Grice e Servio

Servius, Marius Honoratus, end of the 4th

c. C. E., Latin grammarian, commentator on → Donatus and → Virgil.

There is some doubt as to the name: the commentator on Donatus in the Parisinus Lat-inus codex 7530 (GrL:IV, 473-565) is called

"Sergius"

', as is the commentator on Virgil in

"Sergius", as is the commentator on Virgil in the 9th-century Bernensis codex 363; in other 

early manuscripts, dating from the 9th to the 11th centuries, the commentator on Virgil is called "Servius" but no mention is made of the rest of his name. S.'s birthplace and birthdate are equally vague (Marinone 1969/70). In the Saturnalia (7, 11, 2), probably written no earlier than 384 C.E, → Macrobius gives a portrait of S. as an adulescens; and Pierre Daniel (ca. 1530-ca. 1604) asserts, in a note to the Ber-nensis codex (234), that S. was one of Donatus' students. If these indications hold true, it would appear that S. lived in Rome between the 4th and 5th centuries, where, according to Macro-bius, he belonged to the Neoplatonic intelligent-sia. Of considerable importance are S.'s commentaries on Virgil's Aeneis, Eclogae and Geor-gica, surviving in two ms. codices of varying length. The shorter (and more widely read during the Middle Ages) was published in 1600 by Daniel, who added several scholia (the Scholia Danielis) to it; it is commonly known as the Servius Danielinus. Critics disagree as to the contents. G. Thilo (1881-87) holds that the ad-ditions, the work of an 8th-century compiler, are probably a fusion of an original text by S. with parts of Donatus' lost commentary on Virgil. S.'s commentaries, based for the most part on his predecessors (Donatus in particu-lar), enlarge on and enhance that tradition by virtue of the quality of the grammatical observations and the comparisons of Virgil with other writers. Various grammatical treatises bear S.'s name but modern criticism unhesitatingly ascribes to S. only the Commentarius in artem Donati (GrL:IV, 403-48; → Priscian mentions

S. as the author in Institutio de arte grammatica [GrL:I, 8, 15 Hj). All other attributions are uncertain. The two books of the Explanationes in artem Donati (GrL:IV, 486-565) are apparently posterior to S. (Schanz-Hosius 1914:

126); the tract De littera de syllaba de pedibus de accentibus de distinctione

(GrL:IV, 473-85) gives "Sergius" as the author but seems to be an extract from the Commentarius and thus not a work intended by S. to stand alone. Criticism

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 K), but does not venture an answer.

(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.