Διατ στιν νματος; Διτι σημανει ο5σαν κα' ποιτητα δαν ] κοινν μετ4 πτ+σεως. Τ& νματι πσα παρ πεται; Π ντε. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα κα' πτσις. Ποου ε@δους; Πρωτοτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. 5 Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; Απ? το: ποι. Ποου γ νους; Αρσενικο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ευ$εRα τ? % τ? Uρ$ρον. Ποου γ νους; Θηλυκο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? E. 10 Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσεται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα Uρ$ρον τ? τ. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα δ2ο Uρ$ραZ Uρ$ρον τ? % κα' τ? E. Ποου γ νους; Παντοου. Διατ; Διτι προτ(σσονται α5τ& ν τQ ε5$εRα 15 τρα Uρ$ραZ τ? % κα' τ? E κα' τ? τ. Ποου γ νους; Επικονου. Διατ; Διτι δι4 μιPς φωνς κα' ν?ς Uρ$ρου σημανει ζ&+ων *μφοτ ρων νο:ν.
Inscr. περ' γραμματικς κατ’ πιτομν Ζαχαρου το: Καλι ργη Z pr. 2 συναρι$μωμ νως] συνηρη$μομ νως Z 8 Uκρη] Uκρον emendaverim, cf. b pr. 8
496
donatus graecus d
Ποου γ νους; Ατελει+του. Διατ; Διτι ο5δε'ς λγος τελειο> το:το, *λλ4 20 μνη E ποησις τν παλαιν ν το>ς στχοις δι4 γ νους προφ ρεται.
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι νικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Π$εν συντ$εται; Απ? το: δκαιος νματος συνετ $η Uδικος. Ποου σχματος; Παρασυν$ του. Διατ; Διτι ο5δ3ν συντ$εται [Uλλο] ***, *λλ4 *π? το: συν$ του νματος παρ(γεται kτερον νομα παρασ2ν$ετον λεγμενον, *δικα. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εαςZ ,στι #μα *μετ(βατον συντασσμενον τQ πτ+σει ρ$Q κα' ε5$εRα. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % ποιητςZ E γενικ το: ποιητο:Z E δοτικ τ& ποιητQZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ποιητνZ E κλητικ c ποιτης κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ποιητο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF ποιηταZ E γενικ τν ποιητνZ E δοτικ το>ς ποιητα>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ποιητ(ςZ E κλητικ c ποιητα' κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ποιητν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E μο:σαZ E γενικ τς μο2σηςZ E δοτικ τQ μο2σQηZ E ατιατικ τν μο:σανZ E κλητικ c μο:σα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μο2σηςZ E ε5$ε>α τν πλη$υντικν αF μο:σαιZ E γενικ τν μουσνZ E δοτικ τα>ς μο2σαιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μο2σαςZ E κλητικ c μο:σαι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μουσν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % ξ νος κα' E ξ νηZ E γενικ το: ξ νου κα' τς ξ νηςZ E δοτικ τ& ξ ν&ω κα' τQ ξ νQηZ E ατιατικ τ?ν ξ νον κα' τν ξ νηνZ E κλητικ c ξ νε κα' c ξ νη κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ξ νουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF ξ νοι κα' αF ξ ναιZ E γενικ τν ξ νων κα' ξεννZ E δοτικ το>ς ξ νοις κα' ξ ναιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς ξ νους κα' ξ ναςZ E κλητικ c ξ νοι κα' c ξ ναι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν ξ νων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τ? Π(σχαZ E γενικ το: Π(σχαZ E δοτικ τ& Π(σχαZ E ατιατικ τ? Π(σχαZ E κλητικ c Π(σχα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Π(σχα. Ποας κλσεως; Πρ+της. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ α5το: ες ου δφ$ογγον λγει Tς ποιητς ποιητο:, Χρ2σης Χρ2σου, Π ρσης Π ρσου. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % κ2ριοςZ E γενικ το: κυρουZ E δοτικ τ& κυρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν κ2ριονZ E κλητικ c κ2ριε κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κυρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF κ2ριοιZ E γενικ τν κυρωνZ E
1. 26–27 κα$’ Sαυτο: post συντ$εται addiderim, cf. a 1. 29 et D: quia non per se componitur 32 ποιτης] ποιητ( desideratur, cf. a 1. 44, b 1. 33
de nomine
497
δοτικ το>ς κυροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς κυρουςZ E κλητικ c κ2ριοι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κυρων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % $εςZ E γενικ το: $εο:Z E δοτικ τ& $ε&Z E ατιατικ τ?ν $ενZ E κλητικ c $ε3 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: $εο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF $εοZ E γενικ τν $ενZ E δοτικ το>ς $εο>ςZ E ατιατικ τοGς $εο2ςZ E κλητικ c $εο' κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν $εν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % διδ(σκαλοςZ E γενικ το: διδασκ(λουZ E δοτικ τ& διδασκ(λ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν διδ(σκαλονZ E κλητικ c διδ(σκαλε κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: διδασκ(λουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF διδ(σκαλοιZ E γενικ τν διδασκ(λωνZ E δοτικ το>ς διδασκ(λοιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς διδασκ(λουςZ E κλητικ c διδ(σκαλοι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν διδασκ(λων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % $ρνοςZ E γενικ το: $ρνουZ E δοτικ τ& $ρν&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν $ρνονZ E κλητικ c $ρνε κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: $ρνουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF $ρνοιZ E γενικ τν $ρνωνZ E δοτικ το>ς $ρνοιςZ E ατιατικ το:ς $ρνουςZ E κλητικ c $ρνοι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν $ρνων. Ποας κλσεως; Δευτ ρας. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ τν Sνικν α5το: λγει ες ου μακρν, Tς κ2ριος το: κυρου, $ε?ς $εο:, διδ(σκαλος διδασκ(λου κα' $ρνος $ρνου. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % πατρZ E γενικ το: πατ ρος κα' πατρςZ E δοτικ τ& πατ ρι κα' πατρZ E ατιατικ τ?ν πατ ραZ E κλητικ c π(τερ κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: πατρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF πατ ρεςZ E γενικ τν πατρν κα' πατ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς πατρ(σιZ E ατιατικ τοGς πατ ραςZ E κλητικ c πατ ρες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν πατ ρων κα' πατρν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E μτηρZ E γενικ τς μητ ρος κα' μητρςZ E δοτικ τQ μητ ρι κα' μητρZ E ατιατικ τν μητ ρα[ν] κα' μτρανZ E κλητικ c μτερ κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μητρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF μητ ρεςZ E γενικ τν μητ ρων κα' μητρνZ E δοτικ τα>ς μητ ρεις κα' μητρ(σιZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μητ ραςZ E κλητικ c μητ ρες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μητρν κα' μητ ρων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Uν$ρωπος κα' E Uν$ρωποςZ E γενικ το: *ν$ρ+που κα' τς *ν$ρ+πουZ E δοτικ τ& *ν$ρ+π&ω κα' τQ *ν$ρ+π&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Uν$ρωπον κα' τν Uν$ρωπονZ E κλητικ c Uν$ρωπε κα' E 78 lineas 56 (*π? τν κυρων) – 62 (% δι-) post *φαιρετικ iterum scripsit Z, delevit Z1 80 τοGς πατ ρας post κλητικ iterum scripsit Z, delevit Z1 85 μητ ρεις] codicis lectionem dubitanter servavi, μητ ρσιν emendaverim
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
498
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
donatus graecus d
*φαιρετικ *π? το: *ν$ρ+που κα' *π? τς *ν$ρ+πουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF Uν$ρωποι κα' οF Uν$ρωποιZ E γενικ τν *ν$ρ+πωνZ E δοτικ το>ς *ν$ρ+ποις κα' τα>ς *ν$ρ+ποιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς *ν$ρ+πους κα' τ4ς *ν$ρ+πουςZ E κλητικ c Uν$ρωποι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *ν$ρ+πων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % qπας κα' E qπασα κα' τ? qπανZ E γενικ το: qπαντοςZ E δοτικ τ& qπαντι κα' Iπ(σQη κα' qπαντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν qπαντα κα' qπασαν κα' qπανZ E κλητικ c qπας κα' c qπασα κα' c qπαν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: qπαντος κα' Iπ(σηςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF qπαντες κα' qπασαι κα' qπανταZ E γενικ τν Iπ(ντων κα' Iπασν κα' Iπ(ντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς qπασιZ E ατιατικ τοGς qπαντας κα' Iπ(σας κα' qπανταZ E κλητικ c qπαντες κα' c qπασαι κα' c qπαντα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Iπ(ντων κα' Iπασν. Ποας κλσεως; Τρτης. Διατ; Διτι ,χει ν τQ γενικQ τν Sνικν κφωνο2μενον κατ4 τν λγουσαν τ? ης, Tς μο:σα μο2σης, δψα δψης. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E χερZ E γενικ τς χειρςZ E δοτικ τQ χειρZ E ατιατικ τν χε>ραZ E κλητικ c χε'ρ κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς χειρςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF χε>ρεςZ E γενικ τν χειρνZ E δοτικ τα>ς χερσZ E ατιατικ τ4ς χε>ραςZ E κλητικ c χε>ρες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν χειρν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τ? κ ραςZ E γενικ το: κ ρατοςZ E δοτικ τ& κ ρατιZ E ατιατικ τ? κ ραςZ E κλητικ c κ ρας κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: κ ρατοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α τ4 κ ραταZ E γενικ τν κερ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς κ ρασιZ E ατιατικ τ4 κ ραταZ E κλητικ c κ ρατα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν κερ(των. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τ? βλ μμαZ E γενικ το: βλ μματοςZ E δοτικ τ& βλ μματιZ E ατιατικ τ? βλ μμαZ E κλητικ c βλ μμα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: βλ μματοςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α τP βλ μματαZ E γενικ τν βλεμμ(τωνZ E δοτικ το>ς βλ μμασιZ E ατιατικ τ4 βλ μματαZ E κλητικ c βλ μματα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν βλεμμ(των. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τν Sνικν % *κο2ωνZ E γενικ το: *κο2οντοςZ E δοτικ τ& *κο2οντιZ E ατιατικ τ?ν *κο2ονταZ E κλητικ c *κο2ων κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: *κο2οντοςZ E ε5$ε>α τν πλη$υντικν οF *κο2οντεςZ E γενικ τν *κουντωνZ E δοτικ το>ς *κο2ουσιZ E ατιατικ τοGς *κο2ονταςZ E κλητικ c *κο2οντες κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν *κουντων. 94 lineas 90–94 (c Uν$ρωπε ... E κλητικ) post E κλητικ iterum scripsit Z 108 χε>ρες] χε>ραι Z 109 χε>ρες] χε>ραι Z 122 c *κο2ων] *κο:ον desideratur, cf. tamen 3. 37 (c λ γων)
de verbo
499
Ποας κλσεως; Τετ(ρτης. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ α5το: ,χει κφωνο2μενον ες τν λγουσαν τ? ος, Tς Α@ας Α@αντος, Μ(μας Μ(μαντος, Θας Θαντος. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E Eμ ραZ E γενικ τς Eμ ραςZ E δοτικ τQ Eμ ρRαZ E ατιατικ τν Eμ ρανZ E κλητικ c Eμ ρα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς Eμ ραςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF Eμ ραιZ E γενικ τν EμερνZ E δοτικ τα>ς Eμ ραιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς Eμ ραςZ E κλητικ c Eμ ραι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν Eμερν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α E μεσημβραZ E γενικ τς μεσημβραςZ E δοτικ τQ μεσημβρRαZ E ατιατικ τν μεσημβρανZ E κλητικ c μεσημβρα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τς μεσημβραςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α αF μεσημβραιZ E γενικ τν μεσημβρινZ E δοτικ τα>ς μεσημβραιςZ E ατιατικ τ4ς μεσημβραςZ E κλητικ c μεσημβραι κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν μεσημβριν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % βασιλε2ςZ E γενικ το: βασιλ ωςZ E δοτικ τ& βασιλε>Z E ατιατικ τ?ν βασιλ αZ E κλητικ c βασιλεGς κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: βασιλ ωςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF βασιλε>ςZ E γενικ τν βασιλ ωνZ E δοτικ το>ς βασιλε:σιZ E ατιατικ τοGς βασιλε>ςZ E κλητικ c βασιλε>ς κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν βασιλ ων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τ? ε=δοςZ E γενικ το: ε@δουςZ E δοτικ τ& ε@δειZ E ατιατικ τ? ε=δοςZ E κλητικ c ε=δος κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: ε@δουςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α τ4 ε@δηZ E γενικ τν εδνZ E δοτικ το>ς ε@δεσιZ E ατιατικ τ4 ε@δηZ E κλητικ c ε@δη κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν εδν. Ποας κλσεως; Π μπτης. Διατ; Διτι E γενικ α5τς ,χει κφωνο2μενον τ? ας κατ4 τν λγουσαν, Tς Eμ ρα Eμ ρας, μεσημβρα μεσημβρας.
130
135
140
145
150
2. Περ h+ματος *** Μ λλωνZ ε@$ε *κουσομην, *κο2σοιο, *κο2σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε *κουσομε$α, *κο2σοισ$ε, *κο2σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν *κο2ωμαι, 4ν *κο2Qη, 4ν *κο2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κου+με$α, 4ν *κο2- 5 ησ$ε, 4ν *κο2ωνται.
142 c βασιλεGς] βασιλε: desideratur 149 ε@δεσι] @δοις Z 2. 2 *κο2σοιο] -σοις Z, fort. servandum, cf. 25, 92, al.
500
10
15
20
25
30
35
donatus graecus d
ΠαρακεμενοςZ sκουσμ νος 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sκουσμ νοι 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. 8Ο *ριστοςZ 4ν *κο2σωμαι, 4ν *κο2σQη, 4ν *κο2σηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ+με$α, 4ν *κο2σησ$ε, 4ν *κο2σωνται. 8Ο μ λλωνZ 4ν *κουσ$σομαι, 4ν *κουσ$, 4ν *κουσ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν *κουσ$ησ+με$α, 4ν *κουσ$σεσ$ε, 4ν *κουσ$σωνται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *κο2εσ$αι. 8Ο *ριστοςZ *κο2σασ$αι. 8Ο μ λλωνZ *κουσ$σεσ$αι. Εμ, ε=, στZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμ ν, στ , εσ. ΠαρατατικςZ vν, vς, vνZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ vμεν, vτε, vσαν. Μ λλωνZ ,σομαι, ,σQη, ,σεται κα' ,σταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σμε$α, ,σεσ$ε, ,σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ,σο, ,στωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ,στε, ,στωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ ε@ην, ε@ης, ε@ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@ημεν, ε@ητε, ε@ησαν κα' ε=εν. Μ λλωνZ σομην, ,σοιο, ,σοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σομε$α, ,σοισ$ε, ,σοιντο. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισιςZ 4ν c, 4ν Qvς, 4ν QvZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν cμεν, 4ν vτε, 4ν cσι. Πρσσχες Wτι οiχ εiρσονται οF λοιπο' χρνοι ν το>ς †πλη$υντικο>ς† ν χρσει. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ ε=ναι. Μ λλωνZ ,σεσ$αι. Θ λω, $ λεις, $ λειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ λομεν, $ λετε, $ λουσι. Κα' % παρατατικςZ a$ελον, a$ελες, a$ελεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ λομεν, s$ λετε, a$ελον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ τε$ ληκα, τε$ ληκας, τε$ ληκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ τε$ελκαμεν, τε$ελκατε, τε$ελκασι. ΑριστοςZ s$ λησα, s$ λησας, s$ λησεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ s$ελσαμεν, s$ελσατε, s$ λησαν.
8 sκουσμ νοι] *κ- Z 11–13 codicis lectionem servavi 12 lineas 10 ( 4ν *κουσ+με$α) - 12 (πλη$υντικς) post πλη$υντικς iterum scripsit Z 15 *κο2σασ$αι] -σεσ$αι Z 21–22 ,σο, ,στωZ... ,στε, ,στωσαν] ,σω, ,σ$ωZ ... ,σ$ε, ,σ$ωσαν Z, fort. servanda, cf. a 2. 679–680, b 2. 419–420, c 2. 472–473 25 ,σοιο] ,σοις Z, fort. servandum, cf. 2, 92, al. 29 πλη$υντικο>ς] παρεληλυ$σι emendandum esse censeo
de verbo
501
Μ λλωνZ $ελσω, $ελσεις, $ελσειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ελσομεν, $ελσετε, $ελσουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισιςZ $ λε, $ελ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ λετε, $ελ τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνου νεσττοςZ $ λοιμι, $ λοις, $ λοιZ κα' πλη$υνκτικςZ $ λοιμεν, $ λοιτε, $ λοιεν. ΑριστοςZ $ελσαιμι, $ελσαις, $ελσαιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ελσαιμεν, $ελσαιτε, $ελσαιεν. Μ λλωνZ $ελσοιμι, $ελσοις, $ελσοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ $ελσοιμεν, $ελσοιτε, $ελσοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν $ λω, 4ν $ λQης, 4ν $ λQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ λωμεν, 4ν $ λητε, 4ν $ λωσι. ΑριστοςZ 4ν s$ λησα, 4ν $ λησας, ***Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν s$ελσαμεν, 4ν s$ελσατε, 4ν s$ λησαν. Μ λλωνZ 4ν $ελσω, 4ν $ελσQης, 4ν $ελσQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν $ελσωμεν, 4ν $ελσητε, 4ν $ελσωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ $ λειν. ΠαρακεμενοςZ βεβουληκ ναι. Μ λλωνZ Uχρηστος. Τ4 λοιπ4 Uχρηστα ν το>ς 8Ελληνικο>ς. Θ λων π$εν σχηματζεται; Απ? το: πρ+του προσ+που το: νεσττος, το: $ λω, κα' E μετοχ % $ λων. Φ ρω, φ ρεις, φ ρειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρομεν, φ ρετε, φ ρουσι. 8Ο παρατατικςZ ,φερον, ,φερες, ,φερεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρομεν, φ ρετε, ,φερον. ΟF Uλλοι Uχρηστοι. Μ λλωνZ ο@σω, ο@σεις, ο@σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ο@σομεν, ο@σετε, ο@σουσι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ φ ρε, φερ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρετε, φερ τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γλισις, χρνος νεστςZ φ ροιμι, φ ροις, φ ροιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ροιμεν, φ ροιτε, φ ροιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν φ ρω, 4ν φ ρQης, 4ν φ ρQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν φ ρωμεν, 4ν φ ρQη, 4ν φ ρωσι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν ο@σω, 4ν ο@σQης, 4ν ο@σQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν ο@σωμεν, 4ν ο@σητε, 4ν ο@σωσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ φ ρειν. Μ λλωνZ ο@σεσ$αι.
51 4ν $ λωμεν bis scripsit Z
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
502
80
85
90
95
100
105
donatus graecus d
8Ρμα μ ,χον πρσωπον, χρνου νεσττοςZ *** Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 8Ο φ ρων κα' % φερμενος. Φ ρων π$εν σχηματζεται; Απ? το: πρ+του προσ+που το: νεργητικο: κα' πα$ητικο: νεσττοςZ φ ρω, κα' E μετοχ % φ ρωνZ φ ρομαι, κα' E μετοχ % φερμενος. Φ ρομαι, φ ρQη, φ ρεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φερμε$α, φ ρεσ$ε, φ ρονται. ΠαρατατικςZ φερμην, φ ρου, φ ρετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φερμε$α, φ ρεσ$ε, φ ροντο. Μ λλωνZ ο@σομαι, ο@σQη, ο@σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οσμε$α, ο@σεσ$ε, ο@σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς ν τ& δευτ ρ&ω κα' τρτ&ω προσ+π&ωZ φ ρου, φερ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ φ ρεσ$ε, φερ σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ ε@$ε φερομην, φ ροιο, φ ροιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε φερομε$α, φ ροισ$ε, φ ροιντο. Εσ$ω, σ$εις, σ$ειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ομεν, σ$ετε, σ$ουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ aσ$ιον, aσ$ιες, aσ$ιεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ sσ$ομεν, sσ$ετε, aσ$ιον. Μ λλωνZ σ$ι(σω, σ$ι(σεις, σ$ι(σειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ι(σομεν, σ$ι(σετε, σ$ι(σησαν ] σ$ασαν. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ ,σ$ιε, σ$ι τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$ετε, σ$ι τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ σ$οιμι, σ$οις, σ$οιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σ$οιμεν, σ$οιτε, σ$οιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν σ$, 4ν σ$RPς, 4ν σ$RPZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν σ$μεν, 4ν σ$Pτε, 4ν σ$σι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται ***. Πορε2ομαι, πορε2Qη, πορε2εταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμε$α, πορε2εσ$ε, πορε2ονται. ΠαρατατικςZ πορευμην, πορε2ου, πορε2ετοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευμε$α, πορε2εσ$ε, πορε2οντο.
88 ο@σονται] ο@σεντο Z 92 φ ροιο] φ ροις Z, fort. servandum, cf. 2, 25, al. 97–98 codicis lectionem servavi 103–104 σ$ ... 94 σ$ουσι] σ$ησαν Z σ$σι] codicis lectionem servavi
de verbo
503
ΠαρακεμενοςZ πεπρευμαι, πεπρευσαι, πεπρευταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πεπορε2με$α, πεπρευσ$ε, πεπορευ***. ΑριστοςZ πορε2$ην, πορε2$ης, πορε2$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2$ημεν, πορε2$ητε, πορε2$ησαν. Μ λλωνZ πορευ$σομαι, πορευ$σQη, πορευ$σεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορευ$ησμε$α, πορευ$σεσ$ε, πορευ$σονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ πορε2ου, πορευ σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2εσ$ε, πορευ σ$ωσαν. Μ λλωνZ πορε2$ητι, πορευ$τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ πορε2$ητε, πορευ$τωσαν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν πορε2ωμαι, 4ν πορε2Qη, 4ν πορε2ηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ+με$α, 4ν πορε2ησ$ε, 4ν πορε2ωνται. Μ λλωνZ 4ν πορευ$, 4ν πορευ$Qς, 4ν πορευ$QZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν πορευ$μεν, 4ν πορευ$τε, 4ν πορευ$σι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ πορε2εσ$αι. ΑριστοςZ πορευ$ναι. 8Ο μ σος μ λλωνZ πορευ$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος; Δ2ο. Πο>αι; 8Ο πορε2ων κα' % πορευμενος. Χαρω, χαρεις, χαρειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρομεν, χαρετε, χαρουσι. ΠαρατατικςZ ,χαιρον, ,χαιρες, ,χαιρεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρομεν, χαρετε, ,χαιρον. ΠαρακεμενοςZ κεχ(ρηκα, κεχ(ρηκας, κεχ(ρηκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ κεχαρκαμεν, κεχαρκατε, κεχαρκασι. Μ λλωνZ χαρ, χαρε>ς, χαρε>Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρο:μεν, χαρε>τε, χαρο:σι. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ χα>ρε, χαιρ τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαρετε, χαιρ τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ χαροιμι, χαροις, χαροιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ χαροιμεν, χαροιτε, χαροιεν. Το: μ λλοντος οF χρνοι Uχρηστοι. Μ λλωνZ χαρσοιμι, χαρσοις, *** χαρσοιτε, χαρσοιεν.
111 πεπρευσ$ε] πεπορε2εσ$ε Z, cf. a 2. 881(a) | πεπορευ***] πεπορ βετε Z (fort. pro -ε2εται), πεπρευνται aut πεπορευμ νοι εσ scripserim, cf. a. 2. 881(a), c 2. 714 123–124 codicis 116 κα' παρατατικς post νεστς (-?ς cod.) scripsit delevitque Z 133–134 lectionem servavi 123 4ν πορευ$ post πορευ$Qς iterum scripsit Z κεχ(ρηκα ... κεχαρκασι] κεχαρι- Z 133 κεχ(ρηκας] -κες Z 135 χαρο:μεν] -μεν Z, cf. 146 135–136 χαρο:σι ] -σι Z, cf. 147
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
504
145
150
155
160
165
170
donatus graecus d
8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ 4ν χαρω, 4ν χαρQης, 4ν χαρQηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαρωμεν, 4ν χαρητε, 4ν χαρωσι. Το: μ λλοντος οF χρνοι Uχρηστοι. Μ λλωνZ 4ν χαρ, 4ν χαρQς, 4ν χαρQZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν χαρμεν, 4ν χαρτε, 4ν χαρσι. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ χαρειν. ΑριστοςZ χαρεσ$αι. Μ λλωνZ χαρναι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος το: ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο:; Τρε>ςZ χαρων κα' χαιρμενος ***. Χαρων π$εν σχηματζεται; Απ? το: πρ+του προσ+που το: νεργητικο:, το: χαρω, κα' E μετοχ % χαρων. Χαιρμενος π$εν σχηματζεται; Απ? το: πρ+του προσ+που το: πα$ητικο:, το: χαρομαι, κα' E μετοχ % χαιρμενος. Γνομαι, γνQη, γνεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γινμε$α, γνεσ$ε, γνονται. ΠαρακεμενοςZ γεγ νηκα, γεγ νηκας, γεγ νηκεZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγενμε$α, γεγ νησ$ε, γεγ νηνται. ΑριστοςZ γεν$ην, γεν$ης, γεν$ηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεν$ημεν, γεν$ητε, γεν$ησαν. 8Υπερσυντ λικοςZ γεγενκην, *** γεγενκηZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γεγ νημαι, γεγνησαι, γεγ νηντο. Μ λλωνZ γενσομαι, γενσQη, γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γενησμε$α, γενσεσ$ε, γενσονται. Προστακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ γνου, γιν σ$ωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ γνεσ$ε, γιν σ$ωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ ε@$ε γενομην, γ νοιο, γ νοιτοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γενομε$α, γ νοισ$ε, γ νοιντο. ΠαρακεμενοςZ ε@$ε γεγενκοιμι, γεγενκοις, γεγενκοιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε γεγενκοιμεν, γεγενκοιτε, γεγενκοιεν. 8Υποτακτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ 4ν γνωμαι, 4ν γνQη, 4ν γνηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γιν+με$α, 4ν γνησ$ε, 4ν γνωνται.
149 codicis lectionem dubitanter servavi 150 codicis lectionem dubitanter servavi 152 τρε>ς] τρα Z, cf. D: tria (participia) 158 γεγ νηκα ... γεγ νηκε] codicis lectionem servavi, γεγ νημαι, γεγ νησαι, γεγ νηται desiderantur (cf. 162–163 γεγ νημαι, γεγ 162–163 codicis lectionem servavi 166 γιν σ$ω] γεν- Z, cf. c 2. 787 νησαι) 167 γιν σ$ωσαν] γεν- Z, cf. c 2. 788 170 γεγενκοιμι, γεγενκοις] γενοκοιμι, γενο174 lineas 166 (προστακτικ ...) -174 (... γνωνται) κοις Z, γε supra lineam add. Z1 post γνωνται iterum scripsit Z
de participio
505
Μ λλωνZ 4ν γενσομαι, 4ν γενσQη, 4ν γενσεταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ 4ν γενησμε$α, 4ν γενσεσ$ε, 4ν γενσονται. Απαρ μφατος ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστς κα' παρατατικςZ *** Μ λλωνZ γενη$σεσ$αι. Πσαι μετοχα' γνονται *π? το2του το: #ματος το: πα$ητικο:; *** παρακειμ νουZ *** Μ μνημαι, μ μνησαι, μ μνηταιZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μεμνμε$α, μ μνησ$ε, μ μνηνται. Παρατατικ?ς κα' παρακεμενοςZ μεμνμην, μ μνησο, μ μνητοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μεμνμε$α, μ μνησ$ε, μ μνηντο. ΟF Uλλοι χρνοι ξ λιπον. Προστακτικ ,γκλισιςZ μμνου, μιμν τωZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ μμνετε, μιμν τωσαν. Ε5κτικ ,γκλισις, χρνος νεστ+ςZ ε@$ε μμνημι, μμνηο, μμνητοZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ ε@$ε μιμνμε$α, μμνησ$ε, μμνηντο. ΟF Uλλοι χρνοι ο5κ ,χουσιν.
175
180
185
190
3. Περ μετοχ7ς Λ γων τ μ ρος λγου στ; Μετοχς στι. Διατ στι μετοχς; Διτι κρατε> μ ρος το: νματος κα' μ ρος το: #ματος. Κα' *π? μ3ν το: νματος ,χει γ νος κα' πτσιν, *π? δ3 το: #ματος χρνον κα' δι($εσιν, κα' ξ *μφωτ ρων *ρι$μ?ν κα' σχμα. ΜετοχQ πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Γ νος, πτσις, χρνος, δι($εσις, 5 *ρι$μ?ς κα' σχμα. Ποου γ νους; ΠαντοουZ *ρσενικο: ] $ηλυκο: ] ο5δετ ρου, κατ4 τν *πατησιν το: νο: κα' τν κατ(στασιν τς γραφς. Ποας πτ+σεως; Ορ$ς κα' ε5$εας τν SνικνZ κατ ρχεται δ3 κα' ες τ4ς Uλλας πτ+σεις κατ4 τ? iποκεμενον το: λγου. 10 Ποου χρνου; Ενεσττος κα' παρατατικο:. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % μετοχικ?ς νεστς κα' παρατατικ?ς ες ων λγει, οmον *γαπν, διδ(σκων, λ γων. Ποου χρνου; Παρακειμ νου κα' *ορστου. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % παρακεμενος κα' *ριστος τς μετοχς το: νεργητικο: ες ως κα' ες 15 175–176 codicis lectionem servavi 183 μεμνμην] μ μνημαι Z, cf. 181 188–189 codicis lectionem servavi, fort. μμνοι- scribendum, sed textus valde corruptus videtur 9 3. 1 μετοχς] μετοχ desideratur, sed cf. 5. 1 προ$ σεως et 6. 1 πιρρματος κατ ρχεται] -(ρχεται Z, cf. b 3. 9
506
20
25
30
35
40
45
donatus graecus d
ας λγειZ % μ3ν παρακεμενος ες ως, οmον γεγραφ+ς, % δ3 *ριστος ες ας, οmον γρ(ψας. Ποου χρνου; Μ λλοντος. Διατ; Διτι κα$λου % μ λλων τς νεργητικς μετοχς ες ων λγει μετ4 το: συμφ+νου ο[περ *παιτε> τ?ν μ λλοντα ,χειν, οmον τ2ψων, λαλσων. Ποου γ νους; Ενεργητικο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? νεργητικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο; Αγαπ, *γαπRPς, κα' παρ(γεται *γαπν. Ποας δια$ σεως; Πα$ητικς. Διατ; Διτι *π? #ματος πα$ητικο: παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο[ν]; Αγαπμαι, κα' γ γονε *γαπ+μενος. Ποου γ νους; Ο5δετ ρου. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δετ ρου #ματος παρ(γεται. Πο>ον στ'ν κε>νο; Κ($ημαι, κα' γ γονε κα$μενος. Ποου γ νους; Κοινο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? κοινο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Τ στιν κε>νο; Χαρζομαι, κα' γ γονε χαριζμενος. Ποου γ νους; Μεταβατικο:. Διατ; Διτι *π? μεταβατικο: #ματος παρ(γεται. Τ στιν κε>νο[ς]; Πορε2ομαι, κα' γ γονε πορευμενος. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι Sνικς προφ ρεται. Ποου *ρι$μο:; Πλη$υντικο:. Διατ; Διτι πλη$υντικς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:. Διατ; Διτι Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου σχματος; Συν$ του. Διατ; Διτι συν$ τως προφ ρεται. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τν Sνικν % λ γων, E λ γουσα, τ? λ γονZ το: λ γοντος, τς λεγο2σης, το: λ γοντοςZ τ& λ γοντι, τQ λεγο2σQη, τ& λ γοντιZ τ?ν λ γοντα, τν λ γουσαν, τ? λ γονZ c λ γων κα' c λ γουσα, c λ γονZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οF λ γοντες, αF λ γουσαι, τ4 λ γονταZ τν λεγντων, τν λεγουσν, τν λεγντωνZ το>ς λ γουσι, τα>ς λεγο2σαις, το>ς λ γουσιZ τοGς λ γοντας, τ4ς λεγο2σας, τ4 λ γονταZ c λ γοντες, c λ γουσαι, c λ γοντα. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τν Sνικν % λελεγμ νος, E λελεγμ νη, τ? λελεγμ νονZ το: λελεγμ νου, τς λελεγμ νης, το: λελεγμ νουZ τ& λελεγμ ν&ω, τQ λελεγμ νQη, τ& λελεγμ ν&ωZ τ?ν λελεγμ νον, τν λελεγμ νην, τ? λελεγμ νονZ c λελεγμ νε, c λελεγμ νη, c λελεγμ νονZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οF λελεγμ νοι, αF λελεγμ ναι, τ4 λελεγμ ναZ τν λελεγμ νωνZ το>ς λελεγμ νοις, τα>ς λελεγμ ναις το>ς λελεγμ νοιςZ τοGς λελεγμ νους, τ4ς λελεγμ νας, τ4 λελεγμ ναZ c λελεγμ νοι, c λελεγμ ναι, c λελεγμ να.
18 μ λλοντος] μ λλων Z b 3. 42
20 ,χειν] ,χων Z, cf. b 3. 20
45 λελεγμ νε] -μ νον Z, cf.
de pronomine
507
4. Περ ντωνυμ ας Εγ ποου μ ρους στν; Αντωνυμα στ. Διατ στιν *ντωνυμα; Διτι κε>ται ν τπ&ω νματος κα' σαφς δεικν2ει τ? πρσωπον. ΑντωνυμRα πσα παρ πεται; jΕξ. Πο>α; Ε=δος, γ νος, *ρι$μς, σχμα, πρσωπον κα' πτσις. Ποου γ νους; Παντοου, κατ4 τ?ν τπον *ρσενικο: ] $ηλυκο: ] ουδετ ρου, κα$+ς στι τ? iποκεμενον τς γραφς. Ποου ε@δους; Προτωτ2που. Διατ; Διτι *π’ ο5δεν?ς παρ(γεται. Ποου ε@δους; Παραγ+γου. Π$εν παρ(γεται; Απ? τς σφετ ρας συν$ σεως. Ποου *ρι$μο:; 8Ενικο:. Διατ; Διτι *** *** Iπλς προφ ρεται. Ποου προσ+που; Τρτου. Διατ; Διτι π(ντα τ4 νματα κα' αF *ντωνυμαι εσ' τρτου προσ+που, χωρ'ς το: γ+, Wπερ στ' πρ+του, κα' το: σ2, Wπερ στ' δευτ ρου, κα' τν κλητικν πτ+σεων κα' τν ξ α5τν παραγομ νων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α γ+Z E γενικ μο:Z E δοτικ μοZ E ατιατικ μ Z E κλητικ ο5κ ,χειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α Eμ ες, Eμε>ςZ E γενικ Eμ ων, EμνZ E δοτικ Eμ>νZ E ατιατικ Eμ ας, EμPςZ E κλητικ ο5κ ,χει κα' E *φαιρετικ *φ’ Eμν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α σ2Z E γενικ σο:Z E δοτικ σοZ E ατιατικ σ Z E κλητικ σG κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σο:Z []] κα' πλη$ηντικςZ E ε5$ε>α iμ ες, iμε>ςZ E γενικ iμ ων, iμνZ E δοτικ iμ>νZ E ατιατικ iμ ας, iμPςZ E κλητικ c iμ ες, iμε>ς κα' E *φαιρετικ *φ’ iμν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α @, κα στιν UχρηστονZ κα' E γενικ α5το: ο[ κα' E δοτικ οm κα' E ατιατικ ν χρσειZ E κλητικ ο5κ ,χειZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ σφε>ς, σφν, σφσι, σφPς. 8Η ρ$ κα' E ε5$ε>α κε>νος, κενη, κε>νοZ E γενικ κενου, κενης, κενουZ E δοτικ κεν&ω, κενQη, κεν&ωZ E ατιατικ κε>νον, κενην, κε>νο κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ κενου, *π’ κενης, *π’ κενουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α κε>νοι, κε>ναι, κε>ναZ E γενικ κενωνZ E δοτικ κενοιςZ E ατιατικ κενους, κενας, κε>να κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ κενων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α ο[τος, α_τη, το:τοZ E γενικ το2του, τα2της, το2τουZ E δοτικ το2τ&ω, τα2τQη, το2τ&ωZ E ατιατικ το:τον, τα2την, το:το[ν]Z 4. 11 inter διτι et Iπλς lacunam statui, cf. b 4. 9–11 12–13 αF *ντωνυμαι] τ4 *ντωνυμα Z, cf. b 4. 13, c 4. 13–14 24–26 ; ... σφPς emendavi secundum b 4. 26–28 24 @, κα στιν] ε κα' ,στιν Z
5
10
15
20
25
30
508
donatus graecus d
35 E *φαιρετικ *π? το2του, *π? τα2της, *π? το2τουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ
40
45
50
55
60
65
E ε5$ε>α ο[τοι, α[ται, τα:ταZ E γενικ το2τωνZ E δοτικ το2τοις, τα2ταις, το2τοιςZ E ατιατικ το2τους, τα2τας, τα:τα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το2των. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α α5τς, α5τ, α5τZ E γενικ α5το:, α5τς, α5το:Z E δοτικ α5τ&, α5τQ, α5τ&Z E *ιτιατικ α5τν, α5τν, α5τ? κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5το:, *π’ α5τς, *π’ α5το:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α α5το, α5τα, α5τ(Z E γενικ α5τνZ E δοτικ α5το>ς, α5τα>ς, α5το>ςZ E ατιατικ α5το2ς, α5τ(ς, α5τ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ α5τν. Κα' το:το παρ’ jΕλλησιν α5τς σημανει ***. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α μς, μ, μνZ E γενικ μο:, μς, μο:Z E δοτικ μ&, μQ, μ&Z E ατιατικ μν, μν, μνZ E *φαιρετικ *π’ μο:, *π’ μς, *π’ μο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α μο, μα, μ(Z E γενικ μνZ E δοτικ μο>ςZ E ατιατικ μο2ς, μ(ς, μ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π’ μν. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α σς, σ, σνZ E γενικ σο:, σς, σο:Z E δοτικ σ&, σQ, σ&Z E ατιατικ σν, σν, σ?ν κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σο:, *π? σς, *π? σο:Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α σο, σα, σ(Z E γενικ σνZ E δοτικ σο>ς, σα>ς, σο>ςZ E ατιατικ σο2ς, σ(ς, σ4 κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? σν. 8Η ε5$ε>α Wς, d, W[ν]Z E γενικ ο[, Xς, ο[Z E δοτικ &x, QX, &xZ E ατιατικ Wν, dν, W[ν]Z κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α ο;, α;, qZ E γενικ xνZ E δοτικ οmς, αmς, οmςZ E ατιατικ ο_ς, qς, q. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % Eμ τερος, E Eμετ ρα, τ? Eμ τερονZ E γενικ το: Eμετ ρου, τς Eμετ ρας, το: Eμετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& Eμετ ρ&ω, τQ Eμετ ρRα, τ& sμετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν Eμ τερον, τν Eμετ ραν, τ? Eμ τερον κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: Eμετ ρου, *π? τς Eμετ ρας, *π? το: Eμετ ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF Eμ τεροι, αF Eμ τεραι, τ4 Eμ τεραZ E γενικ τν Eμετ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς Eμετ ροις, τα>ς Eμετ ραις, το>ς Eμετ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς Eμετ ρους, τ4ς Eμετ ρας, τ4 Eμ τεραZ ***. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α % iμ τερος, E iμετ ρα, τ? iμ τερονZ E γενικ το: iμετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& iμετ ρ&ω, τQ iμετ ρRα, τ& iμετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ *** κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: iμετ ρου, *π? τς iμετ ρας, *π? το: iμετ ρουZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ οF iμ τεροι, αF iμ τεραι, *** τοGς iμετ ρους, τ4ς iμετ ρας, τ4 iμ τεραZ ***.
48 μα>ς, μο>ς om. Z fort. ex D meis, quod est trium generum (cf. tamen 52–53 σο>ς 48–49 *π’ μν] *φ’ Eμν Z, cf. b 4. 69 52 σ(] σο Z σα>ς σο>ς pro tuis) 67–68 verba τοGς iμετ ρους ... τ4 iμ τερα a linea 66 transposui, ubi pro accusativo singulari leguntur
de praepositione
509
8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τν Sνικν % σφ τερος, E σφετ ρα, τ? σφ τερονZ E γενικ το: σφετ ρου, τς σφετ ρας, το: σφετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& σφετ ρ&ω, τQ σφετ ρRα, τ& σφετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν σφ τερον, τν σφετ ραν, τ? σφ τερονZ E κλητικ c σφ τερε, c σφετ ρα κα' c σφ τερον κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? το: σφετ ρου, *π? τς σφετ ραςZ κα' πλη$υντικςZ E ε5$ε>α οF σφ τεροι, αF σφ τεραι, τ4 σφ τεραZ E γενικ τν σφετ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς σφετ ροις, τα>ς σφετ ραις, το>ς σφετ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς σφετ ρους, τ4ς σφετ ρας, τ4 σφ τεραZ E κλητικ c σφ τεροι, c σφ τεραι [κα' c σφ τεροι] κα' c σφ τερα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν σφετ ρων. 8Η ρ$ κα' ε5$ε>α τν Sνικν % iμ τερος, E iμετ ρα, τ? iμ τερονZ E γενικ το: iμετ ρου, τς iμετ ρας, το: iμετ ρουZ E δοτικ τ& iμετ ρ&ω, τQ iμετ ρRα, τ& iμετ ρ&ωZ E ατιατικ τ?ν iμ τερον, τν iμετ ραν, τ? iμ τερονZ E κλητικ c iμ τερε, c iμετ ρα, c iμ τερονZ E ε5$ε>α τν πλη$υντικν οF iμ τεροι, αF iμ τεραι, τ4 iμ τεραZ E γενικ τν iμετ ρωνZ E δοτικ το>ς iμετ ροις, τα>ς iμετ ραις, το>ς iμετ ροιςZ E ατιατικ τοGς iμετ ρους, τ4ς iμετ ρας, τ4 iμ τεραZ E κλητικ c iμ τεροι, c iμ τεραι, c iμ τερα κα' E *φαιρετικ *π? τν iμετ ρων.
70
75
80
85
5. Περ προ4σεως Πρς, ες, Tς, ποου μ ρους λγου στν; Προ$ σεως στ. Διατ στι πρ$εσις [ στ]; Διτι προτ$εται π(ντων τν το: λγου μερν ,ν τε συν$ σει κα' συντ(ξειZ ν μ3ν τQ συν$ σει οmον *ναφορ(, εσφορ(, ν δ3 τQ συντ(ξει οmον π' τς Αττικς, κατ4 τς Αττικς. Πρ?ς πο>αν πτσιν iπηρετε>; Ατιατικν. Απ? τς προ$ σεως iπηρετε> 5 ατιατικν πτσινZ πρς, Tς, πρ, κατ(, πιτ(δε, περ, κατ(, περ, ,ξω, ,νδον, ,σω, κ(τω, δι(, γγ2ς, [ν:ν], δι(, πλησον, kνεκεν, κατ(, μετ(, π κεινα, π ρα[ν], παρ(, Uνω, περ, kως, παρ(, Uλλως. Απ? πο>αν πτσιν iπηρετε>; Αφαιρετικν. Απ? τς προ$ σεως iπηρετε> *φαιρετικν πτσινZ *π, κ, π, ν, *ντικρ2, κρ2βδην, *π, κ, ξ, 10 γγ2ς, φανερς, *ν(, σ2ν, δχα, π ρας. Εν πο>αν πτσιν iπηρετε>; 8Εκατ ραν. Απ? τς προ$ σεως iπηρετε> Sκατ ραν πτσινZ ν, iπ, νεπ' κα' νυπ. Πσαι προ$ σεις εσ' α;τινες ο5κ ,ρχονται ε μ ν συν$σει; jΕξ.
78–85 cf. 64–68, sed iμ τερος ut vestras pronomen Latinum videtur scripsisse Z 5. 3 συντ(ξει] συν$ σει iterum Z
510
donatus graecus d 6. Περ "πιρρ+ματος
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ν:ν ποου μ ρους λγου στ; Επιρρματς στι. Διατ στιν πιρρματος; Διτι ;σταται ν τπ&ω #ματος ] πιλεγμενον #ματι. Τ& πιρρματι πσα παρ πεται; Τρα. Πο>α; Ε@δη, δια$ σεις κα' σχματα. Ποας δια$ σεως; Χρονικς, οmονZ σμερον, χ$ ς, ν:ν, Uρτι, αuριον, ποτ , π(λαι, ττε, ,σ$’ Wτε, aδη, διαπαντς, *ε, %πηνκα.
Η τπου, οmονZ xδε ] ντε:$εν, κε>, ,ν$εν, ,ξω, ,σω, ,ξω, ,ν$εν, W$εν.
Η συντ(ξεως, οmονZ τ? ντε:$εν, [πο:,] λοιπν, φεξς, συνεχς, διηνεκς, α5τκα, &x, ν [τ&] το2τ&ω. NΕτι ποιτητος, οmονZ καλς, κακς, συνε[σ]τς, Tραως, *νδρεως, Eδ ως. NΕτι ποστητος, οmονZ λαν, λγον, πολ2, βραχ2, μ(λιστα, *** Uρα, οyν, ο_τως. NΕτι *ρι$μο:, οmονZ qπαξ, δς, τρς, τετρ(κις, μυρι(κις, τοσαυτ(κις, ποσ(κις.
Η συγκρσεως, οmονZ μPλλον, Xττον, πλ ον, Tς κα' *ντ.
Η διακρσεως, οmονZ κα$’ αiτο:, παρ(, δRα, χωρς, δRα, κρ2φα, δχα, καταμνας, διχς, τριχς κα' πολλαχς. NΕτι iπερ$ετικν, οmονZ μ(λιστα κα' μ(λιστα δεδιδαγμ νως. NΕτι *ρνητικ(, οmονZ ο5, οuκουν, ο5δ ν, μτε, οuτε, ο5χ, λ(χιστα, ο5δαμς.
Η συνα$ροσεως, οmονZ qμα, %μο:, %μοως, κατ’ α5τ[ν].
Η κωλ2σεως, οmονZ μ.
Η *ν σεως, οmονZ μλις, κατ4 μικρν, β(δην, σχεδν, οFονε.
Η %μοι+σεως, οmονZ Tσανε' ] Tσπερε, Eλκως, κα$(, κα$(περ, Tσα2τως, να.
Η ρωτσεως, οmονZ διτι, διατ, δι.
Η εκασμο:, οmονZ τ(χα, τυχν, @σως, @σως κα' τ(χα.
Η προαιρ σεως, οmονZ μPλλον, μPλλον μ3ν ο:ν.
Η παρακελε2σεως, οmονZ εmα, Uγε, Uγετε.
Η δεξεως, οmονZ ν ] δο2. Ποου σχματος; 8Απλο:, κα' τ4 λοιπ(.
6. 7 τπου in marg. add. Z 20 δεδιδαγμ νως] δεδιγμ νως Z, δα super lineam add. Z1 26–27 Tσα2τως] Tσειο2τως Z 31 Uγετε] Uνετε legitur, sed cf. D: agite
de coniunctione
511
7. Περ παρεμβολ7ς "πιρρ+ματος Βαβα' τ μ ρος στ; Παρεμβολς πιρρματος. Διατ παρεμβολς στιν πιρρματος; Διτι ***. Ποας σημασας; ΣχετλιαστικςZ +, ο:.
Η $αυμαστικ(Z βαβα, φε:.
8. Περ συνδσμου Κα' τ μ ρος λγου στ; Σ2νδεσμος. Διατ στι σ2νδεσμος; Διτι συνδε> τ4 Uλλα μ ρη το: λγου ες δι(νοιαν μετ4 τ(ξεως κα' τ? τς Sρμηνεας κεχην?ς πληρο:σαZ κα' γνεται *π? το: συνδε>ν, τ? δεσμε>ν. Ποου ε@δους; Συμπλεκτικο:. Συμπλεκτικο εσιν Wσοι συμπλ κουσι τ4ς λ ξεις, οmονZ κα, τε, κατοι, μ ν, *λλ(, δ , *τ(ρ, α5τ(ρ. ΟF δ3 συναπτικο' *** ε, (ν. ΣυζευκτικοZ ε@περ ***. ΑτιολογικοZ *** *** δηλαδ *** ΔιαζευκτικοZ *** 8ΥποδιαζευκτικοZ *** Απορ[ρ]ηματικοZ *** ΕναντιωματικοZ *** ΑπαρνσεωςZ *** *** ε@περ *** Συναπτικο' ] #ηματικοZ *** *** το>νυν, τοιγαρο:ν. *** hστε *** [ΑπορρηματικοZ] zρα, v. [ΣυμπλεκτικοZ] 8ΥποκοριστικοZ κUν, γο:ν. Ποας τ(ξεως; *** Πσοι σ2νδεσμο εσι iποτακτικς τ(ξεως; jΕξ. Πο>οι; NΗ, aτοι, τοι κατ4 τοGς ποιητ(ς, δ , μ ν, τε, sμ ν.
8.
3 πληρο:σα] πληρο> emendaverim, cf. tamen c 8. 2 πσαι Z | πο>οι] πο>αι Z 24 Deo gratias expl. Z
6 οF δ3] sδ3 Z
23 πσοι]
5
10
15
20
NOTES*
Donatus graecus a pr. 5 κατ4 τ?ν τρπον: the translator probably confused the Latin verb pono with the preposition pone, “in the rear of,” “behind.” Cf. b pr. 5 (V): τ$ημι τρπον. 1. 32–35: an intransitive verb can only take the nominative, unlike a transitive verb, which takes the accusative; cf. Planudes, Dial. de gramm., p. 89, 3–6 Bachmann, about the distinction between a nominative and an accusative neuter: Wταν μ3ν *μεταβ(τως τ? #μα πρ?ς τ? ο5δ τερον συντ(σσηται, [the neuter] ε5$ε>α στνZ Wταν δ3 μεταβατικς, ατιατικZ πειδ κα' πPν #μα *μεταβ(τως μ ν, ε5$εRα συντ(σσεται, μεταβατικς δ , πλαγRα. The Latin quia verbum intransitive positum construitur cum nominativo casu would require, in Greek, a participle, e.g., τι$ μενον or συντασσμενον; in fact, συντασσμενον appears in b 1. 24 and d 1. 24. A marginal note in B (fol. 2r): διτι στ' #μα *μεταβ(() κα' συντασσμη() (sic) τ4 νομαστικς πτ(+σεως), justifies this interpretation; it also shows that the compilers of Pylai tried to correct texts that they considered to be corrupted. 1. 43 νομαστικ: see above, 181 n. 71 1. 48–52 s μο:σα / haec musa: in Donatus’ Ars minor (2, p. 587 Holtz) musa is quoted as an example of a feminine noun. 1. 62–64 Αβρα(μ: Hebrew names are indeclinable in Greek (cf. b 1. 89 ff.) and are usually considered indeclinable in Latin as well. Cf., e.g., Charisius, Inst, gramm 1. 17, GL 1, 118: Adam * πρωτπλαστος monoptoton est, proin Latine ut et Graece. Abraham […] monoptoton esse censeto. * See Introduction, p. XXII f. n. 27. On manuscripts’ and editions’ list of abbreviations, see above, p. 30 n. 89 and pp. 263 f., 401, 429, and 493.
514
notes
Jerome’s version of the Bible (the Vulgate), however, shows a very free usage: Abraham is either declined (e.g., Gal. 3. 7 filii Abrahae; 3. 8 praenuntiavit Abrahae, etc.) or left unchanged (Mt. 1. 1 filii Abraham; Gal. 3. 9 cum fideli Abraham; etc.). 1. 84–88 σκαμνον: this term is a borrowing from Latin and means “stool” or “footstool,” “bench” (cf. mod. Gr. τ σκαμν). Cf., e.g., Jo. Mosch Prat. 61, PG 87.3, 2913; and Const. Porphyr. De Cer., App. ad l. I, p. 495.9 Reiske (Bonn 1829). 1. 89–93 % μαtστωρ / hic magister: the declension of magister is also in Donatus’ Ars minor (2, p. 586 Holtz). Pylê a translates the term with the Latin borrowing μαtστωρ, used in tenth-century Byzantine texts (cf. Sophokles, s.v. μαγστωρ). 1. 97–103 πPσα κλητικ … συλλαβν: Gl1, the Latin version in G, reads: omnis vocativus est similis suo nominativo apud Latinos ut pater, preterquam in nominibus secunde declinationis desinentibus in us que faciunt vocativum per mutationem us in e, preter propria nomina virorum habentia ***; preter unum appellativum, quod facit ***; quidem alia reperiuntur contra hanc regulam. Et notandum, quod propria nomina desinentia in us debent superare suum positivum unam syllabam. Schmitt (1966, 56 n. 59) also notes that a similar excursus appears in the grammar written by Pietro da Isolella in the thirteenth century (see Fierville 1886, 47 f. and 133): vocativus est similis suo nominativo, ut satur, o satur, et scampnum, o scampnum. Preter desinentia in us, que faciunt vocativum per mutationem us in e, ut dominus, us in e, fit domine. Preter propria nomina virorum habentia i ante us, que faciunt vocativum per abstractionem us, ut Virgilius, o Virgili, et Laurencius, o Laurenci; preter unum appellativum, quod est filius, quod facit tam in e quam in i, ut filie vel fili. Si que inveniuntur contra hanc regulam facientia, dicatur quod nominativus sit positus pro vocativo, ut Deus, o Deus, etc. Gl1 suggests some corrections in the Greek text, such as το>ς λγουσιν instead of the transmitted τς ληγο2σης (Gl1: in nominibus secunde declinationis desinentibus in us). Schmitt changed the relative pronouns α;τινες (ABCGNQ) and ο;τινες (BmO) into qτινα, which agrees with the neuter το>ς νμασι (Gl1: in nominibus … que), and changed τν χντων into τ4 ,χοντα, which refers to τ4 κ2ρια νματα (Gl1: preter propria nomina virorum habentia etc.). The text of x, πλν Sν?ς προσηγορικο: Wπερ ποιε> ο_τως ε ( G) μ3ν kτερα *λλ4 (Uλλον G) ξετ(ζονται κατ4 το2του το: καννος, only partially coincides with Gl1’s preter unum
notes
515
appellativum quod facit […]; quidem aliqua alia reperiuntur contra hanc regulam. Schmitt’s hypothesis that ε (or ) originated from a distortion of υF due to iotacism is certainly persuasive, but his conjecture τ4 μ3ν kτερα [*λλ4] ξετ(ζονται κ.τ.λ. fails to convey the adversative tone of the Latin original (“indeed, other nouns can be found against this rule”; for ξετ(ζομαι as “to be numbered, counted,” see LSJ, s.v. ξετ(ζω). In fact, *λλ( must be retained. G’s reading Uλλον suggests that it could be taken as Uλλα, “other (nouns),” explaining or correcting kτερα, and therefore misplaced in the sentence, which certainly could not start with μ ν. The text was perhaps *λλ4 μν kτερα ξετ(ζονται κατ4 το2του το: καννος: the exchange ε / η is frequent in Western manuscripts. 1. 102–103 κα' στ ον … συλλαβν: “And it must be known that a proper name ending in -us must exceed its positive with respect to one syllable”: a simple change of $ετικν (“positive”) into κλητικν (“vocative”) may restore the original sense of the sentence. The vocative of the proper names in -ius, in fact, ends in -i, i.e., is e shorter than the nominative by one syllabl: cf. Phocas, Ars de nomine et de verbo, GL 5, 429: Omnium nominum, cuiuscumque sit declinationis, vocativus singularis similis est nominativo eiusdem numeri […] exceptis nominibus secundae declinationis, quorum vocativus diversis modis exprimitur. Propria igitur nomina quae in nominativo casu singulari us syllaba terminantur i vocali praeposita vocativum adempta novissima syllaba faciunt, ut hic Vergilius o Vergili, hic Terentius o Terenti, etc.; and Priscian, Inst. gramm. 7. 18, GL 2, 301: In us vero terminantia [nomina], si sint propria, i ante us habentia, abiecta us faciunt vocativum, ut hic Virgilius o Virgili; 7. 19, 303: Omnis enim vocativus in i desinens una syllaba minor esse debet suo nominativo, ut Sallustius o Sallusti, Virgilius o Virgili. Pylê a’s short sentence probably reflects a debate that arose in late antique grammar. In the second century, Terentius Scaurus asserted that these vocatives should be written with two i’s (e.g., o Vergilii), in order to keep unaltered the number of syllables of the nominative (Ver-gi-li-us, Ver-gi-li-i); cf. De orthographia, GL 7, 22: Ego etiam vocativos horum [i.e., of the names in -ius] per duo i, non, ut consuetudo usurpavit, per unum putem esse scribendos, quia non debeat vocativus minorem numerum syllabarum habere quam nominativum. Two centuries later, however, Charisius defended common usage (o Vergili), on grounds that a two-i ending could lead to confusion with the genitive singular (huius Vergilii: cf. Inst. gramm. 1. 10, GL 1, 23, and 15, GL 1, 78).
516
notes
1. 122–126 κα' E Fερε2ς, etc. and 151–156 % κα' E παρ$ νος, etc.: in B, a later reader deleted κα and the feminine articles in the declension of Fερε2ς, knowing that this noun is masculine only. Conversely, παρ$ νος in B and C is originally treated as feminine only, and the masculine articles are added later (e.g., by Bm). In the dative and accusative plural, B confuses endings and articles and has το>ς παρ$ νοις and τοGς παρ$ νους. 1. 129 c πλις: the use of the nominative instead of the vocative is attested in Greek since Homer. Moreover, in this case as well as in the other frequent cases of confusion between vocative and nominative (e.g., 158 c πιστμων, 198 c ε5δαμων, 218 c δ2ναμις, etc.), the anonymous author(s) of Pylê a may have been influenced by Latin vocatives of third-declension nouns, which coincide with the nominative. 1. 171–179 % σχυρ?ς κα' E σχυρ4 κα' τ? σχυρν, etc.: the presence of κα between the forms is suggested by the Latin text, which in most Ianuae reads hic et hec fortis et hoc forte; as in other cases, I have adopted the Greek reading that more closely corresponds to the (standard) text of Ianua. At any rate, the lack of κα suggests that, in the originals of our manuscripts, forms could also be presented in charts or columns. 1. 191–195 τ? κσμιον / hoc monile: for κσμιον as “ornament,” cf. PLG and Sophokles, s.v. The declension of monile is in J (fol. 113v) and S (fol. 4v). 1. 209–216 hic … inops, etc.: the adjective inops, which appears in H, is preferable to Schmitt’s egens, which seems unknown to Ianua. 1. 217 huius vis … huic vi: for the rare genitive vis, see Priscian, Inst. gramm. 6. 64, GL 2, 249, etc. The dative vi is attested in inscriptions and in literary texts close to the sermo cotidianus: e.g., B. Afr. 69. 2; cf. OLD, s.v. 1. 249–250 quia … in u productum desinit: according to Priscian and to most Latin grammarians, the ending of the genitive singular of the fourth declension is in us (7. 88, GL 2, 363). The genitive in u for u-stem neuter nouns probably originated from a misinterpretation of compounds like cornububulum, “a sterr with horns,” as a genititive phrase; see Sihler 1995, 324.
notes
517
1. 280–282 $ετικς … διδαγμεν στατος / positivus … doctissimus: the same formula appears in Dositheus (24, p. 46 Bonnet), who, however, does not give the Greek translation of doctus; διδαγμ νος as a perfect participle of διδ(σκω survives in modern Greek. 1. 285 διδαγμ νως / docte: on διδαγμ νως (which also occurs in 6. 22(a), b 1. 107, and c 6. 13, whereas d 6. 20 has δεδιδαγμ νως), see above, p. 216. Docte is quoted by Donatus, Ars minor 5, 5, p. 596 Holtz, and Ars maior 2. 13, p. 642 Holtz. 1. 319–351: I have not found any comparable list of declined irregular nouns in any Ianua that I have examined. The list includes a plurale tantum, arma, and some heteroclite nouns: locus (masculine in the singular and masculine or neuter in the plural), Tartarus (masculine and neuter), caelum (neuter and masculine), porrus or porrum (both masculine and neuter, here confused with portus, hence the Greek λιμν), epulum and cepe (neuter and feminine; for another form of cepe, cepa -ae, cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 6. 11, GL 2, 203). The same examples often occur in Latin grammatical treatises: cf., e.g., Charisius, Inst. gramm. 1. 11, GL 1, 33 (arma); 1. 12, GL 1, 37 (locus, porrus, Tartarus); and Diomedes, Ars gramm. 1, GL 1, 327 (Tartarus, locus, porrum, caelum, epulum, caepe); etc. 2. 27–28(b) ο5δετ ρου ο5σι+δους / neutri substantivi: H contains the definition of significatio substantiva, which applies to sum: Cuius significationis? Substantivi. Quare? Quia nec in o nec in or desinens neque a verbo desinente in o aut in or descendens nec actionem nec passionem sed in um terminatum solam substantiam significat ut sum. This definition is taken from Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 51, GL 2. 414: excepto sum verbo, quod Gπαρκτικν Graeci vocant, quod nos possumus substantivum nominare. 2. 48 and 50 α5τ? χρ+με$α: for χρ(ομαι with accusative instead of dative, see Sophokles, s.v. 2. 64–71 ποου σχματος; … διαναγιν+σκω: Ianuae offer many different examples of verbal figura composita and decomposita. Cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. 81, GL 2, 434: Figura quoque accidit verbo […]. Alia enim verborum sunt simplicia, ut cupio taceo, alia composita, ut concupio conticeo, alia decomposita, id est a compositis derivata, ut concupisco conticesco. In Ianua texts, the examples usually quoted range from Priscian’s cupio-concupio-concupisco
518
notes
to amo-peramo-peramasco. With the sequence γιν+σκω—*ναγιν+σκω— διαναγιν+σκω, the translator(s) of Pylê a may have chosen an example that did not correspond to the Latin original but could be understood by Greek readers; moreover, the corresponding Latin verbs lego and perlego occur in in the chapter on participles of most Ianuae (cf. 3. 42– 43). For *ναγιν+σκω, “read through,” cf. LSJ, s.v. 2. 89–90 ;να … λαλQ: we can partly explain this awkward clause, which probably hides a textual problem, with Priscian’s corresponding passage, Inst. gramm. 8. 101, GL 2, 448: secunda [persona est] ad quam [prima] loquitur de ipsa vel sola vel cum aliis. The Greek pronoun τις may have originated with the lack of a subject in the Latin text. Conversely, printed Ianuae specify that the subject is prima [persona]; cf., e.g., v: quia secunda persona est ad quam loquitur prima directo sermone. See also below, the note on c. 2. 64–65, pp. 534f. 2. 91–93 cuius personae? … sermo: the original of a’s definition certainly coincided almost ad verbum with U’s (fol. 9r): Cuius persone? Tercie. Quare? Quia significat rem ut de qua prima loquitur ad secundam extra se et illam positam ad quam dirigit sermonem. 2. 100 *γαπητ ον, *γαπητ &ω, *γαπητ ων: since Ianua usually gives gerunds in the genitive, dative, and accusative singular, Schmitt’s corrections (*γαπητ ου and *γαπητ ον instead of *γαπητ ον and *γαπητ ων) would restore the probable original sequence of genitive-dativeaccusative, as it occurs, for example, at 747 (βαστακτ ου, βαστακτ &ω, βαστακτ ον) and 870 (γενητ ου, γενητ &ω, γενητ ον). I have adopted the readings attested in all manuscripts because they probably reflect the way in which verbal adjectives were learned in Greek. In fact, the same sequence is repeated on 171 and occurs on 563 for *κο2ω (*κουστ ον, *κουστ &ω, *κουστ ων). These discrepancies hint at the difficulties that the anonymous translator(s) of Pylê a had to face when adapting the Greek verbal system to the Latin one and vice-versa. 2. 102 %ριστικς γκλσεως and 104 % παρατατικς: in Ianua, moods and tenses are indicated in the ablative. Pylê a generally uses the genitive for moods and the nominative for tenses. In my edition, I have maintained this inconsistency because it seems to correspond to the translator’s choice rather than to the manuscript tradition.
notes
519
2. 103 *γαπμεν: the correct reading for the first person plural appears in O only, whereas all the other manuscripts have *γαπο:μεν. For the confusion between contracted verbs in -αω and -εω, typical of late Greek, see Dieterich 1898, 229. 2. 107 sγαπκασιν: x’s reading sγ(πηκαν was caused by a confusion between the endings of the perfect and the aorist. This phenomenon is attested already in the second century B.C.E.: see Dieterich 1898, 235 f. 2. 132–135(a) 4ν *γαπκω … *γαπκωσι: on the lack of reduplication in late Greek perfect, see Dieterich 1898, 234 f. The fact that 4ν *γαπκω κ.τ.λ. appear in b and c also urges not to correct a’s text. 2. 139–140 % μ λλων … 4ν *γαπσωσι: in Pylê a, as in the other Donati graeci, there is no consistency in the Greek translation of the Latin future subjunctive: manuscripts offer either an aorist subjunctive or a future indicative preceded by (ν. Following common sense (in dubio conserva) and suspending my judgment, here and elsewhere I have edited the text trying not to change the transmitted readings. I have usually adopted the readings of the z-branch of the tradition (ABmNOQ: see above, p. 179). 2. 141 infinitivo … personis: the same formula appears in Donatus, Ars minor 4, p. 594 Holtz. 2. 161(a) sγαπημ νος: in most cases, both in a and in the other Greek Donati, manuscripts have a masculine participle instead of the neuter requested by the impersonal voice. Cases of confusion between the third and the first person singular are also frequent: probably, translator(s) had difficulty with impersonal verbs, which were not distinguished as a separate category in Greek grammar. 2. 174 ξ ληνται: Schmitt (1966, 202) considers ξ ληται or ξ ληνται (often written ξ λυ- in manuscripts; see also 177, 180, 241, 243, etc.) as forms of the perfect indicative passive of ξαιρ ω, but ξελ(ω (-ελα2νω) is also possible. 2. 200 *γ(πησαι: in MS. R, which is the only testimony to the “future imperative” (see above, 186), the ending -ου usually replaces -αι in the
520
notes
second person singular of the passive, probably because of the influence exerted by the ending of the same person in the present. Cf. 199 *γαπ (*γαπο: R; see above, note on 2. 103) and 200 *γαπσου R (instead of *γ(πησαι); 320 διδ(σκου and 322 διδ(ξου R (instead of δδαξαι); 445 *ναγιν+σκου and 447 *ναγν+σου R (instead of *ν(γνωσαι); etc. 2. 260–261 % iπερσυντ λικος … διδ(χ$ησαν: the same confusion between the pluperfect indicative, which is rare in Greek, and the aorist indicative passive can be observed at 438–441(b), where *νεγν+σ$ην etc. are given as pluperfect indicative passive. This confusion was perhaps encouraged by the first-person endings, -($)ην and -(κ)ην or -(κ)ειν, which contained the same i-sound in the spoken language. 2. 264 κα' παρατατικο:: in this insertion, we may suppose a direct influence of Greek grammar, where “past” (aorist and perfect) forms of imperative exist, whereas the Latin imperative has a present and a future only; cf. Priscian, Inst. gramm. 8. 40, GL 2, 406: imperativus vero praesens et futurum naturali quadam necessitate videtur posse accipere [… ] Nec solum enim illi, qui nondum coepit, imperantes utimur praesenti tempore, sed etiam illi, qui coepit et in ipso actu est, ut permaneat in eodem; and 41, ibid.: apud Graecos etiam praeteriti temporis sunt imperativa, quamvis ipsa quoque ad futuri temporis sensum pertineant. The Latin Ianua has tempore presenti. Since the expression χρνου νεσττος κα' παρατατικο: (Lat. tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto) occurs frequently regarding other moods, it is likely that κα' παρατατικο: was inserted automatically. 2. 627–628 s$ λομεν … a$ελον: all manuscripts have s$ λαμεν and s$ λατε, and R has a$ελαν for the third person plural. On the confusion between imperfect and aorist in late Greek, see Dieterich 1898, 241. 2. 672–674 εμ … ποιητικς: this detailed list of forms indicates that a’s conjugation of εμ was added to the Latinate section on verbs from a Greek grammar; see also b 2. 413–414 and c 2. 462–463. 2. 675 vς: later form for vσ$α; see also b 2. 415, c. 2. 464, and d 2. 18. 2. 677 ,σεται: Ionic-epic form of ,σται; see also b 2. 417, c 2. 470, and d 2. 19.
notes
521
2. 680 ,σο … ,στωσαν: ,σο, which probably comes from Homer’s ,σσο (Il. 1. 392, 4. 412, etc.), is used as an imperative in late antique and Byzantine texts: cf., e.g., Acta Ioannis 26. 8 το: λοιπο: ,σο *φροντιστος; Sent. Pythag. 5. 1 Uγρυπνος ,σο κατ4 νο:ν; Liban. Decl. 6. 2. 8. 7 φ2λαξ τς οκας ,σο πιστ; etc. Hesychius glosses @σ$ι, the “regular” imperative of εμ, with ,σο (s.v. @σ$ι, iota 921). See also b 2. 419, c 2. 472, and d 2. 21. 2. 681 βαστ: the form βαστ(ζω (cf. LSJ, s.v.), “lift up,” “bear,” “carry,” etc, is classical and used mostly in poetry. The verbal stem is βαστα- (fut. βαστ(σω, aor. β(στασα). Later, forms originating from βασταγ- prevailed (fur. βαστ(ξω, aor. β(σταξα, pf. m.p. βεβασταγναι, etc.); these forms eventually were used in prose also, along with neologisms such as βασταγ, “transport” (John Lydus, De magistratibus 1. 13), βασταγμς, “lifting, carrying,” and βασταγ(ριος, “porter” (John Malalas, Chron. 11, p. 276; 18, p. 444 ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn 1831); see PGL and Sophokles, ss.vv. Modern Greek has βαστ and βαστ(ω, m. βαστιο:μαι and βαστι μαι, but the aorist (β(σταξα and β(στηξα, βαστ(κτηκα) and the perfect (βασταγμ νος or βαστηγμ νος) still show the original variety of stems. Pylê a uses and confuses both stems. 2. 825 ff. γνομαι: late form of γγνομαι (cf. *να-γιν+σκω for -γιγν+σκω), still used in modern Greek. 2. 832 γεγενημ νος aμην: for aμην, later form for vν, see Plut. V. Alex. 46. 5 and, in the New Testament, Mt. 25. 36, Mc. 14. 49, Jo. 11. 15, etc. 2. 844 γεγενημ νος … ε@η: the readings γνομαι, γνεσαι, γνεται, transmitted by all manuscripts, repeat the present indicative of line 825. 2. 874ff. πορε2ομαι: considered as equivalent to the Latin eo, “to go,” this verb properly means “to be driven” or “to be carried” (active πορε2ω, “to make to go, carry”); cf. mod. Gr. πορε2ομαι, “to go, walk, march.” 2. 904ff. χαρομαι: unlike d, both a and c acknowledge only the middle voice of χαρω, even if its conjugation mixes active, middle, and passive voices. Pylê a uses χαιρ- as a present-stem; for the other tenses, a
522
notes
uses the stem χαρ(η)- (regularly written χαρι- in manuscripts), which is more common in late Greek. 4. 2 κ2ριον … πρσωπον / certam … personam: see also app. 22 and c 4. 2. For κ2ριος as certus, cf. the compounds κυριολεκτ ω, κυριολογ ω, κυριολογα (mod. Gr. κυριολεκτ+, κυριολεξα), “to speak appropriately,” “to use words in their proper sense” (see PGL, ss.vv.). NΗτοι β βαιον is most probably a gloss inserted into a’s text. 5. περ' προ$ σεως: on a’s treatment of prepositions and its relationship with Pylai c and d, see above, p. 195, and below, note on d 5. 5 ff., pp. 549 f. 6. 19 να, ναχι, ναφι: on να (Lat. sane) and ναχι (Lat. sane hercle), see Apollonius Dyscolus, De adverbiis, GG 2. 1, 162. 28, 209. 20. Ναφι seems to have been created on the model of other adverbs in -φι, such as =φι, νσφι or ο5ρανφι; cf. Apoll. Dysc., ibid., 163 and 194. 8. 1 and 16 συνδ ει: used as a grammatical term also in the Scholia Marciana on Dionysius Thrax (GG 1. 3, p. 436). 8. 20 Sκτικς: when translating essentia, “essence, substance,” Pylê a’s anonymous author may have considered the idea of steadiness and firmness implied by the adjective Sκτικς, “capable of holding, strong” or “habitual.” 8. 26 κατ4 [*]σ2μφωνον σημανει: according to Priscian (Inst. gramm. 16. 10, GL 3, 99), adversative conjuctions indicate “something in opposition to what is agreed” (adversum convenienti significant). The translator, however, took adversum as a preposition—instead of an adjective used as a noun—and disregarded the fact that in Latin it should take the accusative instead of the dative. 8. 39–40 iποτι$εμ νη / suppositivus, 43 and 47 iποτι$εμ νης / suppositivi, 43 iποτ$εται / supponitur: the original of Pylê a preserved Priscian’s wording (Inst. gramm. 16. 15–16, GL 3, 104–105): coniunctiones pleraeque tam praeponi quam supponi possunt. Sunt tamen quaedam quae semper praeponuntur, […] aliae quae semper supponuntur […] Aliae paene omnes indifferenter et praeponi et supponi possunt. Conversely, in most Ianua texts praepositivus and praeponi are changed into Donatus’ subiunctivus and subiungi.
notes
523
8. 48 αF … λοιπα: the feminine is used instead of the masculine οF λοιπο (cf. Lat. aliae); see above, p. 243 n. 40 app. 48 συνδ νει: for δ νω, later form of δ ω, see Sophokles, s.v.
Donatus graecus b 1. 1–31: Pylê b’s definitions of the noun and its properties are modeled on Ianua, even if b offers a reduced version of the original Latin text. The language is slightly different from Pylê a; for example, in the definition of γ νος πκοινον, b 1. 20 has σημανει ζ&+ων *μφοτ ρων νο:ν, whereas a 1. 23 has σημανει ζ&α Sκατ ρας φ2σεως. Both texts seem to correspond to Ianua’s significat animalia utriusque sexus, but b’s original may have replaced sexus with sensus. Conversely, b’s paradigms are independent from the Latin model. 1. 7–12 ποου γ νους; … τ? τ: cf. a 1. 7–12 and George Scholarios, Gramm. 1. 357 1: *ρσενικν, ο[ προτ(σσεται κατ4 τν Sνικν ε5$ε>αν τ? %Z $ηλυκ?ν δ , ο[ προτ(σσεται %μοως τ? EZ ο5δ τερον δ , ο[ προτ(σσεται Tσα2τως τ? τ. 1. 37–41 % Π ρσης: according to the Canons of Theodosius of Alexandria (GG 4. 1, 6, 20), Π ρσης belongs to the fourth masculine canons, together with Χρ2σης Χρ2σου (cf. 48). 1. 42–46: ξ2λον belongs to Theodosius’ fourth neuter canons (GG 4. 1, 34). 1. 47–48: the merging of the Latin and Greek traditions is exemplified by the juxtaposition of Ianua’s first paradigm, ποιητς / poeta, to two nouns taken from Theodosius’ Canons. 1. 49–53: Α@ας is Theodosius’ first masculine canon (GG 4. 1, 3–4). 1. 54–58 αyλαξ: cf. Theod. Alex. Can., GG 4. 1, 28–29 (the fifth canon of feminine nouns).
524
notes
1. 60: βμα: can. 1 neuter (Theod. Alex. Can. GG 4. 1, 32–33); φις: can. 8 masc. (ibid., 10–11; the genitive is either φιος or φεως); Eδ2ς: can. 11 masc. (ibid., 13). 1. 62–66 μο:σα: this noun is the second of Ianua’s examples for the first Latin declension (musa) and represents the first of Theodosius’ feminine canons (GG 4. 1, 25–26), together with E μα>α (which b declines at 80–84), E σφα>ρα, E δψα (declined at 67–71), and E Uελλα. This canon includes the first-declension feminine nouns ending both in pure α (gen. sing. -ας) and in impure α (gen. sing. -ης), which Pylê b keeps as distinct. 1. 72–76: σοφ is mentioned in Theodosius’ second feminine canon, E τιμ, together with καλ (GG 4. 1, 26). 1. 89–91 Αβρα(μ and 92–93 Αδ(μ: Choeroboscus (GG 4. 1, 113 and 4. 2, 149) mentions Αβρα(μ and Αδ(μ as “barbarian” names. 1. 99 Fσοκαταληκτο:σι: for this technical term (“have the same ending as”), see Michael Syncellus, De constr. 14, p. 171 Donnet 1982. 1. 105–121: the adjectives ε5σεβς, πρτος, and ε5δαμων may have originated from Ianua longa’s pius, primus (U) and felix (J, S); for ε5σεβς and ε5δαμων, cf. c 1. 86–95. It is worth noticing that b obtains adverbial comparatives and superlatives by adding the suffixes -τ ρως and -τ(τως to the positive (which b calls Iπλο:ς on 103, whereas a uses $ετικς on 1. 280 and 281). On line 112, I have preserved both the transmitted comparative πλεινως and the superlative πλειστ(κις, “mostly, very often,” instead of πλε>στα, for which see c 1. 105. The feminine μικρ (119) is an Ionic form that still exists in modern Greek. The comparative adverb λαττνως (120) is used by Hippocrates and Antiphon in the form λασσνως (cf. LSJ, s.v.). 1. 109–112: πρτος, “first, foremost,” is already a superlative. Pylê b supplies a comparative, πρτερος—which is actually derived from the preposition πρ—and a superlative, the poetic adjective πρ+τιστος, “the very first, principal” (cf. LSJ, ss.vv.). 2. 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 % … χρνος λγει ες ν ργειαν κα' π($ος: cf. Ianua’s tempus designat circa actionem vel passionem. The translator has probably
notes
525
confused the Latin designat (cf. a 2. 31, 33, etc. χρνον χαρ(ττει γγGς νεργεας ] π($ους) with desinit (Gr. λγω). Moreover, he may have considered tempus, which in Latin is neuter, as the verb’s subject instead of object. 2. 57–60 ποου … *πντος: the definitions of the second and third persons echo Dionysius Thrax, Ars gramm. 13. 16, p. 56 Lallot: πρσωπα τρα. Πρτον μ3ν *φ ο[ % λγος, δε2τερον δ3 πρ?ς ν % λγος, τρτον δ3 περ' ο[ % λγος. 2. 143–145 4ν *γαπη$σομαι … *γαπη$σονται: see the note on a 2. 139–140 (above, p. 519). Here, as in other cases, I have adopted V’s text only because V usually offers more correct readings than M. 2. 278 μετ’ λγον μ λλον: cf. Choeroboscus (quoted in GG 2. 3, 84): οF Α$ηνα>οι κα α5τ?ν [τ?ν μ λλοντα] διε>λον ες μ λλοντα κα' μετ’ λγον μ λλοντα. Priscian (Inst. gramm. 8. 38, GL 2, 243) explains: Graeci futurum quoque diviserunt in quibusdam verbis in futurum infinitum, ut τLψομαι, et paulo post futurum, quod et atticum dicunt, ut τετLψομαι. Thus, b considers λεχ$σομαι as a future perfect (*λελ ξεται). 2. 338 *κο2σαμεν: in addition to the pronouns σ2 and κε>νος after the first and the second persons singular, *κο2σαμεν (created from the stem of the aorist imperative, *κουσα-) is another example of Latin influence: Latin and Greek imperatives do not have a first person plural, but Ianua always mentions it. 3. 7–8 κατ4 … τς γραφς: “according to the requirement of the meaning and to the structure of the text”; for κατ(στασις, “position” or “construction,” see Apoll. Dysc. De adv., GG 2. 1, 125. 4. 18–30 E ρ$ … ν χρσει: the declensions of γ+ and σ2 represent interesting cases of the merging of Greek and Latin grammar that is typical of the Donati compositi: on the one hand, these pronouns have an ablative, and on the other hand Greek literary and poetic forms are listed in the plural. Conversely, the lack of an ablative in the paradigm of the third-person reflexive pronoun suggests that it was taken from a Greek grammar.
526
notes
4. 26–28 ;: the third-person-singular reflexive pronoun is very rare in the nominative (cf. Apoll. Dysc. De pron., GG 2. 1, p. 10. 4, al., and LSJ, s.v.). The genitive ο[ and the dative οm may have been omitted because of confusion with the endings of the words preceding them (α5το: and δοτικ), read according to the iotacistic pronunciation. 4. 28–48 κα' †οmσπερ† … α5τς: this passage is completely independent from Ianua and may have been inserted from a Greek grammatical work; it can be read in MS. M only. The fact that V’s long lacuna includes the section on dual pronouns and adjectives (31–35) seems to confirm the Western origin of this testimony of the b-text. 4. 33–35 *π? δ3 … ξ λιπε: M’s text is not entirely clear, but can be explained through a passage of Apollonius Dyscolus’ treatise on pronouns (GG 2.1, 102. 10–12): the enclitic third-person-singular form, σφω , was considered as too weak to allow the formation of a pronoun; moreover, σφω τερος would have been easily confused with another pronoun, σφ τερος. 5. περ' προ$ σεως: this section is similar to the chapter on prepositions in Moschopoulos’ Erotemata, as well as to that of Theodore Gaza’s grammar. The common source seems to be the anonymous schedography attributed to Basil the Great (Περ' γραμματικς γυμνασας, ed. Lutetiae 1585). The many quoted examples also appear in Gregory of Corinth’s treatise on syntax, as well as in George Scholarios’ grammar. 5. 10 Αττικς: I have corrected M’s *ττικς considering Demetrius Chalcondyles’ passage (Περ' συντ(ξεως τν προ$ σεων, Basileae 1546, 145): E μ3ν ν *ε' δοτικQZ ν ο@κ&ω, ν *γρ&Z κα' γενικQ δ3 Αττικς, κατ’ ,λλειψιν τς δοτικς, οmονZ ν jΑιδου κ.τ.λ. 5. 13–16: cf. Dem. Chalcond., loc. cit: E ες, dτις κα' ς λ γεται, ατιατικQ συντ(σσεταιZ ες *γορ(ν, ες κκλησανZ συντ(σσεται δ3 παρ’ Αττικο>ς κα' γενικQ λλειπτικς, Tσπερ κα' E ν, οmονZ ες διδασκαλεου κ.τ.λ. 5. 23 πρ?ς α5τς τς Τρι(δος: cf. Georg. Schol. Gramm. 1, p. 416 Jugie: πρ?ς Θεο: κα' πρ?ς α5τς τς Τρι(δος, *ντ' το:Z kνεκεν το: Θεο: κα' kνεκεν α5τς τς Τρι(δος.
notes
527
5. 27–28 πρ?ς … προσε2χεσ$αι: the same quotation occurs in Scholarios’ grammar, loc. cit. 5. 29–31 kνα … ποδν: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 64, p. 205 Donnet 1967. 5. 39–49: κατ4 … γνεται; cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 50, p. 199 Donnet 1967. 5. 41 κατα σκοπο: (σκοπν M): the accusative and the genitive are equivalent: cf. Herodian 6. 7. 8 τοξε2ειν κατ4 σκοπο:. 5. 42–44 E δι4 … το:το: in an anonymous treatise on prepositions contained in MS. Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 151, in fol. 372v, we find a treatment of δι( similar to b’s: E δι( πρ$εσις μετ4 γενικς ] ατιατικς συντ(σσεταιZ κα' μετ4 γενικς μ3ν Wτε σημανει *ντληψιν κα' ν ργειαν, οmονZ δι4 τν *ποστλων σ+σονται ψυχα' Eμν […]. Μετ4 ατιατικς δ3 Wτε σημανει αταν, οmονZ […] δι( σε Uν$ρωπος γ γονα. 5. 50–59 E παρ4 … πλησον: this section is very similar to Gregory of Corinth’s De constr. 53, pp. 199–200 Donnet 1967. The example παρ4 τ& βασιλε> κ($ηται also occurs in Mich. Sync. De constr. 136, p. 315 Donnet 1982, and in Georg. Schol. Gramm. 1, p. 420 Jugie. 5. 60–64 E *ντ' … *ντ$εον: cf. Mich. Sync. De constr. 137, p. 317 Donnet 1982: E *ντ' … σημανει δ3 ν τα>ς συν$ σεσι πQ μ3ν τ? @σον, πQ δ3 τ? ναντον, οmονZ *ντ$εον Πολ2φημον παρ’ 8Ομρ&ω (Il. 1. 264) *ντ' τ? σ$εον, *ντρροπον *ντ' το: σρροπον, *ντπαλος δ3 κα' *ντλογος % ναντως παλαων κα' λ γωνZ κα' π(λιν τ? *ντ$εον σημανει ν τποις τ? τ& Θε& ναντον, hς φαμενZ *ντ$εον δγμα. For ναν$ρωπτης (64),
cf. PLG, s.v. 5. 66 π' … τπου: this is a simplified variation of Gregory of Corinth’s example π' τν το: Ωιδεου τπων ;σταμαι (De constr. 57, p. 203 Donnet 1967). 5. 70 κνησιν … *ν ρχομαι: cf. Greg. Cor. 57, p. 202 Donnet 1967: Wτε δ3 σημανει κνησιν, [συντ(σσεται] μετ4 ατιατικς. In the example quoted, π' τν πλιν *ν ρχομαι, the verb varies Gregory of Corinth’s *π ρχομαι.
528
notes
5. 73–74 π' τ& $εμελ&ω … διδ(σκαλοι: George Scholarios chose the same example in Gramm. 1 p. 420 Jugie. 5. 77–78 μ(χομαι … κλρων: cf. Greg. Cor, De constr. 59, p. 203 Donnet 1967. 5. 78–80 Wταν … πολ μιοι: cf. Greg. Cor., De constr., ibid.: Wτε δ3 κε>ται π' τQ κ2κλ&ω σημασας, μετ4 ατιατικς συντ(σσεται, Tς τZ περ' τν πλιν οF πολ μιοι, *ντ' το: κ2κλ&ω τς πλεως. 5. 81–84 τ … Μενελ(&ω: the same examples occur in Greg. Cor. De constr., loc. cit. 5. 90–91 Eττ$ησαν … Σκ2$αι: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 56, p. 201 Donnet 1967: Eττ$ησαν iπ? τν 8Ρωμαων οF Σκ2$αι. 5. 97 iπ3ρ … κ($ημαι: cf. Greg. Cor. De constr. 54, p. 201 Donnet 1967: iπ3ρ π τρας κ($ηται. 5. 98 iπ3ρ … Uρχων: this example results from a contamination between two examples quoted by Gregory of Corinth, De constr. 54, p. 2012 Donnet 1967: iπ3ρ τ?ν δημτην % Uρχων, καZ iπ3ρ τοGς iπηκους % βασιλε2ς. 6. περ' πιρρματος: Pylê b’s last section is similar to the chapter on adverbs in Moschopoulos’ Erotemata, as well as to its source, Dionysius Thrax’s Τ χνη. The same text can be read in MS. P (see above, p. 205 f.). 6. 1–2 διατ … #ματι: cf. Dion. Th., Ars gramm. 19. 2–3, p. 20 Lallot: πρρημ( στι μ ρος λγου Uκλιτον, κατ4 #ματος λεγμενον ] πιλεγμενον #ματι. 6. 4–5 τ4 μ3ν … πρπαλαι: the same definition appears in Dion. Th. 19. 4–5, p. 20 Lallot. 6. 6 ποσαχς … πολλαχς: this question marks the beginning of Moschopoulos’ sections on adverbs.
notes
529
6. 14 καταμνας (or κατ4 μνας): this adverb, which means “in solitude,” is frequent in monastic texts; cf. c 6. 6 and PGL s.v. μνος. 6. 18 σχετλιαστικ(: these adverbs are equivalent to the interjection. Their inclusion among adverbs suggests that Pylê b omitted this part of speech. See above, p. 224, and below, the note on c 7, p. 541. 6. 29 κατα$ σεως: both Dionysius Thrax and Moschopoulos mention a category of adverbs “of confirmation” (βεβαι+σεως). Pylê b replaces the term βεβαωσις with κατ($εσις, which indicates the deposition under oath (cf. Sophokles, s.v.). The presence of legal terminology suggests a connection between grammarians (teachers) and public notaries, as was the rule, for example, in Northeastern Italy and in Crete.
Donatus graecus c 1. 1–4 κλιτικς … proprium: Pylê c probably began with a question similar to a’s appendix, 1–5, which, in turn, takes up Priscian, Inst. gramm. 2. 2, GL 2, 56–57: Quid est nomen? Nomen est pars orationis declinabilis (1: κλιτικς) uniuscuiusque subiectorum (2: iποκεμενος) corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam qualitatem distribuens vel significans (3: σημανει): communem corporum ut homo, propriam ut Virgilius; communem qualitatem rerum ut ars, propriam ut grammaticam Aristarchi, arithmetica Nicomachi. Quid est proprium (4: @διον) nominis? Proprium nominis est significare substantiam et qualitatem. This passage concludes the section on nouns in J, fol. 117r. 1. 5–12 ε@ρηται … qualitas: see above, p. 213. In line 9, Pylê c confuses ν μω, “to distribute,” with noto, “to mark, define.” The definition of nomen as notamen (10: “note,” “sign,” or “signature”: cf. GMIL and GLL, s.v.) occurs in other grammatical works both earlier and later than Priscian’s, e.g., [Sergius], Explan. in Don. 2, GL 4, 535: nomen quasi notamen; Alcuin, Gramm., PL 101, 859B: est nomen dictum quasi notamen, eo quod hoc notamus singulas substantias. To my knowledge, νεμετικν is not attested elsewhere. 1. 13–14 προτ(σσεται … declinatio: in all Ianua texts, the definition of gender reads: Cuius generis? Masculini. Quare? Quia preponitur (13: προτ(σσεται) ei in declinatione (14: κλσις) unum articulare pronomen, hic; etc. Cf. a 1. 7–12.
530
notes
1. 15–19 Iπλο:ς … derivatur: Ianua c probably offered the formulaic definition of σχμα, figura: Cuius figure? Simplicis (15: Iπλο:ς). Quare? Quia simpliciter profertur (16–17: Iπλς προφ ρεται). Cuius figure? Composite. Quomodo componitur (18: συντ$εται)? etc. Cuius figure? Decomposite. Quare? Quia non per se componitur (18), sed a composito nomine derivatur (19: παρ(γεται), etc. Cf. a 1. 26–31. 1. 20–23 *διαβ(τως … ablativus: Ianua c on cases: Cuius casus? Nominativi. Quare? Quia verbum intransitive constructum (20–21: *διαβ(τως συνταττμενον) construitur cum nominativo casu. Quot sunt casus nominum? Sex. Qui? Nominativus (22: ε5$ε>α), genitivus, dativus, accusativus, vocativus et ablativus (23: *φαιρετικ). Cf. a 1. 32–37. 1. 24–28 % ποιητς … Pasqua: the first declension; see above, p. 216. Poeta, musa, advena, and Pascha occur in most Ianua texts, as well as in Pylê a 1. 43–61. The Italian form Pasqua instead of the Latin Pascha may offer a clue about the origin of the translator or the environment where he worked. 1. 29 % *ετς / aquila: this noun is declined in full in J (fol. 110r), whereas both S (fol. 1v) and U (fol. 1v) mention it as an example of a noun of mixed gender (Lat. promiscuum). 1. 30 κεκορημ νος / hic saturatus: the declension of the adjective satur, satura, saturum in H concludes the list of paradigms of the second declension. Satur also appears in Pietro da Isolella’s passage on second-declension vocatives, quoted above in the note on a 1. 97–103 (p. 514). 1. 31 τ? βρμα / hoc epulum: heteroclite noun; cf. S, fol. 3v: Quot sunt nomina que in singulari nominativo sunt neutri generis, in plurali vero feminini? Quat(t)uor. Que? Balneum, epulum, cepe et vesper. Cf. U, fol. 3v. Pylê a (1. 342–346) uses ,δεσμα for epulum. 1. 32 τ4 Wπλα / hec arma: declined in J (fol. 116r) and U (fol. 3r). Cf. a 1. 319–321: Uρμα. 1. 34 λγει / desinit: this verb occurs in the formula that concludes the exposition of each declension, in this case probably the second:
notes
531
Cuius declinationis? Secunde. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in i productum desinit (λγει), etc. Cf. a 1. 104–106. 1. 36 E Uκαν$α / hec cardo: the third declension. Cardo, cardonis, masculine, in medieval Latin is often used as carduus, -i, “thistle”; cardi or cardones also indicated the iron instruments, similar to combs, used for carding wool, as well as comb-shaped instruments of torture (cf. GMIL, ss.vv. cardi and cardo). The Greek term Uκαν$α, “thorn,” is often used as a metonymy for any kind of thorny or prickly plant, including thistles: see LSJ, s.v. Grammarians usually mention carduus for its being written with two u’s: cf., e.g., Charisius, Inst. gramm. 1. 15, GL 1, 74–75: carduus trium syllabarum est, ut arduus fatuus mortuus, ideoque similiter declinandum est, huius cardui et huic carduo, pluraliter hi cardui carduorum carduis. See also Ars Bernensis, GL 8, 103: item per duo u hic carduus strenuus nominativus indicativus imperativus et reliqua. It is also possible, however, that cardo, cardonis / Uκαν$α resulted from a misreading of an original cardo, cardinis, “hinge,” “pole,” “chief circumstance,” etc. In fact, Priscian mentions cardo as a noun of uncertain gender (masculine and feminine: Inst. gramm. 5. 42, GL 2, 169; 6. 15, GL 2, 206). As such, it might have been included in some Ianua longa. 1. 37 E δ2ναμις / hec virtus: the declension of virtus, gen. virtutis, appears in J (fol. 112r) and H. The closest equivalent to the Greek δ2ναμις, however, is vis, declined in S (fol. 5r); J’s fortitudo (fol. 113r) is also possible. For δ2ναμις, see a 1. 217–221. 1. 38–40 πλε>στον … plura: the translator confused the superlative πλε>στοι (which should correspond to plurimi) with the Latin comparative plures. The complete declension of plus appears in J (fol. 115r) and S (fol. 6r). 1. 41–52 ε5δαμων … fortior: the declensions of felix, omnis, and fortis with its comparative fortior occur in all editions of Ianua. Cf. a 1. 163– 190 (πPς, σχυρς, and σχυρτερος) and 196–203 (ε5δαμων). 1. 54 Uρτιος / modernus: cf. U, fol. 4r: Hec sunt illa nomina que tantum singulariter declinantur apud modernos (Uρτιος): lux, sitis et labes, mors, vita fames quoque, tabes, etc.
532
notes
1. 55 κονιορτς / pulvis: the declension of pulver (or pulvis: see Priscian, Inst. gramm. 6. 65, GL 2, 249), gen. pulveris, is in S (fol. 4v). 1. 56 χνο:ς … aer: aer, gen. aeris, is declined in H. Limus is probably a misunderstanding of litus, litoris, which, however, does not occur in any of the editions of Ianua that I have examined so far. 1. 57 †ξος† / viscus: the Latin viscus, or viscum, gen. visci, “mistletoe,” corresponds to the Greek ξς, from which the transmitted ξος may have been easily derived. However, the presence of other r-stems nearby suggests an original viscus, gen. visceris, “entrails.” 1. 58 qλ[α]ς / sal: sal, gen. salis, is declined in J (fol. 111r). 1. 59 εmς / unus: the numeral adjective and pronoun unus, una, unum is usually included among the pronouns in Ianua. However, U treats at length first/second declension adjectives, including pronominal adjectives, after the fifth nominal declension (fols. 6r–7r). According to Priscian (Inst. de nom. 35, GL 3, 449–450), in fact, the nine pronominal adjectives, or nomina mobilia, should be considered as adjectives rather than as pronouns. 1. 60–62 s ψις … cornu: the fourth declension: auditus, gen. auditus, is declined in H and in several Ianuae breves, whereas visus and cornu occur in all Ianua texts; cf. a 1. 225–228 ( ψις), 239–243 (κ ρας). Partus is mentioned in S (fol. 8r) among the fourth-declension nouns whose dative plural ends in -ibus. 1. 65 στχος … continentur: after the declension of mare, gen. maris, S (fol. 5v) contains four mnemonic verses, the second of which reads: ista sunt nomina maris que in hiis versibus continentur (στχοις συν χονται). 1. 66 διηρημ νος / divisus: in all Ianua texts, the definition of the fifth declension reads: Cuius declinationis? Quinte. Quare? Quia eius genitivus singularis in ei divisas (διηρημ νος) syllabas desinit, etc. Cf. a 1. 277–279. 1. 67–73 pluraliter … indeclinabilis: for numerals, see a 1. 300–318. 1. 74–107 καλς … adverbio: c’s presentation of adjectives and adverbs and their degrees of comparison reflects the standard model of Ianua;
notes
533
cf. a 1. 280–299. Whereas bonus and malus are common to all Ianua texts and pius also appears frequently, only the Ianuae longae J, S, and U have fortis; multus occurs in S and U and felix in J and S. Also, S offers the full declensions of fortis, fortior, and fortissimus (fol. 6r) as well as felix (6v). Ianua c shares with S the confusion between forte and fortiter (99 forte; conversely, J and U have fortiter) and the masculine and feminine comparative of multus as magis multus and multa (101, 103: cf. S, fol. 4r). For πλειστ(κις as a superlative of multum, cf. b 1. 112. 1. 77–80 καλς … καλλστως: the mention of the genitive singular of καλς / bonus suggests that c’s original could have a section on adjectives similar to U’s (see above, note on 1. 59, p. 532); however, c confuses καλς with *γα$ς. The complete declension of pulcher, which corresponds to καλς, occurs in J, fol. 117r. The omission of reduplicated consonants in Greek in c may be due to the influence of spoken Greek, as well as of a Northeastern Italian vernacular. 2. 6–8 π$εν … λγου / unde … orationis: cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. 1, GL 2, 369: Verbum autem, quamvis a verberatu aeris dicatur, … tamen praecipue in hac dictione quasi proprium eius accipitur, quia frequentius utimur in omni oratione. Licet tamen pro omnibus dictionibus dicere ‘verba,’ etc. For συνεχ στερον used as an adverb, see, e.g., Apoll. Dysc. De pron. 82 C, GG 2. 1, 65. 2. 7 ν προφορRP το: λγου / in perferendo verbi: the genitive verbi (instead of verbo or verbum, required by the gerundive) is clearly influenced by the Greek λγου: this is a sign that the translator translated word by word. 2. 16–17 ποας … δι(βασιν / cuius … transitionem: c preserves only the first part of Ianua’s traditional definition of genus neutrum, which in most texts reads: Cuius generis? Neutri. Quare? Quia in o desinens non potest facere transitionem ad aliquod rationale animal unde possit fieri conversa locutio (see lines 11–13). 2. 27–28 χαρομαι … διδ / gaudeo … do: the same lines, but in a reverse order, appear in S (fol. 9v). On the function of these mnemonic verses in the study of elementary grammar, see above, p. 60.
534
notes
2. 30–31 κα εσιν … στεφανο:μαι / et sunt … nubo: cf. Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. 12, GL 2, 377: quaedam vero ex eisdem neutralibus passivam [habent significationem], ut ‘vapulo a te’ ‘fio a te’ ‘exulo a te’ ‘veneo a te’ ‘nubo tibi.’ Ianua c omitted fio, perhaps because the same verb is mentioned above, at l. 27. In classical Greek, the verb δ ρω meant both “to skin, flay” and “to beat, thrash”; the latter meaning was preserved in the modern Greek δ ρνω. The Latin veneo, “to be sold,” was obviously confused with venio and translated with ,ρχομαι. The verb #φομαι (ρφ- cod.) is modeled on the stem #ιφ- of the second perfect and aorist passive of πτω (cf. mod. Gr. #χνω) and preserves the same meaning of “throwing out, casting away.” Finally, στεφανο:μαι, which meant “to be crowned” in classical Greek, offers an interesting reference to the Orthodox wedding ceremony, the στεφ(νωμα (cf. mod. Gr. στεφαν+νω, “to marry”); see PGL s.v. στεφανω, 6. 2. 37, 38 παρατατικο:—παρακειμ νου / perfecti—imperfecti: the Latin translator apparently confused the two Greek terms here and below, 41. 2. 57, 60 διαγαπ / peramo, peramasco: LSJ gives a sixth-century papyrus as the only source for the verb διαγαπ. In any case, Pylê c uses δια-*γαπ as a calque of the Latin per-amo, “to be very fond of,” “to show a great liking for” (at line 57, the Greek word is written with a Latin g instead of a gamma). Peramo is varia lectio in Statius (Silv. 4. 5. 24), but Cicero uses peramans in his letters to Atticus (4. 8a. 3). The inchoative variant peramasco is not attested elsewhere. However, peramo and peramasco occur in U and in the p-edition of Ianua as examples of figura composita and decomposita, respectively (pa has adamo and adamasco). 2. 62 Uγω / fero: the translator considered the Greek Uγω, “to lead, etc.,” as equivalent to the Latin fero. However, Pylê c translates fero into βαστ(ζω on lines 523ff. (whereas Pylê a has βαστ) and φ ρω on 765 ff. (like Pylê d). 2. 64–65 πρτον … προσαναγγ λλει / prima … pronunciat: the original Latin text was probably: prima persona est que cum loquitur de se ipsa pronuntiat (cf. J, fol. 118r; S, fol. 11r, etc.; Prisc. Inst. gramm. 8. 101, GL 2, 448: prima est quae de se loquitur vel sola vel cum aliis). P’s translator probably transposed quae and cum and made a preposition of cum and Pl’s cum que reproduces this misunderstanding. In the transmitted
notes
535
reading SαυτQ, “to herself,” the feminine gender certainly is due to the influence of the Latin term persona (whereas the Greek πρσωπον is neuter). The dative could appear as a variant in Ianua c or, more probably, was required by the verb προσαναγγ λλω, a calque of the Latin pro-nuntio, attested in late Greek (cf., e.g., [Jo. Chrys.] In catenas Sancti Petri 432. 27. 8, ed. by E. Batareikh, Rome 1908; Anna Comn. Alex. 15. 11. 4; Georg. Pachym. Συγγραφικα' Fστοραι, Mich. Palaeol. 607. 73, ed. by A. Failler and V. Laurent, Paris 1984; etc.). In any case, the fact that the Latin translator wrote de se ipsa instead of sibi ipsi suggests that such a definition of “first person” had become formulaic. 2. 76–77 *γαπ … *γαπν: in the list of the “principal parts” of the verb *γαπ, Pylê c gives the Greek perfect sγ(πηκα (with the second person singular in -ες, as in later Greek) as corresponding to the Latin perfect amavi, but confuses the perfect with the aorist sγ(πησα in the conjugation (82–83). On the use of the Greek perfect and aorist in Donati compositi, see above, 198. 2. 95–98 *ριστος … *γαπκοιεν / preterito perfecto … amavissent: the translator acknowledges the existence of an aorist optative in Greek (*ριστος) and gives the Greek perfect optative as equivalent to the Latin pluperfect (iπερσυντ λικος); cf. a 2. 120–121. In the other verbs, however, the “aorist” (which may be either an aorist or a perfect) corresponds to the Latin perfect and pluperfect optative, and there is no supplementary pluperfect. 2. 110–111 πσαι … *γαπσων: these lines are repeated below, 125– 126, at the end of the impersonal conjugation of *γαπ. In Pylê b, the mention of *γαπ’s active participles conclude the same section (b 2. 111–112); therefore, lines 110–111 may be regarded as an interpolation. Apparently, however, the occurrence of such remarks is not consistent in the Greek Donati: since participles are the object of a separate chapter, their mention in the section on verbs is usually incomplete. 2. 159–164 *ριστος … ,σονται / preterito … vel fuerint: here and elsewhere, c uses the same method as a (R) in replacing nonexistent Greek tenses of the subjunctive with (ν and indicative. 2. 245–248 προστακτικ … διδαξ(σ$ωσαν / imperativo … doceantur: the Latin text includes the first persons plural of both tenses of the
536
notes
imperative (doceamur), which are regularly present in Ianua but absent from Greek imperatives. Pl’s frequent cases of mechanical repetition of Latin verbal sequences that do not correspond to the Greek text (see also 2. 275–276, the principal parts of λ γω) show that the author often relied on his memory: his model was probably an Ianua that he had memorized when learning Latin. 2. 275 and 280–281 λ λεχα κ.τ.λ.: for this artificial form of the perfect of λ γω, see, e.g., Theod. Alex. Can., GG 4, 47, 48. 2. 364–366 πσαι … λεξμενος / quot … legendus: the Latin interlinear translation, which defines lectus as a present, imperfect, and pluperfect participle, accounts for the Greek participle (λεγμενος, present “and imperfect”) as well as for the Latin participle (lectus, perfect and pluperfect). A different case occurs, e.g., at 2. 460, where temporis presentis applies correctly to *κουμενος, a present, and incorrectly to auditus, a perfect. Thus, Pl probably reflects the author’s difficulties in coping with the different participial systems of Greek and Latin. 2. 400 *κουσμενος / auditurus: the middle voice replaces *κο2σων, the rare active future participle of *κο2ω. 2. 423–426 παρατατικς … *κο2ονται / preterito imperfecto … vel fuere: in this tormented passage, the perfect (aκουσμαι, etc.) may have been confused with the imperfect (παρατατικς), which is not unusual in Pylê c. As for the perfect, παρακεμενος (425), the copyist wrote the present, probably confused by lines 421–422. Pl mechanically wrote the Latin imperfect between the lines, making aκουσμαι (“I have been heard”) correspond to audiebar (“I was being heard”), etc. 2. 466–469 παρακεμενος … iπρχον / preterito perfecto … fuerant: unlike the other Greek Donati and like late Greek, c uses iπ(ρχω to supplement the tenses of εμ that cannot be formed with the ε(σ)-stem. In this case, however, we see the usual confusion of tenses: the “perfect” is actually an aorist, and the “aorist” an imperfect. 2. 474–475 ,σ$ω … ,σωνται / esto … sumptote: this is the only occurrence of a future imperative of εμ in the four Greek Donati as well as, to my knowledge, in the whole Greek grammar. On the one hand, we can explain the first two persons as calques from the Latin esto tu and
notes
537
esto ille. On the other hand, c seems to make up for the second and third persons plural by creating a sort of “future subjunctive,” i.e., a future indicative with a lengthened suffix (such as *,σωνται, from ,σονται). Therefore, the second person plural ,σ$εσ$ε should probably be corrected into ,σησ$ε; however, I have preserved the transmitted reading, because I believe to be methodologically incorrect to replace a form somehow attested with a nonexistent form. 2. 484–489 παρακεμενος … 4ν ,σωνται / preterito perfecto … fuerint: three cases of confusion between tenses: the “perfect subjunctive” is an aorist, the “future subjunctive” a future indicative with lengthened suffixes, while the “aorist” is an imperfect with -ω instead of -ο. I have preserved the transmitted text: see my considerations in the previous note. 2. 496–499 παρακεμενος … τε$ελκασιν / preterito perfecto … volueram and 514–517 παρακεμενος … τε$ελκασιν / preterito perfecto … voluissent: two more cases of confusion between aorist and perfect. For $ λω, instead of ε-, c uses the η- augment that became general in late Greek. 2. 505 $ελμην, $ελσαιμι / voluissem, voluissem: the fact that both forms are translated into Latin suggests that both P and Pl considered $ελμην and $ελσαιμι to be acceptable and interchangeable. 2. 523 βαστ(ζω / fero: see note on a 2. 681 (above, p. 521). 2. 530 βεβαστ(κασιν / tulerant: the transmitted reading βεβ(στακαν (confused with an aorist) shows the loss of the ending -ασιν in the late Greek perfect in favor of -αν, which is the ending of the aorist third person plural; this phenomenon may have favored the confusion between perfect and aorist. See above, note on a 2. 107, p. 519. 2. 615 ff. σ$ω / edo: unlike Pylê a, c forms the past and future tenses of σ$ω from a verb * σ$ι(ω, probably confused with στι(ω, which means “to feast” and, therefore, “to eat” (cf. mod. Greek στιατριο, “restaurant”). 2. 671–673 παρακεμενος … κεχαρμ νοι εσν / preterito perfecto … vel fuere: for the perfect, c uses the poetic form κ χαρμαι instead of κεχ(ρημαι.
538
notes
2. 680 χαρεσ$ε, χαιρ σ$ωσαν / gaudete, gaudeant: since c uses only the middle and passive voices of the verb χαρω, the original readings χαρετε and χαιρ τωσαν may have been influenced by forms common in the spoken language, such as χαρετε, “hail,” “welcome,” still used in modern Greek for greetings. 2. 681–682 μ λλων … χαρησ(σ$ωσαν / futuro … gaudento: the second and third persons singular and the second plural may be just future indicatives (if χαρσι = χαρσQη: see 677). Conversely, χαρησ(σ$ωσαν may be an aorist middle from an * χ(ρησα (instead of the regular but rare χαρησα), based on the χαρ-stem, which prevails in late Greek (cf. fut. χαρο:μαι in Septuagint, Zach. 4. 10, pf. κεχ(ρηκα, aor. p. χ(ρην). 2. 721 πρευσαι … πορευσ(σ$ω: in Greek, the active is often attested in place of the middle-passive (see Sophokles, s.v. πορε2ω); however, c apparently knew the middle imperative and used it regularly at 752 (πορευσ(σ$ω). For this reason, I have corrected P’s πρευσον and πορευσ(τω into the corresponding middle forms. 2. 733–734 πορευμενος … 4ν cσι: I have preserved the transmitted πορευμενος and πορευμενοι mainly because the loss of the reduplication, typical of late perfects, may have favored the confusion between the present and the perfect participle πεπορευμ νος. A similar confusion can be found at 694–695, where χαιρμενος and χαιρμενοι are used for κεχαρμ νος and κεχαρμ νοι. On the other hand, a non-reduplicated perfect participle πορευμ νος occurs at 744; also, πορευμενος is clearly defined as a “present and imperfect” participle, corresponding to the Latin i ens. 2. 765 φ ρω / fero: a doublet of βαστ(ζω, probably inserted in the ctext through collating another exemplar of Pylê where, as in Pylê d, the active voice of the Latin fero was translated with φ ρω (cf. 774–775). 2. 768–773 παρακεμενος … φ ρουσι: three tenses are created from the φερ-stem. Indeed, ,φερα occurs in John Moschus, Prat. 140, PG 87, 3004 A (cf. PGL and Sophokles, s.v. φ ρω). Also, the φερ-stem was productive in δημοτικ: cf. mod. Gr. φ ρω or φ ρνω, aor. ,φερα, part. φερμ νος. Pylê c’s future was probably a contracted future (φερ, etc.), here confused with the present.
notes
539
2. 777–786 παρατατικς … γενη$σονται: the imperfect is a second aorist, whereas the “aorist” is actually a pluperfect. Also, the future results from a contamination between the middle and the (rare) passive voices of γνομαι. 2. 789–790 μ λλων … γενησ(σ***: Pylê c has created an aorist imperative on a *γενε-stem, perhaps under the influence of the regular verb γενν(ω, “to beget, bring forth.” In fact, γ(γ)νομαι was considered as the passive of τκτω, which has the same meaning as γενν(ω. 2. 791–797 ε5κτικ … γ νοιντο: the present and the future optative coincide and are actually aorist optative of γ(γ)νομαι. The aorist, in turn, is created from the γεν-stem by simply adding the α–suffix of the aorist (a similar case is the modern Greek aorist ,γινα). 2. 816 ff. μ μνημαι / memini: in the conjugation of this verb, forms of the present μιμνσκω (in the non-reduplicated form, μνησκ-) are often confused with the perfect, which is regularly used in Greek (like the Latin memini) as a present. 3. 1 *ναγιν+σκων / legens: cf. a 3. 1. 3. 8 τ& Wπερ / eo quod: cf. 1. 8 3. 15 κα' τ4 ξς / et cetera: this chapter was probably conceived as a general introduction to participles: in addition to eliminating paradigms, the anonymous grammarian has reduced definitions to the essentials. 3. 16, 22, 24, 26 σημασας, 19 δια$ σεως / significationis: like b and d, c uses both σημασα and δι($εσις to render the Latin significatio (here equivalent to “voice”), whereas a uses σημασα only. 4. περ' *ντωνυμας / de pronomine: as is the case with the third section, on participles, c offers only a brief introduction with definitions of the part of speech and all its properties, but no paradigms. 4. 1–2 γ … πρσωπον / ego … personam: c repeats Ianua’s standard definition of the pronoun: cf. a 4. 1–2 and app. 21–22.
540
notes
4. 8 Μπ ρτος, Μπ ρτα ] ψυχ(ριον / Bertus, Berta aut mancipium: for ψυχ(ριον as mancipium, “slave,” see Sophokles, s.v. Bertus and Berta may be li bertus and li berta and, therefore, may refer to a juridical context, like other words used in Pylê c (see below, note on 6. 5); the three terms occur frequently together, e.g., in Book 6 of the Corpus Iuris Iustiniani. On the other hand, Berta is used as an example of a feminine noun in medieval grammars. It occurs, e.g., in the chapters on pronouns of J (fol. 126v: homo, Berta, celum) and S (fol. 24v: magister, Berta, scamnum), as well as in K’s section on participles (fol. 13v: Cicero, Berta vel mancipium). Similarly, in the thirteenth-century Ars dictaminis by Guido Faba (96, p. 351 ed. A. Gaudenzi in Il Propugnatore 3, 16– 17 [1890]), Berta and mancipium are quoted to explain the agreement between nouns and predicate adjectives in Latin: Berta est alba, mancipium, vir et mulier sunt albi. 4. 11 συντ$εται / componitur: P’s συν$ τεται is probably derived from the adjective σ2ν$ετος, Lat. compositus (cf. mod. Gr. συν$ τω). On the other hand, συντ$εται occurs in all other corresponding passages of the Greek Donati. 5. 5–11 πρ?ς … iποκ(τω / ad … subter: Pylê c’s classification of prepositions makes sense only by considering their Latin equivalents: see below, pp. 549 f. 6. περ' πιρρματος / de adverbio: c took its twenty-three categories of adverbs and the examples quoted for each of them from a Latin Ianua: see above, pp. 220 f. 6. 1 γγGς #ματα / iuxta verbum: γγ2ς is properly an adverb, but here it is constructed as a preposition with the accusative. 6. 3 semper: the insertion of the Latin word in the Greek text suggests that the same hand wrote both the Greek text (P) and the Latin translation (Pl). 6. 5 ν+πιον / sentialiter: presentialiter = coram, prope, “face to face” (cf. GLL, s.v.), occurs in some medieval literary texts (e.g., Carnina Burana inc. Omnia sol temperat), and more frequently in official documents related to the making of payments “in person.” For example, a contract from Vimercate (North Italy) dating from May 21,
notes
541
1175, reads: […] que suprascripta Adelaxia ibi presentialiter recepit (text in cdlm.unipv.it / Milano / Vimercate / carte/vimer1175-05-21.html; other references in GMIL., s.v.). The Greek ν+πιον, which has the same meaning, is also a term of the legal language and occurs in contracts on papyri (e.g., P. Tebtynis 1. 14. 13, from 114 B.C.E.). The use of legal terms suggests that Pylê c was the work of a notary (see above, p. 252 n. 66). 6. 10 να … ναφι: see above, note on a 6. 19, p. 522. 6. 13 διδαγμ νως: see above, note on a 1. 285, p. 517. 6. 23 παρ’ W / tam: *παρ (παρ+ P) = παρ’ n, equivalent to παρ( or a, Lat. quam (not tam): cf. Sophokles, s.v. 6. 25 †Uν, παρον† / clanculo, belle: even if *Uν = Uν’ W (like παρ’ W above, 22, and ες W, which Apollonius Dyscolus lists among the
adverbs in his De adverbiis, GG 2. 1, 198), it is still not clear what it has to do with diminutive adverbs in general, and with the Latin clanculum (or clanculo) in particular. Conversely, παρον seems to be a diminutive of παρ(, as the suffix -ιον suggests. It has no relationship to the Latin belle, but it may be an attempt to make up for the lack of a Greek equivalent of belle with another diminutive adverb of different meaning. It should be noted that c offers the only case of diminutive adverbs in a Greek Donatus: translators omitted this category because diminutive adverbs cannot be properly translated into Greek. See Priscian, Inst. gramm. 15. 25 (GL 3, 79) and especially 38 (GL 3, 88): inveniuntur praeterea apud nos adverbia diminutiva, quae apud Graecos non sunt, ut clam ‘clanculum’, bene ‘belle, bellissime.’ 7 περ' σχετλιασμο: / de interiectione: Pylê c follows Greek grammar in considering interjections as adverbs ( πρρημα) and Latin grammar in making them an independent part of speech. On σχετλιασμς, see above, p. 224. 7. 3–4 κεκαλυμμ νQη τQ φωνQ / abscondita voce: absconditus probably means “profound” (cf. OLD, s.v. abscondite). 8. περ' συνδ σμου / de coniunctione: this section of Pylê c, modeled on Moschopoulos’ treatment of conjunctions, shows many similarities to
542
notes
George Scholarios’ corresponding chapter and to Scholarios’ source, Pseudo-Basil the Great. However, the examples quoted at lines 12–13, 15–16, and 18–19 show that c’s compiler collated the Greek text with an Ianua. 8. 1–3 διτι … δεσμε>ν / quia … ligare: cf. Dion. Th. Ars gramm. 20, p. 64 Lallot: σ2νδεσμς στι λ ξις συνδ ουσα δι(νοιαν μετ4 τ(ξεως κα' τ? τς Sρμηνεας κεχην?ς δηλο:σα, “the conjunction is a word that connects concepts in order and explains the gap in the meaning.” Pylê c’s participle πληρο:σα occurs in d 8. 3 also and is probably taken from Apollonius Dyscolus (Synt. 3. 127, ed. J. Lallot, Paris 1997), who uses *ναπληρο:ν τ? κεχην?ς τς Sρμηνεας as “to fill the meaning’s lacuna” (see LSJ, s.v. χ(σκω). The verb δεσμ ω is a later form of δεσμε2ω, “to fetter, put in chains, bind”; both forms were used in Byzantine Greek (see LSJ, PLG, and Sophokles, ss.vv.). As for the Latin translation, ordo coniunctiva demonstrates that the translator considered ordo as an ablative feminine, like the corresponding Greek τ(ξει. Moreover, Pl’s simple transliteration of the Greek Sρμηνεας into erminie is probably due to the translator’s ignorance of the corresponding term in Latin; Sρμηνεα occurs again at line 8, but is not translated, together with the entire definition of the copulative conjunctions (σ2νδεσμοι συμπλεκτικο). 8. 1 συνδ ει: see above, note on a 8. 1 and 16, p. 522. 8. 4 οF μ3ν … οF δ3 … / quidam … quedam…: another case of confusion between the Greek σ2νδεσμος, masculine, and the Latin coniunctio, feminine. 8. 4–6 συμπλεκτικο … παραπληρωματικο: Pylê c’s list of eight categories of conjunctions follows the arrangement current in Greek grammar from Dionysius Thrax onward (20, pp. 64–66 Lallot): see above, p. 224. However, c adds a ninth category, the σ2νδεσμοι ναντιωματικο, “adversative conjunctions” (31–32). The Latin translation is incomplete and sometimes contradictory; for example, the διαζευκτικο are first called coniunctivae (5) and then, correctly, disiunctivae (11). 8. 12 διϊστσιν / distant: on the late verb διϊστ(ω, which replaces Dionysius’ διστημι (διιστPσιν: 20. 2, p. 64 Lallot), see Sophokles, s.v.
notes
543
8. 12–13 a στιν Eμ ρα ] ν2ξ στιν: this example also occurs in Apollonius Dyscolus, De coniunct. 216. 8–9 and 217. 2 (= pp. 70 and 72 ed. by C. Dalimier, Paris 2001). Cf. a 8. 17–18, where the sentence reads ] Eμ ρα στ'ν ] ν2ξ. 8. 14 _παρξιν / habentiam: _παρξις properly corresponds to existentia, subsistentia (cf. 17 μετ’ iπ(ρξεως = cum essentiam, sic). However, Pl may have interpreted the impersonal form iπ(ρχει with dative as equivalent to “to have,” and τ4 iπ(ρχοντα as meaning “goods,” “riches,” “possessions,” etc. 8. 15–16 ε #εγχPται, κοιμPται / si stertit, dormit: cf. a. 8. 13 ε #ωχPται, κοιμPται, quoted as an example of σ2νδεσμος συνεκτικς, coniunctio continuativa. The verb *#εγχ(ω was created from # γχω (or # γκω), “to snore”: see Charisius 3. 1, GL 1, 244: stertio stertis stertui # γχω. In turn, #ωχ(ω was probably derived from the late #ωχμς, used, e.g., by Clement of Alexandria (see Sophokles, s.v.). The verb #+χω, “to wheeze,” is used, e.g., by Soranus of Ephesus (see LSJ, s.v.). 8. 18–19 πε' dλιος … Eμ ρα στν: / quia sol … dies est: the same example describes the σ2νδεσμοι iποσυνεκτικο (coniunctiones subcontinuativae) in a 8. 20: διτι % dλις στιν π' τν γν, Eμ ρα στ. Both c’s iπ ρ and a’s π require the genitive but take the accusative, probably because of the influence exerted by the Latin super terram. 8. 20 π’ *ποδσει / in acceptionem: in Byzantine Greek, *πδοσις means “definition,” “description,” “interpretation.” In Latin, acceptio—“taking,” so “reception,” “perception”—is quite rare; however, the term is used in later philosophical language to indicate the acceptance, i.e., the granting of a proposition (see OLD, s.v.). 8. 24 sine: certainly for sin, “but if,” “and what if,” used, e.g., by Plautus (Pers. 2. 2. 45, etc.). 8. 30 Uρ: epic form of Uρα. 8. 31–32 ναντιωματικο: according to Manuel Moschopoulos, “some” (τιν3ς) grammarians added the adversative conjunctions to the traditional categories. Pylê c’s text is closely modeled on Moschopoulos’ passage: (Erotemata, Basileae 1540, p. 17) τιν3ς δ3 προστι$ ασι κα'
544
notes
ναντιωματικο2ς. Τνες εσ'ν ναντιωματικο; ΟF δηλο:ντες τ? ναντον τQ δυν(μει το: πρ(γματος, οmον ,μπης, Wμως.
8. 32 ,μπης: Ionic form for ,μπας, “nevertheless, however.”
Donatus graecus d pr. and 1. 1–30: both the initial poem and the descriptive parts of Pylê d’s first chapter coincide almost ad verbum with b’s pr. and 1. 1–31. 1. 31–152: on d’s five declensions, see above, pp. 214ff. Pylê d’ systematization of the Greek declensions is similar to b’s. However, d’s anonymous grammarian apparently attempted to reconcile Greek grammar with the paradigms of the original Ianua; this attempt was only partially successful. On the one hand, the distinguishing feature of the first declension, the genitive in “ου-diphthong” (as in b 1. 47–48), applies to the examples quoted along with the definition (d 1. 50– 51: ποιητς, Χρ2σης, Π ρσης), but corresponds to only two of the four nouns declined (ποιητς and ξ νος). We can observe the same discrepancies in the third declension (in -ης, like b’s, cf. b 1. 77–79) and in the fifth (in -ας, whereas in b it includes indeclinable names, cf. b 1. 99–101). On the other hand, d’s definitions and paradigms coincide in the second and fourth declensions: all nouns of the second Greek declension correspond to Latin second-declension nouns and have the genitive in “long -ου” (d 1. 73–75: cf. Lat. i productum), while all those of the fourth declension have the genitive in -ος in Greek (d 1. 127–129) and in -us (or -u) in Latin. Moreover, unlike the other Greek Donati, d lacks a sub-section on comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs; this part may have been lost with the beginning of the section on verbs or with the last part of the chapter on conjunctions if, as in some early Ianuae (e.g., J), it was put at the end of the grammar. 1. 68–72 $ρνος: this noun is probably equivalent to σκαμνον and translates the Latin scamnum. 1. 76–87 πατρ, μτηρ: together with the Attic forms, d also mentions the full-grade forms of πατρ and μτηρ, more common in late and modern Greek (% πατ ρα, E μητ ρα) but attested already in Homer (e.g., Il. 4. 45 πατ ρων, 24. 36–37 πατ ρι … μητ ρι). For μτρα (83),
notes
545
which also means “uterus,” see Etymologicum Gudianum, s.v. (394): μτρα, *π? το: μτηρ, μητ ρος, μητ ρα, κα' κατ4 συγκοπν μτρα. The transmitted reading μητ ραν occurs in late antique and Byzantine popular texts instead of μητ ρα (e.g., Romanos the Melodist, Cant.
dub. 3. 63. 2 bis. 11; George Sphrantzes, Chron. 37. 6; and the Historia Alexandri Magni, many times; see Dieterich 1898, 159). At 85, the transmitted dative plural μητ ρεις (for μητ ραις?) is vox nihili; it may be corrected into μητ ρσι, which occurs, with the more common μητρ(σι, in Theodosius’ Canons (GG 4. 2. 30.3) and Choeroboschus’ commentary (GG 4. 324. 7).
1. 141–145 βασιλε2ς: the translator almost certainly confused the Latin res, gen. rei, mentioned by many Ianuae among the paradigms of the fifth declension, with rex, gen. regis, which is not frequent and, in any case, belongs to the third declension; rex occurs, for example, in J (fol. 112r). It should be noted that, in Byzantine Greek, βασιλε2ς is the official title of the “Emperor” (Lat. imperator). 1. 149 ε@δεσι: @δοις Z. In late Greek, -οις often replaces -ε(σ)σι as the ending of dative plural in third-declension nouns: see Dieterich 1898, 162. 2 περ' #ματος: a comparison with the other Greek Donati shows that d’s lacuna concerns the introductory parts, the complete first three conjugations, as well as the active, the impersonal, and part of the passive voice of *κο2ω. The order of the irregular verbs in d corresponds to that of c, except that πορε2ομαι and χαρω (instead of c’s χαρομαι) are reversed and d has φ ρω only for the Latin fero. Also, Pylê d’s treatment of verbs resembles c’s in the distinction—and confusion—between perfect and aorist. As already noted (above, p. 218), the section on verbs of Pylai b, c, and d was probably derived from three versions of the same essay on verbs, which, in turn, was the translation of the section on verbs of a Latin Ianua. 2. 2 *κο2σοιο: for -σοις instead of -σοιο, cf. a. 2. 211(b), etc. 2. 17 ff. εμ: in d, this verb immediately follows the four regular conjugations as in b, c, and a’s R. Unlike the other Greek Donati, however, d does not account for variants in the conjugation. Also, d follows b in limiting the conjugation of εμ to the present and future tenses.
546
notes
2. 29 †πλη$υντικο>ς†: the transmitted text reads: “Consider that the other tenses (scil. of εμ) will not be found used in the plural.” Perhaps the grammarian wanted to warn his readers that εμ is not used in the past tenses. Therefore, it is not clear what “plural” means in this context; the copyist probably misunderstood an abbreviation and took, e.g., παρεληλυ$σι, “past” (Lat. praeteritis) for πλη$υντικο>ς. Dionysius Thrax, in fact, uses παρεληλυ$ς as a temporal category, to which four verbal tenses belong: παρατατικς (imperfect), παρακεμενος (perfect), iπερσυντ λικος (pluperfect), and *ριστος (aorist). The plural παρεληλυ$τες occurs as “past tenses” in [Theod. Alex.] De gramm, GG 3, 47. 12, 145. 23 and 30, etc. The verb εμ has an imperfect, but other verbs, such as γγνομαι or iπ(ρχω (cf. c 2. 466, etc.), supply the tenses that cannot be created from the (σ)-stem. 2. 57 βεβουληκ ναι: this perfect infinitive is actually a vox nihili: the regular perfect infinitive of βο2λομαι, which is synonymous with $ λω and means “to wish, want,” is βεβουλσ$αι. Pylê a has τε$εληκ ναι (2. 670), whereas c uses the aorist $ελσαι (2. 521). 2. 60, 80 etc. π$εν σχηματζει: Lat. unde trahitur, a typical formula of Ianua. At 80, the copyist wrote γνεται first, and then changed it to the more technical term σχηματζω. Pylê a has π$εν ξ ληται (2. 174, etc.; see the note ad l., p. 519). 2. 62ff. φ ρω: unlike c, which uses φερ- for the aorist and the future (cf. c 2. 765–775), d gives only the present and the future tenses of this verb and forms the future with the stem οσ-. 2. 98 σ$ι(σησαν ] σ$ασαν: a third person plural like * σ$ι(σουσι would be logically required. On σ$ω / * σ$ι(ω, see above, note on c 2. 615 ff., p. 537. 2. 149–150 *ριστος … χαρναι: χαρεσ$αι, actually a present infinitive, is probably a varia lectio originally written along the present active χαρειν, while χαρναι was the aorist (cf. the regular second aorist passive χ(ρην). However, since, at 146–147, the “future subjunctive” is 4ν χαρ, it is highly probable that the anonymous grammarian considered χαρναι as a future.
notes
547
2. 151–152 ο5δετ ρου πα$ητικο: … χαιρμενος: for χαρω / χαρομαι as a “neuter passive” (= semideponent, corresponding to the Latin gaudeo), cf. a 3. 33–34 and c 2. 23–28, 3. 29–31. Z’s reading τρα (see apparatus) is probably due to the influence of the Latin original text, where participia is neuter. The third participle of χαρω, missing in d, could be χαρησμενος, as in c 2. 708. 2. 158–159 γεγ νηκα … γεγ νηνται: the confusion between active and (middle-)passive endings is frequent in all the Greek Donati. Perfect active forms of γ(γ)νομαι—in particular, the participle γεγενηκ+ς— appear in late Greek and are easily confused with the perfect active of γενν(ω, whose meaning they take. 2. 162–163 iπερσυντ λικος … γεγ νηντο: this is one of the few cases of “pluperfect” in d and, in general, in the Donati compositi. The pluperfect middle-passive of γ(γ)νομαι, γεγενμην, etc., is actually used only in the third person by classical and classicizing authors. Thus, d’s only correct form is the third person plural, γεγ νηντο. In the singular, the anonymous grammarian has used the pluperfect stem with the endings of a pluperfect active (-κη or -κει), whereas, in the plural, a confusion with the singular endings of the perfect middle-passive has occurred; those endings were probably added in the margin of Z’s original in order to correct line 158. 2. 170–171 ε@$ε γεγενκοιμι … γεγενκοιεν: the perfect optative is modeled on the late perfect γεγ νηκα (see above, note on 158–159). 2. 186–187 μμνου … μιμν τωσαν: although the perfect imperative μ μνησο, μεμνσ$ω, etc., is rather common, d confuses the conjugation of μ μνημαι with that of μμνω, “to remain, stay, await,” which is active. It is possible to correct μμνω into μιμνσκω; however, the active imperative of μιμνσκω, “to remind,” is rare and attested only in compounds (e.g., *ναμιμνσκω and iπομιμνσκω). 2. 188–189 ε@$ε μμνημι … μμνηντο: by inserting the suffix -σκοι-, it would be possible to obtain the correct present optative of μιμνσκω: μιμνησκομην, μιμνσκοιο, etc. However, this present optative apparently has been created from the verb μμνω, like the imperative (see
548
notes
the previous note); thus, we may suppose that d’s original form was μιμνομην, μμνοιο, μμνοιτο, etc. 3. περ' μετοχς: Pylê d’s section on participles is very similar to b’s; the presence of common mistakes (such as the omission of οmον at 16) suggests that both texts were based on the same original. However, d is less accurate than b and probably represents an earlier version of the text. 4. περ' *ντωνυμας: in this section, d mostly coincides with b, although there are differences in the order of properties and paradigms. The Latin model still influences d: the repetition of the declension of iμ τερος (78–85) is perhaps an attempt to translate into Greek vestras, which in Ianua is given for the fourth pronominal mode (quartus modus, τ ταρτος τρπος). Vestras, except for the rare iμεδαπς, has no corresponding pronoun in Greek; see above, p. 194 n. 105. If this is true, we can infer either that d mirrors an earlier stage of the tradition of the Donati compositi, where the links with the Latin Ianua are still very tight (whereas b represents a later attempt to make the Greek Donatus a real Greek grammar), or that d reflects a contamination of the Greek text with the Latin Ianua, with the purpose of making it suitable for Latins learning Greek. Indeed, d’s treatment of pronouns shows the same combination of Greek and Latin grammar as that of nouns. 4. 8–9 *π? … συν$ σεως: this sentence, missing in b, corresponds to the Latin a suis componentibus, which can be read, e.g., in the p-edition of Ianua. Cf. a 4. 15–16 κ τν Sαυτο: συντι$εμ νων. 4. 16–26 E ρ$ … σφPς: see above, note on b 4. 18–30, p. 525. 4. 44 κα' το:το … σημανει: this sentence, although incomplete, is an interesting clue to d’s attempt to make its grammar suitable for Westerners who wanted to learn Greek. 4. 48–49 *π’ μν: both Z and b’s M have *φ’ Eμν, a common mistake that may reinforce the hypothesis of a common origin. 5. περ' προ$ σεως: although modeled on Ianua’s chapter on prepositions, a, c, and d show several differences in the terminology used in
notes
549
the introductory parts, as well as in the translation of the single prepositions into Greek. 5. 5 πο>αν … iπηρετε>: iπηρετ, “to serve,” takes the dative in classical Greek and the accusative in modern Greek. Cf. c 5. 4 τνι πτσει δουλε2ει; 5. 5 ff.: like Pylê c, d roughly respects the order and the meanings of Ianua’s Latin prepositions, as is clear from the following charts: a. Latin prepositions with the accusative: Ianua ad apud ante adversus cis citer citra circum circa contra erga extra inter intra infra iuxta ob pone per prope propter secundum post trans ultra praeter supra circiter usque secus penes
a
c
d
ες πρς πρ κατ( πιτ(δε
πρς ες πρ κατ(
πρς Tς πρ κατ(
κ2κλ&ω γγ2ς *ντ περ κτς μεταξ2 ντς κ(τω πλησον ξ ναντας
κ2κλ&ω περ *ντ
περ
κτς μεταξ2 ντς, ,σω
,ξω
δι( παρ( kνεκεν κατ( μετ( π κεινα π ρα παρ( π(νω γυρ$εν kως Uλλως ,γγιστα
δι( ,γγιστα
δι( γγ2ς, πλησον
κατ( μετ(
κατ( μετ(
π ρα
π ρα
π(νω γυρ$εν kως
Uνω περ kως
παρ(
παρ(
( πιτ(δε, περ)
κατ(
,νδον, ,σω
πλησον
550
notes
b). Latin prepositions with the ablative: Ianua a ab abs cum coram clam de e ex pro prae palam sine absque tenus
a
c
d
*π κ
*π
*π
σ2ν ν+πιον λ($ρRα περ κ ξ πρ γγ2ς δημοσRα Uνευ δχα π ρας
μετ( ν+πιον λ($ρRα *π κ ξ *ν( π, γγ2ς δημοσRα Uνευ χωρς, δχα
σ2ν *ντικρ2 κρ2βδην κ ξ
φανερς δχα (δχα)
c). Latin prepositions with the accusative and the ablative: Ianua in sub super subter
a
c
d
ν iπ π(νω iποκ(τω
ν iπ π iποκ(τω
ν iπ νεπ νυπ
This chart shows that a and c agree in many cases, and that c and d are independent from each other in the translation of the Latin prepositions. As is the case with a, both c and d confuse prepositions, adverbs, and nouns. In the second group, d also includes π and ν, which seem to refer to the third group. 5. 6 πιτ(δε and 8 π κεινα: πιτ(δε, “on this side” and π κεινα, “on that side, beyond” were used as adverbs or prepositions with the genitive in late Greek prose (see, e.g., Damascius, In Parm. 22. 12, 13, etc.). Thus, they correspond to the Latin cis, citra and trans, ultra, respectively. 5. 11 π ρας: this is properly a noun and means “end, border.” This and other cases (e.g., 8: Uλλως, which is an adverb and means “otherwise,
notes
551
in another way”) suggest that d translated mechanically, with the help of a dictionary. 5. 13 νεπ' κα' νυπ: given as translations of super and subter, these prepositions are not attested in Greek. However, they occur in compounds, such as ν-επι-δεκνυμαι, “display in,” or ν-υπο-κε>μαι, “subsist in” (see LSJ, ss.vv.). 6. 2 διτι … #ματι: the adverb does not “stay in place of a verb” (cf. the definition of the pronoun, 4. 2: κε>ται ν τπ&ω νματος). This definition is modeled after b. 6. 2 (κατ4 #ματος λ γεται ] πιλ γεται #ματι) and c 6. 1–2 (;σταται γγGς #ματα). The verb πιλ γω probably corresponds to adicio, as in Priscian’s definition (Inst. gramm. 15. 1, GL 3, 60): adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, cuius significatio verbis adicitur. 6. 5 ff.: Pylê d’s nineteen categories of meaning, as well as the examples quoted to describe each of them, basically correspond to those of the Latin Ianua: temporis, loci, ordinis, qualitatis, quantitatis, adfirmandi, numeri, comparandi, discretivi, superlativi, negandi, congregandi, prohibendi, similitudinis, interrogandi, dubitandi, eligendi, hortandi, and demonstrandi. Often, more than one translation is given for an adverb, whereas frequent repetitions of the same adverb show that, unlike a and c, d tries to give a translation of each of the Latin examples. 6. 5–6 χρονικς … %πηνκα: here is a clear example of d’s translation method. Ianua’s adverbs of time are usually hodie, heri, nunc, nuper, cras, aliquando, olim, tunc, quondam, iam, and semper (cf., e.g., p). Pylê d translates aliquando with ποτ and ,σ$’ Wτε and semper with διαπαντς (late form for δι4 παντς) and *ε, and uses π(λαι for both olim and quondam. The adverb %πηνκα, added to the sequence, is a relative adverb (“at what time”) or a conjunction (“when”): see LSJ, s.v. 6. 7–8 ] τπου… W$εν: xδε ] ντε:$εν should correspond to the Latin hic vel ibi, but ντε:$εν actually means “hence” (Lat. illinc). 6. 9–10 ] συντ(ξεως … ν [τ&] το2τ&ω: Pylê d translates Ianua’s adverbia ordinandi (συντ(ξεως instead of τ(ξεως) quite faithfully: the Greek adverbs reproduce inde, deinde, deinceps, continuo, protinus, interea
552
notes
et propterea, with συνεχς and διηνεκς for continuo and the last two adverbs in a reverse order. The participle λοιπν is common as an adverb in modern Greek. 6. 17 ] συγκρσεως … *ντ: cf. Ianua (p): Da comparandi, ut magis, minus, plus, tam et quam. For *ντ as “than,” after comparatives, see LSJ, s.v. 6. 18–19 ] διακρσεως … πολλαχς: see Ianua (p): da discretivi, ut secus (κα$’ αiτο:, probably for secum), seorsum (παρ(), separatim (χωρς, δRα), secreto (κρ2φα), si ngillatim (καταμνας), trifariam et multifariam (τριχς κα' πολλαχς), to which Priscian adds divise (or divisim: δχα) and other texts bifariam (διχς). 6. 20 μ(λιστα δεδιδαγμ νως: μ(λιστα is required by Ianua’s doctissime. 6. 23 κατ’ α5τ[ν]: probably equivalent to κατ4 τ? α5τ, “together” (cf. LSJ, s.v. α5τ). 6. 26 Eλκως: to my knowledge, this adverb (which is derived from the adjective Eλκος, “as big as,” “as old as”) is attested only in the fourteenth-century verse Chronicle by Ephraem, 125 and 6551 (ed. by I. Bekker, CSHB, Bonn 1840). 6. 26–27 Tσα2τως, να: Z’s Tσειο2τως was perhaps due to a confusion with Septuagint, Jos. 14. 11: Tσε' … Tσα2τως. If να, “yes,” Lat. sic, is listed among the “adverbs of similitude” because d confused it with sic “so,” we would have another piece of evidence for the use of a dictionary in the translation. 6. 32 ] δεξεως … δου: cf. Ianua (p): Da demonstrandi, ut en, ecce. The Greek ν is a transcription of the Latin adverb. 7. παρεμβολς πιρρματος: the translator probably understood interiectio as “adverb of insertion,” according to the common definition of this part of speech: cf. Ianua (p): interiectio … quia interiacet aliis partibus orationis; see also c 7. 1–2. 8. περ' συνδ σμου: of d’s section on conjunctions, only few lines remain. Repetitions suggest that the anonymous grammarian was at-
notes
553
tempting a collatio of different texts. The eleven categories listed by d correspond to those of Ianua (cf. a 8). 8. 9 δηλαδ: an adverb (“plainly, of course,” Lat. videlicet, scilicet, profecto). In modern Greek, δηλαδ is used as “that is to say” or in other colloquial expressions, such as “so, then, in brief.” Therefore, d may have listed it among the *$ροιστικο' ] λογικο' ] εσακτικο conjunctions (Lat. collectivae vel rationales vel illativae), which correspond to the Latin ergo, igitur, itaque. 8. 10–11 διαζευκτικο, iποδιαζευκτικο: Lat. disiunctivae (cf. a 8. 16), subdisiunctivae. The second category is mentioned by Choeroboscus, Epimerismi in Psalmos 30. 26 (ed. by T. Gaisford, Oxford 1842) and by Suda in connection with conjunction a (eta 5. 5–6, ed. A. Adler, Leipzig 1928–1935). Both Choeroboscus and Suda remark the difference between σ2νδεσμοι διαζευκτικο, which relate two terms with opposite meaning (% τ4 ναντα ν τQ συντ(ξει διιστν, οmονZ Eμ ρα ] ν2ξ, or: ] ν ος ] παλαις), and σ2νδεσμοι iποδιαζευκτικο, which connect different terms but do not establish any opposition (% δι(φορα πρ(γματα τι$ε'ς κα' μηδ3ν kτερον ν τQ ατσει διαιρν, οmονZ δς μοι χρυσ?ν ] Uργυρον a λ$ους τιμους). Cf. Ianua (p): Disiunctiva est que, quamvis voces coniungat, sensum tamen disiungit, et alteram quidem rem esse, alteram vero non esse significat […]. Subdisiunctiva est que, quamvis voces disiunctivarum habeat, utrumque tamen esse significat in eodem vel in diverso tempore.
appendix i COMPARING THE FOUR DONATI GRAECI
A. Nouns and Adjectives1 1. First declension Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
ποιητς μο:σα Π(σχα προσλυτος Αβρα(μ Πριαμδης Ανεας
ποιητς Π ρσης ξ2λον
ποιητ+ς μοσα ψυχ+ προσ+λυτος Π:σχα ετς
ποιητς μο:σα ξ νος Π(σχα
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
κ2ριος $ες σκαμνον μαtστωρ Βιργλιος
Α@ας αyλαξ
κεκορημνος
κ2ριος $ες διδ(σκαλος $ρνος
2. Second declension
1 I have indicated in Italics the nouns and adjectives that appear in MS. R only, as well as the words that were probably either declined or simply mentioned in Pylê c’s lost first chapter.
556
appendix i
3. Third declension Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
πατρ μτηρ ,ργον Fερε2ς πλις *ν(γνωσις Uν$ρωπος *ναγν+στης παρ$ νος "πιστ+μων πPς σχυρς σχυρτερος κσμιον ε5δαμων π νης πτωχς δ2ναμις
μο:σα δψα σοφ
@καν4α δLναμις πολLς εδα μων πFς 1σχυρς 1σχυρτερος κονιορτς χνοLς +ρ † ξος † α14+ρ _λς
πατρ μτηρ Uν$ρωπος qπας
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
ψις χερ ο=κος κ ρας γνατον
μα>α 8Ρ α
ψις κο+ κρας
χερ κ ρας βλ μμα *κο2ων
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
ε=δος πρPγμα Eμ ρα πστις "λπ ς μεσημβρα
’Αβρα(μ ’Αδ(μ
πρFγμα π:γος
Eμ ρα μεσημβρα βασιλε2ς ε=δος
4. Fourth declension
5. Fifth declension
Νε
’Ααρ+ν
comparing the four donati graeci
557
6. Irregular Nouns Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Uρματα τπος τ(ρταρος ο5ρανς λιμν ,δεσμα κρμνυον
– – – – – – –
βρ!μα =πλα
– – – – – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
διδαγμ νος μικρς *λη$ς κακς *γα$ς μγας
δεδιδαγμ νος πρτος πολ2ς ε5σεβς ε5δαμων μικρς
καλς γα4ς κακς εδα μων εσεβ+ς 1σχυρς πολLς
– – – – – – –
7. Degrees of Comparison
B. Verbs2 8. a. γαπ:ω a) active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future
2
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*γαπ sγ(πων sγ(πηκα sγαπκειν
*γαπ sγ(πων sγ(πηκα
*γαπ sγ(πων sγ(πησα sγαπκειν *γαπσω
– – – – – –
*γ(πα *γ(πησον
– –
*γαπσω
sγ(πησα *γαπσω
*γ(πα γ:πησον
*γ(πα *γ(πησον
Forms occurring in MS. R only have been italicized.
558 Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i *γαπ&μι *γαπκοιμι *γαπσοιμι *γαπ Eγ:πων Eγ:πηκα Eγαπ+κειν *γαπκω *γαπσω *γαπPν sγαπηκ ναι
*γαπ&μι *γαπσαιμι *γαπσοιμι
*γαπ *γαπκω
*γαπσω
*γαπ&μι *γαπκοιμι *γαπσαιμι *γαπσοιμι
*γαπ *γαπκω
*γαπσω
– – – – – – – – – – – –
*γαπPν
*γαπPν
*γαπσειν
*γαπσαι *γαπσειν
*γαπσαι *γαπσειν
– – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*γαπPται sγαπPτο sγ(πηται sγ(πητο
*γαπPται sγαπPτο sγ(πηται
*γαπPται sγαπPτο sγ(πητο
sγαπ$η *γαπη$σεται
*γαπη$σεται
– – – – – –
8. b. γαπ:ω b) impersonal Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect
*γαπη$σεται *γαπ(σ$ω *γαπη$τω *γαπησ(σ$ω
*γαπ(σ$ω *γαπησ(σ$ω
*γαπ(σ$ω
– –
*γαπ&το sγ(πηται
*γαπ&το
*γαπ&το
*γαπσαιτο *γαπσοιτο
*γαπσαιτο *γαπσοιτο
– – – –
*γαπPται sγαπημ νος QX
– – – –
*γαπσοιτο *γαπPται *γαπPτο sγαπημ νος Qv Eγ:πηται s-μ νος προwπηρχεν / Eγ:πητο
*γαπPται sγαπημ νος QX
–
comparing the four donati graeci – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future Participle – pres./imperf. – future Gerund Supine
*γαπκω s-μ νος ,σται γαπη4+σεται
*γαπσηται *γαπη$σεται
*γαπσηται
*γαπPσ$αι Eγαπ7σ4αι
559 – – –
– – – –
γαπη4+σεσ4αι *γαπν *γαπσων *γαπητ ον
*γαπν *γαπσων
*γαπν *γαπσων
– – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*γαπμαι sγαπ+μην sγ(πημαι sγαπμην
*γαπμαι sγαπ+μην sγ(πημαι
*γαπμαι sγαπ+μην sγ(πημαι
8. c. γαπ:ω c) passive Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
*γαπη$σομαι
sγαπ$ην *γαπη$σομαι
sγαπ$ην *γαπη$σομαι
– – – – – –
Imperative – present – future
*γαπ γ:πησαι
*γαπ *γ(πησαι
*γαπ *γ(πησαι
– –
*γαπ&+μην Eγ:πημαι
*γαπ&+μην
*γαπ&+μην
*γαπησαμην
– – –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
*γαπη$ησομην γαπησο μην
*γαπησομην
sγαπημ νος ε@ην *γαπη$ησομην
γαπ!μαι Eγαπ μην *γαπμαι Eγ:πημαι Eγαπ+μην sγ(πημαι
*γαπμαι
*γαπμαι
sγαπημ νος c
sγαπημ νος c
*γαπσωμαι *γαπη$σομαι
sγαπ$ην sγαπημ νος ,σομαι
γαπη4+σομαι
–
– – – – – – – –
560 Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i *γαπPσ$αι sγαπσ$αι
*γαπPσ$αι
Eγαπημνος γαπη4ησμενος
sγαπημ νος *γαπη$ησμενος
sγαπημ νος *γαπη$ησμενος
– –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
διδ(σκω δδασκον δεδδαχα
διδ(σκω δδασκον δδαχα
– – –
– pluperfect – aorist – future
διδ(σκω δδασκον δδαξα δεδδαχα διδ(χ$ην δδαξα διδ(ξω
δδαξα διδ(ξω
δδαξα διδ(ξω
– – –
Imperative – present – future
δδασκε δ δαξον
δδασκε δδαξον
δδασκε δδαξον
– –
διδ(σκοιμι διδ(ξαιμι διδ(ξαιμι διδ(ξοιμι
διδ(σκοιμι
διδ(σκοιμι
διδ(ξαιμι διδ(ξοιμι
διδ(ξαιμι διδ(ξοιμι
– – – –
Participle – perfect – future
*γαπPσ$αι
*γαπη$ναι sγαπσ$αι *γαπη$σεσ$αι *γαπη$σεσ$αι *γαπη$σεσ$αι
– – – –
9. a. διδ:σκω a) active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
διδ:σκω "δ δασκον διδ(σκω "δ δαξα "διδ:χ4ην
διδ(ξω διδ(σκειν διδ(ξαι διδασκναι διδ(ξειν
– – – – – – – –
διδ(σκω (διδ(χω)
διδ(σκω (διδ(χω)
διδ(ξω
δδαξα διδ(ξω
διδ(σκειν
διδ(σκειν
– –
διδ(ξαι διδ(ξειν
διδ(ξαι διδ(ξειν
– –
comparing the four donati graeci
561
9. b. διδ:σκω Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
– – – – – –
διδ(σκεται διδ(σκετο δεδδακται
διδ(σκεται διδ(σκετο δεδδακται
διδ(χ$η διδαχ$σεται
διδ(χ$η διδαχ$σεται
– – – – – –
Imperative – present – future
– –
διδασκ σ$ω διδαξ(σ$ω
διδασκ σ$ω διδαξ(σ$ω
– –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
διδ(σκοιτο
διδ(σκοιτο
διδ(ξαιτο διδ(ξοιτο
διδ(ξαιτο διδ(ξοιτο
– – – –
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
Participle – pres./imperf. – future
– –
Gerund
–
–
Supine
–
–
b) impersonal
– – – – – – – –
διδ(σκηται δεδιδαγμ νος Qv
διδ(σκηται διδαγμ νος Qv
διδαχ$Q διδαχ$σεται
διδαχ$Q διδαχ$σεται
διδ(σκεσ$αι
διδ(σκεσ$αι
διδ(ξασ$αι διδαχ$σεσ$αι
διδ(ξασ$αι διδαχ$σεσ$αι
– – – –
διδ(σκων διδ(ξων
διδ(σκων διδ(ξων
– –
562
appendix i
9. c. διδ:σκω c) passive Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
διδ(σκομαι διδασκμην διδ(χ$ην δεδδαγμαι δεδιδ(γμην
διδ(σκομαι διδασκμην δεδδαγμαι
διδ(σκομαι διδασκμην δεδδαγμαι
– – –
διδ(χ$ην διδαχ$σομαι
– – –
– pluperfect – aorist – future
διδαχ$σομαι
διδ(χ$ην διδαχ$σομαι
Imperative – present – future
διδ(σκου δ δαξαι
διδ(σκου δδαξαι
διδ(σκου δδαξαι
– –
διδασκομην διδαχ$εην
διδασκομην
διδασκομην
διδαξαμην διδαξομην
διδαξαμην διδαξομην
– – – –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future Participle – pres./imperf. – perfect – future
διδαχ$ησομην διδ:σκωμαι "διδασκμην διδ(σκωμαι "διδ:χ4ην "δεδιδ:γμην διδαχ$ διδαχ$σωμαι διδ(σκεσ$αι διδαχ$ναι διδασχ7σ4αι διδαχ$σεσ$αι
διδ(σκωμαι διδ(σκωμαι δεδιδαγμ νος c δεδιδαγμ νος c
– – – – – – – –
διδαχ$ διδαχ$σωμαι
διδαχ$ διδαχ$σωμαι
διδ(σκεσ$αι
διδ(σκεσ$αι
– –
διδ(ξασ$αι διδ(ξεσ$αι
διδ(ξασ$αι διδ(ξεσ$αι
– –
διδασκμενος
διδασκμενος
διδαξμενος
διδαξμενος
– – –
comparing the four donati graeci
563
10. a. ναγιν σκω / λγω a) active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*ναγιν+σκω *νεγνωσκον *ν γνωκα *νεγν+κειν
λ γω ,λεγον λ λεχα
λ γω ,λεγον λ λεχα
ναγν σω
,λεξα λ ξω
,λεξα λ ξω
– – – – – –
*ναγνωσκε ν:γνωσον
λ γε λ ξον
λ γε λ ξον
– –
*ναγιν+σκοιμι ναγν σαιμι
λ γοιμι
λ γοιμι
λ ξαιμι λ ξοιμι
λ ξαιμι λ ξοιμι
– – – –
ναγν σοιμι ναγιν σκω νεγ νωσκον *ναγιν+σκω νγνωκα νεγν κειν
– – – – – – – –
λ γω λελ χω
λ γω λελ χω
λ ξω
λ ξω
λ γειν
λ γειν
λ ξαι λ ξειν
λ ξαι λ ξειν
– – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*ναγιν+σκεται *νεγιν+σκετο *ν γνωσται *ν γνωστο
λ γεται λ γετο λ λεκται
λ γεται λ γετο λ λεκται
λ χ$η λεχ$σεται
λ χ$η λεχ$σεται
– – – – – –
ναγν σω *ναγιν+σκειν *νεγνωκ ναι *ναγν+σειν
10. b. ναγιν σκω / λγω b) impersonal Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
*ναγνωσ$σεται
564 Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i *ναγινωσκ σ$ω
λεγ σ$ω λεξ(σ$ω
λεγ σ$ω λεξ(σ$ω
– –
*ναγιν+σκοιτο *ναγνωσ$εη
λ γοιτο
λ γοιτο
λ ξαιτο λεχ$σοιτο
λ ξαιτο λεχ$σοιτο
– – – –
*ναγνωσ$σοιτο *ναγιν+σκηται
*ναγνωσ$Q
*ναγνωσ$σηται *ναγιν+σκεσ$αι *ναγνωσ$ναι *ναγνωσ$σεσ$αι
Participle – pres./imperf. – future
λ γηται λελεγμ νος Qv
λ γηται λελεγμ νος Qv
λ ξηται λεχ$σηται
λ ξηται λεχ$σηται
– – – – – – – –
λ γεσ$αι
λ γεσ$αι
–
λ ξασ$αι λ ξεσ$αι
λ ξασ$αι λ ξεσ$αι
– – –
λ γων λ ξων
λ γων λ ξων
– –
Gerund
–
Supine
–
10. c. ναγιν σκω / λγω c) passive Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*ναγιν+σκομαι *νεγινωσκμην *ν γνωσμαι *νεγν+σμην νεγν σ4ην
λ γομαι λεγμην λ λεγμαι
λ γομαι λεγμην λ λεγμαι
– – – –
– aorist – future
-γνωσ$σομαι
λ χ$ην λεχ$σομαι
λ χ$ην λεχ$σομαι
– –
Imperative – present – future
*ναγιν+σκου ν:γνωσαι
λ γου λ ξαι
λ γου λ ξαι
– –
comparing the four donati graeci Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect
*ναγινωσκομην *ναγνωσ$εην
-γνωσ$ησομην ναγιν σκωμαι *ναγιν+σκωμαι, *νεγινωσκμην
565
λεγομην
λεγομην
–
λεξαμην λεξομην
λεξαμην λεξομην
– – – – –
λ γωμαι λελεγμ νος c
λ γωμαι λελεγμ νος c
λ ξωμαι λεχ$σομαι
λ ξωμαι λεχ$σομαι
– – – – – –
λ γεσ$αι
λ γεσ$αι
–
λ ξασ$αι λεχ$σεσ$αι ]
λ ξασ$αι λεχ$σεσ$αι ]
– – –
λ ξεσ$αι
λ ξεσ$αι
λεγμενος
λεγμενος
λεχ$ησμενος ] λεξμενος
λεχ$ησμενος ] λεξμενος
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
*κο2ω aκουον *κκοα sκο2κειν aκουσα *κο2σω
*κο2ω aκουον *κκοα
*κο2ω aκουον *κκοα
aκουσα *κο2σω
aκουσα *κο2σω
– – – – – –
Imperative – present – future
Uκουε @κουσον
Uκουε Uκουσον
Uκουε Uκουσον
– –
*κο2οιμι *κο2σαιμι
*κο2οιμι
*κο2οιμι
– –
– pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
νγνωσμαι νεγν σ4ην *ναγνωσ$ *ναγνωσ$σωμαι *ναγιν+σκεσ$αι *ναγνωσ$ναι *ναγνωσ$σεσ$αι
Participle – pres./imperf. – perfect – future
– – –
11. a. κοLω a) active
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf.
566 – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i *κο2σοιμι *κο2ω *κο2ω Qκουον
*κο2σαιμι *κο2σοιμι
*κο2σαιμι *κο2σοιμι
– – – –
*κο2ω *κηκω
*κο2ω *κηκω
*κο2σω
*κο2σω
*κο2ειν
*κο2ειν
*κο2σειν
*κο:σαι *κο2σειν
*κο:σαι *κο2σειν
– – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*κο2εται sκο2ετο aκουσται aκουστο
*κο2εται sκο2ετο aκουσται
*κο2εται sκο2ετο aκουσται
sκο2σ$η *κουσ$σεται
sκο2σ$η *κουσ$σεται
– – – – – –
*κου σ$ω *κουσ(σ$ω
*κου σ$ω *κουσ(σ$ω
– –
*κο2οιτο
*κο2οιτο
*κο2σαιτο *κο2σοιτο
*κο2σαιτο *κο2σοιτο
– – – –
Qκουσα EκοLκειν *κο2σω κοLσω *κο2ειν *κο:σαι
– – – – – –
11. b. κοLω b) impersonal Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
*κουσ$σεται *κου σ$ω
– *κο2οιτο *κουσ$εη *κο2σοιτο *κουσ$σοιτο *κο2ηται
*κουσ$
*κο2ηται sκουσμ νον Qv
*κο2ηται sκουσμ νος Qv
–
*κο2σηται *κουσ$σεται
*κο2σηται *κουσ$σηται
– – – – – – – –
comparing the four donati graeci Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future Participle – pres./imperf. – future
*κο2εσ$αι *κουσ$ναι
*κο2εσ$αι
*κο2ων *κουσμενος
*κουμενος *κουσ$ησμενος v *κουσμενος
*κο2εσ$αι
*κο2σασ$αι *κο2σασ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι a *κο2σεσ$αι a *κο2σεσ$αι *κο2ων *κουσμενος
567 – – – –
– –
Gerund
*κουστ ον
–
Supine
*κουστν
–
11. c. κοLω c) passive Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*κο2ομαι sκουμην aκουσμαι sκο2σμην
*κο2ομαι sκουμην aκουσμαι
*κο2ομαι aκουσμαι *κο2ομαι
*κουσ$σομαι
sκο2σ$ην *κουσ$σομαι
sκο2σ$ην *κουσ$σομαι
– – – – – –
*κο2ου *κο2σ$ητι
*κο2ου Uκουσαι
*κο2ου Uκουσαι
– –
*κουομην *κουσ$εην
*κουομην
*κουομην
*κουσαμην *κουσομην
*κουσαμην *κουσομην
– – – *κουσομην
*κο2ωμαι sκουσμ νος c
*κο2ωμαι sκουσμ νος c
*κο2ωμαι sκουσμ νος c
*κο2σωμαι *κουσ$σωμαι
*κο2σωμαι *κουσ$σωμαι
*κο2σωμαι *κουσ$σομαι
*κο2εσ$αι
*κο2εσ$αι
*κο2εσ$αι
*κο2σασ$αι
*κο2σασ$αι
*κο2σασ$αι
*κουσομην κοLωμαι Eκουμην *κο2ωμαι Qκουσμαι EκοLσμην *κουσ$ *κουσ$σομαι *κο2εσ$αι *κουσ$ναι
568 – future Participle – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – future
appendix i *κουσ$σεσ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι *κουσ$σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι ] *κο2σεσ$αι *κουμενος
*κουμενος
*κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος
*κουσ$ησμενος ] *κουσμενος
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
εμ vν
εμ vν
εμ vν iπρξα
εμ vν
,σομαι
,σομαι
,σω
,σο
*κουσ$ες *κουσμενος
12. ε1μ active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
iπρχον ,σομαι
– ,σομαι
,σο ,σ$ω
,σο
ε@ην
ε@ην
iπ(ρξαιμι σομην
σομην c
c iπ(ρξω
iπρχων ,σωμαι ε=ναι iπ(ρξαι
ε=ναι
,σεσ$αι
comparing the four donati graeci
569
13. 4λω active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
$ λω a$ελον s$ ληκα τε$ελκειν s$ λησα $ελσω
– – – – – –
$ λω a$ελον s$ λησα
$ λω a$ελον τε$ ληκα
τε$ ληκα $ελσω
s$ λησα $ελσω
(μ) $ λε
– –
$ λοιμι τε$ελκοιμι $ελσαιμι
– –
$ λοιμι
$ λοιμι
– –
$ελμην $ελσω
$ελσαιμι $ελσοιμι
– – – – – – – –
$ λω a$ελον
$ λω
$ελσοιμι
Q4ελον $ λω E4λησα "τε4ελ+κειν
$ελσω $ λειν τε$εληκ ναι $ελσειν
– – – –
$ λε
s$ λησα
τε$ ληκα $ελσω
s$ λησα $ελσω
$ λειν
$ λειν βεβουληκ ναι
$ελσαι
14. a. βαστ:ζω, βαστ! a) active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
βαστ β(στων βεβ(στακα β(σταξα βεβαστ(κειν
– – –
βαστ(ζω β(σταζον β(στασα
– – –
– – –
βεβ(στακα βαστ(ξω
– – –
βαστ(ξω
570 Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i β(σταζε β(στασον
– –
β(σταζε β(σταξον
– –
βαστ(σαιμι βαστ(κοιμι
– – – –
βαστ(ζοιμι
– – – –
βαστ(σοιμι βαστ! "β:στων βαστ(σω "β:σταξα "βαστ:κειν βαστ βαστ(ξω βαστPν βεβαστακ ναι
– – – – – – – –
βαστ(ξαιμι βαστ(ξοιμι βαστ(ζω
β(στασα
βεβ(στακα βαστ(ξω
– – – – – – – –
– – – –
βαστ(ζειν βαστ(σαι βαστ(ξειν
– – – –
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
βαστ(ζεται βαστ(ζετο βεβ(στακται βαστ(χ$η βεβαστ(κει
– – –
βαστ(ζεται βαστ(ζετο βεβ(στακται
– – –
– – –
βαστ(χ$η βασταχ$σεται
– – –
– –
βασταζ σ$ω βασταχ$τω
– –
βαστ(ζοιτο
βασταχ$σοιτο
– – – –
βαστ(σαιτο βασταχ$σοιτο
– – – –
βαστ(ζηται
– – –
βαστ(ζηται
– – –
βαστ(σειν
14. b. βαστ:ζω, βαστ! b) impersonal Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
βασταχ$σεται
Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf.
βαστ(σοιτο
comparing the four donati graeci – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
βαστ(κηται
βαστ(ζεσ$αι βαστ(χ$αι
– – – – –
βασταγμ νος v
βαστ(ξηται βασταχ$σηται
571 – – – – –
– – – –
– – – –
βαστ(ζων βαστ(σων
– –
– –
Gerund
βαστακτ ου
–
–
Supine
βαστακτν
–
–
Participle – pres./ imperf. – future
βασταχ$σεσ$αι
14. c. βαστ:ζω, βαστ! c) passive
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
βαστ(ζομαι βασταζμην βαστ(χ$ην βασταχ$μην
βαστ(ζομαι βασταζμην βεβ(σταγμαι βαστ(χ$ην βασταχ$σομαι
– – – – – –
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
βασταχ$σομαι
– – – – – –
Imperative – present – future
βαστ(ζου βαστ:χ4ητι
– –
βαστ(ζου β(σταξον
– –
βασταχο μην βασταχ4ε ην
– – – –
βασταζομην
– – – –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
βασταχ4ησο μην βαστ:ζωμαι "βασταζμην "βαστ:χ4ην "βασταχ4+μην
βασταχ4+σομαι
– – – – – – – –
βασταξαμην βασταξομην
βαστ(ζωμαι βασταγμ νος c
βαστ(ξωμαι βασταχ$σομαι
– – – – – – – –
572 Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
appendix i βαστ:ζεσ4αι βασταχ47ναι βασταχ4+σεσ4αι
Participle – pres./imperf. – perfect – future
– – – –
– – –
βαστ(ζεσ$αι βαστ(ξασ$αι βασταχ$σεσ$αι ] βαστ(ξεσ$αι βασταζμενος βασταξμενος ] βασταχ$ησμενος
– – – –
– – –
15. a. φρω Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
φ ρω ,φερον π φερα
φ ρω ,φερον
Imperative – present – future
– –
– –
φ ρε
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
φ ροιμι
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
φ ρω
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
φ ρειν
a) active
,φερα φ ρω
ο@σω
ο@σω
ο@σεσ$αι
comparing the four donati graeci
573
Participle – pres./ imperf.
–
–
– future
–
–
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
φ ρομαι φερμην
Imperative – present – future
– –
– –
– –
φ ρου
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
φερομην
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
– – – –
φ ρων φερμενος
15. b. φρω b) passive
οσομαι
574
appendix i
16. a. "σ4 ω a) active Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
σ$ω aσ$ιον ,φαγα (%μοως)
– – – – – –
σ$ω aσ$ιον sσ$ασα
σ$ω aσ$ιον
φ(γε
– –
,σ$ιε ,σ$ιε
,σ$ιε
φ:γοιμι φ:γαιμι
– – – –
σ$οιμι
σ$οιμι
φ(γω
φ:γοιμι "σ4 ω Qσ4ιον Vφαγα
(*μο ως) φ:γω "σ4 ειν φαγσ4αι
– – – – – – – –
σ$ακα σ$ι(σω
σ$ι(σω
σ$ι(σαιμι σ$ι(σοιμι σ$ω
σ$
σ$ιασ(μην
σ$ακα σ$ι(σω σ$ειν
φαγεν
– – – –
σ$ιPσαι σ$ι(σειν
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
σ$ιPται sσ$ετο sσ$ασαι
– – – – – –
16. b. "σ4 ω b) impersonal Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
sσ$ι($η σ$ια$σεται
comparing the four donati graeci
575
Imperative – present – future
– –
– –
σ$ι τω σ$ιασ(τω
– –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
σ$οιτο
– – – –
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
σ$ι(σασ$αι σ$ι(σεσ$αι
– – – –
Participle – pres./imperf. – future
–
– –
σ$ων σ$ιασμενος
– –
Gerund
–
–
–
–
–
Supine
σ$ι(σαιτο σ$ι(σοιτο
σ$ηται σ$ιασμ νος Qv
σ$ι(σηται σ$ια$σηται σ$εσ$αι
– – – – – – – –
17. γ νομαι Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf.
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
γνομαι γινμην "γεν+4ην γεγενημ νος aμην
– – – –
γνομαι γενμην γ γονα
γνομαι
γενσομαι
– –
γεγνην γενσομαι
γεν$ην γενσομαι
γνου γεν+4ητι
– –
γνου γενσου
γνου
γενσαιμι γεγενημ νος ε@ην
– –
γενομην
γενομην γεγενκοιμι
γεγ νηκα γεγενκην
576
appendix i
– aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
γενσομαι γ νωμαι "γινμην γνωμαι "γεν+4ην γεγενημνος Oν
γενσωμαι
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
γνεσ$αι γενη$ναι γενσεσ$αι
Participle – pres./ imperf. – future
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
γενητ ου
Gerund Supine
γεναμην γενομην
γ νωμαι
γνωμαι
γεγενημ νος c γενσωμαι γενη$σομαι
γενσομαι
γνεσ$αι γνασ$αι γενη$σεσ$αι
γενη$σεσ$αι
γινμενος γενησμενος ] γενη$ησμενος
– –
18. a. πορεLομαι a) middle Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
πορε2ομαι πορευμην πεπρευμαι πορε2$ην πορευ$κειν
– – –
πορε2ομαι πορευμην πεπρευμαι
πορε2ομαι πορευμην πεπρευμαι
πορευ$
– – –
πορε2$ην πορευ$σομαι
πορε2$ην πορευ$σομαι
πορε2ου πορε2$ητι
– –
πορε2ου πρευσαι
πορε2ου πορε2$ητι
πορευ$ομην πορευ$μαι
– – – –
πορευομην
πορευ$ησομην
– –
πορευσαμην πορευσομην πορε2ωμαι
comparing the four donati graeci – – – – – –
πορε2ωμαι πορευμενος c
πορε2σωμαι πορευ$σομαι
πορευ$
– – – –
πορε2εσ$αι
πορε2εσ$αι
πορε2σασ$αι πορε2σεσ$αι
πορευ$ναι πορευ$σεσ$αι
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
πορε2εται πορε2ετο πεπρευται πορε2$η πορευ$σεται
– – – – – –
Imperative – present – future
– –
– –
πορευ σ$ω πορευσ(σ$ω
– –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
πορε2οιτο
– – – –
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
– pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
πορε2ωμαι
577
πορευ$
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
18. b. πορεLομαι b) impersonal
πορε2σαιτο πορε2σοιτο
πορε2ηται πορευμ νος Qv
πορε2σηται πορευ$σηται πορε2εσ$αι πορε2σασ$αι πορευ$σεσ$αι
– – – – – – – – – – – –
578
appendix i
Participle – pres./ imperf.
–
–
πορευμενος
– future
–
–
πορευ$ησμενος
Gerund
–
–
Supine
–
–
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
χαρομαι χαιρμην χ(ρην χαρκειν
χαρομαι χαιρμην κ χαρμαι
χαρω ,χαιρον κεχ(ρηκα
χαρ
– – – – – –
χ(ρην χαρσομαι
χαρ
χαρου χα ρου
– –
χαρου χαρσι
χα>ρε
χαιρ&μι χαρ+σαιμι χαρκοιμι
–
χαιρομην
χαροιμι
– – –
χαιραμην χαιρομην
χαρσοιμι
πορε2ων πορευμενος
19. χα ρω, χα ρομαι Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future Imperative – present – future Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
χαρσοιμι χα ρομαι "χαιρμην χαρ "χ:ρην "χαρ+κειν χαρκω χαρ! χαρε>ν χαρηκναι
– – – – – – – –
χαρω χαρωμαι χαιρμενος c
χαρωμαι χαρσομαι
χαρ
– – – –
χαρεσ$αι
χαρειν
χαρσασ$αι χαρσεσ$αι
χαρεσ$αι χαρναι
Participle – pres./ imperf.
–
χαιρμενος
– future
–
χαρησμενος
χαρων χαιρμενος
χαρ+σεσ4αι
comparing the four donati graeci Gerund
χαρητ ου
Supine
579
– –
20. μμνημαι Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
Indicative – present – imperfect – perfect – pluperfect – aorist – future
– – – – – –
– – – – – –
μ μνημαι
μ μνημαι μεμνμην
Imperative – present – future
– –
– –
Optative – pres./imperf. – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
Subjunctive – present – imperfect – pres./imperf. – perfect – pluperfect – perf./pluperf. – aorist – future
– – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
Infinitive – present – perfect – aorist – future
– – – –
– – – –
μεμνκην
μνσ$ητι
μμνου
μμνημι μνησ$εην
μνσκωμαι
μεμνκην μνησ$
μνησ$ναι
580
appendix i C. Other Parts of Speech3
21. Participles Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*ναγιν+σκων λ γων
λ γων
–
λ γων
*ναγν+σας
λελεγμ νος
–
λελεγμ νος
*ναγν+σων
–
ναγινωσκμενος
–
22. Pronouns
3
Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
γ+
γ+
–
γ+
σ2
σ2
–
σ2
α5τς οW
;
–
;
κε>νος
κε>νος
–
κε>νος
ο[τος
ο[τος
–
ο[τος
α5τς ?αυτς
α5τς
–
α5τς
%
μς
–
μς
εmς
σς
–
σς
Wλος
Wς
–
Wς
=ς R =σπερ
–
Eμ τερος
μς
–
iμ τερος
σς
–
σφ τερος
Wς
–
iμ τερος
Eμ τερος
–
iμ τερος
–
For prepositions, see above, 549f.
comparing the four donati graeci
581
23. Adverbs Pylê a (x)
Pylê a (R)
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
χρνου
χρονικ7ς
χρνου
χρονικς
χρονικς
τπου
τοπικ7ς
καιρο:
τπου
τπου
ρωτηματικο:
ρνητικ7ς
μεστητος
ρωτσεως
συντ(ξεως
ε5κτικς
ποιτητος
ποστητος
*παγορε2σεως
ποιτητος
κλητικς
ποστητος
ποιτητος
*ρνσεως
ποστητος
*ρνητικ(
συγκρ σεως
τοπικ(
συγκατα$ σεως
*ρι$μο:
συγκατα$ σεως
τ:ξεως
ε5χς
*πωμοτικ(
συγκρσεως
μ+σεως
διακρ σεως
σχετλιαστικ(
ε5κτικ(
διακρσεως
ποιτητος
συγχωρ+σεως
*ρνητικ(
ποιτητος
5περ$ετκν
ποστητος
βεβαι σεως
παραβολς ] %μοι+σεως
*ν σεως
*ρνητικ(
δισταγμο:
ρι4μο
εκασμο:
ποστητος
συνα$ροσεως
*$ροσεως
"ρωτ+σεως
τ(ξεως
εκασμο:
κωλ2σεως
%μοι+σεως
διστ:ξεως
*$ροσεως
*$ροσεως
*ν σεως
συγκρσεως
*μοι σεως
παρακελε2σεως
προαιρ σεως
%μοι+σεως
*ποκρσεως
συγκατα4σεως
συγκρσεως
%μοι+σεως
ρωτσεως
δεξεως
εκτικ7ς
ρωτσεως
τ(ξεως
εκασμο:
κλογς
μ σεως
πιτ(σεως
πιτ(σεως
προαιρ σεως
*ρι$μο:
κλητικ7ς
κατα$ σεως
συγκρσεως
παρακελε2σεως
διακρσεως
παρακελεLσεως
$ετικ(
*ρι$μν
δεξεως
1σχLος
*πωμοτικ(
iποκορσεως
4ρο σεως
κατωμοτικ(
κλητικς
δε ξεως
$ειασμο:
*πολογητικς
"κλογ7ς
δεικτικ(
24. Interjections Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
*λγητικς 4αυμαστικ7ς φοβητικ7ς
– – _
– – _
σχετλιαστικς $αυμαστικ(
582
appendix i
25. Conjunctions Pylê a
Pylê b
Pylê c
Pylê d
συμπλεκτικς
_
συμπλεκτικο
συμπλεκτικο
συναπτικς
_
διαζευκτικο
συναπτικο
*$ροιστικ?ς ] λογικ?ς ] εσακτικς
_
συναπτικο
συζευκτικο
συνεκτικς
_
παρασυναπτικο
ατιολογικο
ατιατικς
_
ατολογικο
διαζευκτικο
διαζευκτικς
_
*πορηματικο
iποδιαζευκτικο
iποσυνεκτικς
_
συλλογιστικο
*πορηματικο
λογικς
_
παραπληρωματικο
ναντιωματικο
εσακτικς
_
ναντιωματικο
*παρνσεως
ναντιωματικς
_
συναπτικο' ] #ηματικο
*πορηματικς
_
iποκοριστικο
παραπληρωματικς
_
iποκοριστικς
_
appendix ii THE MANUSCRIPTS OF IANUA (BLACK 2001, 373–378)
manuscript
Ianua
Disticha
date
London, British Library, Harley 2653
1r–41v
no
XII2
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 15972
109r–130r
no
ca. 1260—1280
Udine, Archivio di Stato, Frammenti 13
1r–2v
no
XIII
Udine, Archivio di Stato, Frammenti 16
1r–1v
1v
XIII
Udine, Archivio di Stato, Frammenti 180
1r–1v
no
XIII–XIV
Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Strozzi 80 1r–29v
29v–35v
XIV in.
Udine, Archivio di Stato, Frammenti 223
1r–1v
no
XIV2–XV1
Udine, Archivio di Stato, Frammenti 113
1r–1v
no
XV1
Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, Magliabechi I.45
1r–15v
15v–21r
XV
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, 3128 1r–32v
33r–39v
XV2
Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana, B.vi.18
168r–172v XV med.
154r–167v
Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Med. Palat. 63 1r–22v
22v–28v
XV2
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, lat. qu. 523 (Phillips 23928)
1r–14v
15r–20v
XV2
Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, 2167
4r–42r
43r–50r
1493
584
appendix ii
Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Alpha U. 5. 13 (lat. 290)
1r–14v
15r–19v
XV1
Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Alpha O. 6. 2 (lat. 173)
1r–18r
19r–24v
XV1?
Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 127
1r–14v
15r–20r
1465
Vatican City, Bibl. Apostolica, Ottoboni lat. 1967
1r–21v
22r–27v
XVI
Montecassino, Bibl. dell’Abbazia, 222 TT pp. 139—167 no
XV
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, lat. 3987 (XIII. 8)
1r–14v
15r–20v
XV
Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, lat. 1917 (Z 488)
134r–136r
136r–137v XV1
Vatican City, Bibl. Apostolica, Chigi L.IV.98
1r–57v
no
XV2/4
New York, Columbia University, Plimpton 138
1r–17r
17r–22v
XV
Vienna, Österr. Nationalbibl. 2417
1r–42r
42r–50v
XV2
Vienna, Österr. Nationalbibl. 154
1r–13v
13v–18r
XV2
Madrid, Bibl. de El Escorial, S. III. 9
93r–106v
107r–112r 1470/80
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Can. misc. 256
1r–55v
no
XV med.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Can. misc. 258
1r–17r
17v–22v
XV2
Padua, Bibl. del Sem. Vescovile, 404
1r–30v
30v–36v
1461
Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria, 1552
48r–67v
67v–73v
XV2
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 312
188
no
XV2
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 11284
1r–42r
42r–49r
XV2
the manuscripts of ianua
585
New Haven, Yale University, Marston 70
1r–11r
11r–15v
XV med.
Florence, Archivio di Stato, Carte Bardi 179
7v–26r
42r–48v
XV2
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aerts 1985: W.J. Aerts, “The Knowledge of Greek in Western Europe at the Time of Theophano and the Greek Grammar Fragment in ms. Vindobonensis 114,” in V.D. van Aalst, K.N. Ciggaar (eds.), Byzantium and the Low Countries in the Tenth Century. Aspects of Art and History in the Ottonian Era, Hernen: Brediusstichting, 78–103. Agazzi 1981: Aldo Agazzi, “L’esperienza della Ca’ Giocosa,” in Nella Giannetto (ed.), Vittorino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanesimo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze: Olschki, 55–93. Angold 1989: Michael Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: The Perspective of Exile,” in Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton et al. (eds.), Latin and Greeks in the Easter Mediterranean after 1204, London: Frank Cass, 63–86. Ars memorativa 1993: Jörg J. Berns, Wolfgang Neuber (ed.), Ars memorativa. Zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Gedächtniskunst 1400–1750, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Asztalos 1989: Monika Asztalos, Jan Öberg, Astrid Stedje, Birgit Stolt, Die Seligenstädter Lateinpädagogik. Eine illustrierte Lateingrammtik aus dem deutschen Frühhumanismus, 2 vols., Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Avesani 1965: Rino Avesani, “Il primo ritmo per la morte del grammatico Ambrogio e il cosiddetto ‘Liber Catonianus’,” Studi Medievali s. 3, 6.2, 455– 488. ———, 1967: Rino Avesani, Quattro miscellanee medioevali e umanistiche. Contributi alla tradizione del Geta, degli Auctores octo, dei Libri minores e di altra letteratura scolastica medievale, Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Ax 2001: Wolfram Ax, “Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), Elegantiarum linguae Latinae libri sex (1449),” in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 95), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 29–57. Bachmann: Anecdota graeca e codicibus manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisinorum descripsit Ludovicus Bachmannus, vol. 2, Lipsiae: sumptibus J.C. Hinrichs, 1828 (repr. Hildesheim: Holms, 1965). Baebler 1885: Johan J. Baebler, Beiträge zu einer Geschichte der lateinischen Grammatik im Mittelalter, Halle (repr. Hildesheim: Gesternberg, 1971). Baldassarri 2003: Stefano U. Baldassarri, Umanesimo e traduzione da Petrarca a Manetti, Cassino: Università di Cassino. Balestracci 2004: Duccio Balestracci, Cilastro che sapeva leggere. Alfabetizzazione e istruzione nelle campagne toscane alla fine del Medioevo (XIV–XVI secolo), Pisa: Pacini. Bancroft-Markus 1982–1983: Rosemary E. Bancroft-Markus, “Literary Cryptograms and the Cretan Academies,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 8, 47–76.
588
bibliography
Baratin 1984: Marc Baratin, “Grammaticalité et intelligibilité chez Priscien,” in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny et al. (eds.), Matériaux pour une histoire des théories linguistiques, Lille: Université de Lille III, 155–162. Barberi-Cerulli 1972: Francesco Barberi, Emidio Cerulli, “Le edizioni greche ‘in Gymnasio mediceo ad Caballinum montem’,” in Atti del Convegno di Studi su Angelo Colocci (Jesi, 13–14 settembre 1969, Palazzo della Signoria), Jesi: Amministrazione Comunale di Jesi, 61–76. Barker 19922: Nicholas Barker, Aldus Manutius and the Development of Greek Script and Type in the Fifteenth Century, New York: Fordham University Press (first edition: 1985) Baron 1968: Hans Baron, From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni. Studies in Humanistic and Political Literature, Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press. Barwick 1922: Karl Barwick, Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars grammatica (Philologus Supplementband 15.2), Leipzig: Dieterische Verlag. Beaton 19962: Roderick Beaton, The Medieval Greek Romance, London–New York: Routledge (first edition: 1989). Beck 1959: Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, München: Beck. Benakis 2003: Linos G. Benakis, “Latin Literature in Byzantium: the Meeting Point of Two Cultures,” in Evangelos Chrysos, Paschalis M. Kitromilides et al. (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History. Conference Proceedings, vol. 1, Athens: National and Capodistrian University of Athens, 133– 140. Bernardinello 1971–1972: Silvio Bernardinello, “La grammatica di Manuele Caleca,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici n.s. 8–9, 203–218. ———, 1977: Silvio Bernardinello, “Gli studi propedeutici di greco del grammatico padovano Pietro da Montagnana,” Quaderni per la storia dell’Università di Padova 9–10, 103–128. ———, 1979: Silvio Bernardinello, “Oriente e Occidente in tre momenti di cultura bizantina a Padova,” in Byzance et les Slaves. Études de Civilization. Mélanges Ivan Dujcev, Paris: Association des Amis des Études Archéologiques des Mondes Byzantino-Slaves, 41–48. Berschin 1988 [1980]: Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages. From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa, revised and expanded edition. English transl. by J.C. Frakes, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press (original edition: Bern–München 1980). ———, 1997: Walter Berschin, “Statt eines Vorworts: Rom und Heidelberg,” in Walter Berschin (ed.), Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae V: Palatina Studien, (Studi e Testi 365), Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 7–16. Berti 1985: Ernesto Berti, “Uno scriba greco-latino: il codice Vat. Urb. gr. 121 e la prima versione del Caronte di Luciano,” Rivista di filologia e istruzione classica 113, 416–443. ———, 1987: Ernesto Berti, “Alla scuola di Manuele Crisolora. Lettura e commento di Luciano,” Rinascimento ser. 2, 27, 3–73. ———, 1998: Ernesto Berti, “Manuele Crisolora, Plutarco e l’avviamento delle traduzioni umanistiche,” Fontes 1, 79–99.
bibliography
589
Bianca 2006: Concetta Bianca, “L’Adriatico greco degli Umanisti,” in Luisa Avellini, Nicola D’Antuono (eds.), Custodi della tradizione e avanguardie del nuovo sulle sponde dell’Adriatico. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Pescara, 25–28 maggio 2005), Bologna: CLUEB, 3–15. Bianchi-Rizzo 2000: Rossella Bianchi, Silvia Rizzo, “Manoscritti e opere grammaticali nella Roma di Niccolò V,” in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice. 16–23 October 1997, at the 11th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. 2, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 587–653. Bianconi 2004: Daniele Bianconi, “Le traduzioni in greco di testi latini,” in Guglielmo Cavallo (ed.) Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, 3. Le culture circostanti, vol. 1: La cultura bizantina, Roma: Salerno, 519–568. Biedl 1937: A. Biedl, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Codices Palatini Graeci,” Byzantinisches Zeitschrift 37, 18–41. Bilingualism 2002: J.N. Adams, Marc James et al. (ed.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society. Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bischoff 1967 (1961): Bernhard Bischoff, “The Study of Foreign Languages in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 36 (1961), 209–224 = Mittelalterliche Studien, vol. 2, Stuttgart: Hiesermann 1967, 227–245 (expanded version). Bischoff-Lapidge 1994: Bernhard Bischoff, Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Black 1991: Robert Black, “An Unknown Thirteenth-Century Manuscript of Ianua,” in Ian Wood, G.A. Loud (eds.), Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages. Essays Presented to John Taylor, London: Hambledon Press, 101–115. ———, 1991a: Robert Black, “Italian Renaissance Education: Changing Perspectives and Continuing Controversies,” Journal of the History of Ideas 52, 315–334. ———, 1991b: Robert Black, “The Curriculum of Italian Elementary and Grammar Schools, 1350–1500,” in Donald R. Kelley, Richard H. Popkin (eds.), The Shapes of Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 137–163 ———, 1996: Robert Black, “Ianua and Elementary Education in Italy and Northern Europe in the Later Middle Ages,” in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno internazionale (Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso, 20–24 marzo 1991), vol. 2: L’Italia e l’Europa non romanza. Le lingue orientali, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 5–22. ———, 1996a: Robert Black, “The Vernacular and the Teaching of Latin in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Italy,” Studi Medievali s. III, 37, 703– 751. ———, 2001: Robert Black, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———, 2004: Robert Black, “Education and the Emergence of a Literate Society,” in John A. Davis (ed.), The Short Oxford History of Italy: John
590
bibliography
M. Najemy (ed.), Italy in the Age of the Renaissance, 1300–1550, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 18–36. Blanchet-Ganchou 2005: Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Thierry Ganchou, “Les fréquentations byzantines de Lodisio de Tabriz, dominicain de Péra (†1435): Géôrgios Scholarios, Iôannès Chrysolôras et Théodôros Kalékas,” Byzantion 75, 70–103. Blum 2004: Paul R. Blum, Philosophieren in der Renaissance, Stittgart: Kohlhammer. Boas 1914: M. Boas, “De librorum Catonianorum historia atque compositione,” Mnemosyne n.s. 42, 17–46. ———, 1931: M. Boas, “Planudes’ Metaphrasis der sogenannten Disticha Catonis,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 31, 241–257. Bolgar 1954: R.R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bonner 1977: Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bonnet: Dosithée, Grammaire latine, texte établi, traduit et commenté par Guillaume Bonnet, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2005. Botley 2002: Paul Botley, “Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1476–1516,” in Catherine Holmes, Judith Waring (eds.), Literacy, Education and Manuscript transmission in Byzantium and Beyond, Leiden–Boston-Köln: Brill, 199–223. ———, 2004: Paul Botley, Latin Translations in the Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, Erasmus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Branca 1977: Vittore Branca, “Lauro Quirini e il commercio librario a Venezia e Firenze,” in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussakas et al. (eds.), Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV–XVI). Aspetti e problemi, vol. 1, Firenze: Olschki, 369–377. ———, 1983: Vittore Branca, Poliziano e l’Umanesimo della parola, Torino: Einaudi. Briquet: C.M. Briquet, Les Filigranes. Dictionnaire Historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600. A facsimile of the 1907 edition ed. by Allan Stevenson, 4 vols., Amsterdam: Paper Publications Society, 1968. Brock 1979: Sebastian Brock, “Aspects of Translation Techniques in Antiquity,” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 20, 69–87. Brown 1891: Horatio F. Brown, The Venetian Printing Press. An Historical Study Based upon Documents for the Most Part Hitherto Unpublished, London: John C. Nimmo. Browning 1976: Robert Browning, “Il codice Marciano gr. XI. 31 e la schedografia bizantina,” in Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (a coronamento del V Centenario della Donazione Nicena), Padova: Antenore, 21–34. ———, 1978: Robert Browning, “Literacy in the Byzantine World,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4, 39–54. Brugnoli 1965: Giorgio Brugnoli, “Donato e Girolamo,” Vetera Christianorum 2, 139–149. Buck 1959: August Buck, “Die Studia Humanitatis und ihre Methode,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 21, 273–290.
bibliography
591
Burckhardt 1990 [1860]: Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, English transl. by S.G.C. Middlemore, London: Penguin 1990 (New York 1954; first edition: Basel 1860). Burke 2001 [19992]: Peter Burke, Cultura e società nell’Italia del Rinascimento, trad. di Giuseppe Balestrino, Bologna: Il Mulino (original edition: Culture and Society in Italy, Cambridge 19992; first edition: 1986). ———, 2004: Peter Burke, Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bursill-Hall 1971: G.L. Bursill-Hall, Speculative grammars of the Middle Ages. The Doctrine of the Partes Orationis of the Modistae (Approaches to Semiotics 11), The Hague: Mouton. ———, 1975: G.L. Bursill-Hall, “The Middle Ages,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics, The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 179–230. ———, 1981: G.L. Bursill-Hall, A Census of Medieval Latin Grammatical Manuscripts (Grammatica Speculativa 4), Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog. Callegari 2001: Marco Callegari, “Il Collegio Cottunio e la sua biblioteca,” in Francesco Piovan, Luciana Sitran Rea (eds.), Studenti, università, città nella storia padovana. Atti del Convegno (Padova, 6–8 febbraio 1998), Trieste: Lint, 457–469. Cameron 1966: Alan Cameron, “The Date and Identity of Macrobius,” Journal of Roman Studies 56, 25–38. ———, 1993: Alan Cameron, The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Canart 1977: Paul Canart, “Identification et différenciacion de mains à l’époque de la Renaissance,” in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Paris 21–21 octobre 1974, Paris: CNRS (Colloques Internationaux du CNRS 559), 363–369. ———, 1977a: Paul Canart, “Jean Nathanaël et le commerce des manuscripts grecs à Venise au XIVe siècle,” in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussakas et al. (eds.), Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV– XVI). Aspetti e problemi, vol. 2, Firenze: Olschki, 417–441. ———, 1977–1979: Paul Canart, “Démétrius Damilas, alias le Librarius Florentinus,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 14–16, 282–347. Canfora 2003: Luciano Canfora, “La Biblioteca Palatina di Heidelberg e una lettera dimenticata di Leone Allacci,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96, 59–66. Caniato-Baldissin Molli 1987: Luciano Caniato, Giovanna Baldissin Molli, Conegliano: storia e itinerari, Treviso: Canova. Cantoni Alzati 1983: Giovanna Cantoni Alzati, La biblioteca di S. Giustina a Padova. Libri e cultura presso i benedettini padovani in età umanistica, Padova: Antenore. Carruthers 1990: Mary J. Carruthers, The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cataldi Palau 2004: Annaclara Cataldi Palau, “La vita di Marco Musuro alla luce di documenti e manoscritti,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 45, 295–369. Cavallo 1980: Guglielmo Cavallo, “La trasmissione scritta della cultura greca antica in Calabria e in Sicilia tra i secoli X–XV. Consistenza, tipologia, fruizione,” Scrittura e civiltà 4, 157–245.
592
bibliography
———, 1990: Guglielmo Cavallo, “La circolazione dei testi greci nell’Europa dell’Alto Medioevo,” in Jacqueline Hamesse, Marta Fattori (eds.), Rencontres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale. Traductions et traducteurs de l’antiquité tardive au XIVe siècle. Actes du colloque international de Cassino 15–17 juin 1989, Louvain-La-Neuve–Cassino: Institut d’Études Médiévales de l’Université Catholique de Louvain, 47–64. ———, 20072: Guglielmo Cavallo, Leggere a Bisanzio, Milano: Bonnard (first edition: Lire à Byzance, Paris 2006) CCCM: Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, Turnhout: Brepols. Celenza 2004: Christopher S. Celenza, The Lost Italian Renaissance, Baltimore– London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ———, 2004a: Christopher S. Celenza, “Creating Canons in Fifteenth-Century Ferrara: Angelo Decembrio’s De politia litteraria, 1. 10,” Renaissance Quarterly 57, 43–98. Cesarini Martinelli 1992: Lucia Cesarini Martinelli, “Grammatiche greche e bizantine nello scrittoio del Poliziano,” in Mariarosa Cortesi, Enrico V. Maltese (eds.), Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Trento, 22–23 ottobre 1990), Napoli: D’Auria, 257–290. CFHB: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967– CGL: Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum a Gustavo Loewe inchoatum, etc., recensuit, edidit Georgius Goetz, Lipsiae: Teubner, 1888–1923, repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965. Charlet 1992: Jean-Louis Charlet, “Préoccupations pédagogiques dans les Rudimenta grammatices de Niccolò Perotti,” in Luisa Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (ed.), L’educazione e la formazione intellettuale nell’età dell’Umanesimo. Atti del II Convegno Internazionale, 1990, Milano: Guerini e Associati, 205–215. ———, 2004: Jean-Louis Charlet, “Les instruments de lexicographie latine de l’époque humaniste,” in Giorgio Bernardi Perini (ed.), Il latino nell’età dell’Umanesimo. Atti del Convegno (Mantova, 26–27 ottobre 2001), Firenze: Olschki, 167–195. Chiesa 1987: Paolo Chiesa, “Ad verbum o ad sensum? Modelli e coscienza metodologica della traduzione tra tarda antichità e alto medioevo,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 1, 5–51. ———, 1989: Paolo Chiesa, “Traduzioni e traduttori dal greco nel IX secolo: sviluppi di una tecnica,” in Giovanni Scoto e il suo tempo. L’organizzazione del sapere in età carolingia. Atti del XXIV Convegno Storico Internazionale (Todi, 11–14 ottobre 1987), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 171–200. Ciccolella 2004: Federica Ciccolella, “Donatus graecus: Learning Greek from Antiquity to the Renassance,” dissertation Columbia University (unpublished) ———, 2005: Federica Ciccolella, “The Greek Donatus and the Study of Greek in the Renaissance,” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 12. 1, 1–24. Colombo Timelli 1996: Maria Colombo Timelli, Traductions françaises de l’Ars Minor de Donat au Moyen Âge (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Colombat 1999: Bernard Colombat, La grammaire latine en France à la Renaissance et à l’Âge classique. Théories et pédagogie, Grenoble: ELLUG, 1999.
bibliography
593
Connell 1972: Susan Connell, “Books and Their Owners in Venice, 1345– 1480,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 35, 163–186. Constantinides 1982: Costas N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204 – ca. 1310), Nicosia: Zavallis. Contreni 1986 (1992): John J. Contreni, “The Irish Contribution to the European Classroom,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic Studies, 79–90 = Carolingian Learning, Masters and Manuscripts, X, Hampshire–Brookfield, VE: Ashgate 1992. Cortelazzo 1970: Manlio Cortelazzo, L’influsso linguistico greco a Venezia, Bologna: Pàtron. Cortesi 1979: Mariarosa Cortesi, “Il ‘Vocabularium’ greco di Giovanni Tortelli,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 22, 449–483. ———, 1980: Mariarosa Cortesi, “Libri e vicende di Vittorino da Feltre,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 23, 77–114. ———, 1986: Mariarosa Cortesi, “Aspetti linguistici della cultura greca di Francesco Filelfo,” in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte. Atti del XVII Convegno di Studi Maceratesi (Tolentino, 27–30 settembre 1981), Padova: Antenore, 163–206. ———, 1995: Mariarosa Cortesi, “La tecnica del tradurre presso gli umanisti,” in Claudio Leonardi, Birger Munk Olsen (eds.), The Classical Tradition in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Proceedings of the first European Science Foundation Workshop on “The Reception of Classical Texts” (Florence, Certosa del Galluzzo, 26–27 June 1992), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 143–168. ———, 2000: Mariarosa Cortesi, “Libri greci letti e scritti alla scuola di Vittorino da Feltre: tra mito e realtà,” in Giancarlo Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4–10 ottobre 1998), I (Papyrologica Florentina 31), Firenze: Gonnelli, 401–416. Cosenza 1962: Mario Emilio Cosenza, Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classial Scholarship in Italy, 1300– 1800, vols. 1–5, Boston: Halle &Co. Courcelle 1948: Pierre Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident. De Macrobe à Cassiodore, Paris: De Boccard. Cox 2003: Virginia Cox, “Rhetoric and Humanism in Quattrocento Venice,” Renaissance Quarterly 56, 652–694. Cribiore 1996: Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———, 2001: Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press. ———, 2007: Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch, Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press. Cupane 1995: Carolina Cupane, Romanzi cavallereschi bizantini, Torino: UTET. D’Amico 1983: John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome. Humanists and Churchmen in the Eve of Reformation, Baltimore–London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
594
bibliography
Davies 19992: Martin Davies, Aldus Manutius Printer and Publisher of Renaissance Venice, Tempe, AR: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (first edition: London 1995). Debiasi 1971–1972: Ada Debiasi Gonzato, “Osservazioni ad alcuni esercizi schedografici del cod. Marciano gr. XI, 16,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici n.s. 8–9, 109–125. Debrunner 1969 [1954]: Albert Debrunner, Storia della lingua greca, vol. 2: Il greco post-classico, seconda edizione rifatta da Anton Scherer, trad. di Fabio Bonino, Napoli: Macchiaroli (original edition: Berlin 1954). Debut 1984: Janine Debut, “Les Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana: une méthode d’apprentissage des langues pour grands débutants,” Κοινων α 8, 61– 85. De Gregorio 1993: Giuseppe De Gregorio, “Per uno studio della cultura scritta a Creta sotto il dominio veneziano: i codici greco-latini del secolo XIV,” Scrittura e Civiltà 17, 103–201. Dekkers 1953: E. Dekkers, “Les traductions grecques des écrits patristiques latins,” Sacris erudiri 5, 193–233. De La Mare 1973: Albinia C. De La Mare, The Handwriting of Italian Humanists, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———, 1973a: Albinia C. De La Mare, “The Shop of a Florentine ‘Cartolaio’ in 1426,” in Berta Maracchi Biagiarelli, Dennis E. Rhodes (eds.), Studi offerti a Roberto Ridolfi, direttore de “La Bibliofilia,” Firenze: Olschki, 237– 248. Deligiannis 2006: Ioannis Deligianni, Fifteenth-Century Latin Translations of Lucian’s Essay On Slander, Pisa–Roma: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale. De Luna 2003: Maria Elena De Luna, La comunicazione linguistica fra alloglotti nel mondo greco. Da Omero a Senofonte, Pisa: ETS. De Mas 1972: Alfredo De Mas, Conegliano. Arte, storia e vita, Conegliano: Studium Coneglianense. De Nicolò 1985: Paolo De Nicolò, “Profilo storico della Biblioteca Vaticana,” in AA.VV., Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Firenze: Nardini, 17–36. De Nolhac 1887: Pierre De Nolhac, La bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini. Contributions à l’histoire des collections d’Italie et à l’étude de la Renaissance, Paris: Vieweg. De Paolis 1990: Macrobii Theodosii De verborum graeci et latini differentiis vel societatibus excerpta, a cura di Paolo De Paolis, Urbino: Quattro Venti. ———, 2000: “Le Explanationes in Donatum (GL IV 486–565) e il loro più antico testimone manoscritto,” in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, 16–23 October 1997, at the 11th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. 1, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 173–221. Detorakis 1994 [1986]: Theocharis E. Detorakis, History of Crete, transl. by John C. Davis, Iraklion: Detorakis (original edition: Athens 1986, repr. Iraklion 1990). ———, 1996: Theocharis E. Detorakis, “Διδασκαλικ ς κα' βιβλιογραφικ ς συμβ(σεις στ βενετοκρατουμ νη Κρτη,” in Βενετοκρητικ μελητ+ματα (1971– 1994), Iraklion: Δμος Ηρακλεου Βικελαα Βιβλιο$κη, 37–53.
bibliography
595
De Torraca 2006: Umberto De Torraca, “L’insegnamento del greco e le grammatiche pubblicate a Napoli nel Settecento,” Vichiana s. 4, 8, 213– 236. Devreesse 1965: Robert Devreesse, Les fonds grec de la Bibliothèque Vaticane des origines à Paul V (Studi e Testi 144), Citta’ del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Di Benedetto 1958: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, “Dionisio il Trace e la Techne a lui attribuita (I),” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. 2, 27, 169–210. ———, 1959: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, “Dionisio il Trace e la Techne a lui attribuita (II),” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. 2, 28, 87–118. ———, 1973: Vincenzo Di Benedetto, “La Techne spuria,” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa s. 3, 3, 796–814. Dieterich 1898: Karl Dieterich, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Leipzig: Teubner. Diller 1961: Aubrey Diller, “The Greek Codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino Veronese,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24, 313–321. Dionisotti 1982: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “From Ausonius’ Schooldays? A Schoolbook and Its Relatives,” Journal of Roman Studies 72, 83–125. ———, 1982a: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “On Bede, Grammars, and Greek,” Revue Bénédictine 92, 111–141. ———, 1984: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “Latin Grammar for Greeks and Goths,” Journal of Roman Studies 74, 202–208. ———, 1988: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in Carolingian Europe,” in Michael W. Herren, Shirley A. Brown (eds.), The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: the Study of Greek in the West and in the Early Middle Ages, London: King’s College London Medieval Studies, 1–56. ———, 1988a: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “On the Greek Studies of Robert Grosseteste,” in A. Carlotta Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton et al. (eds.), The Uses of Greek and Latin. Historical Essays (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 16), London: The Warburg Institute, 19–39. ———, 1995: A. Carlotta Dionisotti, “Hellenismus,” in Olga Weijers (ed.), Vocabulary of Teaching and Research Between Middle Ages and Renaissance. Proceedings of the Colloquium, London, Warburg Institute, 11–12 March 1994, (Civicima. Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Âge 8), Turnhout: Brepols, 45–58. Dionisotti C. 1967: Carlo Dionisotti, Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana, Torino: Einaudi. ———, 1995: Carlo Dionisotti, Aldo Manuzio umanista e editore, Milano: Il Polifilo. Donnet 1967: Le Traité Περ συντ:ξεως λγου de Grégoire de Corinthe, étude de la traduction manuscrite, édition, traduction et commmentaire par Daniel Donnet, Bruxelles–Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 1967. ———, 1979: Daniel Donnet, “Théodore de Gaza, Introduction à la Grammaire, livre IV: à la récherche des sources byzantines,” Byzantion 49, 133– 155. ———, 1982: Le Traité de la construction de la phrase de Michel le Syncelle de Jérusalem,
596
bibliography
histoire du texte, édition, traduction et commentaire par Daniel Donnet, Bruxelles–Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 1982. Droz 1964: Eugénie Droz, “Les ‘Regule’ de Remigius, Münster en Westphalie 1486,” in Studi di bibliografia e di storia in onore di Tammaro de Marinis, vol. 2, Roma: [s. e.], 265–280. Dursteler 2006: Eric R. Dursteler, Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity, and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Efthymiadis 2005: Stephanos Efthymiadis, “L’enseignement secondaire à Constantinople pendant les XIe et XIIe siècles: modèle éducatif pour la Terre d’Otrante au XIIIe siècle,” Να &Ρ μη 2, 259–275. Fabris 1942: Giovanni Fabris, “Professori e scolari greci all’Università di Padova,” Archivio Veneto s. 5, 72, 121–165. Fanelli 1979 (1961): Vittorio Fanelli, “Il ginnasio greco di Leone X a Roma,” Studi Romani 9 (1961), 379–393; repr. in Ricerche su Angelo Colocci e sulla Roma cinquecentesca (Studi e Testi 283), Citta’ del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1979, 91–110. Fava 1952: Domenico Fava, “Documenti artistici della educazione dei principi nella corte sforzesca di Milano,” Accademie e biblioteche d’Italia 20, 24–30. Fedalto 2001: Giorgio Fedalto, “La nazione ultramarina,” in Francesco Piovan, Luciana Sitran Rea (eds.), Studenti, università, città nella storia padovana. Atti del Convegno (Padova, 6–8 febbraio 1998), Trieste: Lint, 425–439. Fedeli 1989: Paolo Fedeli, “I sistemi di produzione e diffusione,” in Guglielmo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli et al. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 2: La circolazione del testo, Roma: Salerno, 343–378. Ferrari 2000: Monica Ferrari, Per non manchare in tuto del debito mio. L’educazione dei bambini Sforza nel Quattrocento, Milano: Franco Angeli. ———, 2004: Monica Ferrari, “Essere e dover essere nell’educazione del principe in Francia e in Italia tra ’400 e ’600: alcune categorie metastoriche,” in Paolo Carile (ed.): La formazione del principe in Europa dal Quattrocento al Seicento. Un tema al crocevia di diverse storie, Roma: Aracne, 85–115. Ferreri 2002: Luigi Ferreri, “Alla scuola di Emanuele Crisolora. La teoria di Aristarco sull’origine della scrittura sullo sfondo della ‘Vita Homeri’ di Pier Candido Decembrio,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 16 / n.s. 13, 101–111. Festa 1907: Nicola Festa, “Note preliminari su Longibardus,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 16, 431–453. Fierville 1886: Ch. Fierville, Une grammaire latine inédite de XIIIe siècle, extraite des manuscrits nº 465 de Laon et nº 15462 (fonds latin) de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris: Imprimérie Nationale. Fisher 1982: Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Greek Translations of Latin Literature in the Fourth Century A.D.,” in John J. Winkler, Gordon Williams (eds.), Yale Classical Studies, vol. 27: Later Greek Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173–215. ———, 1990: Elizabeth A. Fisher, Planudes’ Greek Translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, New York–London: Garland. ———, 2002/3: Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos, and the Motivation for Translation,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43, 77–104.
bibliography
597
Folena 1991: Gianfranco Folena, Volgarizzare e tradurre, Torino: Einaudi. Ford 2006: Philip Ford, “Homer in the French Renaissance,” Renaissance Quarterly 59, 1–28. Förstel 1992: Christian Förstel, “Les grammaires grecques du XVe siècle: étude sur les ouvrages de Manuel Chrysoloras, Théodore Gaza et Constantin Lascaris,” Thèse présentée pour l’obtention du diplôme d’archiviste paléographe, 2 vols., Paris: École des Chartes. Fryde 2000: Edmund Fryde, The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261–c. 1360), Leiden–Boston: Brill. Fyrigos 2002 Antonis Fyrigos, “Leonzio Pilato e il fondamento bizantino del preumanesimo italiano,” in Riccardo Maisano, Antonio Rollo (eds.), Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 26–29 giugno 1997), Napoli: [s.e.], 19–29. Gallavotti 1983: Carlo Gallavotti, “Nota sulla schedografia di Moscopulo e suoi precedenti fino a Teodoro Prodromo,” Bollettino dei Classici s. 3, 4, 3–35. Gallina 2003 [1980]: Mario Gallina, “Consenso e opposizione durante il regno di Manuele Comneno. Orientamente ideologici e sviluppi politicosociali,” Quaderni medievali 9 (giugno 1980), 23–54; 10 (dicembre 1980), 71– 99 = Conflitti e coesistenza nel Mediterraneo medievale: mondo bizantino e Occidente latino, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2003, 117–171. Gamillscheg 1977: Ernst Gamillscheg, “Zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung byzantinischer Schulbücher,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26, 211–230. Gamillscheg-Harlfinger: Ernst Gamillscheg, Dieter Harlfinger, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600, 3 vols., Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981–1997. Ganchou 2002: Thierry Ganchou, “Dèmètrios Kydônès, les frères Chrysobergès et la Crète (1397–1401). De noveaux documents,” in Chryssa A. Maltezou, Peter Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) / Βυζ:ντιο, Βενετ α κα * ?λληνογραφικ2ς κσμος (13ος— 15ος α1 νας). Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, o.p. (Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000), Venezia: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini, 435–487. García y García 2004: Laurentino García y García, Alunni, maestri e scuole a Pompei, Roma: Bardi. Gargan 1965: Luciano Gargan, “Giovanni Conversini e la cultura letteraria a Treviso nella seconda metà del Trecento,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 8, 85–159. Garin 1949: Eugenio Garin, L’educazione umanistica in Italia, Bari: Laterza. ———, 1958: Eugenio Garin, Il pensiero pedagogico dello Umanesimo, Firenze: Giuntine-Sansoni. ———, 1967: Eugenio Garin, Ritratti di Umanisti, Firenze: Sansoni. ———, 19762: Eugenio Garin, L’educazione in Europa (1400–1600). Problemi e programmi, Bari: Laterza (first edition: 1957). Garzya 1971: Antonio Garzya, “Literarische und rhetorische Polemiken der Kommenenzeit,” überarbeiteter Text eines Gastvortrages and der Öster-
598
bibliography
reichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft (Wien 18. V. 1971) = Storia e interpretazione di testi bizantini. Saggi e ricerche, London: Variorum, 1974, VII. ———, 1975: Antonio Garzya, “Sur la production philologique au début du XIVe siècle à Byzance,” in M. Berza, E. Stanescu (eds.), Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Études Byzantines (Bucarest, 6–12 septembre 1971), vol. 2, Bucarest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romània, 99– 102. ———, 1997: Antonio Garzya, “Appunti sulle Erotapokriseis,” in Antonio Garzya, Percorsi e tramiti di cultura. Saggi sulla civiltà letteraria tardoantica e bizantina con una giunta sulla tradizione degli studi classici, Napoli: D’Auria, 143–152. ———, 2000: Antonio Garzya, “Per l’erudizione scolastica a Bisanzio,” in Byzantino-Sicula III. Miscellanea di scritti in onore di Bruno Lavagnini, Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 135–147. ———, 2004: Antonio Garzya, “Sul latino a Bisanzio nei secoli XIII e XIV,” in Mariarosa Cortesi (ed.), Padri greci e latini a confronto (secoli XIII–XV). Atti del Convegno di studi della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Certosa del Galluzzo, Firenze, 19–20 ottobre 2001), Firenze: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 143–152. Gasparis 1994: Charalambos Gasparis, “8Η γλ+σσα τς Βενετικς γραφειοκρατας. 8Η *ντιπαρ($εση Λατινικς κα' 8Ελληνικς γλ+σσας στ μεσαιωνικ Κρτη,” ΣLμμεικτα 9, 141–156. Geanakoplos 1962: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice. Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———, 1974: Deno J. Geanakoplos, “The Discourse of Demetrius Chalcondyles on the Inauguration of Greek Studies at the University of Padua in 1463,” Studies in the Renaissance 21, 118–144. ———, 1976: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Interaction of the ‘Sibling’ Byzantine and Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330–1600), New Haven– London: Yale University Press. ———, 1984: Deno J. Geanakoplos, Byzantium. Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes, Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press. ———, 1988: Deno J. Geanakoplos, “Italian Humanism and the Byzantine Émigré Scholars,” in Renaissance Humanism, vol. 1, 350–381. Gehl 1989: Paul F. Gehl, “Latin Readers in Fourteenth-Century Florence. Schoolkids and Their Books,” Scrittura e Civiltà 13, 387–440. ———, 1993: Pau lF. Gehl, A Moral Art: Grammar, Society, and Culture in Trecento Florence, Ithaca–London: Cornell University Press. GG: Grammatici Graeci recogniti et apparatu critico instructi edd. G. Uhlig, A. Hilgard et al., 4 vols., Lipsiae: Teubner, 1867–1901, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. Gherardi 1881: Alessandro Gherardi, Statuti della Università e Studio Fiorentino dell’anno MCCCLXXXVII, Firenze: Cellini. Gianola 1980: Giovanna M. Gianola, Il greco di Dante; ricerche sulle dottrine grammaticali del Medioevo, Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti.
bibliography
599
Gianotti 1989: Gian Franco Gianotti, “I testi nella scuola,” in Guglielmo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli et al. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 2: La circolazione del testo, Roma: Salerno, 421–466. Gigante 1962: Marcello Gigante, “La cultura latina a Bisanzio nel secolo XIII,” La Parola del Passato 17, 32–51. ———, 1962a: Marcello Gigante, “Massimo Planude interprete di Cicerone,” Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani, vol. 2, Roma: Centro di Studi Ciceroniani, 207–226. Gionta 2004: Daniela Gionta, “Le postille a Epitteto nel manoscritto Laurenziano Redi 15,” in Francesco Bausi, Vincenzo Fera (eds.), Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli, Messina: Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Umanistici, 242–263. GL: Grammatici Latini ex recensione H. Keilii, 7 vols., Lipsiae: Teubner, 1855– 1880, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1961. GLL: A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D., compiled by Alexander Souter, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19962 (first edition: 1949). Glycofrydi-Leontsini 2003: Athanassia Glycofrydi-Leontsini, “Demetrius Cydones as a Translator of Latin Texts,” in Charalambos Dendrinos, Jonathan Harris et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honor of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot: Ashgate, 175–185. GMIL: Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis conditum a Carolo Du Fresne domino Du Cange, editio nova, etc., 10 vols., Niort: Leopold Favre, 1883–1887, repr. Graz: Akademische Druck—U. Verlagsanstalt, 1954. Graecogermania 1989: Graeogermania. Griechischstudien deutscher Humanisten. Die Editionstätigkeit der Griechen in der italienischen Renaissance (1469–1523) (Ausstellung im Zeughaus der herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel vom 22. April bis 9. Juli 1989), unter Leitung von Dieter Harlfinger, bearb. v. Reinhardt Barm, Weinheim: VCH. Grafinger 1997: Christine M. Grafinger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Bibliotheca Vaticana (Studi e Testi 373), Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Grafton 1977: Anthony Grafton, “On the Scholarship of Politian and its Context,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40, 150–188. ———, 1981: Anthony Grafton, “Teacher, Text and Pupil in the Renaissance Class-Room: A Case Study from a Parisian College,” History of Universities 1 (Continuity and Change in Early Modern Universities), 37–70. ———, 1988: Anthony Grafton, “Quattrocento Humanism and Classical Scholarship,” in Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. 3; Humanism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 23–66. ———, 2001: Anthony Grafton, “Germanograecia: lo spazio del greco nel sistema d’istruzione,” in Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 3: I Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, 1263–1286. Grafton-Jardine 1982: Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine, “Humanism and the School of Guarino: a Problem of Evaluation,” Past and Present 96, 51–80. ———, 1986: Anthony Grafton, Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities.
600
bibliography
Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe, London: Duckworth. Grendler 1984: Paul F. Grendler, “Aldus Manutius Humanist, Teacher, and Printer,” Providence: John Carter Brown Library = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, Aldershot–Brookfield, VT: Variorum 1995, III. ———, 1985: Paul F. Grendler, “The Teaching of Latin in Sixteenth-Century Venetian Schools,” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bononiensis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Bologna, 26 August to 1 September 1979) (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 37), Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 258–276. ———, 1985a: Paul F. Grendler, “The Organization of Primary and Secondary Education in the Italian Renaissance,” Catholic Historical Review 71, 185–205 = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, Aldershot–Brookfield, VT: Variorum 1995, VI. ———, 1989: Paul F. Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy. Literacy and Learning, 1300–1600, Baltimore–London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ———, 1990: Paul F. Grendler, “Schooling in Western Europe,” Renaissance Quarterly 43, 775–787 = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, Aldershot– Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995, V. ———, 1991: Paul F. Grendler, “Reply to Robert Black,” Journal of the History of Ideas 52, 335–337. ———, 2002: Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance, Baltimore–London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Grendler-Grendler 1984: Paul F. Grendler, Marcella Grendler, “The Erasmus Holdings of Roman and Vatican Libraries,” Erasmus in English 13, 2–29 = Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance, Aldershot–Brookfield, VT: Variorum 1995, IV. Gualdo Rosa 1985: Lucia Gualdo Rosa, “Le traduzioni dal greco nella prima metà del ’400: alle radici del classicismo europeo,” in Marcel Renard, Pierre Laurens (eds.), Hommages à Henry Bardon, publiés sous les auspices de l’Institut de Latin de l’Université de Poitiers, Bruxelles: Latomus, 177–193. Guida 1999: Antonio Guida, “Sui lessici sintattici di Planude e Armenopulo, con edizione della lettera A di Armenopulo,” Prometheus 25, 1–34. Gundersheimer 1965: Werner L. Gundersheimer, The Italian Renaissance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ———, 1973: Werner L. Gundersheimer, Ferrara. The Style of a Renaissance Despotism, Princeton: Princeton University Press. GW : Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, herausgegeben von der Kommission für den Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, 11 vols., Leipzig: Hiersemann, 192 Hankins 2001: James Hankins, “Lo studio del greco nell’Occidente latino,” in Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 3: I Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, 1255–1262. ———, 2002: James Hankins, “Chrysoloras and the Greek Studies of Leonardo Bruni,” in Riccardo Maisano, Antonio Rollo (eds.), Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 26–29 giugno 1997), Napoli: [s.e.], 175–197. Harlfinger 1977: Dieter Harlfinger, “Zu griechischen Kopisten und Schrift-
bibliography
601
stilen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts,” in La paléographie grecque et byzantine. Paris 21–21 octobre 1974, Paris: CNRS (Colloques Internationaux du CNRS 559), 327–362. Harris J. 1995: Jonathan Harris, Greek Émigrés in the West 1400–1520, Camberley, Surrey: Poprhyrogenitus. Harris W. 1989: William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Hazelton 1957: Richard Hazelton, “The Christianization of ‘Cato’: The Disticha Catonis in the Light of Late Mediaeval Commentaries,” Mediaeval Studies 19, 157–173. Heimann-Seelbach 1996: Sabine Heimann-Seelbach, “Diagrammatik und Gedächtniskunst. Zur Bedeutung der Schrift für die Ars memorativa im 5. Jahrhundert,” in Martin Kintzinger, Sönke Lorenz et al. (eds.), Schule und Schüler im Mittelalter. Beiträge zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts, Köln–Weimar-Wien: Böhlau, 385–410. Hetherington 1992: Paul Hetherington, “Vecchi, e non antichi. Differing Responses to Byzantine Culture in Fifteenth-Century Tuscany,” Rinascimento s. 2, 32, 203–211. Hexter 1998: Ralph Hexter, “Aldus, Greek, and the Shape of the ‘Classical Corpus’,” in David S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renaissance Culture. Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy. Acts of an International Conference (Venice and Florence, 14–17 June 1994), Firenze: Olschki, 143–160. Hofmann 1942: Giorgio Hoffmann, “La biblioteca scientifica del monastero di S. Francesco di Candia nel Medioevo,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 8, 317–360. Holton 1991: David Holton, “The Cretan Renaissance,” in Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete, edited by David Holton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16 Holtz: Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe–IXe siècle), édition critique par Louis Holtz, Paris: CNRS, 1981. ———, 1977: Louis Holtz, “Grammairiens irlandais au temps de Jean Scot: quelques aspects de leur pédagogie,” in Jean Scot Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique n˚/ 561 (Laon 7–12 juillet 1975), Paris: CNRS, 69–78. ———, 1977a: Louis Holtz, “La typologie des manuscrits grammaticaux latins,” Revue d’histoire des textes 7, 247–267. ———, 1981: see Holtz. ———, 1989: Louis Holtz, “L’enseignement de la grammaire au temps de Charles le Chauve,” in Giovanni Scoto e il suo tempo. L’organizzazione del sapere in età carolingia. Atti del XXIV Convegno Storico Internazionale (Todi, 11–14 ottobre 1987), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 153–169. ———, 1989–1990: Louis Holtz, “Les nouvelles tendances de la pédagogie grammaticale au Xe siècle,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 24/25, 163–173. ———, 2000: Louis Holtz, “Priscien dans la pédagogie d’Alcuin,” in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held
602
bibliography
at Erice, 16–23 October 1997, at the 11th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. 1, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 289–326. ———, 2005: Louis Holtz, “Aelius Donatus (um die Mitte des 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.),” in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Lateinische Lehrer Europas, Köln–WeimarWien: Böhlau, 109–131. Horrocks 1997: Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers, London–New York: Longman. Houston 1988: Rav A. Houston, Literacy in Early Modern Europe. Culture and Education, 1500–1800, New York–London: Longman. Hunger 1969–1970: Herbert Hunger, “On the Imitatio (μμησις) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–24, 15–38. ———, 1978: Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprahliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Byzantinisches Handbuch 5), 2 vols., München: Beck. ———, 1987: Herbert Hunger, Graeculus perfidus, Ιταλ?ς ταμς. Il senso dell’alterità nei rapporti greco-romani ed italo-bizantini, Roma: Unione Internazionale degli Istituti di Archeologia, Storia e Storia dell’Arte in Roma. ———, 1989: Herbert Hunger, Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz. Die byzantinische Buchkultur, München: Beck. Huntsman 1983: Jeffreys A. Huntsman, “Grammar,” in David L. Wagner (ed.), The Seven LIberal Arts in the Middle Ages, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 58–95. Huygens: Accessus ad auctores. Bernard d’Utrecht. Conrad d’Hirsau, Dialogus super auctores, édition critique entièrement revue et augmentée par R.B.C. Huygens, Leiden: Brill, 1970. Irigoin 2003 [1977]: Jean Irigoin, “Quelques réflexions sur le concept d’archétipe,” Revue d’Histoire des textes 7, 235–245 = La tradition des textes grecques. Pour une critique historique, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2003, 37–50. Irvine 1994: Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture. ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory, 350–1100, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ising 1970: Erika Ising, Die Herausbildung der Grammatik der Volkssprachen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Studien über den Einfluß der lateinischen Elementargrammatik des Aelius Donatus De octo partibus orationis ars minor, Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Ives 1942: Samuel A. Ives, “Corrigenda and Addenda to the Description of the Plimpton Manuscripts in the De Ricci Census,” Speculum 17, 33–49. James 1910: M.R. James, “A Graeco-Latin Lexicon of the Thirteenth Century,” in Mélanges offerts a M. Émile Chatelain, Paris: Champion, 396–411. Jeauneau 1977–1978: Édouard Jeauneau, “Jean Scot Érigène et le grec,” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 41, 5–50. Jensen 1998: Kristian Jensen, “The Latin Grammar of Aldus Manutius and Its Fortuna,” in in David S. Zeidberg (ed.), Aldus Manutius and Renaissance Culture. Essays in Memory of Franklin D. Murphy. Acts of an International Conference (Venice and Florence, 14–17 June 1994), Firenze: Olschki, 247– 285. ———, 2001: Kristian Jensen, “Elementary Latin Grammars Printed in the Fifteenth Century: Patterns of Continuity and of Change,” in Wolfram
bibliography
603
Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 95), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 103–123. Jugie: M. Jugie, L. Petit, X.A. Siderides, Oueuvres complètes de Georges (Gennadios) Scholarios, vol. 8, Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1936. Kaczynski 1988: Bernice M. Kaczynski, Greek in the Carolingian Age. The St. Gall Manuscripts, Cambridge, MA.: The Medieval Academy of America. Kaklamanis-Lambakis 2003: Stephanos Kaklamanis, Stelios Lambakis, Μανου)λ Γρηγορπουλος νοτ:ριος Χ:νδακα 1506–1532. Δια47κες, πογραφς, "κτιμ+σεις, Iraklion: Βικελαα Δημοτικ Βιβλιο$κη. Kallendorf 1989: Craig W. Kallendorf, In Praise of Aeneas: Virgil and Epideictic Rhetoric in the Early Italian Renaissance, Hanover–London: University Press of New England. ———, 2002: Craig W. Kallendorf, Humanist Educational Treatises (I Tatti Renaissance Library 5) Cambridge, MA–London: Harvard University Press. Karathanassis 2002: Athanassios E. Karathanassis, “Il Collegio Flanginis,” in Maria Francesca Tiepolo, Eurigio Tonetti (eds.), I Greci a Venezia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio (Venezia, 5–7 novembre 1998), Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 197–207. Kaster 1983: Robert A. Kaster, “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 113, 323– 346. ———, 1988: Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language. The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press. Kazhdan-Epstein 1985: Aleksandr P. Kazhdan, Ann Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press. Keaney 1971: John J. Keaney, “Moschopulea,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 64, 303– 321. Kianka 1980: Frances Kianka, “The Apology of Demetrius Cydones: A Fourteenth-Century Autobiographical Source,” Byzantine Studies 7, 57–71. Kibre 1936: Pearl Kibre, The Library of Pico della Mirandola, New York: Columbia University Press. King 1986: Margaret L. King, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Koder 2002: Johannes Koder, “Latinoi. The Image of the Other According to Greek Sources,” in Chryssa A. Maltezou, Peter Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) / Βυζ:ντιο, Βενετ α κα * ?λληνογραφικ2ς κσμος (13ος—15ος α1 νας). Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, o.p. (Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000), Venezia: Istituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini, 25–39. Kohl 1988: Benjamin G. Kohl, “Humanism and Education,” in Albert Rabil Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. 3: Humanism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 5–22. Kolbaba 1995: Tia M. Kolbaba, “Conversion from Greek Orthodoxy to
604
bibliography
Roman Catholicism in the Fourteenth Century,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 19, 120–134. ———, 2000: Tia M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins, Chicago– Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Korhonen 1996: Kalle Korhonen, “On the Composition of the Hermeneumata Language Manuals,” Arctos 30, 101–119. Kramer 1996: Johannes Kramer, “I glossari tardo-antichi di tradizione papiracea,” in Jacqueline Hamesse (ed.), 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) (Textes et études du Moyen Âge 4), Louvain-la-Neuve: Féderation Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 23–55 Kristeller 1966: Paul O. Kristeller, “Umanesimo italiano e Bisanzio,” in Agostino Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e l’Oriente tra Tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento (Civiltà europea e civiltà veneziana. Aspetti e problemi 4), Firenze: Sansoni, 19–33. ———, 1979 [1955]: Paul O. Kristeller, The Classic and Renaissance Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955 = Michael Mooney (ed.), Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, New York: Columbia University Press, 1979, 17–81. ———, 1988: Paul O. Kristeller, “Renaissance Humanism and Classical Antiquity,” in Renaissance Humanism, vol. 1, 5–16. Krumbacher 18972: Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zur Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527–1453) (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9. 1), zweite Auflage bearbeitet von A. Ehrhardt und H. Geltzer, München: Beck (first edition: 1890). Labowsky 1979: Lotte Labowsky, Bessarion’s Library and the Biblioteca Marciana. Six Early Inventories (Sussidi eruditi 31), Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Lallot: La grammaire de Denys le Thrace traduite et annotée par Jean Lallot, 2e édition revue et augmentée, Paris: CNRS, 1998. Lapidge 1988: Michael Lapidge, “The Study of Greek at the School of Canterbury in the Seventh Century,” in Michael W. Herren (ed.), The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: the Study of Greek in the West and in the Early Middle Ages, London: King’s College London Medieval Studies, 169–194. Law 1984: Vivien Law, “Irish Symptoms and the Provenance of Sixth- and Seventh-Century Latin Grammars,” in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny et al. (eds.), Matériaux pour une histoire des théories linguistiques, Lille: Université de Lille III, 77–85. ———, 1986: Vivien Law, “When is Donatus not Donatus? Versions, Variants and New Texts,” Peritia 5, 235–261. ———, 1994: Vivien Law, “The Sources of the Ars Donati quam Paulus Diaconus exposuit,” Filologia Mediolatina 1, 71–80. ———, 1994a: Vivien Law, “The Study of Grammar,” in Rosamond McKitterick (ed.), Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–110. ———, 1996: Vivien Law, “The Mnemonic Structure of Ancient Grammati-
bibliography
605
cal Doctrine,” in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context, Leuven–Paris: Peeters, 37–52. ———, 1997: Vivien Law, Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages, London–New York: Longman. ———, 2000: Vivien Law, “Memory and the Structure of Grammars in Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” in Mario de Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texas 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, vol. 1, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 9–58. Law-Sluiter 19982: Vivien Law, Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Dionysius Thrax and the Techne Grammatike, Münster: Nodus Publikationen (first edition: 1995). Lemerle 1971: Paul Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle, Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. ———, 1977: Paul Lemerle, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin, Paris: CNRS. Lemke 1959: Antje Lemke, Aldus Manutius and His Thesaurus Cornucopiae of 1496, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Lepori 1980: Fernando Lepori, “La scuola di Rialto dalla fondazione alla metà del Cinquecento,” in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore Stocchi (eds.), Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 3: Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 2. 539–605. Loach 2006: Judi Loach, “Revolutionary Pedagogues? How Jesuits Used Education to Change Society,” in John W. O’Malley, Gauvin A. Bayley et al. (eds.), The Jesuits II: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts 1540–1773, TorontoBuffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 66–85. Lobel 1933: Edgar Lobel, The Greek Manuscripts of Aristotle’s Poetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Logan 1972: Oliver Logan, Culture and Society in Venice, 1470–1790. The Renaissance and its Heritage, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Lomanto 1987: Valeria Lomanto, “Grammatici greci,” in Francesco Della Corte (ed.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini, vol. 2, Milano: Marzorati, 1107–1120. Lovito 2002: Giovanni Lovito, L’opera e i tempi di Pomponio Leto, Salerno: Laveglia. ———, 2005: Giovanni Lovito, Pomponio Leto politico e civile, Salerno: Laveglia. Lowry 1979: Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius. Business and Scholarship in Renaissance Venice, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Louisides 1956: Louisos L. Louisides, “ΑF 8Ελληνικα' μεταφρ(σεις τν παραινετικν γν+μων Κ(τωνος το: 8Ρωμαου κα' E το: κ+δικος 357 τς ν τ& 8Αγ&ω NΟρει Μονς το: Διονυσου,” Πλ:των 8, 206–221. LSJ: A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, revised and augmented throughout by Henry S. Jones, etc., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19409, repr. 1990. Maas 1973 [1903]: Paul Maas, “Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903), 278–323 = Wolfgang Buchwald (ed.), Kleine Schriften, München: Beck, 1973, 242–288.
606
bibliography
Maltese 2001: Enrico V. Maltese, “Atene e Bisanzio. Appunti su scuola e cultura letteraria nel Medioevo greco,” in Massimo Vetta (ed.), La civiltà dei Greci. Forme, luoghi, contesti, Roma: Carocci, 357–387. ———, 2004: Enrico V. Maltese, “Massimo Planude interprete del De Trinitate di Agostino,” in Mariarosa Cortesi (ed.), Padri greci e latini a confronto (secoli XIII–XV). Atti del Convegno di studi della Società Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino (SISMEL) (Certosa del Galluzzo, Firenze, 19–20 ottobre 2001), Firenze: SISMEL—Edizioni del Galluzzo, 207–219. Maltezou 1991: Chryssa Maltezou, “The Historical and Social Context,” in David Holton (ed.), Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–47. Manoussakas 1963: Manoussos Manoussakas, “8Η παρουσι(ση *π? τ?ν Ι(νο Λ(σκαρη τν πρ+των μα$ητν το: 8Ελληνικο: γυμνασου τς 8Ρ+μης στ?ν Π(πα Λ οντα Ι,” &Ο ’Ερανιστ+ς 1, 161–172.
———, 1998: Manoussos Manoussakas, “Cultura e letteratura greca nella Creta veneziana,” in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chania, 30 settembre–5 ottobre 1997), Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 443–458. Marcucci 2002: Silvia Marcucci, La scuola tra XIII e XV secolo. Figure esemplari di maestri, Pisa–Roma: Istituti Editoriali Poligrafici Internazionali. Margaritis 1978: Stephen Margaritis, Crete and the Ionian Islands under the Venetians, Athens: Leontiadis. Mariani Canova 1981: Giordana Mariani Canova, “La personalita’ di Vittorino da Feltre nel rapporto con le arti visive e il tema dell’educazione nel linguaggio figurativo del Quattrocento,” in Nella Giannetto (ed.), Vittorino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanesimo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze: Olschki, 199– 212. Markopoulos 2006: Athanasios Markopoulos, “De la structure de l’école byzantine. Le maître, les livres et le process educatif,” in Brigitte Mondrain (ed.), Lire et écrire à Byzance, Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 85–96. Marrou 1956 [1948]: Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, transl. by George Lamb, New York: Sheed and Ward (original edition: Paris 1948). Marsh 1998: David Marsh, Lucian and the Latins. Humor and Humanism in the Early Renaissance, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Marshall 1969: J.H. Marshall, The Donatz Proensals of Uc Faidit, London: Oxford University Press. Martellotti 1983 [1959]: Guido Martellotti, “Osservazioni sul carattere orale del primo insegnamento del greco nell’Italia umanistica,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Sezione Linguistica 1 (1959), 59–64 = Dante e Boccaccio e altri scrittori dall’Umanesimo al Romanticismo (Saggi di “Lettere Italiane” 31), Firenze: Olschki, 1983, 241–248. Martínez Manzano 1994: Teresa Martínez Manzano, “Konstantinos Laskaris Humanist, Philologe, Lehrer, Kopist” (Meletemata 4), diss. Hamburg Universität. ———, 1998: Teresa Martínez Manzano, Constantíno Láscaris. Semblanza de un
bibliography
607
humanista bizantino (Nueva Roma 7), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Mavromatis 1990: Giannis Mavromatis, “8Η βιβλιο$κη κα' E κινητ περιουσα τς Κρητικς μονς Βαρσαμον ρου (1644),” Θησαυρ σματα 20, 458–499. McCormick 1977: Michael McCormick, “Byzantium’s Role in the Formation of Early Medieval Civilization: Approaches and Problems,” Illinois Classical Studies 12, 207–220. McKee 2000: Sally McKee, Uncommon Dominion. Venetian Crete and the Myth of Ethnic Purity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mead 1939–1940: H.R. Mead, “Fifteenth-Century Schoolbooks,” The Huntington Library Quarterly 3, 37–42. Melandri 1999: Eleonora Melandri, “Giorgio Gregoropulo e il MS. Laur. C.S. 164,” in Vincenzo Fera, Augusto Guida (eds.), Vetustatis indagator. Scritti offerti a Filippo Di Benedetto, Messina: Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Umanistici, 115–128. Menzer 2004: Melinda J. Menzer, “Ælfric’s English Grammar,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 103, 106–124. Mercati 1931: Silvio G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota e altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Studi e Testi 56), Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. ———, 1951: Silvio G. Mercati, “Giambi di Giovanni Tzetze contro una donna schedografa,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44, 416–418. Mercer 1979: R.G.G. Mercer, The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza with Special Reference to His Place in Paduan Humanism, London: The Modern Humanities Research Association. Mercken 1999: H. Paul F. Mercken, “Robert Grosseteste’s Method of Translating: a Medieval Word Processing Programme?,” in Rita Beyers, Jozef Brams et al. (eds.), Tradition et traduction. Les textes philosophiques et scientifiques grecs au Moyen Age Latin. Hommage a Fernand Bossier, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 323–370. Mergiali 1996: Sophia Mergiali, L’enseignement et les lettrés pendant l’époque des Paléologues (1261–1453), Athens: 8Εταιρεα τν Φλων το: Λαο:. Merrilees 1987: Brian Merrilees, “Teaching Latin in French: Adaptations of Donatus’ Ars Minor,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 12, 87–98. ———, 1990: Brian Merrilees, “L’Art Mineur français et le curriculum grammatical,” Histoire Épistémologie Langage 12, 15–29. Miller 2003: Timothy S. Miller, “Two teaching Texts from the TwelfthCentury Orphanotropheion,” in John W. Nesbitt (ed.), Byzantine Author. Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations Dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides, Leiden–Boston: Brill, 9–20. Minerva 1989: Nadia Minerva, “Storie di manuali. La didattica delle lingue straniere in Italia nell’ Arte di insegnare la lingua francese e nel Maïtre italien,” in Carla Pellandra (ed.), Grammatiche, grammatici, grammatisti. Per una storia dell’insegnamento delle lingue in Italia dal Cinquecento al Settecento, Pisa: Editrice Libreria Goliardica, 55–117. Mioni 1973: Elpidio Mioni, “Calliergi (Callergi), Zaccaria,” in Dizionario bio-
608
bibliography
grafico degli Italiani, vol. 16, Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 750– 753. ———, 1976: Elpidio Mioni, “Bessarione scriba e alcuni suoi collaboratori,” in Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (a coronamento del V Centenario della donazione nicena), Padova: Antenore, 263–318. Moffatt 1979: Ann Moffatt, “Early Byzantine School Curricula and a Liberal Education,” in Byzance et les Slaves. Études de Civilization. Mélanges Ivan Dujcev, Paris: Association des Amis des Études Archéologiques des Mondes Byzantino-Slaves, 275–288. Momigliano 1975: Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Mondrain 1992: Brigitte Mondrain, “L’étude du grec en Italie à la fin du XVe siècle, vue à travers l’experience d’humanistes allemands,” in Mariarosa Cortesi, Enrico V. Maltese (eds.), Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Trento, 22–23 ottobre 1990), Napoli: D’Auria, 309–319. ———, 2000: Brigitte Mondrain, “Janus Lascaris copiste et ses livres,” in Giancarlo Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di paleografia greca (Cremona, 4–10 ottobre 1998), I (Papyrologica Florentina 31), Firenze: Gonnelli, 417–426. Monfasani 1976: John Monfasani, George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic, Leiden: Brill. ———, 1990: John Monfasani, “L’insegnamento universitario e la cultura bizantina in Italia nel Quattrocento,” in Luisa Avellini, Angela de Benedictis et al. (eds.), Sapere e/è potere. Discipline, dispute e professioni nell’università medievale e moderna: il caso bolognese a confronto. Atti del 4˚/ Convegno (Bologna, 13–15 aprile 1989), Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna, 43–65 = Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés, Aldershot–Brookfield, VT: Variorum 1995, XII. ———, 2002: John Monfasani, “Greek Renaissance Migrations,” Italian History and Culture 8, 1–14 = Greeks and Latins in Renaissance Italy: Studies on Humanism and Philosophy in the 15th Century (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 801), Aldershot–Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004. Montanari 2003: Elio Montanari, La critica del testo secondo Paul Maas. Testo e commento, Firenze: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo. Montanari F. 1987: Franco Montanari, “Grammatici greci,” in Francesco Della Corte (ed.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini, vol. 2, Milano: Marzorati, 1093–1105. Morgan 1998: Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Müller 1979: Gregor Müller, Bildung und Erziehung im Humanismus der italienischen Renaissance. Grundlagen, Motive, Quellen, Wiesbaden: Steiner. Müller 1984: Gregor Müller, Mensch und Bildung im italienischen RenaissanceHumanismus. Vittorino da Feltre und die humanistischen Erziehungsdenker (Saecula Spiritalia 9), Baden–Baden: Koerner. Müllner 1899: Karl Müllner, Reden und Briefe italienischer Humanisten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pädagogik des Humanismus, Wien: Hölder.
bibliography
609
Munzi 2000: Luigi Munzi, “Testi grammaticali e renovatio studiorum carolingia,” in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, 16–23 October 1997, at the 11th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. 1, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 351–388. ———, 2004: Luigi Munzi, Multiplex Latinitas. Testi grammaticali latini dell’Alto Medioevo (Annali dell’Università di Napoli ‘L’Orientale,’ Quaderni 9), Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Murphy 1974: James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974, repr. Tempe, AR: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001. ———, 1980: James J. Murphy, “The Teaching of Latin as a Second Language in the 12th Century,” Historiographia Linguistica 7, 159–175. Nardi 1971 [1957]: Bruno Nardi, “Letteratura e cultura veneziana del Quattrocento,” in La civiltà veneziana del Quattrocento, Firenze: Sansoni 1957, 101– 145 = Paolo Mazzantini (ed.), Saggi sulla cultura veneta del Quattro e Cinquecento (Medioevo e Umanesimo 12), Padova: Antenore, 1971, 3–43. Nicol 1990 [1988]: Donald M. Nicol, Venezia e Bisanzio, Milano: Rusconi (original edition: Cambridge 1988). Nikitas 2001: Dimitrios Z. Nikitas, “Traduzioni greche di opere latine,” in Salvatore Settis (ed.), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 3: I Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino: Einaudi, 1035–1051. Oikonomides 1972: Nicolas Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris: CNRS. OLD: Oxford Latin Dictionary, edited by P.G. Glare, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982 (combined edition). O’Malley 1993: John W. O’Malley, The First Jesuits, Cambridge, MA–London: Harvard University Press. Omont 1881: Henri Omont, “Grammaire grecque du IXe siècle,” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 42, 126–127. Opelt 1986: Ilona Opelt, “Pseudo Cato und Planudes,” Κοινων α 10, 175–191. Orbis latinus: Johann Graesse et al., Orbis latinus. Lexicon lateinischer geographischer Namen des Mittlelalters und der Neuzeit, 3 vols., Braunschweig: KlinkhardtBiermann 1972. Orme 2006: Nicholas Orme, Medieval Schools from Roman Britain to Renaissance England, New Haven–London: Yale University Press. Ortalli 1996: Gherardo Ortalli, Scuole e maestri tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Il caso veneziano, Bologna: Il Mulino. ———, 1998: Gherardo Ortalli, “Venezia e Creta: fortune e contraccolpi di una conquista,” in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chanià, 30 settembre–5 ottobre 1997), Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 9–31. ———, 2002: Gherardo Ortalli, “Venezia mediterranea e grecità medievale,” in Gino Benzoni (ed.), L’eredità greca e l’ellenismo veneziano, Firenze: Olschki, 53–73.
610
bibliography
Ortoleva 1989: Vincenzo Ortoleva, “Massimo Planude e i Disticha Catonis,” Sileno 15, 105–136. ———, 1991: Vincenzo Ortoleva, “La traduzione di Massimo Planude dei Disticha Catonis: dalla divulgazione del latino a Bisanzio alla didassi del greco in Occidente,” Aufidus 5, 93–101. ———, 1991a: Vincenzo Ortoleva, “Gli scholia alla traduzione planudea dei Disticha Catonis,” Siculorum Gymnasium n.s. 44, 275–280. ———, 1992: Maximus Planudes, Disticha Catonis in graecum translata edidit Vincentius Ortoleva, Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. ———, 1992a: Vincenzo Ortoleva, “Glosse in κα$αρε2ουσα alla traduzione planudea dei Disticha Catonis,” Eikasmos 3, 265–276. ———, 1995: Vincenzo Ortoleva, “La parafrasi della traduzione planudea dei Disticha Catonis nel cod. Barocc. 71,” Byzantion 55, 89–97. Ostrogorsky 19692 [19633]: George (Georgije) Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, transl. by Joan Hussey, New Brusnwick: Rutgers University Press, 19692 (original edition: Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, München 19633), repr. 1990. Padley 1976: G. Arthur Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500–1700. The Latin Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———, 1985–1988: G. Arthur Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500–1700. Trends in Vernacular Grammar, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pagliaroli 2004: Stefano Pagliaroli, “Giano Lascari e il Ginnasio greco,” Studi medievali e umanistici 2, 215–293. Panagiotakis 1988: Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis, “8Η παιδεα κατ4 τν Βενετοκρατα,” in Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis (ed.), Κρ+τη: 5στορ α κα πολιτισμς, Iraklion: Βικελαα Δημοτικ Βιβλιο$κη, 165–195. ———, 1995: Nikolaos M. Panagiotakis, “The Italian Background of Early Cretan Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49, 281–323. Papadopulos 1974: Stylianos G. Papadopulos, “Thomas in Byzanz. ThomasRezeption und Thomas-Kritik in Byzanz zwischen 1354 und 1435,” Theologie und Philosophie 49, 274–304. Pastore Stocchi 1980–1981: Manlio Pastore Stocchi, “Scuola e cultura umanistica fra due secoli,” in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore Stocchi (eds.), Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 3: Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1. 93–121 Pellandra 1989: Carla Pellandra, “Einseigner le français en Émilie aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” in Carla Pellandra (ed.), Grammatiche, grammatici, grammatisti. Per una storia dell’insegnamento delle lingue in Italia dal Cinquecento al Settecento, Pisa: Editrice Libreria Goliardica, 11–34. Percival 1972: W. Keith Percival, “The Historical Sources of Guarino’s Regulae Grammaticales: a Reconsideration of Sabbadini’s Evidence,” in Giovannangiola Tarugi (ed.), Civilta’ dell’Umanesimo. Atti del VI, VII, VIII Convegno Internazionale del Centro di Studi Umanistici (Montepulciano, Palazzo Tarugi, 1969, 1970, 1971), Firenze: Olschki, 263–284. ———, 1975: W. Keith Percival, “The Grammatical Tradition and the Rise of the Vernaculars,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguis-
bibliography
611
tics, vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics, The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 231– 275. ———, 1981: W. Keith Percival, “The Place of the Rudimenta Grammatices in the History of Latin Grammar”, Res publica litterarum 4, 233–264 ———, 1988: W. Keith Percival, “Renaissance Grammar,” in Albert Rabil Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. 3: Humanism and the Disciplines, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 67– 83. ———, 1994: W. Keith Percival, “A Working Edition of the Carmina Differentialia by Guarino Veronese,” Res Publica Litterarum 17, 153–177. ———, 2002: W. Keith Percival, “Greek Pedagogy in the Renaissance,” in Werner Hüllen, Friedericke Klippel (eds.), Heilige und profane Sprachen—Holy and Profane Languages. Die Anfänge des Frendsprachenunterrichts im Westlischen Europa—The Beginnings of Foreign Language Teaching in Western Europe (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 98), Wolfenbüttel: Herzog August Bibliothek, 93– 109. Pertusi 1961–1962: Agostino Pertusi, “Leonzio Pilato a Creta prima del 1358– 1359: scuole e cultura a Creta durante il secolo XIV,” Κρητικ Χρονικ: 15–16, 363–381. ———, 1962: Agostino Pertusi, “’Ερωτματα. Per la storia e le fonti delle prime grammatiche greche a stampa,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 5, 321– 351. ———, 1964: Agostino Pertusi, Leonzio Pilato fra Petrarca e Boccaccio. Le sue versioni omeriche negli autografi di Venezia e la cultura greca del primo Umanesimo, Venezia– Roma: Istituto per la Collaborazione Culturale. ———, 1980–1981: Agostino Pertusi, “L’umanesimo greco dalla fine del secolo XIV agli inizi del secolo XVI,” in Girolamo Arnaldi, Manlio Pastore Stocchi (eds.), Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 3: Dal primo Quattrocento al Concilio di Trento, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1. 177–264. ———, 19902: Agostino Pertusi, La caduta di Costantinopoli, vol. 1: Le testimonianze dei contemporanei; vol. 2: L’eco nel mondo, Milano: Mondadori (first edition: 1976). ———, 1990a [1977–1978]: Agostino Pertusi, “Venezia, la cultura greca e il Boccaccio,” Studi sul Boccaccio 10 (1977–1978), 217–234 = Saggi venetobizantini, a cura di Giovan Battista Parente, Firenze: Olschki, 1990, 239– 257. Pesenti 1924, 1925: Giovanni Pesenti, “Vittorino da Feltre e gli inizi della scuola di greco in Italia,” Athenaeum n.s. 2, 241–260 (part 1); 3, 1–16 (part 2). PG: Patrologiae cursus completus, etc., series Graeca, accurante J.P. Migne, 161 vols., Lutetiae: apud J.P. Migne editorem, 1844–1903. PGL: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, edited by G.W.H. Lampe, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Piacente 2002: Battista Guarini, La didattica del greco e del latino. De ordine docendi ac studendi e altri scritti, a cura di Luigi Piacente, Bari: Edipuglia. Piccard: Gerhard Piccard, Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard im Hauptsstaatsarchiv Stuttgart, 17 vols., Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961– Picciarelli 2003: Massimiliano Picciarelli, “Les réflexions sur les cas chez
612
bibliography
les grammairiens byzantins,” in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Syntax in Antiquity, (Orbis/Supplementa 23), Leuven–Paris-Dudley, MA: Peeters. Pinborg 1975: Jan Pinborg, “Classical Antiquity: Greece,” in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics, The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 69–126. ———, 1982: Jan Pinborg, Remigius, Schleswig 1486. A Latin Grammar in Facsimile Edition with a Postscript (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 50:4), København: Munksgaard. PL: Patrologiae cursus completus, etc., series Latina, accurante J.P. Migne, 222 vols., Lutetiae: apud J.P. Migne editorem, 1844–1903. Plebani 1994: Tiziana Plebani, “Omaggio ad Aldo grammatico: origine e tradizione degli insegnanti-stampatori,” in Susy Marcon, Marino Zorzi (eds.), Aldo Manuzio e l’ambiente veneziano, 1494–1515, Venezia: Il Cardo, 73– 100. Plumidis 1971: Giorgio (Georgios) Plumidis, “Gli scolari greci nello studio di Padova,” Quaderni per la Storia dell’Università di Padova 4, 127–141. Podskalsky 1974: Gerhard Podskalsky, “Die Rezeption der thomistischen Theologie bei Gennadios II. Scholarios (ca. 1403–1472),” Theologie und Philosophie 49, 305–323. ———, 1977: Gerhard Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (Byzantinisches Archiv 15), München: Beck. Polara 1991: Giovanni Polara, “Generi letterari e criteri ecdotici: a proposito di testi grammaticali e pseudogrammaticali,” Schede medievali 20–21, 101– 115. Politi 2000: Maria L. Politi, “8Ο βιβλιγραφος Νικλαος Φαγι(νης κα' % *ν$ρ+πινος πνος,” in Stefanos Kaklamanis, Athanasios Markopoulos et al. (eds.), ;Εν4Lμησις Νικολ:ου Μ. Παναγιοτ:κη, Iraklion: Πανεπιστιμιακ3ς Εκδσεις Κρτης—Βικελαα Δημοτικ Βιβλιο$κη 8Ηρακλεου, 619– 629. Pontani 1996: Anna Pontani, “Sullo studio del greco in Occidente nel sec. XV: l’esempio di Michele Apostolis,” in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso, 20–24 marzo 1991), vol. 1: L’Italia e il mondo romanzo, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 134–170. ———, 1999: Anna Pontani, “Manuele Crisolora: libri e scrittura (con un cenno su Giovanni Crisolora),” in Santo Lucà, Lidia Perria (eds.), ;Οπ ρα. Studi in onore di mgr. Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno, vol. 3 = Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata n.s. 53, 255–283. Porro 1884: Giulio Porro, Catalogo dei codici manoscritti della Trivulziana, Torino: Bocca. Pozzi 1966: Giovanni Pozzi, “Da Padova a Firenze nel 1493,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 9, 191–227. Proctor 1900: Robert Proctor, The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century, London: The Biographical Society, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Puff 1996: Helmut Puff, “Exercitium grammaticale puerorum. Eine Studie zur Verhältniss von pädagogischer Innovation und Buchdruck um 1500,” in
bibliography
613
Martin Kitzinger, Sönke Lorenz et al. (eds.), Schule und Schüler im Mittelalter. Beiträge zur europäischen Bildungsgeschichte des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts, Köln: Böhlau, 411–439. Radt: Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta edidit Stefan L. Radt, vol. 4: Sophocles, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Rabil 1988: Albert Rabil, Jr., “The Significance of ‘Civic Humanism’ in the Interpretation of the Italian Renaissance,” in Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. 1, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 141–174. Ravegnani 1998: Giorgio Ravegnani, “La conquista veneziana di Creta e la prima organizzazione militare dell’isola,” in Gherardo Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Iraklion-Chania, 30 settembre–5 ottobre 1997), Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 33–42. Renaissance Humanism: Albert Rabil, Jr. (ed.), Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, 3 vols., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Resnick 1990: Irven M. Resnick, “Lingua Dei, lingua hominis: Sacred Language and Medieval Texts,” Viator 21, 51–74. Reynolds S. 1996: Suzanne Reynolds, Medieval Reading; Grammar, Rhetoric and the Classical Texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reynolds-Wilson 19913: Leighton D. Reynolds, Nigel G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press (first edition: 1968). Richard 1989: Jean Richard, “The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople (1204–1227),” in Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton et al. (eds.), Latin and Greeks in the Easter Mediterranean After 1204, London: Frank Cass, 45–62. Riché 1976 [19623]: Pierre Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth through Eighth Centuries, transl. by John J. Contreni, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press (original edition: Paris 19623). ———, 1985: Pierre Riché, “Le rôle de la mémoire dans l’enseignement médiéval” in Paul Zumthor, Bruno Roy (eds.), Jeux de mémoire. Aspects de la mnémotechnie médiéval, Paris: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 133– 148 = Éducation et culture dans l’Occident médiéval, London–Bookfield, VT: Variorum, 1993, XII. Rizzo 1973: Silvia Rizzo, Il lessico filologico degli umanisti (Sussidi eruditi 26), Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. ———, 1990: Silvia Rizzo, “Petrarca, il latino e il volgare,” Studi petrarcheschi 7, 7–40. ———, 1995: Silvia Rizzo, “Sulla terminologia dell’insegnamento grmmaticale nelle scuole umanistiche,” in Olga Weijers (ed.), Vocabulary of Teaching and Research Between Middle Ages and Renaissance. Proceedings of the Colloquium, London, Warburg Institute, 11–12 March 1994 (Civicima. Études sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du Moyen Âge 8), Turnhout: Brepols, 29–44. ———, 1996: Silvia Rizzo, “L’insegnamento del latino nelle scuole umanistiche,” in Mirko Tavoni (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso,
614
bibliography
20–24 marzo 1991), vol. 1: L’Italia e il mondo romanzo, Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 3–29. ———, 1998: Silvia Rizzo, “Omero, lingua volgare e lingua grammaticale: riflessioni in margine a luoghi di Pier Candido Decembrio, Angelo Decembrio, Annio di Viterbo,” Rinascimento s. 2, 38, 337–344. ———, 2004: Silvia Rizzo, “I latini dell’Umanesimo,” in Giorgio Bernardi Perini (ed.), Il latino nell’età dellUmanesimo. Atti del Convegno (Mantova, 26–27 ottobre 2001), Firenze: Olschki, 51–95. Robins 1951: Robert H. Robins, Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe, with Particular Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine, London: Bell. ———, 1984: Robert H. Robins, “Ex Oriente lux: A Contribution of the Byzantine Grammarians,” in Sylvain Auroux, Michel Glatigny et al. (eds.), Matériaux pour une histoire des théories linguistiques, Lille: Université de Lille III, 217–225. ———, 1988: Robert H. Robins, “Text and Textual Interpretation in Ancient Greek Linguistics,” Semiotica 70, 331–344. ———, 1993: Robert H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians. Their Place in History (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 70), Berlin–New York: Mouton–De Gruyter. ———, 1996: Robert H. Robins, “The Initial Section of the Tékhne Grammatiké,” in Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context, Leuven–Paris: Peeters, 3–15. ———, 2000: Robert H. Robins, “Greek Linguistics in the Byzantine Period,” in Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner et al. (eds.), History of the Language Sciences, vol. 1, Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 417–423. Rochette 1997: Bruno Rochette, Le latin das le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latins dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain (Collection Latomus 233), Bruxelles: Latomus. ———, 1999: Bruno Rochette, “Écrire en deux langues. Remarques sur le mixage des écritures grecque et latine d’après les papyrus littéraires bilingues d’auteurs classiques,” Scriptorium 53, 325–334. Rollo 2001: Antonio Rollo, “La grammatica greca di Urbano Bolzanio,” in Paolo Pellegrini (ed.), Umanisti bellunesi fra Quattro e Cinquecento. Atti del Convegno di Belluno (5 novembre 1999), Firenze: Olschki, 177–209. ———, 2002: Antonio Rollo, “‘Titoli bilingui’ e la biblioteca di Manuele Crisolora,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 95, 91–101. ———, 2003: Antonio Rollo, “Tra Salutati e Crisolora: il trattato Sugli spiriti. Con nuove testimonianze sul greco alla scuola di Guarino,” Studi medievali e umanistici 1, 137–152. Roos 1984: Paolo Roos, Sentenza e proverbio nell’antichità e i ‘Distici di Catone.’ Il testo latino e i vogarizzamenti italiani, Brescia: Morcelliana. Ross 1976: James B. Ross, “Venetian Schools and Teachers, Fourteenth to Early Sixteenth Century: a Survey and a Study of Giovanni Battista Egnazio,” Renaissance Quarterly 29, 521–557. Rothstein 2006: Marian Rothstein, “Homer for the Court of François I,” Renaissance Quarterly 59, 732–767. Rowland 1998: Ingrid D. Rowland, The Culture of the High Renaissance. Ancients
bibliography
615
and Moderns in Sixteenth-Century Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell 2001: Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, Books 1–2, edited and translated by Donald A. Russell (Loeb Classical Library 124), Cambridge, MA– London: Harvard University Press. Ruysschaert 1954: José Ruysschaert, “Les manuels de grammaire latine composés par Pomponio Leto,” Scriptorium 8, 98–107. ———, 1961: José Ruysschaert, “A propos des trois premières grammaires latines de Pomponio Leto,” Scriptorium 15, 68–75. Sabbadini 1896: Remigio Sabbadini, La scuola e gli studi di Guarino Guarini veronese, Catania: Galati. ———, 1904–1905: Remigio Sabbadini, “Frammento di grammatica latinobergamasca,” Studi Medievali 1, 281–292. ———, 1906: Remigio Sabbadini, “Elementi nazionali nella teoria grammaticale dei Romani,” Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 14, 113–125. ———, 1922: Remigio Sabbadini, Il metodo degli Umanisti, Firenze: Le Monnier. Saenger 1997: Paul Saenger, Space Between Words: The Origins of Silent Readings, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Saladin 20042: Jean-Christophe Saladin, La bataille de grec à la Renaissance, Paris: Les Belles Lettres (first edition: Paris 2000). Sambin 1956: Paolo Sambin, “La formazione quattrocentesca della biblioteca di S. Giovanni di Verdara in Padova,” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classe di Scienze Morali e Lettere 114, 263–280. ———, 1972–1973: Paolo Sambin, “Per la biografia di Pietro da Montagnana, grammatico e bibliofilo del sec. XV,” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti 131, 797–824. Sanchi 2006: Luigi Alberto Sanchi, Les Commentaires de la langue grecque de Guillaume Budé. L’oeuvre, ses sources, sa préparation, Genève: Droz. Sandy 2004: Gerald N. Sandy, “Greek Teachers in the Latin West,” Studi umanistici piceni 24, 181–191. Sandys 19583: John E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols., New York: Hafner (first edition: Cambridge 1903–1908). Sani 1999: Roberto Sani, Educazione e istituzioni scolastiche nell’Italia moderna (secoli XV–XIX). Testi e documenti, Milano: I.S.U. Università Cattolica. Santoro 1962: Caterina Santoro, I tesori della Trivulziana. La storia del libro dal secolo VIII al secolo XVIII, Milano: Comune di Milano. ———, 1965: Caterina Santoro, I codici medievali della Biblioteca Trivulziana. Catalogo, Milano: Comune di Milano. Scapecchi 1994: Pietro Scapecchi, “Manoscritti ed edizioni a stampa appartenenti alla raccolta libraria del Camaldolese Pietro da Portico,” in Luciana Bigliazzi, Angela Dillon Bussi et al. (eds.), Aldo Manuzio tipografo 1494– 1515. Catalogo (Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 17 giugno–30 luglio 1994), Firenze: Octavo, Franco Cantini Editore, 193–196. Schmidt 19792: Peter L. Schmidt, “Dicta Catonis,” in Konrat Ziegler, Walther Sontheimer (eds.), Der kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike auf der Grundlage von Pauly’s Realencyclopädie, München: Deutsche Taschenbuch Verlag (first edition: München 1975), vol. 2, 1–2.
616
bibliography
Schmitt 1966: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Maximos Planudes, der lateinische Pseudo-Donatus (Ianua) und seine Übersetzung ins Griechische,” unpublished dissertation Humboldt Universität, Berlin (unpublished). ———, 1966a: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Zum (alt)preussischen ‘Donatus’ des Wilhelm von Modena,” Helikon 6, 484–492. ———, 1967: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Cato in Byzanz,” Klio 48, 325–334. ———, 1968: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz. Die Übersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 17, 127–147. ———, 1969: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Die Ianua (Donatus). Ein Beitrag zur lateinishen Schulgrammatik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance,” Beiträge zur Inkunabelkunde 4, 43–80. ———, 1971: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Eine unbekannte Rede zum Lob der griechischen Sprache und Literatur. Zur literarischen Biographie des Humanisten Andronikos Kontoblakes,” Philologus 115, 264–277. ———, 1975: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Donati Graeci. Zum Griechischstudium der italienischen Humanisten,” Actes de la XIIe Conférence Internationale d’Études Classiques ‘Eirene,’ Clúj-Napoca, 2–7 octobre 1972, Bucuresti–Amsterdam: Editura Academei Republicii Socialiste România-Hakkert, 205–213. ———, 1977: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Bemerkungen zum Codex Baroccianus 72, fol. 306r–309v. Ein Beitrag zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der von Maximos Planudes ins Griechische übersetzen Dicta Catonis,” Helikon 17, 276– 282. ———, 1977a: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Einige Bemerkungen zur griechischen Elementargrammatik Cod. Vat. Graec. 1388, fol. 79–92,” in Kurt Treu, Jürgen Dunner et al. (edd.), Studia Codicologica (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlischen Literatur 124), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 425–431. ———, 1979: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Lateinischer und griechischer ‘Donatus’. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Griechischstudien im lateinischer Mittelalter,” Philologus 123, 97–108. Schneider 1999: Jean Schneider, Les traités orthographiques grecs antiques et byzantines (Corpus Christianorum, Lingua Patrum 3), Turnhout: Brepols. Segre-Marti 1959: Cesare Segre, Mario Marti, La letteratura italiana: storia e testi, vol. 3: La prosa del Duecento, Milano–Napoli: Ricciardi. Setton 1956: Kenneth M. Setton, “The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 100, 1– 76. ˇ cenko 1961: Ihor Sevˇ ˇ cenko, “The Decline of Byzantium Seen Through Sevˇ the Eyes of Its Intellectuals,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15, 169–180. Sewter 1969: The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, translated from the Greek by E.R.A. Sewter, London: Penguin. Sicherl 1997: Martin Sicherl, Griechische Erstausgabe des Aldus Manutius. Druckvorlagen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 10), Paderborn: Schöningh. Sihler 1995: Andrew L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press.
bibliography
617
Sirinian 2003: Anna Sirinian, “Una riuscita operazione culturale: la versione armena della Grammatica di Dionisio Trace,” in Vincenzo Ruggeri, Luca Pieralli (eds.) Εκοσμ α. Studi miscellanei per il 75° di Vincenzo Poggi S.J., Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino, 471–484. Skutsch 1985: Otto Skutsch, The Annals of Quintus Ennius, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smyth: Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised by Gordon Messing, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 19843 (first edition: 1920). Sophokles: Evangelinus Apostolides Sophokles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press—Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 19142, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 2003. Sosower 1984: Mark L. Sosower, “Seven Manuscripts Palla Strozzi Gave to the S. Giustina Library,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 47, 190–191. Sowerby 1997: Robin Sowerby, “Early Humanist Failure with Homer (I),” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 4, 37–63. Speranzi 2006: David Speranzi, “Tra Creta e Firenze: Aristobulo Apostolis, Marco Musuro e il Riccardiano 77,” Segno e Testo 4, 191–210. ———, 2007: David Speranzi, “Marco Musuro. Libri e scrittura,” dissertation Università degli Studi di Cassino (unpublished). Spiazzi 1964: Giancarlo Spiazzi, “Barozzi, Francesco,” in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani vol. 6, Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 495–499. Stadter 1973: Philip A. Stadter, “Planudes, Plutarch, and Pace of Ferrara,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 16, 137–162. Staïkos 1998 [1989]: Konstantinos S. Staïkos, Charta of Greek Printing. The Contribution of Greek Editors, Printers and Publishers to the Renaissance in Italy and the West, vol. 1: Fifteenth Century, transl. by Timothy Cullen, Köln: Dinter (original edition: Athens 1989). Stevens 1950: Linton C. Stevens, “How the French Humanists of the Renaissance Learned Greek,” Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 65, 240–248. Stinger 1977: Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and the Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance, Albany: State University of New York Press. ———, 1985: Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ———, 1988: Charles L. Stinger, “Humanism in Florence,” in Renaissance Humanism, vol. 1, 174–208. Stolt 1979: Birgit Stolt, “Das Werk eines pädagogischen Genies: die Ars minor des Donat im Codex Ups. C 678,” Daphnis 8, 309–320. Stotz 1981: Peter Stotz, “Dichten als Schulfach. Aspekte mittelalterlischer Schuldichtung,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 16, 1–16. Swiggers 2001: Pierre Swiggers, “Les Institutiones grammaticae Latinae de Nicolas Clénard (1538),” in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 95), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 147–168.
618
bibliography
Swiggers-Wouters 2000: Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters, “Grammaires grecques (et latines) sur papyrus,” in Mario De Nonno, Paolo De Paolis et al. (ed.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Erice, 16–23 October 1997, at the 11th Course of the International School for the Study of Written Records, vol. 1, Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi, 59–88. ———, 2003: Pierre Swiggers, Alfons Wouters, “Réflexions à propos de (l’absence de?) la syntaxe dans la grammaire gréco-latine,” in Peter Swiggers, Alfons Wouters (eds.), Syntax in Antiquity (Orbis/Supplementa 23), Leuven– Paris: Peeters, 25–41. Taylor 19494: Henry O. Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind. A History of the Development of Thought and Emotion in the Middle Ages, 2 vols., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 19494 (first edition: 1911). Thiermann 1996: Peter Thiermann, “I dizionari greco-latini fra Medioevo e Umanesimo,” in Jacqueline Hamesse (ed.), 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), Louvain-la Neuve: Féderation Internationale des Instituts des Études Médiévales, 657–675. Thomson 1976: Ian Thomson, “Some Notes on the Content of Guarino’s Library,” Renaissance Quarterly 29, 169–177. Thomson-Perraud 1990: Ian Thomson, Louis Perraud, Ten Latin Schooltexts of the Later Middle Ages. Translated Selection, Lewinston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Thurot 1869: Charles Thurot, Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour sevir à l’histoire des doctrines grammaticales au Moyen Âge, Paris 1869, repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1964. Titone 1968: Renzo Titone, Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. ———, 1980: Renzo Titone, Glottodidattica: un profilo storico, Bergamo: Minerva Italica. TLO: Totius Latinitatis, etc., Onomasticon, opera et studio docti Vincenti De-Vit lucubratum, Prati, typis Aldinianis 1868. Trapp 1973: J.B. Trapp, “The ‘Conformity’ of Greek with the Vernacular: the History of a Renaissance Theory of Languages,” in D.F. McKenzie (ed.), Words: Wai-te-ata Studies in Literature, IV (In Honour of Ian Alistair Gordon), Wellington: Wai-te-ata Press, 8–20 = Essays on the Renaissance and the Classical Traditon, Aldershot–Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1990, I. Traube 1891: Ludwig Traube, “O Roma nobilis. Philologische Untersuchungen aus dem Mittelalter,” (aus der Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften I. Cl., XIX Bd. II. Abt.), München: Verlag der Akademie. Treu 1893: M. Treu, “Ein byzantinisches Schulgespräch,” Byzantinische Zeitshrift 2, 96–105. ———, 1896: M. Treu, “Manuel Holobolos,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 5, 538– 559.
bibliography
619
Trovato 1998: Paolo Trovato, L’ordine dei tipografi. Lettori, stampatori, correttori tra Quattro e Cinquecento, Roma: Bulzoni. Tsirpanlis 1980: Zacharias N. Tsirpanlis, Τ2 &Ελληνικ2 Κολλγιο τ7ς &Ρ μης κα ο5 μα4ητς του (1576–1700), Thessalica: jΥδρυμα Πατερικν Μελετν. ———, 1983: Zacharias N. Tsirpanlis, “Il primo e il secondo collegio greco,” Il Veltro 27, 507–521. Turyn 1973–1974: Alexander Turyn, “Michael Lulludes (or Luludes), a Scribe of the Palaeologan Era,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 20–21, 3– 15. Ullman 1955: B.L. Ullman, Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Vasoli 1981: Cesare Vasoli, “Vittorino da Feltre e la formazione umanistica dell’uomo,” in Nella Giannetto (ed.), Vittorino da Feltre e la sua scuola: umanesimo, pedagogia, arti, Firenze: Olschki, 13–33. Vassis 1993–1994: Ioannis Vassis, “Graeca sunt, non leguntur. Zu den schedographischen Spielereien des Theodoros Prodromos,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86–87, 1–19. Vendruscolo 1995: Fabio Vendruscolo, “Lorenzo Loredan/ Λαυρ ντιος Λαυρετ(νος ‘copista’ e possessore di codici greci,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 38, 337–363. Viljamaa 1976: Toivo Viljamaa, The Renaissance Reform of Latin Grammar (Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja 142), Turku: Turun Yliopisto. Vitali 1982: Maria Cristina Vitali, “La biblioteca del convento padovano di S. Giovanni di Verdara,” Archivio Veneto s. 5, 119, 5–25. Vogel-Gardthausen: Marie Vogel, Viktor E. Gardthausen, Die griechische Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Leipzig: Harrrassowitz 1909, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Vogt-Spira 2001: Gregor Vogt-Spira, “Franciscus Sanctius’ Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae (1587),” in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 95), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 169–187. Waquet 1998: Françoise Waquet, Le latin ou l’empire d’un signe. XVIe–XXe siècle, Paris: Albin Michel. Walter 2000: Helmut G. Walter, “Learned Jurists and Their Profit for Society. Some Aspects of the Development of Legal Studies at Italian and German Universities in the Late Middle Ages,” in William J. Courtenay, Jürgen Mietke (eds.), Universities and Schooling in Medieval Society, Leiden–BostonKöln: Brill, 100–126. Webb 1994: Ruth Webb, “A Slavish Art? Language and Grammar in Late Byzantine Education and Society,” Dialogos 1, 81–103. Weijers 1989: Olga Weijers, “Lexicography in the Middle Ages,” Viator 20, 139–153. Weiss 1977: Roberto (Robert) Weiss, “Gli inizi dello studio del greco a Firenze,” in Medieval and Humanist Greek. Collected Essays, Padova: Antenore, 227– 254. ———, 1977 [1951]: Roberto (Robert) Weiss, “The Study of Greek in England
620
bibliography
During the Fourteenth Century,” Rinascimento 2 (1951), 209–239 = Medieval and Humanist Greek. Collected Essays, Padova: Antenore, 80–107 Wendel 1950: Carl Wendel, “Planudes, Maximos,” in G. Wissowa, W. Kroll et al. (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue Bearbeitung, vol. 20/2, Stuttgart: Metzler, 2202–2253. Wilson 1977: Nigel G. Wilson, “The Books Trade in Venice, ca. 1400–1515,” in Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manoussakas et al. (eds.), Venezia centro di mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV–XVI). Aspetti e problemi, vol. 2, Firenze: Olschki, 381–397. ———, 1992: Nigel G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy. Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ———, 1992a: Nigel G. Wilson, “Some Remarks on Greek Philology in the Milieu of Aldus Manutius,” in Mariarosa Cortesi, Enrico V. Maltese (eds.), Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Trento, 22–23 ottobre 1990), Napoli: D’Auria, 29–36. ———, 19962: Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, revised edition, London: Duckworth (first edition: 1983). Witt 1983: Ronald G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life, Works, and Thought of Coluccio Salutati, Durham, NC: Durham University Press. ———, 1988: Ronald G. Witt, “Medieval Italian Culture and the Origins of Humanism as a Stylistic Ideal,” in Renaissance Humanism, vol. 1, 29– 70. ———, 1995: Ronald G. Witt, “Still the Matter of the Two Giovannis: A Note on Malpaghini and Conversino,” Rinascimento s. 2, 35, 179–199. ———, 1995a: Ronald G. Witt, “What Did Giovannino Read and Write? Literacy in Early Renaissance Florence,” I Tatti Studies. Essays in the Renaissance 6, 83–114. ———, 2000: Ronald G. Witt, ‘In the Footsteps of the Ancients:’ The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought LXXIV), Leiden–Boston-Köln: Brill. Wittek 1953: Martin Wittek, “Manuscrits et codicologie,” Scriptorium 7, 274– 297. Woodward 19635: William H. Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators (Classics in Education 18), New York: Teachers College Press (first edition: Cambridge 1897). ———, 19674: William H. Woodward, Studies in Education During the Age of the Renaissance, 1400–1600 (Classics in Education 32), New York: Teachers College Press (first edition: Cambridge 1906). Worstbrock 2001: Franz Josef Worstbrock, “Niccolò Perottis ‘Rudimenta grammatices’. Über Konzeption und Methode einer humanistischen Grammatik,” in Wolfram Ax (ed.), Von Eleganz und Barbarei. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik in Renaissance und Barock (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 95), Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 59–78. Wouters 1979: Alfons Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt. Contributions to the Study of the ‘Ars Grammatica’ in Antiquity, Brussel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België.
bibliography
621
Young 2003; Philip H. Young, The Printed Homer: A 3,000 Year Publishing and Translation History of the Iliad and the Odyssey, Jefferson, NC–London: Mc Farland and Company. Zabughin 1909: Vladimiro Zabughin, Giulio Pomponio Leto. Saggio critico, 2 vols., Roma: La Vita Letteraria.
INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES Greek and Latin names have been generally listed under the last element of the name (e.g., “Laertius, Diogenes” instead of “Diogenes Laertius”). The index includes the modern scholars whose statements are quoted directly and/or discussed in the text and in the footnotes. Accursius, Bonus, 122, 127n Achates, Leonardo, 267n Acropolites, George, 105 Adhelm of Malmesbury, 89n Adramythenos, Manuel, 153n Ælfric of Eynsham, 45, 59n Aeneas, 197n Aeschylus, 115n Aesop, 69n, 87n, 117, 135, 144n, 200, 241, 246n, 250n Agapetus, 200, 201n Agroecius, 8, 89n Alain of Lille, 68n Alberti, Leon Battista, 61n, 71 Alcman, 81 Alcuin of York, 14n, 15, 529 Aleandro, Girolamo, 146 Alexander of Hales, 86 Alexander of Villedieu, 15, 19, 23n, 25, 60, 62n, 66, 128, 217, 218n Alexander the Great, 200 Alexius I Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor, 244 Alighieri, Dante, 102n Allatius, Leo (Leone Allacci), 204n Alopa, Lorenzo de, 134n Altemps, Giovanni Angelo, 27 Amaseo, Girolamo, 137, 144, 169, 256n Amaseo, Gregorio, 137, 268n Ambergau, Adam von, 120 Ambrosius, grammarian, 70 Anastasius the Librarian, 92n Andronicus II Palaeologus, Byzantine Emperor, 232n, 238, 239
Andronicus, Livius, 77 Angeli, Jacopo, 99, 119n Anglicus, Waltherius (Galterus), 69n Anselm of Canterbury, Saint, 232, 233 Antiphon, 524 Apollonius Dyscolus, 108, 125n, 137, 195n, 208n, 220n, 223, 225, 236, 242n, 522, 525, 526, 533, 541, 542, 543 Apostolis, Arsenios (Aristoboulos), 143n, 145, 250 Apostolis, Michael, XV, 144n, 147– 149, 160, 170, 171, 172, 250, 251 Apuleius, 82 Aquinas, Thomas, see Thomas Aquinas Aragazzi, Bartolomeo, 102n Aratus, 241 Arethas of Caesarea, 106, 236n Aretino, Rinuccio, 144, 203, 250 Argyropoulos, John, 144n, 257, 258n Aristarchus, 10n, 106, 124 Aristides, 226 Aristophanes, 119n, 135, 137, 142, 151, 155, 241 Aristotle, 6, 60n, 71, 73n, 77n, 105, 142, 162, 202, 207n, 218, 240n Arrianus, 78n Asper, 12 Audax, 7 Augustine of Hippo, Saint, 12, 51, 68n, 84–85, 92n, 232, 236n, 239n Augustus, Roman Emperor, 78n
624
index of personal names
Aurispa, Giovanni, 144, 203 Ausonius, 85 Avianus, 68, 69 Bacon, Roger, XVI, 21n, 93–96, 97, 119, 153, 254 Baïophoros, George, 113n Balbi, Giovanni (John of Genoa), 23n, 66n, 68 Baldini, Giovanni di Michele, 29n, 79n Bancaria, Franciscus de, 249n Bandini, Domenico, 68n Barbaro, Ermolao the Younger, 127n Barbaro, Francesco, 130n, 141 Barbieri, Domenico, 56n Bardas, 104n Barlaam of Calabria, 98, 99n, 235n Barocci (Barozzi), Francesco, 166, 167 Barocci (Barozzi), Jacopo, 167 Barzizza, Gasparino, 139n, 141 Basil II, Byzantine Emperor, 230 Basil the Great (Basil of Caesarea), Saint, 89n, 129n, 139n, 221, 526, 542 Basing, Joannes de, see John of Basingstoke Bathe, William, 22n Bede, 8, 10, 17, 18, 89n, 92, 132n Bembo, Marco, 239n Bembo, Pietro, 247n Benedict XIV, Pope, 159n Bernardinello, Silvio, 258 Berschin, Walter, 86, 91 Berti, Ernesto, 138n, 255n Bessarion, Cardinal, 143n, 145, 147, 235n, 236n, 239n, 246, 247, 251, 252n, 256n Bianconi, Daniele, 240n Bischoff, Bernhard, 45n Bitzimanos, Thomas, 171 Black, Robert, XIVn, XX, 24, 25, 26, 59n, 61, 62, 63n, 64n, 65, 66, 69n Blemmydes, Nicephorus, 105
Boas, M., 82 Bobbio, 28 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 98, 99, 101, 102n, 144n Boethius, Severinus, 10n, 68, 70, 83, 226, 232, 233, 234n, 235, 236n, 239, 240n, 251n Bolzanio, Urbano, 44, 125 Bongiari, Marco Antonio, 67n Bonhomme, Mathias, 71, 72n Boniface, 12 Bonisoli, Ognibene, 66–67n Bonnet, Guillaume, 254n Bonvesin de la Riva, 58n Borfoni, Folchino dei, 67n Botley, Paul, 126 Bracciolini, Poggio, 130 Britannicus, Ludovicus, 55 Brito, Guillelmus, 86, 94, 250n Brocense, el, see Sánchez de la Brozas, Francisco Bruni, Leonardo, XV, 76n, 101n, 102n, 133, 138, 139n Budé, Guillaume, 145, 146 Burckhardt, Jacob, XI, XII, 145 Burke, Peter, XIVn Bursill-Hall, G.L., 24, 25, 39 Buti, Francesco da, 67 Caesar, 19, 70, 240n Calecas, Manuel, XX, 110, 118, 119, 124, 133, 227, 233, 250, 258n Calliergis, Zacharias, XIX, 145, 156, 158, 167, 207–208, 211n, 245, 251 Callimachus, 81 Callistos, Andronicos, 257, 258n Calphurmius, Ioannes, 201, 257 Camers, Varinus Favorinus, 130, 137, 138 Canart, Paul, 171n, 202n, 206n Candidus, Petrus (Pietro da Portico), 171–172, 256n Capella, Martianus, 82 Caper, 8, 89n Carbone, Ludovico, 130n Carteromachus, Scipio (Scipione Forteguerri), 127n, 247n
index of personal names Cassiodorus, 10, 83 Pseudo-Cassiodorus, see “Sergius” Castiglione, Francesco da, see, Francesco da Castiglione Cato, Marcus Porcius the Elder, 52, 67, 225–226 Disticha (Pseudo-Cato), 24n, 25, 27, 48, 52–54, 55, 58, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 82, 83, 84, 86, 127, 226, 233, 237n, 245, 246n, 250n Greek translation (see also, Planudes, Maximus), XVIII, 127n, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 200, 205, 206, 225–228, 234n, 239, 240n, 242, 251, 259, 260 Catochopo, Basil, 249n Catochopo, Emmanuel, 249n Catullus, 77 Cavallo, Guglielmo, 83, 86 Cavalcante, Marco, 250n Celenza, Christopher, 73n Cesarini Martinelli, Lucia, 137n Chalcondyles, Demetrius, XX, 110, 124, 143, 207n, 246n, 247n, 526 Charax, John, 109n Charisius, 1, 3, 11, 13, 16n, 89n, 224, 513, 515, 517, 531, 543 Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor, XI, 16, 89 Charles the Bald, Holy Roman Emperor, 92, 93 Chigi, Agostino, 207 Choeroboscus, George, 108, 109, 111, 114, 164, 208, 524, 525, 545, 553 Chomsky, Noam, 73 Choniates, Nicetas, 231 Chortasmenos, John, 144n Christina, Queen of Sweden, 168n Christopher of Mytilene, 115 Chrysoberges, Maximus, 250 Chrysocephalos, Macarios, 227 Chrysococces, George, 144n Chrysoloras, John, 126n, 144n Chrysoloras, Manuel, XIV, XV,
625
XVI, XVII, XX 44, 75, 100–102, 104, 110, 118, 119–120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 151, 162, 198, 207n, 208n, 209, 210n, 214, 225n, 227, 228, 237, 246 254, 255, 257, 258, 259 Chrysostom, John, 535 Churchill, Winston, 59n Cicero, 6, 59n, 60n, 69, 70, 71, 77, 79, 81n, 88, 121, 132n, 136n, 140, 142, 144n, 233, 239, 240n, 534 Claudian, 68, 69, 70 Cledonius, 10, 16n Clement VIII, Pope, 202n Clement of Alexandria, 89n, 170, 543 Clenardus (Nicolaas Cleynaerts), 129, 157n Colocci, Angelo, 143 Comenius, Johan Amos, 22n Comnena, Anna, Byzantine Princess, 107n, 110, 115, 116, 535 Conrad of Hirsau, 17 Consentius, 11 Constantine VI, Byzantine Emperor, 89 Constantine IX Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine Emperor, 514 Constantine XI Palaeologus, Byzantine Emperor, 143n Contarini, Agostino, 65n Contarini, Jacopo, 65n Contarini, Marco, 65n Contoblachas, Andronicos, 76–77n Conversini, Giovanni, 139n, 169 Coppola, Francesco, 132n Corbinelli, Angelo, 101n Cordier, Mathurin, 53n Corinna, 81 Cornutus, Annaeus, 166 Correr, Gregorio, 141 Cortesi, Mariarosa, XVn, 157, 202n Cox, Virginia, 247n Crassus, 78n Crastone, Giovanni, 122, 130
626
index of personal names
Cribiore, Raffaella, 81n Crusius, Martin, 253n Cydones, Demetrius, 122n, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235n, 238, 239n, 250 Cydones, Prochorus, 232, 233n, 238 Cyprian, 232 Cyril of Alexandria, 205 Damascius, 550 Damilas, Antonios, 171 Damilas, Demetrios, 122n, 171n Decembrio, Angelo, 153 Decembrio, Pier Candido, 138 Dee, John, 236n Dekkers, E., 248n Dellaportas, Leonardos, 252 Democritus, 105 Demosthenes, 79, 117, 135, 140, 142, 144n, 162, 200 De Nolhac, Pierre, 203 De Paolis, Paolo, 82n Despauterius, Joannes (Ian de Spauter), 66n Diassorinos, Nilos, 118 Di Benedetto, Vincenzo, 106n Didymus, Claudius, 82n Diocletian, Roman Emperor, 81n, 230 Diomedes, 3, 7, 11, 16n, 51, 66, 89n, 517 Dionisotti, A. Carlotta, XVIIIn, 16n, 87, 93n “Dionysius Cato”, 52 see Cato, Marcus Porcius the Elder Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 81 Dionysius the Areopagite, 88, 92 Dionysius Thrax, 3, 7, 23n, 38n, 45n, 81n, 82, 104n, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112n, 123, 124, 135, 152, 181n, 184, 185n, 205n, 209, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 522, 525, 528, 529, 542, 546 Diophantus, 241 Dominici, Giovanni, 139n Donato, Bernardino da Verona, 62n
Donatus, Aelius, XVIII, 1–23, 28n, 29, 31, 33, 35n, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59n, 64, 66, 69, 72, 80n, 86, 90, 91, 104, 109, 120, 122, 128, 152, 154, 162, 174, 187n, 188n, 189n, 237, 260, 513, 514, 517, 519, 522 Donos, Andreas, 167 Dositheus, 7n, 12, 44n, 88, 89n, 90, 91, 222, 224, 254, 517 Droz, Eugénie, 23n Ducas, Demetrius, 145 Dubois, Jacques, 46 Dyscolus, Apollonius, see Apollonius Dyscolus Eberhard (Evrard) of Béthune, 19, 23n, 60, 66, 86 Eirene, Byzantine Empress, 89 Elianus, Victorius, 55, 67n Elissaeus, 89 Ephraem, chronicler, 552 Ephraem Syrus, 211n Epictetus, 170, 171 Epirota, Quintus Caecilius, 69n Erasmus, 54, 122, 128n, 145, 146 Eratosthenes, 170, 172 Eriugena, John Scottus, 16, 88, 92–93 Este, Beatrice d’, Duchess of Milan, 26 Este, Borso d’, Duke of Ferrara, 153 Este, Leonello d’, Marquis of Ferrara, 133, 140 Este, Niccolò d’, Marquis of Ferrara, 140 Estienne (Stephanus), see Stephani Euclid, 97, 241 Eugenianos, Nicetas, 114 Eunapius, 166 Euripides, 98 Eusebius of Caesarea, 60n Eustathius, 115, 116n Eutyches, 12, 16n, 82n, 83, 88, 154n Faba, Guido, 540 Facchettus, Antonius, 55, 56n, 67n
index of personal names Faidit, Uc (Ugo Faiditus), 46 Favorinus, 207n Feriolo, Graziadei, 55 Festus, 51n Ficino, Marsilio, 138 Filelfo, Francesco, XV, 77n, 126, 144, 171n, 198 Fisher, Elizabeth, 230n, 234n, 235, 240n Flanginis, Thomas, 253 Fontaneto, Guilelmus de, 55 Förstel, Christian, 119n, 120n, 121, 122n, 124n Forteguerri, Scipione, see Carteromachus, Scipio Foscari, Jacopo, 130n Francesco da Castiglione, 141n Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, 46 Frederick V, Elector Palatine, 204n Fromund, 91 Fryde, Edmund, 237n Fugger, Ulrich, 204n Fulgentius of Ruspe, 84n Gabalas, Manuel, 227 Gaddi, Angiolo de’, 163 Galen, 97 Garin, Eugenio, XIIIn, 23n Garzoni, Tommaso, 204n Gaspare da Verona, 66n, 153 Gaza, Theodore, XVII, XX, 113, 121–124, 125, 129, 137, 141, 144n, 159, 168, 208n, 240n, 526 Geanakoplos, Deno J., 230n, 232n, 248n–262n Gehl, Paul, 63n, 79n Gellius, 66 Genesius, Joseph, 191n Gentile of Arezzo, 249n Gerard of Huy, 94n Gian Pietro da Lucca, 141n, 203n Gigante, Marcello, 236n, 240n Giovanni da Reno, 267n Giovanni da San Miniato, 139n Girard of Patras, 142n, 202
627
Girardonius, Iacobus, 56n Giunta, Benedetto (Benedictus Iunta), 55n Giunta, Lucantonio (Lucas Antonius Junta), 55 Glycas, Michael, 542 Glykys, John, 105, 125n Gobbus, Curtius, 55 Gonzaga, Cecilia, 142 Gonzaga, Gianfrancesco, Marquis of Mantua, 141 Goro d’Arezzo, 62n, 68n Gottschalk of Fulda, 68n Grafton, Anthony, XIVn, 77n, 129n, 134 Gregoras, Nicephorus, 231, 232 Gregoropoulos, George, 171, 251 Gregoropoulos, John, 144, 207n Gregory XIII, Pope, 253 Gregory of Corinth (Gregory Pardos), 115, 125n, 209, 526, 527, 528 Gregory (George) of Cyprus, 105, 238 Gregory of Nazianzus, 125n, 164, 211n Gregory of Nyssa, 92, 223n Gregory the Great, 10, 84, 250n Grendler, Paul, XIVn, 28n, 29, 54, 58, 63, 144, 246 Gretser, Jacob, 143n Grolier, Jean, 128 Grosseteste, Robert, 93, 94, 97, 152 Gryphius, Joannes, 55, 128n Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, 138n Guarini, Battista, 57n, 71n, 126, 130–133, 140, 149 Guarini, Guarino, 24n, 25, 27n, 44, 55n, 58n, 66n, 67, 70, 71, 76n, 101, 102n, 119, 120, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136n, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 151, 162, 174, 239, 246, 258n, 259 Guarini, Niccolò, 70 Guidi, Giovanni Francesco, 204n Gutenberg, Johannes, 29
628
index of personal names
Habrecht, Isaac, 22n Hadrian, monk, 88n, 89n, 152 Hadrian, Roman Emperor, 78n Hankins, James, 76, 136n Harris, Jonathan, 86n Hazelton, Richard, 53, 54n Helias, Peter, 23n, 38n Henry II, King of England, 69n Henry of Settimello, 68n Hephaestion, 166 Heracles, 166 Herbert, William, Earl of Pembroke, 167 Hermogenes, 241 Hermonymos, George, 146 Herodian, Aelius, 108, 111, 124, 127, 166, 527 Herodotus, 135, 153 Hesiod, 80, 127n, 133n, 135, 142, 234n Hesychius, 521 Hierius, 83 Hilduin, 88, 92 Hippocrates, 97, 524 Holobolos, Manuel, 105, 232, 234– 235, 238 Holtz, Louis, 2n, 4, 19n, 13n, 14, 25n, 39n, 45n, 154 Homer, XI, 75n, 79, 80, 84, 87, 98n, 99n, 133n, 135, 140, 142, 144n, 153, 171, 216n, 226, 234n, 516, 521, 544 Hongulardis, Bartholomaeus de, 249n Horace, 6, 14, 69n, 70, 77, 78n, 144n, 153 Horrocks, Geoffrey, 174n Houston, Rav A., 78n Hrotrud, Frankish Princess, 89 Hugh of St. Victor, 57 Hugutio of Pisa, 68, 86, 94, 250n Hunger, Herbert, 116n, 226n Hyginus, 87n Ibycus, 81 Ickelsamer, Valentin, 46 n Irvine, Martin, 9
Isidore of Kiev, 143n Isidore of Seville, 10, 13, 17 Ising, Erika, 60, 152 Isocrates, 124n, 135, 142, 144n Iunilius, 89n Jardine, Lisa, XIVn, 129n, 134 Jeauneau, Édouard, 106n Jerome, Saint, 1, 53, 82, 92n, 232, 514 John I Tzimisces, Byzantine Emperor, 90 John VI, Byzantine Emperor, 233n John of Basingstoke, 93, 152–153 John of Garland, 68n, 69n, 86 John of Genoa, see Balbi, Giovanni Julian of Toledo, 10 Julian the Apostate, Roman Emperor, 197n Junta, see Giunta Justinian, Byzantine Emperor, 84 Juvenal, 6, 70, 79n, 233, 239, 240n Kallendorf, Craig, 144n Kramer, Johannes, 78 Kristeller, Paul Oskar, XIIIn, 118 Krumbacher, Karl, 116n, 130n, 154n, 236n, 237 Lachmann, Karl, 11, 179 Lactantius, 92n Laertius, Diogenes, 117 Lallot, Jean, 112n, 220n Lampridio, Benedetto, 143 Landino, Cristoforo, 144n Lascaris, Constantine, XVII, XX, 113, 121–124, 125, 127, 129, 137, 153n, 162, 167, 222, 246n Lascaris, Janus, 143, 145, 202n, 256n Law, Vivien, 9n, 19, 33 Leno, Francesco de, 56n Leo X de’ Medici, Pope, 142–143 Lepori, Fernando, 247n Leto, Giulio Pomponio, 72, 73 Libanius, 83, 166, 200, 521 Livy, 70, 71, 98n Logothetes, George, 248n
index of personal names Lomanto, Valeria, 2n London, 269n Longibardos, 110, 116 Longhi, Gioseffo, 56n Loredan, Lorenzo (Laurentius Lauretanus), 162n, 172 Lorenzi (Lorenzano), Lorenzo, 162 Loschi, Antonio, 99n Louis the Pious, Holy Roman Emperor, 92 Lucan, 6, 51, 69, 70, 240n Lucian, 135, 136 Ludovico il Moro (Sforza), Duke of Milan, 26 Lulludes, Michael, 251n Luther, Martin, 59n Lycophron, 81, 98n Lydus, John, 83, 521 Lygizos, Michael, 160, 167, 168, 170, 176, 178, 251, 259 Macrobius, 51n, 81–82, 88, 224n, 233, 239, 240n Magister, Thomas, 207n Malalas, John, 521 Malpaghini, Giovanni, 99n Manasses, Constantine, 114 Mancinelli, Antonio, 30, 48–51, 52, 54, 56, 62 Mancinelli, Pindarus, 48 Mancinelli, Quintus, 48 Mancinelli, Sextus, 48 Manni, Giuseppe, 56n Manuel I Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor, 230 Manuel II Palaeologus, Byzantine Emperor, 100n Manutius, Aldus, 19, 61n, 77n, 122, 125, 126–128, 137n, 207n, 228, 245 Manutius Andreas, 77n Marcanova, Giovanni, 201n Marcellus, Nonius, 15 Margounios, Maximos, 253 Markopoulos, Athanasios, 105n Maro, Virgilius, grammarian, 11 Marrou, Henri, 77, 87n
629
Martial, 51, 70 Martire de Mantegatiis, Pietro, 56n Mascardi, Vitale, 55, 67n Matthew of Vendôme, 68n Mattia (owner of MS. Vat. Pal. gr. 234), 204, 205n Mauropous, John, 114 Maurus, Hrabanus, 21n, 68n Mavromatis, Giannis, 253n Maximianus, 68 Maximilian I, Duke of Bavaria, 204n Maximus the Confessor, 92 Maximus, Valerius, 70, 78n Mazarin, Cardinal, 133n McCormick, Michael, 86n McKee, Sally, 248n Meda, Hieronimus de, 55n Meda, Valerius de, 55n Medici, Cosimo de’, 257n Medici, Lorenzo de’ (the Magnificent), 142 Melanchthon, Philip, 129 Melissenos, Gregory, 143n Menander, XI Menzer, Melinda J., 45n Merlo, Bortolamio, 56n Merrilees, Brian, 61n Metochites, George, 239n Metochites, Theodore, 232 Michael II, Byzantine Emperor, 92 Michael VIII Palaeologus, Byzantine Emperor, 231, 232n, 238 Michael Syncellus, 125n, 164, 209, 524, 527 Mignault, Claude (Claudius Minos), 138n Mithridates, 78n Moffatt, Ann, 104n Moiranus, Barptolomaeus, 55n Monaci, Lorenzo de’, 247n Monfasani, John, XIVn Monferrato de Sustreno de Bonelli, Manfredo de, 56n Montefeltro, Federigo da, Duke of Urbino, 141 Morgan, Teresa, 78n
630
index of personal names
Morozzo della Rocca, Raimondo, 249n Moschopoulos, Manuel, XVII, 103, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117n, 119, 124, 127, 137n, 153, 168, 200, 205n, 208n, 209, 220, 231, 526, 528, 529, 541, 543 Moschus, John, 514, 538 Murethach, 15 Murphy, James, 58 Musurus, Marcus, 128, 143, 144, 207n, 248n, 256n Narnia, Pietro di, 249n Natalis, Hervaeus, see Nédélec, Hervé Nebrija, Antonio de, 19, 62n, 66n, 71, 72n Nédélec, Hervé (Hervaeus Natalis), 232 Niccoli, Niccolò, 100, 101n, 102n Nicholas V, Pope, 71n, 121, 138 Nicholas of Cues, XIn Nicholas the Greek, 93n Nicocles, 200 Nicolaus, Magister, see Nicholas the Greek Notaras, Anna, 207 Oldenburg, Johannes, 60n Omont, Henri, 91 Origen, 89n Orsini, Fulvio, Cardinal, 202 Ortoleva, Vincenzo, 226n, 227n, 238n Orus, 108 Osbern of Gloucester, 68 Ostrogorsky, George (Georgije), 229n Otloh of St. Emmeran, 53n Ottenrich, Count Palatine, 204n Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor, 90 Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor, 90 Ottoboni, Pietro, Cardinal (Pope Alexander VIII), 168n Ovid, 24, 51, 69, 70, 78n, 127, 136n, 153, 233, 239, 240n
Pace of Ferrara, 97 Pachel, Leonardo, 56n Pachymeres, George, 232, 234n, 535 Padley, G. Arthur, XIIIn, 46n Paganello, Francesco, 55 Palaemon, Remmius, 2n, 7, 8, 13n, 41n, 106 Palaeologus, Thomas, 143n Palaephatus, 166 Palladas, 166 Palmieri, Matteo, 71 Panagiotakis, Nikolaos M., 248n, 252n, 253n Pandarus, Iosephus, 55 Pannartz, Arnold, 29 Papias, 82, 86, 94 Paravisinus, Dionysius, 122 Parisiensis, Matthaeus (Matthew Paris), 152 Pasquali, Giorgio, 156n Pasquatus, Laurentius, 55 Passionei, Domenico, Cardinal, 159n Paul, Saint, 53 Epistles, 146n Paul the Deacon, 14 Pedhione, Michael, 249n Percival, W. Keith, 38n, 161 Perleone, Pietro, 253 Perotti, Niccolò, 6n, 19, 20n, 66n, 81n, 128 Persius, 69 Pertusi, Agostino, 110n, 119n, 120n, 143, 156, 230n, 236n, 249n Peter of Pisa, 14, 16 Peter of Poitiers, 232 Peter of Spain, 233, 240n Peter the Cretan, 142n Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca), XIII, 75, 76, 94n, 97, 98, 99n, 102n, 144n, 169 Petronius, 79n Phagiannis, Nicholas, 201 Philarges, Petrus (Pope Alexander V), 249 Philip of Pera, 234 Philostratus, 114, 171
index of personal names Phocas, 12, 21, 515 Phocylides, 126n, 127, 171 Photius, 103 Phrynicus, 207n Piccolomini, Enea Silvio (Pope Pius II), XIn, 130n, 143n Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, 126n, 127n, 153 Pietro da Asolo, 169 Pietro d’Abano, 97n Pietro da Isolella, 66n, 514, 530 Pietro da Montagnana, 28, 47–48, 201n, 258n Pilato, Leonzio, 98–99, 100, 101n, 250 Pinborg, Jan, 23n Pindar, XI, 81, 135, 142, 144n, 157n, 207n Pio, Alberto, Prince of Carpi, 126n Pio, Alberto (jr.), 126n Pio, Lionello, 126n Pirondolo, Niccolò, 76n Pius II, Pope, see, Piccolomini, Enea Silvio Planudes, Maximus, XVIII, XIX, 97n, 103, 105, 110, 113, 120n, 121, 122n, 125n, 135, 140n, 154n, 157n, 171, 200, 203n, 205, 223, 225–228, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236n, 237–244, 251, 259, 513 Platina, Bartolomeo, 141n, 142n Plato, 6, 71, 92, 105, 138, 142, 162, 241 Plato, Franciscus Hyazchas, 168, 169, 170, 256, 260 Plautus, 77, 543 Plethon, George Gemistos, XIV, 170, 171 Pliny the Elder, 78n, 88, 98n, 153 Plutarch, 111, 135, 141, 142, 170, 202, 226, 241, 521 Polara, Giovanni, XXIn Politian (Angelo Poliziano), XV, 76n, 77n, 127n, 136, 137, 145, 171n, 172n Pompeius, 10n, 13
631
Pontani, Anna, XVn, 104n Porcari, Stefano de’, 153 Porée, Gilbert de la, 233 Porphyry, 208n Pozzo, Daniele dal, 65n Prendilacqua, Francesco, 141n Priscian, 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34n, 35n, 37n, 38n, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48n, 49n, 50, 51, 59n, 66, 67n, 71, 72, 77n, 82n, 83, 88, 89n, 92n, 104, 108, 113, 125, 154n, 185n, 186n, 188n, 189, 194, 195n, 212n, 213, 217, 224, 225, 237n, 242, 515, 516, 517, 518, 520, 522, 525, 529, 531, 532, 533, 534, 541, 551, 552 Priscianese, Francesco, 63n Probus, 1, 8, 11 Proclus, 223n Procopius of Gaza, 83 Prodicus, 105 Prodromos, Theodore, 114, 116, 117n, 164, 200, 204, 205 Prosper of Aquitaine, 24n, 69n, 70, 85, 261 Protagoras, 105 Prudentius, 69n Psellus, Michael, 106, 115, 129n, 164 Ptolemy, 97, 140, 170, 172, 241 Pythagoras, 126n, 127 Quintilian, 3, 6, 15n, 41n, 48, 59, 60n, 72, 77, 79, 80, 84, 126, 130, 131, 140n, 141, 222, 224n Quirini, Lauro, 249 Remigius of Auxerre, 14, 23, 54n Renanus, Beatus, 146 Renner, Giovanni, see Giovanni da Reno Reuchlin, Johannes, 146 Reynolds, Suzanne, 53n Riché, Pierre, 59n Ricoldo da Monte Croce, 232 Righettini, Francesco, 56n Righettini, Girolamo, 56n
632
index of personal names
Rizzon, Martino, 58n Robins, Robert, 76n, 102n, 103, 120n, 242n Rocca, Angelo, 159n Rochette, Bruno, 78n, 82n Rodriguez de Fonseca, Juan, 71 Romanus the Melodist, 545 Rossi, Marc’Antonio, 56n Rossi, Roberto, 100n, 102n, 119n Rufinus, 82 Rusconibus, Georgius de, 56n Sabbadini, Remigio, 20, 23n, 38n, 44, 203, 237 Sacerdos, 13 Saffreys, Henri D., 165n Sagundino, Niccolò, 253 Sallust, 6, 69, 70, 71, 78n Salutati, Coluccio, XIV, 70, 99, 100, 119n, 120n, 133, 139n Sambin, Paolo, 257n Sanctius, Franciscus (Francisco Sánchez de la Brozas), 72–73 Sandys, John E., 103 Sani, Roberto, 139n Sappho, 80 Sassolo da Prato, 141n, 142n Scaliger, Joseph Justus, 52n, 228 Scaurus, Terentius, 12, 515 Schmitt, Wolfgang Oskar, XIX, 9, 23, 24, 151, 155, 156, 157, 161, 172, 173n, 177n, 185, 188, 194n, 193, 195n, 196, 203n, 208n, 222n, 224n, 226n, 234n, 242, 514, 515, 518, 519 Scholarios, George Gennadios, 144n, 209, 221n, 225n, 233, 236n, 240n, 258n, 523, 526, 527, 528, 542 Scottus, Sedulius, 14, 16, 154 Sedigitus, Volcacius, 70n Seneca, 69, 70, 77, 142 “Sergius”, 9n, 10, 529 Servius, 6, 9, 10, 14, 40n, 71 Sessa, Giovanni Battista, 30n Sessa, Melchiore, 56n Setton, Kenneth M., 230n
Sevastò, Maneas, 252n Sevastò, Zorzi, 252n Sforza, Ascanio, Cardinal, 159n Sforza, Francesco, Duke of Milan, 122 Sforza, Ippolita, 122 Sforza, Massimiliano Ercole, Earl of Pavia, 26, 27n, 79n Sigeros, Nicholas, 98n Siligardo, Paolo, 252n Silvestri, Domenico, 98 Simonides of Ceos, 60n Simplicius, 207n Sinaites, Anastasius, 164, 211n Sirleto, Cardinal, 168n Smaragdus, 14 Socrates, 200 Solomon, 53 Sophianos, Nicholas, 208n Sophocles, 136n, 220n Sophronius of Jerusalem, 109 Soranus of Ephesus, 543 Sphrantzes, George, 545 Souliardos, Michael, 165, 251 Staïkos, Konstantinos, 138n Statius, 6, 68, 69, 70, 80, 81n, 534 Stephani (Henri and Robert Estienne), 145, 146 Stesichorus, 81 Stevens, Linton C., 129n, 157n Stevenson, Henry, 204 Stinger, Charles, 114n Strabo, 140 Strozzi, Palla, 100, 133, 257 Stylianos, 115, 116n Suetonius, 5, 51, 70 Symmachus, 81n Syncellus, Michael, see Michael Syncellus Syrus, Publilius, 54 Sweynheym, Konrad, 29 Tacuinus, Ioannes, 48n, 56n Tatwine, 12 Tebaldo, 24n Terence, 6, 14, 51, 69, 70, 77, 137n Tertullian, 82
index of personal names Theobaldus, 69n Theocritus, 126n, 127n, 135, 142, 155, 207n, 228, 241 Theodore of Tarsus, 88n, 89n, 152 Theodosius of Alexandria, 96, 108– 109, 110, 111, 137, 156, 168, 186, 187, 205, 214, 523, 524, 536, 545, 546 Theodulus, 68, 69 Theognis, 135, 202 Theophanes the Confessor, 89 Theophano, Byzantine Princess, 90 Thomas Aquinas, 232, 233, 234 Thomaeus, Nicolaus Leonicus, 169n Thrax, Dionysius, see Dionysius Thrax Thucydides, 135, 153, 241 Tiphernas, Gregorius, 130n, 144, 146 Tornices, George, 107n Torresano, Andrea, 128n Tortelli, Giovanni, 130, 144, 203 Tortis, Battista de, 72n Toscanella, Orazio, 57n, 63n Trapezuntius, George (George of Trebizond), 141, 144n, 258n Traversari, Ambrogio, 132, 133n, 142, 153, 236n Triclinius, Demetrius, 103, 105, 232 Tryphon, 166 Tzetzes, John, 98n, 114n, 115, 116n, 130n, 164 Ulysses, 197n Usuard of St. Germain, 16
633
Valiero, Agostino, 130n Valla, Giorgio, 172n Valla, Lorenzo, 19, 20n, 71, 72, 73n, 141, 157, 168–169, 203, 215 Varro, 7, 13, 19, 72, 79, 106 Vergara, Franciscus, 129 Vergerio, Pier Paolo, XIIn, 130n Vespasiano da Bisticci, 102n Virgil, 5n, 6, 10–11, 14, 31, 42, 58n, 69, 70, 77, 78n, 79, 81n, 95n, 98n, 132, 140, 142, 144n, 240n Virunius, Ponticus, 134 Visconti, Gian Galeazzo, Duke of Milan, 100n Vitale, Filippo, 159n Vitalian, Pope, 88n Vittorino da Feltre, 135, 139, 140, 141–142, 202 Vives, Jean Louis, 125n Vlastos, Nicholas, 145, 207 Waquet, Françoise, 62n Webb, Ruth, 105n, 108n, 117 Wendel, Carl, 154n, 249 William of Modena, 45n Wilson, Nigel G., 142n, 156n, 203n, 240n Witt, Ronald G., XIIIn Xenophon, 94n, 133n, 135 Young, Douglas, 202n Zaltieri, Bolognino, 57n Zenobius, 78n Zorzi, “protonotario”, 252n
INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS The index does not include the manuscripts quoted in Appendix II (583– 585). Athos, Iviron Monastery 159 227 Bern, Bürgerbibliothek lat. 207 12n gr. 316 113n Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana B vi 8 215n Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Magliabechi I 45 21n, 28n Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana 31, 19 137n 38, 17 98n 60, 21 202n 69, 1 202 Conventi Soppressi 106 (C) 151, 154, 155, 156, 158, 161–162, 163, 165, 177, 172–179, 182n, 185n, 186, 188n, 195, 197n, 198, 222, 223, 255, 256, 259, 514, 516 Gaddi 182 (G) 155, 156, 158, 161, 163–164, 165, 172–179, 182n, 186, 188n, 194n, 195, 197n, 198, 206, 212, 222, 223, 254n, 255, 256, 259, 260, 514, 515 Redi 15 (R) XXIIn, 155, 156, 159, 160, 164, 177, 170–172, 172–179, 181, 182n,
185n, 186n, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194n, 195, 196, 197, 206n, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 219, 230, 222, 225, 237, 251, 254, 255, 256, 519–520, 535, 545, 555, 557 Strozzi 80 (S) 24, 28, 30n, 32n, 33n, 34n, 36n, 39n, 41n, 182n, 216n, 217, 218, 221, 516, 524, 530, 531, 532, 533, 540 Grottaferrata, Biblioteca dell’Abbazia Ζ. α 1 110n, 111n Ζ. α. 2 111n Laon, Bibliothèque Municipale 444 92 London, British Library Harley 2458 68n Harley 2653 21, 24, 26, 28, 36n Harley 5792 89n, 92 Harley 6513 68n London, College of Arms Arundel 9 93n Madrid, Biblioteca Nacionál 4626 110n
636
index of manuscripts
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana A 59 inf 130n C 126 inf 97 I 98 inf 98n M 79 sup 89n P 35 sup 128n S 40 sup. 44 Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 2163 79n 2167 26 Modena, Biblioteca Estense 202–203n
α T 8. 3
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek gr. 551 226n Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale lat. 1 82n New York, Columbia University Library Plimpton 138 (K) 27, 30n, 32n, 33n, 34n, 36n, 41n, 540 Plimpton 145 27n Oxford, Bodleian Library Barocci 71 227 Barocci 72 (O, Z) 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 165, 166–168, 172–179, 181n, 182n, 186n, 187n, 188n, 191n, 195, 197n, 206–208, 211, 222, 225, 227, 237, 251, 254, 255, 256, 259, 514, 519, 545, 547, 548, 552 lat. misc. e. 52 67n Oxford, Corpus Christi College 148 94 Padua, Biblioteca Comunale C.M. 938 258n
Padua, Biblioteca del Museo Civico B.P. 229 257n Padua, Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile 404 (U) 28, 30n, 33n, 34n, 36n, 38n, 41n, 43n, 183n, 518, 524, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale gr. 245 133 gr. 437 92 gr. 2590 122n gr. 2591 122n gr. 2594 (N) 156, 159, 161, 164– 166, 167n, 172–179, 182n, 185n, 186n, 187n, 188n, 190n, 191n, 195, 197n, 211, 222, 225, 251, 255, 259, 514, 519 gr. 3096 136 lat. 528 90n lat. 5570 13n lat. 7492 23n lat. 7530 9n lat. 7880.1 99n lat. 15972 (J) 26, 28, 182n, 183n, 216n, 516, 524, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 540, 544, 545 Rome, Biblioteca Angelica gr. 5 (A) 155, 156, 158, 159– 160, 161, 165, 167n, 168, 172–179, 181n, 182n, 185n, 186n, 187n, 188n, 191n, 195, 197n, 233, 243n, 251, 255, 259, 514, 519 Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense lat. 127 27 Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana 43. D. 31 208n
index of manuscripts Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale gr. 6 110n Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana 203 (F 68) 114n F 84 111 Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine gr. 1361 208n St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 877 92n 878 92n 902 92n Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale C. II. 21 208n I. III. 12 98n Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek C 678 59n, 60n, 132n Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Barberini gr. 10 (B) 155, 156, 158, 160–161, 165, 172–179, 182n, 185n, 186, 188n, 191n, 194n, 195, 197n, 222, 223, 237, 254, 256, 259, 513, 514, 516, 519 Chigi lat. L. VI. 98 (H) 28, 516, 517, 530, 531, 532 Ottoboni gr. 89 207 Ottoboni gr. 173 208n Ottoboni gr. 206 (Q) 156, 159, 161, 165, 168–170, 172–179, 181n, 182n, 185n, 186n, 187n, 188n, 191n, 192n, 195, 197n, 222, 225, 243n, 251, 255, 256, 259, 514, 519
637
Ottoboni lat. 1967 27 Palatinus gr. 116 118, 210n Palatinus gr. 127 258n Palatinus gr. 234 (P) 12n, 156, 157, 158, 199n, 200, 204–206, 209, 225, 256, 257, 260, 528, 534, 536, 537, 538, 540, 542, 543 Reginensis lat. 1557 76n Reginensis lat. 1818 72n Urbinas gr. 121 136 Urbinas gr. 151 209n, 527 Vaticanus gr. 87 136n Vaticanus gr. 279 209n Vaticanus gr. 468 211 Vaticanus gr. 883 124n Vaticanus gr. 1388 (V) 155n, 156, 157, 202– 203, 209–211, 221–222, 256, 525, 526 Vaticanus gr. 1584 251n Vaticanus gr. 1527 153 Vaticanus lat. 9295 28, 47 Venice, Biblioteca Marciana gr. 83 227 gr. 484 111n gr. IX.14 117 gr. X.7 258n gr. X.9 (M) 156, 157, 200–201, 202, 208n, 209–211, 220, 221–222, 225, 256, 257,
638
index of manuscripts
259, 525, 526, 527, 548 gr. X. 13 258n gr. XI.16 117 gr. XI.31 117n lat. XIII.5 258n lat. XIV.10 258n Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek lat. 114 (philol. lat. 109) 91 philol. gr. 319 130
theol. gr. 174 theol. gr. 243
227 107n
Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 17 21 4 Aug. 4° 125 Gudianus 112 111
Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the following: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history, classical archaeology, and the classical tradition in its medieval, Renaissance and modern manifestations. 1. MONFASANI, J. Georg of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04370 5 2. COULTER, J. The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04489 2 3. RIGINOS, A.S. Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. ISBN 90 04 04565 1 4. BAGNALL, R.S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04490 6 5. KEULS, E. Plato and Greek Painting. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05395 6 6. SCHEIN, S.L. The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles. A Study in Metrical Form. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05949 0 7. O’SULLIVAN, T.D. The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05793 5 8. COHEN, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05922 9 9. TARÁN, S.L. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05957 1 10. CAMERON, A.V. & J. HERRIN (eds.). Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. In conjunction with Al. Cameron, R. Cormack and Ch. Roueché. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07010 9 11. BRUNO, V.J. Hellenistic Painting Techniques. The Evidence of the Delos Fragments. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07159 8 12. WOOD, S. Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. The Transformation of an Artistic Tradition. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07282 9 13. BAGNALL, R.S. & W.V. HARRIS (eds.). Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07568 2 14. SACKS, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer. Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07862 2 15. BROWN, R.D. (ed.). Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030-1287 with Prolegomena, Text and Translation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 08512 2 16. KNOX, D. Ironia. Medieval and Renaissance Ideas about Irony. 1990. ISBN 90 04 08965 9 17. HANKINS, J. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. Reprint 1994. ISBN 90 04 10095 4 18. SCHWARTZ, S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09230 7 19. BARTMAN, E. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09532 2 20. DORCEY, P.F. The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09601 9 21. AUBERT, J.-J. Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.-A.D. 250. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10038 5 22. BILLOWS, R.A. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10177 2 23. ROTH, J.P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. - A.D. 235). 1999. ISBN 90 04 11275 1 24. PHANG, S.E. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. - A.D. 235). Law and Family in the Imperial Army. 2001 ISBN 90 04 12155 2
25. MARCONI, C. (ed.). Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies. Proceedings of the Conference sponsored by The Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University, 23–24 March 2002. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13802 1 26. HARRIS, W.V. & G. RUFFINI (eds.). Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14105 7 27. HARRIS, W.V. (ed.). The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries. Essays in Explanation. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14717 9 28. VOLK, K. & G.D. WILLIAMS (eds.). Seeing Seneca Whole. Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry and Politics. 2006. ISBN-10: 90 04 15078 1, ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15078 2 29. HOLLANDER, D.B. Money in the Late Roman Republic. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15649 4 30. MARZANO, A. Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic History. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16037 8 31. BAROLINI, T. & H. WAYNE STOREY (eds.). Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16322 5 32. CICCOLELLA, F. Donati Graeci. Learning Greek in the Renaissance. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16352 2 33. HARRIS, W.V. & B. HOLMES (eds.). Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 17204 3
www.brill.nl/csct
