Sororibus, “At puer est vescis imbecillus viribus.' Turning now to Philargyrius on Georgic 111 175, we find Vescas : teneras et exiles. Nam vescum apud antiquos significabat macrum, et quasi quod escam non reciperet. Afranius in Sororibus, 'At puer est vescis imbecillus viribus. Sed vide ne vescas appetibiles dixeris. Lucretius certe pro edace posuit, ut ‘vesco sale saxa peresa. Serv. G. III 175, vescas frondes, siccas et teneras. Nam vescum hoc est proprie, unde et telae aranearum vescae nominantur, comp. Serv. G. IV 130.

(3) Paulus, p. 321, pagani a pagis dicti. Pagi dicti a fontibus, quod eadem aqua uterentur. Aquae enim lingua Dorica mayai appellabantur. Serv. G. 11 381 : primi ludi theatrales ex Liberalibus nati sunt: ideo ait veteres ludi Pagos et compita circum: id est, per quadrivia, quae compita appellantur, ab eo quod multae viae in unum confluant, et villas, quae pagi útò TÔV anyūv appellantur, id est a fontibus, circa quos villae consueverant condi. Unde et pagani dicti sunt quasi ex uno fonte potantes.

Did space permit I could give many more examples of this phenomenon, the existence of which was first revealed to me by a minute comparison between Festus and Paulus on the one hand, and Servius, Philargyrius and the Verona scholia on the other. But to pursue this question into all its details is a task which hardly falls within the scope of the present essay: and I proceed therefore to speak of another eminent scholar of the same period who gave some attention to Virgil, C. Iulius Hyginus.'

a

3. HYGINUS.

Hyginus was, as we know from Gellius xvi 6 and i 21, the author of a special work upon Virgil : Commentarii in Vergilium, or libri de Vergilio facti, as Gellius calls it. There is no evidence that this work was a regular continuous commentary on Virgil; and had it been of this nature, there can hardly be any doubt that Hyginus' name would have appeared far more frequently than it has in the commentaries of Servius or Philargyrius, or the Verona scholia.

We may conveniently divide the remarks of Hyginus which have been preserved by Gellius and the later commentators into those which refer (1) to the text, (2) to interpretation of language, (3) to history and antiquities, religious or political.

(1) In Aen. XII 120 he defended from Virgil's own manuscript the reading 'velati limo :' and in Georgic II 247 amaror, appealing in like manner to a good MS. Gellius, 1 xxi 5, who gives us this information, remarks, non enim primus finxit hoc verbum Vergilius insolenter, sed in carminibus Lucretii inventum est, nec est aspernatus auctoritatem poetae

? Some notes by Verrius may perhaps survive under the name Ebrius. See G. IV 77, where the Berne scholia say, 'in Ebrii nanctae, non nactae :' comp. Paulus, p. 276 M. Compare similarly the Berne note on G. IV 88, “ambo iuxta Ebrium,' with Paulus (Festus, p. 4 M.) and Serv. on E. v 68, A. XII 342, and Iul. Rom. ap. Charis. p. 119 K. So also on G. IV 175 the Berne note, 'forcipe in Ebrii,' etc., recurs in Fest. p. 84 M., Nonius, p. 531, Philarg. and Charis, p. 94 K.

Suetonius De Illustribus Grammaticis, 20.

6

ingenii et facundiae praecellentis. An observation for which he may be indebted either to Hyginus or to Verrius Flaccus, in whose works it is probable that there was a not inconsiderable amount of common matter.

(2) Gellius xvi vi 15 preserves a note of Hyginus upon the word bidens, which he interprets as meaning a sheep with the two prominent teeth which mark its full growth. Whether this interpretation was due to Hyginus or to Verrius Flaccus, whether either of them borrowed it from the other, or both adopted it independently, cannot be ascertained with certainty: but it is worth notice that the explanation adopted by Hyginus is identical with that given in Paulus p. 33, s. v. bidental. In Aen. Vi 15, he found fault with the expression praepetibus pennis.' His objection is not expressly noticed in the commentary of Servius, who, however, appears to be tacitly replying to it. And in vii 187, he criticised the zeugma lituo et succinctus trabea.?

(3) Hyginus, who had made considerable studies in Roman history, was not slow to observe the error by which Virgil in the sixth Aeneid (837) confuses the conquerors of Macedonia and of Greece. Servius, again without mentioning Hyginus, is at the pains to attempt a solution of the difficulty which cannot be called successful. The same is the case with Hyginus' remark on Aen. Vi 359, that Velia was not founded at the time when Aeneas is represented as coming thither;' and with his observation that Theseus is spoken of at one time as remaining in hell for ever, and in another as an instance of a hero who had returned thence (Aen. Vi 122, 617). As the name of Hyginus is not mentioned in these cases by Servius, it is natural to infer that his criticisms were only known to the later commentator at second or third hand. There are instances, however, in which Servius mentions Hyginus by name. Thus he is quoted on Aen. I 277, 530, on points connected with the early history of Rome and Italy; and so on Aen. Il 15, and vii 47. His work De Urbibus Italicis is mentioned in general terms by Servius on Aen. vii 678, and that De Familiis Troianis on Aen. v 389. Both works were probably much used by the later commentators on Virgil, and much of their contents may have found its way into Servius.

4. IULIUS MODESTUS. Ribbeck conjectures that this scholar, the freedman of Hyginus (Suetonius De Illustribus Grammaticis 20), who commented on Horace, made also some scattered remarks upon Virgil. I am not aware, however, that any Virgilian notes are in existence which can with certainty be referred to him. The name of Aufidius Modestus occurs (if the reading be certain) in a note by Philargyrius on the words coniurato Histro (Georg. II 497); but can we be certain that the same person is intended? Ribbeck thinks that the long note in Nonius, p. 377, on tenus and protinus comes from the Quaestiones confusae of Iulius Modestus. “And undoubtedly Philargyrius on Georg. III 53 (crurum tenus) remarks, Modestus tenus pro fine accipit, and Nonius says ipsum i Gellius v 8.

tenus .. maxime finem terminumque designat. It is, however, at least as probable that both Modestus and Nonius owed their information to Verrius Flaccus, for in Festus, p. 367, we read tenus significat finem, ut cum dicimus hactenus. And more of this note on tenus I suspect is to be found in the note of Servius on Aen. vi 62, hactenus, hucusque: id est hic sit finis. Nam tenus est proprie extrema pars arcus, ut Plautus ostendit (Bacch. iv vi 23) ‘ita intendi tenus,' unde tractum est ut hactenus hucusque significet. However the case may really have stood, we have here again, as in the instance of the note on bidens, a valuable specimen of the scholarship of the Augustan age.

5. L. ANNAEUS CORNUTUS. Cornutus, the contemporary and friend of Silius Italicus, and the revered tutor of Persius, was banished by Nero A.D. 68. He was the author of commentarii Aeneidos, which are mentioned by Charisius, pp. 100 and 102, and apparently of remarks on the Eclogues. A few of his notes are quoted in the Verona scholia and in the commentary of Servius. In Aen. I 45, he would have preferred 'inflixit' to 'infixit' as more forcible (vehementius): in Aen. I 150, he defended volant against volunt, and in Aen. IX 348, he read for ‘multa morte recepit’ ‘multa nocte recepit.' These specimens do not impress us very deeply with a sense of his critical power; nor does he always appear to much advantage as an interpreter. In Aen. iX 675, for instance, he took.commissa' as equivalent to 'clausa’; an interpretation improbable in itself, and which is wholly ignored in the note on this passage in Nonius p. 249. A few other notes of Cornutus, hardly worth quoting here, may be found in Servius and the Verona scholia.

Several objections of his to points of detail in Virgil's language and in his management of his story have been preserved by Gellius and Macrobius. He took exception to the word vexasse in Ecl. vi 76, where Servius appeals to Probus in the poet's defence (comp. Gell. 11 6). He found fault with the conclusion of the fourth Aeneid: 'unde haec historia, ut crinis auferendus sit morientibus, ignoratur,' are his words quoted in Macrobius v xix 2. It was naturally replied that Virgil was simply following the Alcestis of Euripides. Not much more attention need be paid to his complaint that Virgil in Aen. V 488 has made Aeneas shoot a bird sacred to his own mother, or to his criticisms (preserved by Gellius ix 10) of the wording of Aeneid viii 405.

6. AEMILIUS ASPER.' It is uncertain whether this distinguished scholar lived before or after Probus. The fact that no mention is made of him by Suetonius in his work De Illustribus Grammaticis makes very strongly in favour

Jerome, c. Ruf. 472, ' Aspri in Vergilium et Sallustium Commentarios.' 'Asper, Cornutus, et alii innumerabiles requiruntur ut quilibet poeta possit intellegi,' says Augustine, Util. Cred. $ 17. (Lämmerhirt in Commentationes phil. Ienenses iv 401 argues that Asper lived about the end of the second century A.D.]

1

of the later date; nor can there be said to be any positive evidence for the earlier one. It is true that in a note of the Verona scholia on A. IX 373, Asper is said to have raised a question with regard to the word sublustris which was answered by Probus : but this need prove no more than that Asper, if he knew of the answer given by Probus, was not satisfied by it. Nor can anything be inferred from the fact that on A. X 539 Asper's reading armis is mentioned before that preferred by Probus, albis. The conjecture of Bergk, who would read "Aonepos for” A epoc in Suidas' notice of Heraclides Ponticus, could only be accepted were it certain on other grounds that Asper lived in the reign of Claudius. Nothing again can be concluded from the fact that the commentary on the Eclogues and Georgics which bears the name of Probus quotes Asper as an authority; for (as we shall see below) this commentary is probably in great part spurious.

However this may be, Asper was the author of a regular commentary not only on Virgil but on Terence and Sallust. A considerable number of his notes are preserved, apparently in their original form, in the Verona scholia. Others are to be found in Philargyrius and Servius; and I have little doubt that much more of Asper's work is embodied in the commentary of Servius than its author chooses to acknowledge. For if we compare the notes which the Verona scholia expressly assign to Asper with the corresponding notes in Servius, we constantly find that the latter has virtually the same comment in an abridged form, and without

any

hint of its source. From this fact we may infer almost with certainty that had the Verona scholia or any other commentary of equal fulness come down to us unimpaired, we should have found that Servius was indebted to Asper to a far greater extent than we should otherwise have been led to suspect. Many of the numerous quotations from Terence and Sallust scattered through the notes of Servius are, I can hardly doubt, taken from Asper, who, as we shall see in a moment, was fond of illustrating his notes from Sallust."

The remarks of Asper, whether they refer to matters of textual criticism or of interpretation, are for the most part scholarlike and interesting even when they fail to carry conviction. In Aen. X 539, he preferred to read insignibus armis to insignibus albis, basing his preference on a quotation from Sallust. But there can hardly be a doubt that Probus was right here in reading albis. In Aen. x 673 he was clearly right in reading quosne, not quosve, and in line 737 of the same book as clearly wrong in reading viris for viri. In xi 801 I should be inclined to infer from the note in Servius that Asper was led from an apparent parallel in Sallust to read auras, the old genitive singular, for aurae. In G. IV 238, he (as we learn from the Berne scholia) rightly defended in volnere as against in volnera.

Of Asper's sense and insight as an interpreter all remaining indications would lead us to think highly. In Aen. Ix 418, for instance, he pointed out that per tempus utrumque must be taken as = inter tempus utrumque ; in Georg. 11 324 (riere tument terrae) his good sense told him

· This applies perhaps to the Sallustian quotations in Donatus on Terence.

that terrae was nom. pl., not (as Donatus took it three centuries afterwards) the gen. sing. ; in Aen. IX 386 he took imprudens as = ignorans se evasisse. Other explanations of his appear more ingenious than sound : as, for instance, when in x 188 he took crimen vestrum to mean causa vestrae mutationis : or when in Aen. Il 305 he explained montano flumine as = magno flumine: or in Aen. IV 146 picti Agathyrsi as stigmosi, tattooed, an opinion from which Servius dissents: or in ix 678 armati ferro as = ferrea corda habentes. Some of his notes on points of interpretation appear to have come from Verrius Flaccus. Thus he says on Aen. x 6 (see Scholia Veronensia) that quianam is an archaic word. Servius, whose note does not name Asper but is probably indebted to him, quotes quianam from Ennius. Now this was also the case with Verrius Flaccus' note on the word (Festus, p. 257), though the instances quoted by Festus and Servius are not identical. So also perhaps with the note on sinum lactis in the Verona scholia on Ecl. vii 33 'Asper. Sinum est vas vinarium, ut Cicero significat, non, ut quidam, lactarium. Plautus in Curculione (1 i 75), Cedo puere sinum. Et respondetur. Quasi tu lagoenam dicas in qua Chium vinum solet esse. Sinus ergo vas patulum ... e sinus vocitatum ... Varro de Vita Populi Romani lib. i lepistam vas dicebant ubi erat vinum in mensa positum, aut galeola aut sino. Tria enim haec similia sunt, pro quibus nunc acratophoron ponitur.' With this note, which is also given in Servius (Dan.) without acknowledgment, must be compared that in Nonius p. 547. Sinum et galeolas, vasa sinuosa. Vergilius in Bucolicis (VII 33) sinum lactis, et

viI haec te liba, Priape, quotannis Expectare sat est.' Varro de Vita Populi Romani lib. 1 'ubi erat vinum in mensa positum aut galeola aut sino.' Lepista, vas aheneum. Varro de Vita Populi Romani lib. 1 'ut fere habent aheneum (? alii) qui venditant oleum. Lepistae etiamnunc Sabinorum fanis pauperioribus plerisque aut fictiles sunt aut ahenae.' Now the note on lepista probably comes from Verrius Flaccus, for Paulus, p. 115, says, "lepista genus vasis aquarii’: and many other notes in the fifteenth book of Nonius, De genere vasorum vel poculorum, can be shown to have been derived from that author : those namely on aula, pelvis, patella, cymbia, orca, catinus, calpar, armillum, and creterrae. (Compare Paulus, pp. 23, 247, 248, 51, 180, 169, 65, 53.)

On Aen. VII 485, Asper, as quoted in the Verona scholia, remarks: ‘nomen Tyrrhi ab historicis traxit-Tyrrhum enim aiunt fuisse pastorem aput quem Lavinia delituit tum cum Ascanium timens fugit in silvasHic Latini vilicus traditur fuisse.' This note Ribbeck (Prol. p. 134) thinks may have come from Cato.

Notes of Asper on the character of Mezentius as contemptor divum, and on the Potitii and Pinarii, are quoted by Macrobius Sat. III v 9. Of the first of these Servius has nothing, but of the second he has a great deal in his comment on Aen. VIII 270.

I will conclude by giving a list of the notes which are expressly assigned to Asper by the Verona scholia, or Philargyrius, but which are given by Servius, sometimes in an abridged form, without acknowledgment of their source. These are, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that on sinum lactis, Ecl. vii 33 ; on infelicis Ulixi, Aen. III