Grice e Servio

is divided over attributing to S. De centum met-ris (GrL:IV, 456-67), a treatise on metrics: Mül-ler (1866: 565) excludes S. as the author while Marinone (1969/70) has recently defended the opposite view. The treatises De finalibus (GrL:IV,

449-55) and De metris Horatii

(GrL:IV, 468-72) are similarly controversial; see Müller (1866: 565).

In his Commentarius in artem Donati, S. brings home two points which characterize late Latin grammatical thought, as seen in the artes: (1) grammar is intimately connected with all the disciplines dealing with language (phi-losophy, dialectics, and esp. rhetoric GrL: 405); (2) grammar has a distinguishing subject matter which consists, according to S., of the analysis of the 8 parts of speech. S.'s admiration for Donatus derives, in fact, from the latter's unswerving conviction that a grammatical treatise ought to begin by defining the partes orationis (other grammarians were hesitant and inconsistent): 'that is why D. is wiser, who started out with eight parts of speech that concern the grammarians specifically' (unde proprius Donatus est doctius, qui ad octo partes inchoavit, quae specialiter ad grammaticos perti-nent, Commentarius: 405). Lastly, S. held, together with Donatus, that the study of gram-mar, taken to be the study of the partes oratio-nis, was a prerequisite for literary analysis, i. e., for commenting on poetic texts. Although S. contributed to enriching the discussions of the grammatical distinctions formulated by Dona-tus, by citing and criticizing the work of other grammarians, he left unsolved the many problems inherent in the categories handed down by tradition. For example, some contemporary grammarians considered the 'future' tense a separate mood and not a tense of the 'indica-tive', given that one can 'indicate' only what one knows and not the future, by definition an un-known. S. expounds the question clearly (GrL:IV, 412 

and not a tense of the 'indica-tive', given that one can 'indicate' only wha

(1864): "Martii Servii Honorati Commentarius in Ar-tem Donati", in: GrL, IV, 403-72 (405-48: "Commen-tarius in Artem Donati"; 449-67: "De finalibus"; 468-

72: "De metris Horatii"; repr. Hildesheim, 1981).

(1881-87): Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, G. Thilo & H. Hagen eds., 3 vols., Lipsiae. (1946/65): Editio Harvardiana, 1/II,

K. E. Rand et al. eds., Lancastriae (Ad Aeneam 1-2)/ III, A. F. Stoker/H. Travis eds., Oxonii (Ad Aeneam 3-

5). (1996-2003): Commento ai libri 9 e 7 dell'Eneide di Virgilio, with introd., biblio. and critical ed. by G.

Ramires, Bologna.

BARATIN, M. (1989): La naissance de la syntaxe à Rome, Paris. Id. (1998): "S.", in: CRGTL, no. 1209.

BARWICK, K. (1911): "Zur S.-Frage", Philologus 70,

106-48. BRUGNOLI, G. (1988): "Servio", Enciclopedia

 Virgiliana, Roma, 805-13. KASTER, R. (1980): "Macro-bius and S. Verecundia and the grammarian's func-tion", HSCP 84, 219-62. MARINONE, N. (1969/70):

"Per la cronologia di Servio", AAT 104, 181-211.

MÜLLER, L. (1866): "Sammelsurien", Jbb. für Klass.

Philologie 93, 555-68. SCHANZ, M. & HosIus, C.

(1914): Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 2nd ed., München, 4, I, 172-77. TIMPANARO, S. (1957): "Note serviane, con contributi ad altri autori e a questioni di lessicografia latina", Studi urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura 31, 155-98. WESSNER, P. (1923): "S.",

', RE,

II, A 2, 1834 48.